Author: Joanna Bourke, School of Historical Studies, Birkbeck, University of London – Personal Website, Academia.edu, ORCID, ResearchGate, Wikipedia

Abstract: »This article explores arguments within American psychiatry from the 1950s around whether rapists were mentally ill. It analyses debates in the lead-up to the various editions of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA’s) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) from 1952 to the latest version in 2013, focussing particularly on a diagnostic category called ‘Paraphilic Coercive Disorder’ (PCD). Since the first DSM, American psychiatrists had routinely considered people who committed certain forms of sexual violence to be suffering from mental disorders. For example, ‘Paedophilia’ and ‘Sexual Sadism’ had always been considered valid diagnoses. However, the APA refused to pathologise non-sadistic sexual violence committed against adults. Opposition can be classified into four overlapping arguments: uncertainty about ‘normal’ male sexual aggression, feminist worries about ‘excusing’ harmful sexual behaviours, concerns about the misuse of psychiatry in courts, and the need to defend the psychiatric profession from encroachments on their ‘territory’ by non-medically trained psychologists, social workers, and anti-psychiatric activists.« (Source: Women's History Review)

Contents:

	Abstract (p. 960)
	The DSM and the pathologisation of ‘deviant sexuality’ (p. 962)
	The failure to pathologise rapists (p. 964)
	Sexual violence predator laws (p. 966)
	The status of psychiatry as a ‘Science’ (p. 967)
	Professional gatekeeping (p. 970)
	Conclusion (p. 971)
	Notes (p. 972)
	Disclosure statement (p. 976)
	Notes on Contributor (p. 976)

Wikipedia: History of the Americas: History of the United States | Academic discipline: Psychiatry / Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders | Sex and the law: Sexual violence / Pedophilia, Sexual sadism disorder