I would like to point out that the greek-adapted term 'philia' is being completely misused contrary to its etymological origins when labeling these diagnoses. As C. S. Lewis even pointed out in the mid 20th century, it means a form of love that is friendship. This is inconsistent with how it is used in the paraphilias category to denote fetishization of various things in a person's psychological response (I avoid 'orientation'/'preference' due to controversy regarding them only being used towards heter/homo/bi classing) Substituting a suffix closer to the meanings that the APA definitions (both in 4 and revised in 5) describe would cause less confusion to people who have not read APA standards and in international consistency. 'Mania' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_styles#Mania) for example, describes love primarily of an erotic nature rather than a friendly nature, so it would be closer in meaning. 'Venus' is also used to denote sexual emotions as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves#Eros So instead of 'philia' why not use one or the other, or perhaps merge these into 'maniavenus' or 'venusmania' and substitute for all instances?

The DSM-V proposal now includes "autogynephilia"and "autoandrophilia" as "transvestic disorders". That there are men and women who get aroused by the idea of having the body of the opposite sex is undeniable. but Dr. Ray Blanchard's explanation for the phenomenon ("a target location error") has no strong scientific basis. Indeed, Dr. Blanchard himself calls it an hypothesis that requires further research. This means that the DSM-5 will label a group of men and women mentally ill based on an unproven theory made by one of the members of the committee, and in spite of the fact that the theory is found highly controversial in the scientific community and right out offensive in the transgender community.

The DSM-5 now includes a new definition of "paraphilia": "... any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically, consenting adult human partners. " As it is written this definition may actually be interpreted to mean that only traditional intercourse between men and women will be non-paraphilic. If you look into Dr. Blanchard's discussion of the definition, however, you will see that the intention is to allow for a wider spectrum of sexual behavior. Unfortunately, he gives examples that at best can only be said to reflect his personal ideas of what is normal and abnormal, which again reflect one particular cultural context (middle class North America) and one historical epoch (late 20th century). Anilingus is for instance in (which it would not have been in the 1960s) while bondage is out (which is a pretty normal sexual game in many contemporary communities). In short: the definition leaves the door open for unscientific moralizing camouflaged as psychiatric diagnostics. For a more detailed argument see http://bit.ly/9UU0jO