|
Grex > Femme > #8: False Memory "Syndrome" - True or False? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
twolf
|
|
response 50 of 186:
| 
Dec 3 02:50 UTC 1994 |
As I tried to say earlier, of course all memories aren't going to be true, but
at the same time this does not mean all memories will be false. It bothers me
very much when some one strongly defends the FMS foundation because it is only
recently that the general public has accepted the reality and harmful effects
of child abuse in general. Much of the more horiffic fo forms of child abuse
are difficult for anyone to believe who doesn't have a frame of reference to
understand such inhumanities really are present in the human potential. For
the most horrific of abuse(child or otherwise) it would be much easier for
every one; including the victum; to close there eyes and beleave it doesn't
exist. There in lies the danger, it is that the FMS foundation and the theries
it presents don't sound like reasonable explinations so much as they sound like
white washing of abuse. Of course there are a few cases were people believe
they were abused and they were not, and this is regretable beyond all measure '
especially when innocent people are acused. However, there is still such a
stigma from society, and in the person's own emotions' for those who have lived
through abuse that FMS theories undermine their reputation and their own
believe of what the person has lived through. There is no glory of any kind in
being a survivor. It truely seems that by accident or design, society (atleast
a part of it) is trying to once again take away a survivor's most precious
possesion, the acknowledgement that it happene...the effect is to undermine a
person's sense of reality even more then it already was.
|
aruba
|
|
response 51 of 186:
|
Dec 3 03:00 UTC 1994 |
Very well said, twolf - I can see how you feel.
|
aaron
|
|
response 52 of 186:
|
Dec 3 10:05 UTC 1994 |
re #41: First, my response was moderate, compared to twolf's. Second,
I cite actual authorities in the field of memory research and
their peer-reviewed articles, as well as agencies that exercise
oversight over psychologists and psychiatrists. twolf quotes a
non-expert psychologist's letters and alludes to survivors'
newsletters. Third, you *did* enter the fray. Get a grip.
You may place a great deal of weight on the content of survivors
newsletters. They may well pack an emotional wallop. But they
are not scientific research, they are not peer-reviewed, and they
are clearly biased. You also make the mistake of assuming that
no professional psychologists have suffered abuse as children.
That is simply wrong.
My credentials? I have a bachelor's degree in psychology, and I
have researched this issue extensively. It appears that twolf has
read survivors' newsletters. You have shown no "credentials."
One member of the FMSF Board (not a "founding member" -- the
organization was founded by Pamela and Peter Freyd) was asked to
step down after he wrote an article, published overseas, that
appeared sympathetic to pedophiles. You assert that we should
discredit FMSF because it *distances* itself from such positions
when it becomes aware of them? Give me a break.
By the way, nice successive logins with twolf. One might conclude,
given your identical positions, syntax, and style of "debate," that
you are one and the same. If one were cynical.
re #42: It is anything but impossible that an invasive trauma can be
fabricated by the mind. The journals are full of examples.
(Even so-called "UFO Abduction" cases often involve memories of
serious physical trauma, including sexual penetration and invasive
surgical procedures.)
An easy example -- many "survivors'" newsletters describe national
networks of satanists who abuse and murder children -- yet despite
years of searching, no evidence has been found. The people who
hold these beliefs hold them sincerely -- and there are a lot of
them. But, by all objective measures, their accounts are untrue.
Your assumption that these events represent "source amnesia" is
interesting, but incorrect. The satanic trappings -- robes, coffins,
daggers, skulls, human sacrifice, consumption of blood, chants, etc.,
surely did not play a role in the "actual" event. The allegations of
forced multiple pregnancies and abortions are unlikely to have been
part of the "acutal" event. But the clincher -- the parents are
almost always active players in accounts of SRA -- if SRA is a
psychological "cover" to avoid implicating the parental abuser,
why is the parent playing a lead role in the "memory?" How does
taking a "normal" molestation, and adding elements of satanism,
torture and murder make it *more* acceptable to the psyche?
re #43: Apparently you are unwilling or unable to see past your biases.
re #46: If that is what Newsweek actually said, Newsweek was wrong. There
is ample evidence of memory loss due to such psychological
phenomena as "traumatic amnesia" and "post-traumatic stress
disorder." There really is no dispute that a person can suffer
from a traumatic event and have no memory, or only a partial
memory of that event.
The "false memory" debate goes to the question of "recovery" of
a memory of a previously non-recalled event. There are some
psychologists, such as Ofshe, who assert that "repression" is a
fiction. Others, such as Loftus, accept repression, but question
the extent to which it can mask memories and the validity of
allegedly "recovered" memories. Yet others, such as Terr, assert
that just about any repeated trauma can result in the creation of
a dissociative defense mechanism to "repress" the memories. (Terr
asserts that single traumas are vividly remembered while sequential
traumas may be repressed.) And others, such as Van der Kolk, believe
that any memory can be "repressed," and stored at a cellular level,
then recalled like "videotape" at a later date. (And, of course,
many others who take the various intermediate positions.)
There is considerable anecdotal evidence to support theories of
dissociation. The current debate goes to what happens to those
memories -- are they recorded like videotape (a concept alien to
what we know of how memory works); are they stored like normal
memories, but merely in a place that isn't normally accessible;
are they lost, with "recovery" being a reconstruction based upon
externally provided information being fitted into the few remaining
fragments? The answer can't be provided biologically, and it
may be impossible to get through psychological research.
re #47: Scent can be a powerful stimulus for memory.
re #49: The problem with the "anti-FMS" crowd is that they simply won't
deal with any discussion of the issue. They don't want to hear the
evidence, and they don't want to hear that memories of abuse may
be incorrect, either as to their source or in toto. To question a
"survivor's" memory is to "perpetrate" against that "survivor."
(See Debbie Nathan's 1992 article, "Cry Incest." Although published
in Playboy, it has been cited in a number of scholarly works.)
From what I have seen, the FMSF is focussed primarily on two things:
Getting therapists to tell patients who "recover" memories that the
memories do validly reflect the patient's current reality and are
valid for purposes of counselling, but they may contain small or
serious deviations from any real underlying events; and the request
that such "recovered" memories be supported by corroborating
evidence before any criminal or civil action may be brought against
alleged "perpetrators."
re #50: What of the suffering of those who, directly or indirectly, must
deal with the false accusations? Read ~aaron/statement for an
example of how questionable memories can affect a family, even
where no family member is accused. (67 lines)
|
headdoc
|
|
response 53 of 186:
|
Dec 3 21:11 UTC 1994 |
I am very impressed with this discussion and all of the discussants. One small
side note aaron, I would wish that the FMSF was primarily focused on getting
patients who remember "repressed" trauma that the "memories do validly reflect
the patien's current reality and are valid for the purposes of counselling but
they may contain small or serious deviations . . ." This may be true of some
of the members and some of the quoted researchers. But it does not appear to
be true of some of the less rational members. I have read of instances in
which individuals associated with the organization have denounced all
psychotherapists and psychotherapy, and cast aspertions on the possible
veracity of all uncovered memories. It's the dichotomous thinking in this
whole area with which I find unhelpful.
|
aaron
|
|
response 54 of 186:
|
Dec 3 23:00 UTC 1994 |
If "individuals associated with the organization" means "members" --
anyone can join -- you are surely correct. If you mean, "official
statements of the FMSF," those statements don't exist.
|
twolf
|
|
response 55 of 186:
|
Dec 4 03:08 UTC 1994 |
Aaron, your position is far from moderate. You seem to be saying all memories
aof abuse are false. I do not know If this was your intent or not.
The only thing I am not moderate on is the FMS foundation and the
particular messages it sends. I have repeatedly said that not all memories are
true, while you have yet to even acknowledge this. Also, the individuals
linked to accusations of child abuse are founding members If you will look up
thew articles you will see that. My cridentials, I am A SURVIVOR! I do not
have any repressed memories. I can and have found documentation to conferm my
merories. As I said before, there is no glory in being a survivor! I doubt
there is a survivor out there who woulldn't gladly wish their memories weren't
true. Unfortunately, too many of the memories are atlest true in part. Wiether
you wish to admit it or not, serious abuse does exist.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 56 of 186:
|
Dec 4 03:57 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 57 of 186:
|
Dec 4 06:47 UTC 1994 |
Aaron, you are highly foolish to believe me to be the same as twolf.
I am not her, for how else could i be her spouse? Your accusation only
strengthens my popint that you are not ready to have a real discussion on
this subject, if you have to junp at shadows to satisfy your own mistakes.
I do have some different views on this subject than my wife, however, I see
no point in discussing it with you, as you have no respect for other's views
on this subject. I hope that you get past this shortcoming, as I would like
to have a meaningful disscussion on this subject with you.
One other thing to note, Aaron. The letter that you call into question
is authored by a memory researcher who is a resident of a graduate colledge,
with more than just a bachelor's degree. I think you should rethink your
position on how you look at this letter. I sincerely hope that you have read
your quoted articles better than you have read the responses left here, as you
have repeatedly misquoted and misrepresented what was said within these
responses. I will continue to enter posts here, as there are now others here
who will discuss this issue reasonably. Thank you for your time,
sidhe
|
aaron
|
|
response 58 of 186:
|
Dec 4 09:06 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
aaron
|
|
response 59 of 186:
|
Dec 4 18:33 UTC 1994 |
re #55: I suggest you review what I posted. Not only is my position
quite moderate (it is my voice that is forceful), but I have
already made statements that show your first statement is a
completely unfair characterization.
re #57: I quoted PhD-level experts in the field. Several of them. And
position papers of *both* the American Medical Association and the
American Psychological Association. This is peer-reviewed
literature. Letters to the editor by a person who by all
appearances does not know the field are neither peer-reviewed nor
authoritative. If you have any authoritative materials, please
share them. Calling me "foolish" isn't authoritative.
|
brighn
|
|
response 60 of 186:
|
Dec 4 18:46 UTC 1994 |
I got a private request to come back here and say something, but I'm not sure
what to say. One thing I would like to say, though, is that I'm getting mighty
tired of the namedropping and appeals to authority. Marija Gimbutas has a PhD
(well, had, she has now passed on), and some of the claims she made in her
field are atrocious leaps of faith. I have strong disagreements with "A Brief
History of Time," also written by a PhD holder. And Dr. Noam chomsky
has so abused his position in the fields of linguistics and politics as to
trivialize his work in general. Holding an MA and 50% of a PhD, I know
that sots as well as genuises can squirrel their way to the end of the path,
and "respected in their field" doesn't mean squat to me either (as a
Professor in my department has a wont to say, "Scientific fact is not a matter
if democracy and popularity"). Aaron, you have one set of facts that says
FMS exists; Twolf, your experience suggests that at least some incidents of
child abuse are real (I don't think anyone would question that). Separate
corners, please!
Aaron, are you denying that memories recalled through therapy could be
accurate? Twolf has accused you of claiming that all
cases of such memories are fabricated (to my reading). Is this a fair
accusation? One further claim you seem to be making is that a perfectly
normal individual with a perfectly normal childhood (no abuse or otherwise
invasive traumas) can fabricate something as invasive as rape (not UFOs or
banged-up fingers). Is this an accurate interpretation of what *you* (not some
PhD whom you've never met or discussed this with) are taking responsibilty for
having said?
(I assume the use of the word "fray", falsely attibuted to Sidhe, was directed
to me. I said I would approach the fray with caution. "Get a grip" is not
a constructive response to the caution. Please watch your tone of voice
in the future, as personal attacks, on my person at any rate, will not be
tolerated.)
|
twolf
|
|
response 61 of 186:
|
Dec 4 19:19 UTC 1994 |
thank you brighn, I honestly think some one with a new perspective was badly
needed. Al though I had orignally intended to give details on my statements
about the FMS founder, per your request I shall shelve them indefinately. I
would simplely like to make one simple statement that I doubt will get much
disagreement. Moderate is generally accepted as being the middle ground,
niether side of a question is overly favored.Correct??? I make no claim at
being truely moderate on this subject, although I attempt to alteast give all
sides a thorough review on the basis of documentable fact and believability.(no
accusations should be inferred from this statement, none is meant) I retreat to
my corner and hope this can be solved more civilly. Brighn, comments from you
or other middle ground observors are welcome from me..I may notlike all of
them, but i shall try to accept them constructively.
|
twolf
|
|
response 62 of 186:
|
Dec 4 20:36 UTC 1994 |
Oh yes, I did not mean to sound as if aaron is saying all memories are false.
I tried to point out that that is what it sounds like to me, and to ask him if
this is what he meant to sound like. He has mostly been quoting experts or
atleast others and I am unable to locate a statement of personal position on
this topic. As I said I wish to question his position, not openly asume what it
may or may not be.
|
aaron
|
|
response 63 of 186:
|
Dec 4 22:48 UTC 1994 |
re #60: If you view references to the works of the most prominent memory
researchers in the world, and references to recent statements by
the policy brances of the American Medical Association and
American Psychological Association as fallacious appeals to
authority, pray tell, which authorities do you see as being
valid?
Have I stated, anywhere in this item, that all recovered memories
are wrong? If I have, please feel free to point to the particular
response or statement. What I recall saying is that recovered
memories should be handled carefully -- that the psychologist
should educate the patient that there is a possibility that they
are erroneous as to who they accuse or as to the substance of
the alleged abusive act -- in the absence of corroborating
evidence. (This implies that some are corroborated, no?)
There are several scientific studies that show how perfectly
normal individuals (this, btw, does not mean, "had an ideal
childhood -- a lot of people with bad childhoods manage to be
normal adults) can be led to fabricate memories, and can
sincerely believe that they are victims of UFO abductions, that
they lived and can recall multiple past lives, etc. Again, if
we can't look to the scientific literature, where do you propose
we look. (Your apparent assumption that I have not discussed
these issues with professionals in the field is incorrect, btw.)
I can also point you to real people, with whom I have had
actual discussion, who recalled multiple abusive acts by their
parents that they now view as being total fabrications, brought
on through their own emotional problems and bad therapy. I can
point you to parents who deny abuse allegations, and siblings of
accusers who will confirm that the alleged acts of abuse are
fictions. Not studies; not second-hand reports -- the real
people. I can point you toward Ken Lanning, of the FBI, who
has spent a decade investigating allegations of satanic ritual
abuse. He can tell you of cases where "victims" of SRA spoke
of multiple rapes and pregnancies, but where medical examination
indicated not only that the person hadn't been pregnant, but
that the person was a virgin.
|
brighn
|
|
response 64 of 186:
|
Dec 4 23:30 UTC 1994 |
Well, Aaron, that was more direct and a bit more even-tempered, although
still a bit confronatational.
I didn't say that reports by "respected sources" are fallacious by default;
I said they could be, and that there was too much name-dropping going on.
If I may ask, why is it acceptable for you to make that assumption, but
when someone suggests that your saying "Some FMS reports are fabricated"
implies "All FMS reports are fabricated", you go on the defensive? The
syllogisms are identical, sir.
I was not aware that you have spoken to professionals. I retract the
implication.
To my knowledge, there is no medical examination that successfully proves
that someone is a virgin, but I'll take your word for it.
Although it's odd that you insist your sources aren't second hand but REAL
PEOPLE and then give me someone who is second hand. :)
You will most likely shoot this post to ribbons, just as you have been
doing with other posts. I believe you are encountering hostility in this
item not for the content of your posts, but from your tone of superiority
(at least, that's why you're irritating me). I would agree with you that
reports of abuse brought out through psychoanalysis should be approached
with caution. Then again, all accusations, remembered or at-the-time,
should be approached with caution: that is the nature of our legal system.
Rather than explain your position once more, it would be most direct
if you answered the following with ONE WORD:
(1) Are all cases of sexual abuse brought out through therapy fabricated?
(2) Is it possible that SOME of the cases in (1) are fabricated?
(3) Might some alleged cases of sexual abuse as in (1) be memories of
actual abuse while the details (perp, nature, context, etc.) are flawed?
(Aaron and Twolf, both answer, according to your opinions.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 65 of 186:
|
Dec 5 05:02 UTC 1994 |
re #64: Am I being more confrontational than you? (Is it "bad" to be
confrontational?)
> If I may ask, why is it acceptable for you to make that assumption, but
> when someone suggests that your saying "Some FMS reports are fabricated"
> implies "All FMS reports are fabricated", you go on the defensive? The
> syllogisms are identical, sir.
First you mischaracterize what happened. What was asserted was, "You seem
to be saying all memories a of abuse are false." My response to that was,
"I suggest you review what I posted. Not only is my position quite moderate
(it is my voice that is forceful), but I have already made statements that
show your first statement is a completely unfair characterization."
If anything, I can be accused of going on the offensive. I don't see anything
defensive in my statement.
Second, the syllogisms would be:
1. You have stated that some recovered memories are demonstrably false.
2. It is fair to attribute what you have said to you.
3. Therefore, you probably believe that some reports of FMS have been
fabricated. (I would not use that word, as it carries an implication
of intent.)
or
1. You have stated that some recovered memories are demonstrably false.
2. MISSING PREMISE: People who disbelieve some recovered memories of
sexual abuse probably disbelieve all memories of all sexual abuse.
3. Therefore, you probably believe that all reports of sexual abuse are
fabricated.
or
1. You have stated that some recovered memories are demonstrably false.
2. MISSING PREMISE: People who disbelieve some recovered memories
disbelieve all recovered memories.
3. Therefore, you probably believe that all recovered memories are
fabricated.
The syllogisms are quite different.
> To my knowledge, there is no medical examination that successfully proves
> that someone is a virgin, but I'll take your word for it.
I don't want to get graphic. I guess it depends upon how you define
virginity. It is possible to tell, with some women, if they have been
penetrated by a phallic-sized object. I know of no woman who, after
giving birth to a child, wouldn't show physical signs.
> Although it's odd that you insist your sources aren't second hand but REAL
> PEOPLE and then give me someone who is second hand. :)
Our interchange here is first-hand. If I were to relate it to somebody
else, it would be second-hand. I have had first-hand discussions with
these people.
> You will most likely shoot this post to ribbons, just as you have been
> doing with other posts. I believe you are encountering hostility in this
> item not for the content of your posts, but from your tone of superiority
> (at least, that's why you're irritating me).
I won't apologize for being informed. I believe I am encountering hostility
in this item because a person perceives that I am attacking a "sacred cow."
Who was it, by the way, who privately asked you to intervene in this item?
A friend, requesting your support?
> Rather than explain your position once more, it would be most direct
> if you answered the following with ONE WORD:
>
> (1) Are all cases of sexual abuse brought out through therapy fabricated?
Obviously not. (Sorry, that's two.)
> (2) Is it possible that SOME of the cases in (1) are fabricated?
I object to the term "fabricated," for reasons stated above. Some memories
of sexual abuse brought out in therapy are demonstrably false, some only as
to actors or certain aspects of the event, others in toto.
> (3) Might some alleged cases of sexual abuse as in (1) be memories of
> actual abuse while the details (perp, nature, context, etc.) are flawed?
Oops. I just answered that one as well.
Add the following:
(4) Might some alleged cases of sexual abuse involve memories of events
that never happened, involving persons who have never committed acts
of sexual abuse?
Unfortunately, yes. And that is the crux of the issue.
|
brighn
|
|
response 66 of 186:
|
Dec 5 07:57 UTC 1994 |
*rolls eye frustratedly*
Aaron: 100% of your response was predictable, based on things you had
already said. Saying them again and again won't make them any more or
less understood or heard. If I had been asked to create the response that you
would likely generate from my post, it would have nearly exactly been what you
wrote. I said as much in my post. Thank you for living down to my
expectaionts (yes, FM, that was a flame).
I was looking for three words. My question two is your question four;
you can't even answer my questions without criticizing them. *sigh*
I withdraw, and I would advise Twolf to do as well. Yes, Aaron: I'm being
unreasonable. That would be in your response post to this item. My
withdrawal is a result of rigidity on all sides, including my own.
The point in asking you those questions, Aaron, was to see if I agreed with
your answers. I do. But I don't agree with your stance on the issue.
Your approach is belligerent and unsympathetic (mine is belligerent
but sympathetic, I hope... but maybe I'm unsympathetic too).
In fact, I have been encouraged to keep up this conversation by
three individuals. To reveal their names would be inappropiate; that's
for them to do.
One thing that still bothers me, though, is the citation of studies
with deliberately fabricated memories... I find that practice
untenably unethical. *sigh* Oh well, those are experts in their
fields fucking with children's minds... that's o.k. then.
|
md
|
|
response 67 of 186:
|
Dec 5 14:18 UTC 1994 |
FMSF was founded by a couple whose daughter's therapist enabled
her to believe that they had sexually abused her. MADD was
founded by a woman whose child was killed by a drunk driver.
Surprised? And in any case, as several people have pointed out
above, whether their daughter's recovered memories were true or
false has nothing to do with the value of FMSF's work. As to the
psychologist who created a detailed "memory" in a five-year-old's
mind of having been lost in a mall, the conclusions of the
psychologist are indisputable. The truth is the truth. You
might wish it had been arrived at in some other way, but if you
deny it for that reason, or for any other reason, it'll still be
the truth.
|
twolf
|
|
response 68 of 186:
|
Dec 5 14:41 UTC 1994 |
first off, I have already anwered the questions posed by brighn
1 sexual abuse does exist
2 not all memories are true
3 some details can be remembered incorrectly
Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary...Moderate 1 a: avoiding extreames
of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits. b:CALM,TEMPERATE
(enphasis is from the dictionary, not myself)
By your own admition of being confrontational, you can not fit under the
pertinant definition of moderate. There for , by you own word, you are not
moderate in this case aaron. When a person is confrontational to the point of
being unable to hold a calm , meaning full discussion, it is "bad". You have
not allowed any one to respond to your posts without belittling them and there
response. If you do not agree with this, ask yourself why you were unable to
answer three simple questions without basically yell or atleast snipping at the
questioner, i.e. being confrontational. Do not bother to answer this, I said
ask y yourself this question. You are the only one who needs to know this
answer. Repeatedly I have insisted my main grip is with the FMS foundation and
what they present.Since you have been so defensive, all I can say is...I AM SO
SORRY I ATTACKED YOU SACRED COW, AARON!!! I didn't know this was so important
to you. I shall now do my best to keep out of this discussion, since it has
never truelybeen a meaning full discussion any way. Hopefully, I will be able
to resist an any bating to rejoin this topic. This may be difficult because I
loth being misrepressented, misquoted, quoted out of context,etc.
|
twolf
|
|
response 69 of 186:
|
Dec 5 18:38 UTC 1994 |
md, you sound more willing to dicuss.
wiether the child of the founding FMF foundation member's has great baring
on this topic, because if the memories are true, this foundation was
undertaken to cover up guilt
Because of the policy of the publication's i can not quote from the
publications i mentioned earlier, this is to protect participant in none news
items privacy. However here are the very basic fact. the founder and
current(in fall93) director of FMSF was Pamela Freyd I am not sure of the exact
year FMSF was foundered in summer and fall of 1991, Pamela Freyd began
publishing an account by" Jane Doe" that detailed an account of a woman
claiming to be falsely accused of child abuse. in a feb. 92 FMSF newsletter
she revieil she was "Jane Doe" In early 91, pamela freyd began sending
unsolicited FMSF literature and making phone calls to her daughter's
colleagues,in-laws, therapist, etc. She has also been frequently sending such
mailing to her daughter, who had asked to be left alone. It was not until
August 93 that her daughter, JenniferFreyd, Ph.D., first went public ,
speaking before an audience of mental health professioals. She has been able to
find confermation in childhood diaries and letters. These document various
symptoms , which i would have to quote the article to discribe(so I can not)
and show the lightly veiled discriptions seem in other child abuse cases.
Jennifer Freyd has remained less vocal on the subject then her mother. The
information and presentation of the information in the article leads the reader
to believe there is atleast some foundation of Jennifer Freyd"s claims.
A colleague and friend of hers, Pamela Birrell, Ph.D., also was
included with an open letter to the FMSF, conferms the unwelcome intrusion
of the FMSF into Dr. Freyd's professional life.
Dr. Birrell also says she has seen the damage the organization has done
to survivors of DOCUMENTED sexual abuse aas they struggle to recover.
This article is extreamely interesting and pertenent, i only wish I was able to
extract more from it, but then i would pretty much have to quote it verbatium.
In the winter 1993 edition of PAIDIKA, THE JOURNAL OF PAEDOPHILIA
(Neatherlands), Ralph Underwager, Ph.D.; and his wife Hollida Wakefield,M.A.'
were interviewed. At the time, they served on the FMSF advisory board. They
began their work with FMSF in the first two months of its existance. Pamela
Freyd said they were asked to resign, then changed her position to they would
not be formally asked to resign the following day. In PAIDIKA, Wakefield made
statements atleast in sympathy of paedophilia and suggested "It would be nice
if someone could get some kind of a big research grant to do a longitudinal
study of, let's say, a hundred twelve-year-old boys in relationships with
loving paedophiles. Whoever was doing the study would have to follow them at
five year intervals for twenty years.This is impossible in the U>S> right now .
We're talking a long time in the future." (from PAIDIKA) Other excerp were just
as damaging. As of sept. 93, Underwager had resigned, claiming he was
misinterprated (not misquoted). Wakefield as of that time had not resigned .
This is why I do not like the FMSF one bit, it has very, very questionable
origins, although research in to false memories(scratch the syndrom) is another
matter all together. ..
|
roz
|
|
response 70 of 186:
|
Dec 5 18:52 UTC 1994 |
I would like the opportunity to learn more about the subjects under discussion
,
but I have no desire to get drawn into or be the cause of further conflict.
So I'm asking for specific article citations (if convenient for you to find)
that might illustrate the most salient points people are making. It's very
difficult to discuss issues calmly when there are (acknowleged or not)
d
things that hit deeply and personally. I've seen a lot of very interesting
posts here; thanks to those who tried to have a clear and sane discussion.
|
brighn
|
|
response 71 of 186:
|
Dec 5 21:49 UTC 1994 |
(Michael, I don't believe I denied the results of the studies in question;
although I question the use of the word "truth", being a relativist, I'll allow
it, knowing what you mean. I merely complained about the ethics involved.
Hitler's troops came up with some interesting results in their human
experimentation; the results are worth discussing, but we can still be
repulsed by the means of data collection.)
My point in asking the question was to show that, indeed, Twolf and Aaron
are in concordance on the basic, root issues, and differ only in what
side of the issue they stand... you two did answer the same way on
the questions.
|
twolf
|
|
response 72 of 186:
|
Dec 7 20:28 UTC 1994 |
per somebody's request, here are some of the articles I've sighted. There are
may others arround,I believe it is also in the periodic guide in libraries
by now.
Moving Forward, Inc. ; PO Box 4426 : Arlington, VA 22204
Various articles from issue Vol. 2, Numbers 4 and 5
This is the more "scholarly" in tone of the two publications.
SurvivorShip ; 3181 Mission #139 ; San Francisco, CA 94110
this is the more support and survivor forum oriented formate.
Volume V,#3 1993...Fms Founders Champpion Paedophilia.
I am sure both publications have other articles on the subject.
I would encourage any one intersted in this topic, who doesn't know much
about it, to review a variety of differrent sorts of publications,
proffessional, survivors...moany general news magazines may not have a clear
perspective on the issue. As you have seen here, even two parties with
apparent agreement on a few basic point( sincere thanks brighn) can appear t
because of how they view ... what I would call side points, and individual
experiences pertaining to the subject. This can easily lead to none specialty
magazines getting confusing and apparently contadictory information.
|
kentn
|
|
response 73 of 186:
|
Dec 8 00:10 UTC 1994 |
"Cites" or citations require more specific detail than you have provided.
Do you know, for example, the authors' names, the article titles and
page numbers?
|
md
|
|
response 74 of 186:
|
Dec 8 15:27 UTC 1994 |
It shouldn't surprise anyone that pedophiliacs are attracted
to an organization like FMSF. As long as there are cases of
therapists using selective reinforcement to make patients
believe in events that never happened, there are bound to be
actual child molesters who will claim to be victims of the
same process. The incompetence of therapists has become a
shield for them. There is nothing more repugnant than the
thought of a child molester not only getting off scot-free,
but assuming the role of victim and actually getting
*sympathy*. This never would have happened if these
therapy-induced cases of false memory hadn't been making
headlines.
What's coming, if it isn't already here, is that real
survivors of real childhood incest will have to suffer the
indignity of trying to convince others that they aren't in
the same category as those who "recover" via therapy
"repressed" memories of satanic ritual abuse and UFO
abductions. People who have survived childhood abuse and
who have never forgotten or "repressed" any of the horror,
but have lived with it every day of their lives, will be
thrown together in the public mind with fools and liars.
(Just as an aside, I'm afraid that well-meaning people who
fancy themselves "relativists" and who think that the truth
doesn't exist, aren't going to be too awfully helpful in
this matter.)
|