There is no definiton of “acting out” in both ICD-11 and DSM-V. One of the criterias simply states this.
One component of “acting out” involves the consumption of CSAM, but internationally this also includes fictional content (UN Convention).
This basically means that any sexual pleasure derived from pedophilic content while having a prevalence and stable occurence of fantasies/thoughts can be diagnosed as a disorder. (Also, when one is not masturbating, but distressed by their thoughts alone.)
That is why the new ICD-11 in my opinion reinforces that pedophiles must practice complete abstinence (acting is not defined, CSAM includes fiction internationally - USA is not the only country on earth).
The UN convention on the matter is opt-in, and most countries (even those which ban fiction) do not regard fiction as CSAM, in that they provide lesser penalties for it. The Luxembourg Guidelines also suffer from this same deficiency.
The scientific community doesn’t even regard it as CSAM, opting to label it as ‘fictional sexual material’ (FSM).
I do agree that not properly defining ‘acting out’ under the ICD-11 is harmful, since it does enable these types of maladaptive approaches and definitions, which could hinder diagnosis, treatment, and understanding.
It is worth noting, however, that the DSM-5-TR does patently exclude the consumption of pornography as a form of ‘acting out’ (at least in the absence of other risk factors). Michael Seto was critical of this exclusion, because he believed that not distinguishing between the consumption of actual CSAM (which is inherently problematic due to the involvement of real minors) and ‘virtual’ material could realistically be problematic (one that I agree with him on).
That exclusion literally only exists, because of legal reasons. It serves the purpose of preventing CSAM consumers without pedophilic interest (Teens, Curiosity, Fetish, Sadism) to have a mandatory therapy program put on them.
Also, the new cybercrime convention explicitly lists fiction as CSAM, but with the option to keep it legal. Terminologically it is still CSAM.
It isn’t, though. Just because UN commisars call it that doesn’t mean it is.
It also doesn’t logically make sense to call it that, anyway. CSAM being limited to recorded instances of abuse or edited photos of real children makes sense because those depicted are actual minors. Extending it beyond that to merely appearing to depict a fictional minor only trivializes the definition by allowing ‘child’ and ‘abuse’ to be wholly optional. They’d just as well include depictions of petite/youthful adults who look young, since they’ve already lumped in drawings or CGI.
I recently also read the chapter about pedophilia in the ICD-11 and didn’t really see it favorable.
It is hard to describe, since my doubts are mostly because of “reading between the lines”.
Since the meaning of the ICD can be interpreted differently by each mental health specialist, I guess that “acting on it” will be read as “has pedophilic thoughts”.
The hopeful exclamation that it finally doesn’t describe pedophilia as a disorder, I can’t support. It will still be interpreted as a disorder. The cognitive dissonance is still far to strong that it will be seen in a way favorable to us.
I get my hopes up when they state it in a way that can’t be misinterpreted so easily.