What Have They Done to You, Poor Child?

Freuds Seduction Theory

Lori Hefner Pacifica Graduate Institute

Freuds Depth Psychology CP-504 Christine Downing, Ph.D. December 6, 2006

Abstract

In three accounts, Sigmund Freud described what he called his seduction theory. The accounts are in Heredity and the Aetiology of the Neuroses, Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses of Defence, and his most heralded piece, The Aetiology of Hysteria (hereafter Aetiology). Freud presented Aetiology to the Vienna Society for Psychiatry and Neurology at the end of April 1896. Eighteen months later Freud wrote William Fliess that he could not longer support his own seduction theory. Eight years from the speech to the Vienna Society, Freud publicly retracted his research, writing, and statements on his monumental work. This paper provides: A description of Freuds seduction theory; The plausible factors that led to Freud recanting his theory; The significance of his original theory; What I would add; and, What I am still pondering as I reflect on Freuds seduction theory.

Freuds Seduction Theory

In three accounts, Sigmund Freud described what he called his seduction theory but by todays terms would be called incest or child sexual abuse. The accounts are in Heredity and the Aetiology of the Neuroses, Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses of Defence, and his most heralded piece among his seduction theory writings, The Aetiology of Hysteria (hereafter Aetiology). Freud presented Aetiology to the Vienna Society for Psychiatry and Neurology on April 21, 1896. This was Freuds first major address to his colleagues. Eighteen months later, Freud wrote William Fliess, his dear friend and collaborator, that he could not longer support his own seduction theory. Eight years later Freud publicly retracted his research, writing, and statements on seduction theory. Yet no subject haunted Freud from 1893 to 1898 and troubled him for the rest of his life like his seduction theory. (Masson, 1984, p. 107). I will only be able to cover the most significant pinnacles of his work on seduction theory at relatively high levels. There are myriads of letters, historical facts, and details of his studies with neurologist Professor Jean Martin Charcot and Charcots friend and collaborator Professor Paul Brouardel, who also made profound strides in the research of childhood rape and sexual assaults in forensic science during the time Freud was studying in Paris. Additionally, there are societal contexts and counter postulates that scholars have continuously debated about Freuds seduction theory. (McCullough, 2000). Scores of books, articles, monographs, and conference papers have been published to thoroughly discern the historical records and illuminate how Freuds theory

evolved, what clinical data Freud actually had at the time, what his significant findings were, and why after such clearly stated views even meticulously countering the arguments opponents might give as to why Freuds findings could be flawed, within eight years he rebukes his earlier work using the very points he warned his critics against. Freud wrote on these matters with unusual sensitivity. Up to this point, hysteria as a label was reserved for women who were thought of in most denigrating terms of being liars, weak, inferior, seducing, and narcissistic. The father of psychoanalysis and the inventor of the talking cure devised an analytical method to listen to them, delve into the depths of their memories, and even accompanied his patients on a frightening journey that allowed them to share glimpses of what was unspeakable in their society. I will use some of Freuds presentation to the Vienna Society in a truncated manner to highlight aspects of his theory. For instance, Freud spoke of a young girl, who as a client was most distressed with herself for allowing a boy to secretly stroke her hand. Because she allowed this action, she became overwhelmed by neurosis. Freud pointed out to his colleagues that some of them might judge and dismiss her by saying she was overly sensitive to the boys touch. Yet he urged them not to stop their investigation at that point but to consider his methods and findings. Upon further talking with this client, very slowly and hesitantly on her part, additional painful details emerged. Freud wrote, It is not the latest slightwhich, in itself, is minimalthat produces the fit of crying, the outburst of despair or the attempt at suicide. The small slight of the present moment has aroused and set working the memories of very many, more intense, earlier slightswhich there lies in additional the memory of a serious slight in childhood which has never been overcome Every one of my cases of obsessions revealed a substratum of hysterical symptoms, mostly sensation and pains, which went back precisely to the earliest childhood [sexual] experiences. (Gay, 1995, p. 109).

This young girl had great guilt and shame about herself. It was the combination of early childhood sexual stimulation, before she could comprehend what was happening to her, plus event(s) in puberty that set the stage for hysteria, neurosis of obsessions, and more. The individuals engaging in these activities have complete authority and the right to punish and can easily exchange one role for another for the satisfaction of his moods. The memories had to remain in the unconscious so they were able to create and maintain hysterical symptoms. (Gay, 1995, pp.106-110) Freud continued:

There are one or more occurrences of premature sexual experience, which belong to the earliest yeas of childhood but which can be reproduced through work of psycho-analysis in spite of the intervening decades. I believe that this is an important finding, the discovery of a caput Nile [source of the Nile] in neuropathology. (Gay, p. 103). [The italics are Freuds.] Freud went so far as to say that in all 18 cases of hysteria he uncovered the link with sexually abusive events in childhood in every single symptom [italics added], and where circumstances allowed, to confirm it by therapeutic success. (Gay, p. 101). I must affirm that the aetilogical role of infantile sexual experience is not confined to hysteria but hold equally for the remarkable neurosis of obsessions, and perhaps also, indeed, for the various forms of chronic paranoia and other functional psychoses. Freud stated that there was a seduction in all of his six cases of obsessional neuroses and in his only case of paranoia. (Gay, p. 109). Freud added that his findings were very much in harmony with those of his mentor, Charcot. Yet, the great Charcot and his esteem colleague Professor Brouardel studied and wrote about the horrific sexual and physical abuses of children. Freud was the first to draw clear attention to the deep psyche damage that such molestations caused. Freud discovered that hysteria at it roots had premature arousal that created psychic

trauma. The patients hysteria communicated meaning. The symptoms could elaborate important symbols and narrative. These stories are portrayed in fragments and images and special listening was required to decipher what was trying to be communicated. (Pillar, 1998, p. 64). Trauma cannot be integrated into the individuals system but leaves so much residue that the remainder comes out in disturbing thoughts and symptoms. Patients were painfully reluctant to give the information because they were not sure what to make of the fragments and hazy memories. Freud continued and said that this process was not a simple unveiling of the clients memory but was a series of attempts that took energetic pressure of the analytic procedure and was met with significant resistance. In the end, Freud thought that the analyst must be the one who carried the conviction. Freud did not observe these conclusions but deduced and inferred them. Later, Freud reflected that he possibly exercised too much pressure and he disparaged such tactics, his own and others, as being committed by wild analysts. (Gay, 1995, p 351). He urged his students like Emma Eckstein (whose case he and Wilhelm Fliess seriously erred and yet who still survived and became an analyst) to be very cautious in not being the first to suggest words, actions or images that might suggest events to the client but to allow the client to slowly come forward with as much of their material as possible. To Freud, such inappropriate sexual acts of intercourse, rape, assault, and those committed particularly by familial caregivers, parents and older siblings repeatedly, were the most damaging of all to the child. Freud said that these acts overwhelmed the young childs undeveloped, tender, physical and cognitive abilities and shocked her entire system. Freud strongly argued that unlike the major German attitudes of the day that labeled children and hysterics as liars he felt that his clients were indeed telling him the

truth because what they described was in such detail, with such pain, but clearly revealed the missing relevant pieces necessary to understand their current intense distress. Freud wrote this fragmentary information produced associative and logical ties between those scenes and the hysterical symptoms. (Gay, 1995, p.101). Another detail that must be considered is why Freud preferred to label these terrible events in the lives of young children, as seduction as opposed to stronger terminology that we would think is more apt. Today, the term seduction implies that the children were being salacious and seductive. This is not the way in which Freud held this term seduction. We must remember that in Freuds classical education and thorough rapture with Greek language and mythology the term seduction was more odious than terms such as rape or forced sexual abuse because the Greek term of seduction connotes damage done to the individuals psyche. (Downing, Fall, 2006, Freuds Depth Psychology Class Notes, CP-504. Pacifica Graduate Institute, p.23). On March 30, 1896 in another French publication Revue Neurologique, Freud stated that he completed the psychoanalysis (this is the first time this word was in publication) of 13 cases of hysteria wherein the patients had suffered these seductions. Freud concluded his article; I am convinced that nervous heredity by itself is unable to produce psychoneuroses if their specific aetiology, precocious sexual excitation, is missing. (Masson, 1984, p.91). That same day, Freud sent his paper entitled Further Remarks on the Neuropsychoses of Defence to Neurologisches Zentralblatt and it contained the strongest statements yet of his views of seduction. It was published May 15, 1896.

Therein Freud states that he believes the person most often responsible for these violations was the father. (Masson, p. 94). Reaction to Freuds paper and subsequent work was most hostile. He wrote: I felt as though I were despised and universally shunned. (Freud, S.E, 20, p. 273). Masson writes that Freud was at the odds with the entire climate of German medical thinking. (Masson, 1984, p.137). Count Richard von Krafft-Ebing, chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Vienna and the esteemed chair of the Societys gathering said, Freuds paper sounds like a scientific fairy tale. (Schur, 1972, p.104). The Recantation Begins Two weeks after Freud presented his famous lecture before the Vienna Society for Psychiatry and Neurology, Freud wrote to Fliess, My consulting room is empty, that for weeks on end I see no new faces, cannot begin any new treatments, and that none of the old ones are completed. (Masson, 1984, p.185). In a subsequent letter dated September 21, 1897 to Fliess, Freud opened with, Here I am again, since yesterday morning, refreshed, cheerful, impoverished, at present without work. Now I want to confide in you immediately the great secret of something that in the past few months has gradually dawned on me. I no longer believe in my neurotica. Freud offered to give his friend Fliess the details as they had occurred to him historically. (Masson, p.108). (1) Despite his claim in Aetiology where Freud reported having therapeutic success with his clients; Freud wrote Fliess and said, The continual disappointment in my efforts to bring any analysis to a real conclusion; the running away of people who for a period of time had been most gripped [by analysis]; the absence of the complete successes on which I had

counted; the possibility of explaining to myself the partial successes in other ways. (Masson, 1984, p. 108).

(2) Freud worried that surely such widespread perversions against children are not probable. Freud wrote, The father, not excluding my own, had to be accused of pervers[ion.] Freud doubt if all hysteria could indeed be attributed to a single-cause explanation. It seemed too simple. (3) He believed what his patients told him was the truth during their painful, halting, fragmented stories they shared in anguish, rather than thinking that the details could be contrived. He was coming to believe that the shards of memories might be a part of infantile sexual fantasy and that would account to as why parents played such a predominant role in these recollections; (4) He further deliberated on the role of the conscious and unconscious and that within the unconscious, there was no demarcation of reality versus fantasy that has been cathected with affect. He no longer believed that the unconscious could be made fully conscious. (5) He concluded that given the high incidence of hysteria, such a distribution of perversion against children is very unlikely. (6) Freud was concerned that he overestimated the incidence of child incest and abuse and that at other times he underestimated the same problem. At the end of the letter Freud concluded: I just dont know where I stand. (Downing, Fall, 2006, Freuds Depth Psychology, CP-504. Pacifica Graduate Institute, p.24; Masson, 1984, pp. 108-109; McCullough, 2000, p. 7).

The Significance Freud moved from exploring the memories of his clients being seduced to exploring the fantasy of them having been seduced. Freud turned his sights toward metapsychology but came so very close to discovering incests particular, and arguably unique, dynamic of near invisibility. Had Freud continued this line of thinking, he would have been in a position to see how unremembered incest not only results in symptomatic memorials, but damages the foundation of mind itself. (Ahbel-Rappe, 2004, p. 178). A month later on October 23, 1896, Jacob Freud, Sigmunds father, died. This sent Sigmund into deep suffering. He wrote to Fliess, [I] feel now as if I had been torn up by the roots. He later described the period as revolutionizing his soul. He also candidly told Fliess in 1897 he considered himself his chief patient. Shortly thereafter, his daughters son, who Freud was particularly fond of, also died. Freud went into grief and started a long journey wherein he analyzed his own dreams, memories, aggressions, fantasies, and wishes. He came to appreciate that the broad range of traumatic memories and myriad of symptoms his patients produced must be more complex than a single cause and effect event. He continued contemplating the matter until he understood that some of what he heard had been true, and some of it was more likely to be fantasy or wishful thinking. He grew to understand that while some individuals were indeed sexually abused and traumatized that everyone suffered from Oedipal complexes and aggression toward parents. Freud shifted his focus from nurture to nature. In the next several years, which are thought to be Freuds most productive of his life, he came to believe that all adults

suffered from conflicted sexual impulses, not just those who had been sexually abused. Human sexuality by its very nature contained unavoidable forces and counter forces. Infantile sexuality, the Oedipal complex, and the instinctual drives now were part of being a human being. Under his new emerging, rubric trauma did not result from horrific childhood assaults per se but were results of the endemic frustration of parents not adequately responding to the needs of the child. Intermittently in 1897 Freud started questioning himself about the reliability of his seduction theory. As mentioned earlier, numerous scholars have researched and written extensively as to why Freud recanted his seduction theory. Some have posited that it was a failure of courage on Freuds part-- that he lacked the intellectual honesty to remain a witness to his patients suffering and confront the bulwark of European society, who refused to consider Charcots, Broudardells, and many others researchers findings. Instead Austrian and German society unwaveringly maintained and aligned itself with the position proffered by Ernst Pierre Depre, wherein hysterics were sure to be moral degenerates and pathological liars. The dominant notion held among society was that these were the lies of children and the lies of hysterical women. (Masson, 1984, p. 49). Others clinicians spoke and wrote about how such fabrications and fantasies meant these individuals should be sent to insane asylums. In some of the contemporary literature, that conceded that there might be childhood sexual abuse and incest, the authors boldly wrote there was still no reason to think that such acts had detrimental psychological effects. (Masson, pp. 45-49). Others cite that esteemed colleagues like Willhelm Fleiss, Josef Breuer, Max Schur, Leopold Lowenfeld, and others were resolutely opposed to his discussion of such

private sensitive sexual matters. Adolf von Strumpell, a German psychiatrist, and others harshly criticized Freud in his review. (Masson, 1984, p.135). Others say that Freud recanted to Fliess when he did was because Freud was being reviewed for the title, Professor, which he very much coveted. He won the esteemed academic title by a vote of 22 to 10. McCullough eloquently and persuasively argues that Freud was forced to give up the seduction theory because his data was so flawed. When closely reading his various accounts and clinical statements, the number of patients seen, what they suffered from, and what was done about it could not withstand scrutiny. (McCullough, 2000). Others speculated that Freuds internalized anti-Semitism, so prominent in Europe during the decades of his life, were projected onto women and influenced his thoughts about incest. (Jacobs, 1997). Still others conclude that Freuds mental processes were suffering because of his cocaine addiction. They critically reviewed his writings of 18901899 and discussed how weak, circuitous, self-contradictory, and structurally flawed his papers were. (Thornton,1983; pp. 233-239; Wilcocks, 1994).

While all of this debate among Freud scholars internationally is titillating, we still have an arduous course before us to genuinely understand Freud and why he reversed himself on this significant set concepts. It is still accurate to say that seduction theory was a monumental weigh station in Freuds developing theories and stunning contributions over the next four decades. It is also true some can weave the documentary evidence in such a way that it appears Freud did not hastily turn back from the seduction theory. The problems he spoke of remained perplexing but there was much more that

needed to be researched, pondered and brought to consciousness. (Ahbel-Rappe, 2004, pp.171-199). For example, Freud wrote another important letter to Fliess dated December 22, 1897, in which he recounts a horrific story of forced sex and brutality that his client and her mother endured. Freud is sorrowful for the girl and her mother, and tells Fleiss that from now on the motto of psychoanalysis should be: What have they done to you, poor child? Freud was eluding to a Johann Wolfgang von Goethes poem in his novel Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre. (Masson, 1984, pp.116-119). Others from Freuds inner circle like Anna Freud, Ernst Kris, Marie Bonaparte, Ernest Jones, Max Schur, and Karl Abraham tried to expunge the record and even tried to obliterate evidence that Freud expressed doubts that he gave up his seduction theory too precipitously. Fortunately there were still enough correspondence, writings, memories and tutelage among his students that clearly demonstrated that these concerns were with Freud for the remainder of his life. (Masson, p. xvii).

What I Would Add We know by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Third National Incidence Study on Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) that easily over 1.5 million children are moderately or severely harmed each year. (See References under Sedlak, et.al.). According to this same study, there is a prevalence rate of 2.3% of all children being harmed to this degree. We also know over 1,500 children die each year as a result of abuse. Scarcely a week goes by that the news media does not cover the horrific torture of another child who has died in our respective communities. No region--urban or rural--or socio economic section is immune from this occurrence. The U.S. Justice Department

statistics state of the 201,000 rapes and sexual assaults in this country every year about 44% of rapes victims are under age 18. (Health and Human Services, 1997). This massive suffering is called by some to be Americas dirty secret. It is secret and kept from American consciousness because if we truly recognized and considered what is happening, it would question some of the cultures deeply held beliefs like the sanctity of the home and family are the foundational building blocks of our society. Clearly for some, this it is not true. It would also cast doubt that we are a culture that loves children and we are compassionate society wanting to help the helpless. Clearly the problem of severe child abuse is so large and intractable, we cannot see a successful public policy and solution emerging. Few people, if any, would call for an expansion of human social services and removing such harmed children from their families of origin. Our solutions to date have also brought significant harm and misery. In our willful ignorance, we opt to deny things are happening. We prefer to blame those who are innocently caught up in this cruelty and refuse to look at human misery occurring up and down the streets of our communities.

What Am I Wondering About? I contemplate how the twentieth century might have been different for millions of girls and boys and other seemingly disenfranchised individuals if Freud would have maintained and continued his clear, articulate voice about the human tragedy, trauma, dark lingering emotions, and psychosomatic pain of those who have their tender, undeveloped emotional and cognitive resources overwhelmed and prematurely stunted. What if, the Father of Psychoanalysis would have fearlessly stood up and said that to inflict sexual abuse, particularly as a parent or older sibling repeatedly, means that

forever on some level the child will grow up and have to employ psychological defenses such as repression and reaction-formation and deal with a predisposition towards many complex psychological ailments? Now this is clearly fantasy on my part, and over simplistic to be sure, but my instincts tell me that such an act of boldness would have been one of the great all time high marks for improving the lot of millions of disenfranchised people, the likes that we have not witnessed to date. I am very hard pressed to believe the proposition forwarded by Anna Freud, Keeping up the seduction theory would mean to abandon the Oedipus complex, and with it the whole importance of phantasy life, conscious or unconscious phantasy. In fact, I think there would have been no psychoanalysis afterward. (Masson, 1984, p. 113). Yes this is the most popular view about why Freud had to rebuke this seduction theory. However, I do not see the imperative that Freud faced an either/or dichotomy. (AhbelRappe, 2004, p. 172). We could have a greater intellectual history had Freud followed through as he intended by standing on the shoulders of Charcot and Brouardel. It is even distressing to know that Freud broke with his close colleague of twenty-five years, Sandor Ferenczi over Ferenczis insistence to revive the seduction theory. I would like to think Freud and the early founders of psychoanalysis stayed true with Freuds devotion to souls of individuals, psyche health and long term well bring throughout the twentieth century. Would profound suffering have been reduced? Freud could have continued to deliver the clarion call that brought the world to greater consciousness with the mantra, What have they done to you, poor child? If Freud had stood tall in the face of the enormous backlash he felt, perhaps his following students would have felt more at ease about pursuing incest and child sexual

abuse? From 1900 to 1950, there were just a handful of books published on incest and child sexual abuse. Most of those books referred to the matter under Oedipal complex or discussed the seductiveness of the child. (Simon, 1992). Finally in 1976 when J. J. Peters argued that the traverses Freud made caused a good deal of harm. (Peters, 1976, p.398). In 1980 Florence Rush, then Judith Herman in 1981, and Jeffrey M. Masson in 1984 published spirited and controversial books making their, sometimes harsh assessments as to why Freud recanted his critical theories of the mid 1890s. (Masson, 1984; McCullough, 2000 p. 9; Miller, 1992; Rush, 1980,). Conclusion I believe that Freuds evolution from seduction theory toward the infantile sexuality indisputably includes an intense transition central to the meaning of psychoanalysis. Yes, additional figurative tombs needed to be opened, discussed, documented, and expounded upon using the metaphor Freud thought about his searching the depths of the soul like a great archeologist of extraordinary antiquities. (Bettleheim, 1982, p. 42-43; Downing, 2005, pp. 162-163). In the deepest sense Freuds turn to the Oedipal complex and other unconscious longings was the search for ones own creation. To speak of soul was to go toward human kinds deepest longings and most profound terrorof sexuality and death. It is our human fate to be wanting, in need,

wish-driven, lacking. (Downing, 2004, pp. 57-61; Downing, 2005, p. 160). His further work gave us a broader developmental theory of human personality, and how the instinctual conflicts within us can be used in generative ways to create art, literature, social contracts and even civilization.

While the gains were enormous, it is important to also note that much was also lost in Freuds turning away from the seduction theory. Again figuratively, many fine porcelains, jewels, and artwork were left undiscovered by the Father of Psychoanalysis. How Freud thought of women, our psyches and our relational orientations eluded him. Freud and his writings were the source of great concern and controversy in the twentieth century as women worked hard to gain emancipation and social justice regarding gender issues. Specifically in regards to the seduction theory, Freud left us with a conundrum that has haunted psychoanalysis the last thirty years, since Peters, and shows no sign of abating since we are painfully aware how of our patients incredible wounds that they struggle with regarding the horrific trauma of incest and child sexual abuse. In the end, I believe it was fortuitous that Freud recognized the weaknesses of his evidence, the possibility of over-reaching with his psychoanalytical techniques, the fact that he had not cured one case of patient neurosis, and his unflagging confidence about his 1895-1896 theory on the sexual abuse and shock would or could explain the wide range of psyche/soul distresses. To this day, one hundred and ten-years later, we as a profession still fiercely debate the etiology of all types of core psychological health problems. We still debate reality, truth, fantasy, and the reliability of memory. Freud set us on this course. We are indebted to his genius, scholarship, self-analysis, work with early patients, and his contributing enough documentation for his descendent professionals to grapple with what he did not pursue. He also taught us tolerance for ambiguity, the value of the imaginal, and the worth of struggling to know the individual, the psyche, and civilization.

REFERENCES Bettelheim, B. (1982). Freud and mans soul. New York: Vintage Books. Downing, C. (2004). The luxury of afterwards: The Christine Downing Lectures at San Diego State University. New York: iUniverse. Downing, C. (2005). Sigmund Freud and the Greek mythological tradition. Preludes: Essays on the lucid imagination, 1961-1981. New York: iUniverse. Downing, C. (2006). Freuds depth psychology, CP-504. Pacifica Graduate Institute. Esterson, A. (1998). Jeffrey Masson and Freud's seduction theory: A new fable based on old myths. History of the Human Sciences, 11 (1), 1-21. Esterson, A. (2001). The mythologizing of psychoanalytic history: Deception and self-deception in Freud's accounts of the seduction theory episode. History of Psychiatry, 12, 329-352. Freud, S. (1953). My views on the part played by sexuality in the aetiology of the neuroses. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 7, pp. 271279). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1906). Freud, S. (1955a). From the history of an infantile neurosis. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 17, pp. 7 123). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1918). Freud, S. & Breuer, J. (1955b). Studies on hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2, pp. 1305). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1895). Freud, S. (1957). On the history of the psychoanalytic movement. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 766). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1914). Freud, S. (1959). An autobiographical study. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 20, pp. 774). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1925). Freud, S. (1961). A short account of psychoanalysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 191-209). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1906).

2 Freud, S. (1962b). Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of defence. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 3, pp. 162185). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1896). Freud, S. (1962c). Heredity and the aetiology of the neuroses. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 3, pp. 143156). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1896). Freud, S. (1962d). Sexuality in the aetiology of neuroses. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 3, pp. 263 285). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1898). Freud, S. (1964). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 22, pp. 5185). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1933). Freud, S. (1995). The aetiology of hysteria. In P. Gay (Ed.), The Freud reader (pp. 96-110). New York: W.W. Norton and Company. (1896). Freud, S. (1995). An autobiographical study. In P. Gay (Ed.), The Freud reader (pp. 3-44). New York: W.W. Norton and Company. (1925). Freud, S. (1995). Wild psycho-analysis. In P. Gay (Ed.), The Freud reader (pp. 351-356). New York: W.W. Norton and Company. (Original work published 1910). Haaken, J. (1998). Pillar of salt: Gender, memory and the perils of looking back. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books. Israls, H. & Schatzman, M. (1993). The seduction theory. History of Psychiatry, 4, 23-59. Jacobs, J. L. (1997). Freud as other: Anti-Semitism and the development of psychoanalysis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Masson, J. M. (1984). The assault on truth: Freuds suppression of the seduction theory. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. McCullough, M. (2001). Freud's seduction theory and its rehabilitation: A saga of one mistake after another. Review of General Psychology, 5 (1), 3-22.

3 Mitchell, S and Black, M. (1995). Freud and beyond: A history of modern psychoanalytic thought. New York: Basic Books. Peters, J. J. (1976). Children who are victims of sexual assault and the psychology of offenders. American Journal of Pschotherapy, 30, 398-421. Rush, F. (1980). The best kept secret: Sexual abuse of children. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schimek, J. G. (1987). Fact and fantasy in the seduction theory: A historical review. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 35, 937-965. Schur, M. (1972). Freud: Living and dying. New York: International University Press. Sedlak, A.J., Broadhurst, D., Shapiro, G., Kalton, G., Goksel, H., Burke, J., and Brown J. (1997). Prepared under contract to the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Health and Human Services. Rockville, MD: Westat. Simon, B. (1992). Incestsee under Oedipus complex: The history of an error in psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 40, 955-989. Thornton, E. M. (1983). Freud and cocaine: The Freudian fallacy. London: Blond & Briggs. Wilcocks, R. (1994). Maelzels chess player: Sigmund Freud and the rhetoric of deceit. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.