trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

There is a distinct clinical criterion between a philia and a paraphilia

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that there is a distinct clinical criterion between a philia and a paraphilia?

Yes. Clinical manuals such as the DSM-5 establish a clear distinction between a paraphilia (an atypical sexual interest) and a paraphilic disorder (which requires clinically significant distress, impairment, or harm to others).

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved literature, particularly papers [5] and [11], explicitly discusses the clinical and diagnostic distinction established in recent psychiatric manuals between a paraphilia (atypical interest or fantasy) and a paraphilic disorder (which requires distress, functional impairment, or non-consent). The term 'philia' broadly encompasses sexual preferences or interests, whereas the clinical distinction lies in whether it constitutes a disorder. Therefore, the claim is supported by the literature.

Evidence for · 2
DSM-5 paraphilic disorders criteria in the light of autoerotic asphyxiophilia and non-sexual form of oxygen restriction.
2019
Get citation
Dora, M., Mijas, M., & Dobroczyński, B. (2019). DSM-5 paraphilic disorders criteria in the light of autoerotic asphyxiophilia and non-sexual form of oxygen restriction.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/ONLINEFIRST/78166

See more details
More for · 1
Paraphilic fantasies and disorders in Brazil: insights from a nationwide study on prevalence, risk factors, and public health implications.
2025
Get citation
JGA, J., K, B., GC, d. C., N, M., K, S., & MIR, L. (2025). Paraphilic fantasies and disorders in Brazil: insights from a nationwide study on prevalence, risk factors, and public health implications.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.47626/1516-4446-2025-4172

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7804 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work