The Errors of Karen Franklin's Pretextuality

Abstract

In her recent article, Hebephilia: Quintessence of Diagnostic Pretextuality (published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2010), Karen Franklin expands on her previous argument that psychologists and psychiatrists should not diagnose as abnormal hebephilia, the sexual preference for early pubescent children. She supports her argument with a series of claims about the contents of the empirical literature and the scientists who produced it. The present document provides fact-checking of those claims, revealing that Franklin's conclusions are based largely on demonstrable falsehoods.

Keywords:

• pedophilia, hebephilia, DSM-5, sexually violent predator, ICD-10, sexual abuse, civil commitment

Acknowledgments

This article was accepted by Stephen Hart, the former Editor in Chief of the journal, as an “invited submission” and was not subject to the usual peer review process.

The subject of the Commentary, Dr. Karen Franklin, was given the opportunity to submit a rebuttal to this article but declined.

Notes

It is the tradition for letters such as the present one to be submitted to the journal that published the initial article. Unfortunately, that journal—Behavioral Sciences and the Law (BS&L)—does not publish letters to the editor, and the BS&L Editor informed me that this letter could not be submitted to their anonymous peer review system either, because the specific points I raise necessarily reveal my identity. I therefore elected to submit these comments here.

Puberty refers to the transitional period during which the several maturational systems variously activate, the first of which typically becomes apparent around age 11, and most of which have come online by age 14. Adolescence spans this period until the completion of maturation, usually in the late teens or early twenties. The first appearance of pubic hair occurs at a mean age of 11.0 years in females and 11.2 years in males (Roche, Wellens, Attie, & Siervogel, 1995); the first stage of breast development in females (“breast buds”), at a mean age of 11.2 (Roche et al., 1995); the initial growth of the penis and testes in males, at a mean age of 11.2 (Roche et al., 1995); the first menses occur at a mean age of 12.9 years in Caucasian, American females (Herman-Giddens et al., 1997); and the pubertal growth spurt begins at a mean age of 10 in females and at a mean age of 12 in males (Grumback & Styne, 1998, Fig. 31–11). This period lasts approximately until age 14: In females, the adult-pattern of pubic hair is typically achieved at ages 13.1 to 15.2, and of adult breasts, at 14.0 to 15.6 years (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Table 31–2). In males, the adult-pattern of public hair is achieved at ages 14.3 to 16.1, and the genitalia attain adult size and shape at 14.3 to 16.3 years (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Table 31–4). Approximately 0.3% of boys experience their first ejaculation before age 11, and 87.7%, by age 14 (Tomova, Lalabonova, Robeva, & Kumanov, 2011). Adult height is achieved at approximately age 15 in females and 17 in males.

Although Franklin uses those letters to cast doubt upon our research data, those writers actually extolled the scientific quality of my team's work: “Blanchard et al.'s findings are useful toward consideration of whether a pattern of erotic preference for pubescent and/or early post-pubescent humans is reliable, stable, and identifiable” (DeClue, 2009, p. 317). “I am not challenging their conclusion that sexual interests in pubescent and prepubescent minors are distinct entities (albeit with some overlap) or that the distinction may have utility for research purposes” (Moser, 2009, p. 323).  “I find no problem with the plethysmography methodology employed” (Plaud, 2009, p. 326). “If I had been a peer-reviewer for … ‘Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V,’ I would have recommended publication with only minor revisions …. The bulk of this peer-reviewed article appears to be scientific and to contribute to the advancement of knowledge” (Tromovitch, 2009, p. 328). That is, the nature of the criticisms levied was not about the quality of my team's findings. The nature of the criticisms pertained to those writers’ perceptions of the implications of our work (which is very much their right), but not of our work itself, as Franklin characterizes.

Franklin does, however, cite some of Freund's pre-1972 working definitions of hebephilia. Franklin never cites the definition Freund came to use when primary data became available (in 1972) and which he then retained throughout his career. She did, however, emphasize various historical terms that eventually led to “hebephilia.” Thus, Franklin's essay engages in what scholars of rhetoric call “the etymological fallacy,” that is, incorrectly asserting that early uses of terms are more valid than are contemporary ones.