White Collar Embezzler Disorder.
Billionaire Sex Dungeon Disorder.
Hiding Your Tax Returns As President Disorder.
Piss Off The Government Disorder.
The wording of the DSM changes every single year so it is going to be hard for me to provide you with very current wording. But, I have been keeping a loose eye on it.
Anyway, I told you why it is worded the way it is. They can’t reliably prove if someone is preferential or exclusive. Or if they’re just plain crazy or something. Or POCD. The wording is so vague you could say looking at lolicon makes you run afoul of it. It does make a distinction between a “sexual interest” and “disorder” but a “sexual interest” implies a transient or minor interest. Or passing interest, especially when coupled with the requirement it doesn’t have to be a “lifelong” state. There are many reasons someone could have a “transient” interest. The DSM even notes that many requirements for the “disorder” are to filter out individuals with “transient” interests.
It could even be construed to mean anything vaguely pedophilia related like being into 2D lolicon. It is the get out of jail card that just because someone does something which may look pedophillic, it doesn’t mean they’re a pedophile. But, it isn’t actually a helpful clause to pedophiles, as I stated a bit above. It wouldn’t make logical sense for your construction to stand either, this requires a tortured interpretation of map sexuality.
In the UK, it would likely be used to justify aversion therapy to get people to stop looking at lolicon (I know of people undergoing that treatment to rid of them of these troublesome sexual interests after being coerced by the government to do so or go to prison), if they can’t help doing that. In some other countries, you may be able to challenge it. Unless, you’re a minor as minors have far fewer constitutional protections than adults. There is little value in nitpicking over the wording of a section of the DSM in any case because APA is almost always wrong about any controversial issue.
I would advocate for the abolishment of the term in any case because it pathologizes sexuality and takes a fundamentally flawed approach to “treatment” and progressivism. The solution to sexual oppression is not more oppression. It is liberation to some degree. If anything, I would say repressing or restraining sexuality is the real problem and can only lead to harms to either yourself or others.
You don’t need to pathologize anything in any case to treat it if someone is willing and there is a legitimate issue. As the British Doctors would say, we’re doctors for individuals, not doctors for society. We think in the patient’s best interest. The DSM is particularly alarming, and ends up being dangerously vague, because it attempts to diagnose someone who is unwilling, and ask yourself why someone would really be unwilling.
You could say invocations of the Mental Health Act are already taking place, with or without someone’s will. Co-operate with the government and they may give you a long leash. Or they may decide to give you a short one. If you’re talking about the definition in the upcoming ICD-11, allow me to remind you it is a draft version and may not have had much input yet to finalize it. The current ICD-10 says this. ICD-11 is even vaguer than the DSM, despite being directly inspired by it.
Considering the wide range of countries and laws, the best choice would have been to explicitly mention contact offenses. But even that falls prey to the poorly formed logic that is pathologizing and blaming sexuality for someone’s actions, which they are ultimately accountable for. This premise is wholly indefensible.
The British are restricted from using the cruelest implements, even on “willing” individuals, unlike in more backwards faux progressive countries. But aversive therapy is still very abusive and unpleasant. It involves associating every you love with disgust and hatred. But, it can never truly take it away from you.
ICD-11 has a disorder for compulsive sexual behavior. No redundancies needed. It fits with my theme of “internalised stigma” even. It may need a slight tweak.