-Caveat Lector- Hi ! Below please find several articles on FMSF and Underwager and Wakefield, former FMSF advisory board members. Sincerely, Neil Brick To clarify my position, I am anti-pedophilia and anti child abuse. Also, this may be triggering for abuse survivors. http://movingforward.org/v2n4-fmsf-board.html#top Moving Forward Newsjournal Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 12-13 July, 1993 Copyright 1993, Moving Forward, Inc. APA-style citation for this article Related article FMS Foundation Asks Underwager and Wakefield To Resign From Advisory Board, Then Changes Position By Lana R. Lawrence The False Memory Syndrome Foundation's executive director Pamela Freyd told Moving Forward that widely known psychologists and expert witnesses Ralph Underwager, Ph.D., and Hollida Wakefield, M.A., were asked to resign from the foundation's advisory board on July 1. This action was taken as a result of questions raised over a 1991 interview that Underwager and Wakefield gave to the Netherlands' publication Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia (Winter, 1993). But the following day, Freyd changed her position and said that the foundation had not made a formal request for Underwager and Wakefield's resignations. Initially, Freyd said that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) board or directors (who are separate from the advisory board) had voted to remove Underwager and Wakefield if they did not agree to resign, and that Underwager and Wakefield had agreed to "step aside" from the board until the matter could be clarified. But in a later interview, Freyd indicated that they declined to resign, and that the matter would ultimately be decided by the more than 20-member advisory board..... http://www.movingforward.org/v2n4-underwager.html Moving Forward Newsjournal Volume 2, Number 4, p. 13 July, 1993 Copyright 1993, Moving Forward, Inc. APA-style citation for this article Related article "What They Said: 'Interview: Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager, Paidika, Winter, 1993'" by Lana R. Lawrence A line drawing of a nude boy appeared on the cover of the Paidika (Vol. 3, No. 1, Issue 9 ), the publication that included the Underwager/Wakefield interview. When contacted about the article, Underwager told Moving Forward: "I haven't checked it [the article], but I'm not aware of any misquotations." Excerpts from the article follow: [Paidika:] Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual? RU [Underwager]: 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 someway 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). [Pages 3,4] [Paidika:] You say that paedophiles should affirm the fact that they believe that paedophilia is a part of "God's will." Are you also saying that for the paedophile to make this claim about God's will, is also to state what God's will is? RU: (laughing) Of course, I'm not privy to God's will. I do believe it is God's will that we have freedom. I believe that God's will is that we have absolute freedom. No conditions, no contingencies. When the blessed apostle Paul says, "All things are lawful for me," he says it not once but four times. "All things are lawful for me." He also adds that not everything works. [Page 41] [Paidika:] Still, isn't it a reasonable wish for paedophiles to want to see paedophile sex decriminalized? It may not be realistic right now in the U.S., but does that make it less legitimate a goal? RU: Oh yes, sure, sure. I mean Jesus said, "I really don't want to do this. I don't want to go up there onto Calvary." But when it came down to it, he said, "Well, OK, I'm going to walk the steps." As for decriminalization the question is really if you're not there, how are you going to get there? [Paidika:] Any advice? RU: Take the risk, the consequences of the risk, and make the claim: this is something good. Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim im that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God's will for love and unity among human beings. This is the only way the question is going to be answered, of whether or not it is possible. Does it happen? Can it be good? That's what we don't know yet, the ways in which paedophiles can conduct themselves in loving ways. That's what you need to talk about. You need to get involved in discourse,and to do so while acting. Matthew 11 talks about the wisdom of God, and the way in which God's wisdom, like ours, can only follow after. [Paidika:] You spoke about the need for paedophiles to engage in a discourse. What should that be? HW [Wakefield]: We can't presume to tell them specific behaviors, but in terms of goals, certainly the goal is that the experience be positive, at the very least not negative, for their partner and partner's family. And nurturing . Even if it were a good relationship with the boy, if the boy was not harmed and perhaps even benefitted, if it tore the family of the boy apart, that would be negative. It would be nice if someone could get some kind of 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. [Page 121] Lana R. Lawrence is the editor of Moving Forward DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
