Citation

Gleaves DH, Hernandez E. Hist. Psychol. 2002; 5(1): 92-98.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4235, USA. dhg@tamu.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2002, Educational Publishing Foundation)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

11898816

Abstract

A Esterson (2002) responded to the authors' analysis of recent reformulations of Freud's seduction theory and alleged sexual abuse discoveries. Esterson gave several additional examples of the same type of problematic writing the authors discussed in their original article. His commentary is largely a repetition of several already-published arguments, and his numerous criticisms of the article are, in the authors' opinion, without merit. The authors address confusion over inferring abuse from symptoms, treatment of symptoms versus resolution of cases, and fathers as perpetrators of abuse. It is clear that, as long as the topic of child sexual abuse elicits heated debate, so will Freud's seduction theory, but there may be times when one needs to step back to allow a debate to move forward.

Language: en