History
In 1990 Jennifer Freyd, with the support of her grandmother and uncle, privately accused her father of sexually abusing her throughout her teenage years after allegedly recovering memories that surfaced after treatment by a therapist for issues related to severe anxiety regarding an upcoming visit from her parents. Peter Freyd, Jennifer's father, denied that he had sexually abused his daughter. According to ''Philadelphia Magazine,'' Peter Freyd said that someone in the Freyd household would have been aware of the alleged abuse, because the Freyd's dog would have barked due to the commotion elicited by his alleged abuse. In a letter written to PBS Frontline in response to a documentary that referenced allegations of incest, Peter Freyd's brother and Jennifer Freyd's uncle William stated that Freyd and his wife Pamela grew up in the same household as step-siblings.Whitfield, C. (1995). Memory and abuse: Remembering and healing the effects of trauma . Deerfield Beach , FL : Health Communications, Inc. He added that, in his view, "The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is designed to deny a reality that Peter and Pam have spent most of their lives trying to escape," and that he was certain abuse happened to his niece. In 1991, Pamela Freyd published an anonymous first-person account of the accusation in a journal that focused on false accusations of child sexual abuse. The article was reproduced and circulated widely, including to Dr. Freyd's psychology department at the University of Oregon where she taught. Jennifer Freyd later stated that copies sent to her workplace contained notes de-anonymizing the article and that it contained numerous inaccuracies, including the circumstances of the original memories of abuse and the portrayal of her personal life. The FMSF was formed one year later by Pamela and Peter Freyd, with the support and encouragement of therapists Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager. Initially the early membership and advisory board of the FMSF consisted of parents who had been accused of sexually abusing their now-adult children when they were younger, but it rapidly expanded to include professionals with expertise in the area of memory. The FMSF claimed 2000 members in 1993.Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made." Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs).In the controversy that followed, Underwager resigned from the FMSF's scientific advisory board. Underwager later stated that the quotations in the ''Paidika'' article were taken out of context, used to discredit his ability to testify in courts and, through guilt by association, damage the reputation of the FMSF. The founders of the FMS Foundation were concerned alleged 'recovered memories' were being reported after the use of controversial therapy techniques, including hypnosis, relaxation exercises, guided imagery, drug-mediated interviews, body memories, literal dream interpretation and journaling. It is the position of the FMSF that there is no scientific evidence that the use of consciousness-altering techniques such as these can reveal or accurately elaborate factual information about previously forgotten past experiences, including sexual abuse. According to the FMS Foundation, "The controversy is not about whether children are abused. Child abuse is a serious social problem that requires our attention. Neither is the controversy about whether people may not remember past abuse. There are many reasons why people may not remember something: childhood amnesia, physical trauma, drugs or the natural decay of stored information. The controversy is about the accuracy of claims of recovered "repressed" memories of abuse. The consequences profoundly affect the law, the way therapy is practiced, families and people's lives." Members of the FMS Foundation Scientific Advisory Board included a number of members of the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine: Aaron T. Beck, Rochel Gelman, Lila Gleitman, Ernest Hilgard (deceased), Philip S. Holzman, Elizabeth Loftus,
Reception and impact
Stanton states that "Rarely has such a strange and little-understood organization had such a profound effect on media coverage of such a controversial matter." A study showed that in 1991 prior to the group's foundation, of the stories about abuse in several popular press outlets "more than 80 percent of the coverage was weighted toward stories of survivors, with recovered memory taken for granted and questionable therapy virtually ignored" but that three years later "more than 80 percent of the coverage focused on false accusations, often involving supposedly false memory" which the author of the study, Katherine Beckett, attributed to FMSF. J.A. Walker claimed the FMSF reversed the gains made by feminists and victims in gaining acknowledgment of the incestuous sexual abuse of children. S.J. Dallam criticized the foundation for describing itself as a scientific organization while undertaking partisan political and social activity. The claims made by the FMSF for the incidence and prevalence of false memories have been criticized as lacking evidence and disseminating alleged inaccurate statistics about the problem. Despite claiming to offer scientific evidence for the existence of FMS, the FMSF has no criteria for one of the primary features of the proposed syndrome – how to determine whether the accusation is true or false. Most of the reports by the FMSF areNotes
External links
* {{official website, http://www.fmsfonline.org/