Denial is the psychological process by which human beings protect themselves from things which threaten them by blocking knowledge of those things from their awareness.

It's a defense which distorts reality; it keeps us from feeling the pain & uncomfortable truth about things we don't want to face.

If we can't feel or see the consequences of our actions, then everything's fine & we can continue to live without making any changes.

Denial comes in many forms. It's not just for chemical dependents either. If you're human, you have denial about something: your relationships, your behavior, your health, your family, etc.

We all want everything to "be fine."

We have denial to keep us from pain.

For persons who're chemically dependent, to keep their denial is to die. In the process, they create pain for those around them & they have denial about that, too. To recover, they need to see their denial & see how it works so that they can loosen the grip of their addictions.

Denial is replaced by the truth & acceptance. To be in denial feels like anger, fear, shame & isolation. Instead of being cold & cut off from themselves & others, they can be warm & begin to grow again.

Listed below are common defenses, or forms of denial. We use all forms of denial, although there are some that become our favorites.  

1. Simple Denial: Simply denying being chemically dependent. Example:

• "You're an alcoholic.""No, I'm not."

2. Minimizing: Minimizing is admitting the alcohol-related problem to some degree, but in such a way that it appears to be much less serious or significant than it actually is. 

•  "I wasn't that bad at the party."

• "Yes, I drink, but not that much."

• "I had a couple, but I was OK to drive."

• "I only drink beer, not the hard stuff so it's not that bad."

are frequently heard examples of minimizing.

3. Rationalizing:Rationalizing is making excuses or giving reasons to justify your behavior about your drinking or using.

Examples:

• "I can't sleep, so I drink or use pills."

• "I had a hard day & was upset."

• "I usually don't drive after 1 drink but a friend needed a ride home - that's the last time I'm the nice guy!"

are some of the examples of rationalizing. The behavior isn't denied but an inaccurate explanation of its cause is given.

4. Intellectualizing or Generalizing: Intellectualizing is avoiding emotional, personal awareness of an alcohol-related problem by using theories about your chemical dependency, keeping it general & vague.

• "Are those breath machines really reliable? Just the other day I was reading about problems with them."

• "Lots of people have wine with meals, are they alcoholics?"

• "My family is alcoholic & I have the wrong genes."

• "My childhood was so bad, it's a way of coping with my underlying feelings."

These all are examples of intellectualizing.

5. Blaming: Blaming (also called projecting) is maintaining that the responsibility for the behavior lies somewhere else, not with us.

• "You'd drink too, if you were married to her!"
• "The cop was out to get me." 
• "I lost my job, that's what made me drink."

are examples of blaming. The behavior isn't denied, but its cause is placed 'out there', not within the person doing it.

6. Diversion: Diversion is changing the subject to avoid a subject that's felt to be threatening.

A common example of diversion is responding with a joke, such as

• "You wouldn't expect me to walk in that condition, would you?"

Other examples of diversion:

• "Yeah, I got drunk last night, so what's for dinner?"
• "My drinking bothers you? Your weight bothers me!"

7. Bargaining: Bargaining is cutting deals or setting conditions for when things will be right to deal with the problem. Examples:

• "I'll quit drinking if you quit smoking."
• "I'll quit when there's less stress at work."

8. Passivity: Passivity is ignoring the situation, or being it's victim.

• "I've tried to quit before, but it's stronger than me."
• "There's nothing I can do."
• "If only I had more will power..."

are examples of passivity.

9. Hostility: Hostility occurs when the person becomes angry or unpleasantly irritable when the subject of his drinking or using is mentioned, scaring or threatening people away from discussing it.

A classic example is the situation where the drinker asserts that his wife doesn't mention that he drinks too much. In fact she used to mention it, but hasn't for years because every time she mentioned it in the past he got angry & they had a fight - so, she doesn't mention it any more.

Examples of hostility:

• "l'm lousy in bed when I'm drunk? Fine, no more sex."
• "Get off my back!" "You like my paychecks, don't you?"

Denial is automatic; it's not usually a matter of deliberate lying or willful deception. Most dependent people don't know what's true or false concerning their drinking or drug use & its consequences.

They're blinded to the fact that their view of the situation doesn't conform to reality. The denial system distorts their perception & impairs their judgment so they become self-deluded & incapable of accurate self-awareness.

Denial is progressive. The denial system becomes increasingly more pervasive & entrenched as the illness of chemical dependency progresses.

Denial

A Symptom of Alcoholism

One of the most frustrating factors in dealing with alcoholism, as a relative, friend or professional, is it's almost always accompanied by a phenomenon known as "denial."

In the long path the alcoholic takes toward mental, physical & moral decline, usually the first thing to go is honesty. He simply lies about his drinking. Little lies at first.

I only had two... I haven't had a drink in a week... I don't drink as much as he does...

As the alcoholic begins to drink more & more often, he begins to hide this fact from those around him. Depending upon his circumstances he may drink openly, but usually he'll conceal the amount he drinks, by not drinking around those who are closest to him.

If someone tries to discuss his drinking with him, he simply refuses to talk about it, or dismisses it as not a real problem. After all, he's a big boy now & he can drink if he wants to, it's nobody else's business.

Clues To a Problem

But these simple acts of denial, lying about his drinking or refusing to discuss it, are clues that the alcoholic himself deep down inside knows that he has a problem. If it's not a problem, why lie about it to anyone? To protect them?

But the true alcoholic, the person that has the disease, covers up & denies his drinking out of his own feelings that there's something different or "wrong" about it. Somewhere inside he realizes that his drinking means more to him that he's willing to admit.

As the disease progresses & his drinking begins to cause real problems in his life, remarkably the denial likewise increases. Even though his sprees have gotten him into some real trouble, he denies it has anything to do with his drinking. Some say this is purely a defense mechanism.

How is this possible? Usually by the time the disease has gotten to the crisis point, he has developed a support system of family & friends who unwittingly enable him to continue in his denial.

Because they love the affable, clever & witty alcoholic, they act to protect him by covering for him, doing the work that he doesn't get done, paying the bills that he doesn't pay, rescuing him from his scrapes with the law & generally taking up the responsibilities he has abandoned.

Protecting the alcoholic

He can't come in to work today, he's got a, er, virus... We've got to get him out of jail, he'll lose his job! Then what will we do... It was my fault, officer, I said some things I should not have said...

By doing these things, they're protecting the alcoholic from the consequences of his own actions. He never has to feel the real pain caused by his drinking. They rush in to put "pillows" under him so he doesn't hurt himself in the fall. Consequently, the alcoholic never finds out how it feels to fall.

Although drinking has placed him in a helpless & dependent position, the alcoholic can continue to believe he's still independent because he has been rescued from his troubles by his well-meaning family, friends, co-workers, employers & sometimes clergymen & counselors.

The roles these enablers play to "help" the alcoholic can be just as obsessive & harmful as the alcoholic's drinking, but that's a story for another day.

With these enabling devices in place, the alcoholic is free to continue in the progression of his disease, with his denial intact, until he perhaps reaches the point of hitting bottom, at which point even the most dedicated drinker must finally admit there's a problem. But there's no way for him to ever hit bottom when it's always covered with pillows.

Stage1: Denial

The following are some of the tools used by many to shorten this difficult period.

Action Plan: Tools for Conquering Denial

The 60-Day Rule: If you're the one being neglected or left, your partner will contact you within 60-days if they really do love & want you.

According to Dr. Pat Allen, men generally need this much time to realize how they really feel about you. During this time, if children or your job aren't an issue, DO NOT contact your former partner in any way. Don't write, call, e-mail, ask about, drive by their home, workplace & hangouts or arrange to bump into them.

Each time you do, you'll prolong the denial phase several weeks or even months. Prolong the phase & you’ll prolong the agony. 

Make a note of each time you make an excuse for your partner’s negative behavior toward you

Ask your friends to remind you each time you ‘romanticize’ the ended relationship

Make a list in writing of all of the times your partner’s behavior hurt you.

• Pull it out & read it 3 times a day.

Take yourself out of the picture.

• What type of advice would you give your brother, sister, close friend or child if they were experiencing the relationship instead of you?

What is Denial?

Denial has been described as many things in many ways by many people & still I find the Webster's Dictionary definintion of denial to be most basically meaningful & accurate.

Webster's dictionary defines denial as:

"an assertion that an allegation is false...

disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing...

self denial... the reduction of anxiety by the unconscious exclusion from the mind of intolerable thoughts, feelings, or facts." 

Why Deny?

Denial is a tool that often enables a person to survive situations & abuses that they'd otherwise not be able to in any conscious way tolerate.

People deny to survive. People deny in order to attempt to avoid real or imagined losses in their lives.

An example of this would be a child who is sexually abused by an otherwise needed, relied upon & revered parent.

The child can't face or tolerate or even contemplate not being with that parent so the 'reality' of the abuse is denied.

What is real, is then held consciously or subconsciously as unreal & all that's occurred that's real is held as unreal.

This has the potential to totally invert a child's thought process so that what's logical then becomes viewed as illogical & what is illogical is considered & believed to be logical & all w/n the realm & reality of illusion, delusion, repression of memories & denial.

Individuals & especially youngsters who're sexually abused must deny to get by. This, over time becomes a way of life, a pattern like so many other aspects of one's life.

The Positive Side Of Denial

Denial functions as a buffer after unexpected shocking news, or an unexpected or traumatic experience which we may or may not be able to hold in our consciousness; it then allows an individual to collect himself/herself & with time, mobilize other, less radical defenses.

 Yes, denial is a defense mechanism & as such it's a very capable tool. Denial allows us to be where we need to be until we're ready...    until it's time for us to face what it's that we had to previously push away, whether we had any knowledge of pushing anything away in the first place.

Denial can be a costly defense mechanism emotionally, physically & in many other ways as well. But denial gives us time to muster the needed strength with which we can then cope with things... realities... truths, that we weren't previously able to deal with or talk about.

(personal note: see my column on the deceived page, this may be the problem - i have been so consistently traumatized since childhood that so many things trigger me, as well as my development of phobias, both social & specific - kathleen)

What's the difference between negative denial & positive denial?

Denial by its very nature as often been viewed as something that is negative or negative (bad) only. In fact there are positive aspects or benefits associated with denial also.

First the negative aspects of denial. In my opinion, the negative aspects of denial center around the way in which a person in denial remains stuck in the problems & or situation that they're in fact denying.

Negatively speaking, denial also can prolong our pain, it can keep us from the introspective & often intuitive reality that we need to embrace in order to change what's not working for us in our lives.

Denial costs us time & often threatens & or undermines not only our own sense of identity but also our sense of self-trust, worth & esteem. Denial is often inter-woven with a pattern of illogical -thinking which must be maintained in order that we facilitate the condition of our very denial.

To the positive aspects of denial:

Denial protects us from things that would be too annihilating for us to handle emotionally or things that we're not prepared to deal with or cope with in terms of other realities in our lives.

Some protection in these areas from certain traumas in life is a good thing to a point. Everyone reaches that point at their own crossroads upon the journey to heal should one choose the journey to heal.

Positive denial helps us set aside for briefer amounts of time that which we find difficult to face, while at the same time it allows us to peek into reality in such a way as to begin to make the necessary changes in our lives.

Positive denial tends to lead us thru our own processes of exploration of self & psyche just enough to leave us with the questions as to what is illusion & what's reality.

Illusions can often times be the precursors of reality. Thru illusions & imagination we begin to slowly challenge what otherwise has been our reality - denied & held away from true self.

Take a few moments now & reflect on how you can use positive denial to view your new reality or changing reality as a friendly & safe place.

However, you may well come up with many more ideas because you have positive denial working for you & have gained some distance from your tragedy & or the realization & recovery in memory of your tragedy or trauma.

How do you see yourself growing personally from this trauma?

• What are the mental benefits?

• What are the physical advantages?

• Emotionally, how will you grow?

• Spiritually, how are you enhanced?

• Has your sense of purpose been expanded?

• Can you contribute more?

• Can you achieve better results?

• How are your goals improved?

• How do you sense that your partnerships will be strengthened?

• YYour intimacies?

• Your friendships?

• Your collegial relationships?

• Your affiliations & networks?

Jot down whatever thoughts come to mind. You may wish to record these in an Empowerment Journal. Give yourself plenty of space to write. Accept whatever occurs to you as often as you find yourself coming up with positive illusions.

Don't be concerned if you only have a few ideas during this period. Remember, you may well be still trying to recover from the shock of your previously repressed memories & traumas as they just now or have recently surfaced. Some people only gradually see the positive illusions of their new reality.

Denial & Illusions help us Take Risks

People often use the strategy of positive denial & illusions cope w/ high-risk, but welcome, life change. Think about how positive denial can benefit you in the traumatic but desirable upheaval of marriage, a promotion, turning 21, movie to a new city?

As well as in the beginning stages of recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse. In those moments of change, it's exceptionally easy to create the illusion of the gains that are present; your mechanism of positive denial operates to block out the strenuous demands that accompany any one of those events.

When you think about it, there's little doubt that positive denial helps us take risks. How many times have you heard someone say,

"If I had known how much stress & effort this particular life change would bring in parenting, career advancement, relocation, healing etc, I'd probably never have done it."

Never Deny Symptoms

Positive denial is a valuable coping tool, but never use it to block life-threatening symptoms. Symptoms such as:

• breathing difficulties
• severe depression
• cardiovascular irregularities

need recognition & attention. Guard against denying acute distress signals that indicate you need to take some well-earned time out.

They're red flags signaling you to get the help you need to heal & return to a productive, fulfilling life. Rarely are our acute distress symptoms indications of personal weakness.

Rather they're the result of profound trauma. So be sure to slow down & get the professional help you need.

Not denying symptoms is considered to be good self-care & that can be very difficult for survivors not only in the beginning stages of recovering memories & going to therapy but for a much longer period of time.

It takes, in some cases, a long time to unravel the effects of all of the damage that was sustained by survivors when they were the innocent little children, who were the victims of the outrageous choices & acts of others.

If you've been struggling with denial, know that you're certainly not alone & that this is a very universal experience in the nature of what's a very distinct truism in the survival of such traumatic abuse & violation.

The main thing is to work at understanding your denial, identifying the root causes & sources of your denial, in other words, determining why you feel it so necessary to be in denial or to use denial as a coping mechanism, survival tool & way of staying safe.

What are the negative consequences of unresolved denial?

Unresolved denial can result in:

• Delusional thinking, leading to a feeling that everything is OK, even when it isn't.

• Greater conflict between the deniers & the non-deniers.

• Fantasy or magical thinking, allowing distorted thinking to become a habit.

• Poor problem-solving & decision-making abilities for the denier.

• The denier totally avoiding or withdrawing from everyone who knows of the loss or problem.

• The denier becoming a social recluse.

• Others avoiding the denier to avoid upsetting him with their concern, questions, or reassurance.

• Frustration for those who want to help the denier.

• A maladaptive pattern of coping with the loss or problem for the denier.

• Everyone involved in the life of the denier joining the denial; the problem isn't confronted honestly by those who can do something about it.

• Resentment by the denier of those who are confronting him about the problems or loss.

• Prolonging the time before the denier must confront the pain, hurt & suffering involved in the loss or problem.

• The denier projecting the problem or the results of the loss onto others.

• The denier's use of rationalization to explain away the problem or loss.

• Exacerbation of the very problems being denied.  

How can we confront denial in ourselves?

We can confront denial by:

• Asking ourselves honestly why we're in denial.

• Asking ourselves what are the benefits to be gained by our denial.

• Asking ourselves what's too painful to face.

• Recognizing when we're caught up in magical or fantasy thinking about our problem or loss.

• Recognizing the negative consequences that result from our denial behavior.

• Not allowing ourselves to fall back into a safe emotional zone, but to keep our emotional response open & honest.

• Recognizing when we're hiding behind a "nice" mask when discussing our loss or problems.

• Allowing ourselves to express negative or embarrassing emotions as we confront our problems (e.g., crying, feeling lost, feeling confused, or feeling scared).

• Allowing ourselves to admit to being out of control.

• Trusting others to help us with our problem.

• Admitting our vulnerability & our need for risking the loss of acceptance or approval by those who may be unable to handle our open, honest admission of our problem.

• Recognizing the negative behavior scripts that impede our ability to deal openly with problems.

• Recognizing that it's human to have problems & to experience loss; it's not a sign of our lack of value or worth.

• Refuting the irrational beliefs that block our acceptance of the loss or problems.

• Asking others to not allow us to deny or avoid the truth about our loss or problems.

• Recognizing that denial is a natural stage in the loss/grief response.

• Maintaining our sense of perspective, allowing ourselves to go thru the problems as a growth experience.

• Believing that out of failure comes success; accepting the failure as a chance for personal growth. Accepting the help of others in the aftermath of our loss.

How can we cope with denial in others?

In coping with denial in others we need to:

• Have a great deal of patience in order to allow them the time it takes to finally confront their loss or problems.

• Be accepting of the denial as a psychological defense that's a vehicle for them to retain their sanity.

• Be careful in confronting them, so that they don't run away or withdraw from reality even more.

• Be ready for their resistance in dealing with the truth about their loss & problems.

• Freely offer them our support & understanding.

• Accept them as they are, waiting to deal with the loss or problem until they're ready.

• Be ready with a rational perspective to help them refute their current irrational beliefs.

• Resist solving their problems for them; resist the desire to continue sheltering or protecting them from their loss or problems.

• Continue to let them know that there's support for them in dealing with the loss or problems. Let them face the existence of the loss or problem gently but continuously.

• Provide them with subtle means to face the problem by giving them magazine or newspaper articles, pamphlets, or books on the subject; suggesting TV & radio programs on the subject or proposing professional help.

• Recognize that if they're locked into a chronic state of denial, which is debilitating to their mental health, that a denial intervention may be necessary.

A denial intervention model

If a person close to you is using a chronic behavior pattern of denial injurious to his mental health, then the following intervention model may be useful in helping him break thru this debilitating denial.

Step 1. Prepare a written script of incidents characteristic of the target person's denial pattern of behavior.

For each incident list the following:

·         The incidents where denial was used.

·         When it occurred.

·         What loss or problem was involved.

·         What the negative consequences of the denial were.

·         What could have happened if denial hadn't been used to resolve the problem or loss.

·         Why & how this incident of denial has affected you personally.

Step 2. Seek out other people who're closely related to the target person. Ask these people to prepare a written script, as in Step 1, for incidents of denial with which they know the target person has been involved. 

Step 3. Seek out the assistance of a counselor or mental health professional, if you believe the aftermath of a denial intervention with the target person may result in that person needing to get ongoing help. Invite this profes­sional person to the intervention rehearsal (Step 4). 

Step 4. Meet with everyone who has written a script of denial incidents. Rehearse how they'll be presented to the target person. Choose a moderator for the intervention. 

Step 5. Set up a date, time & place for the denial intervention session. Make sure that all of the variables of location, timing & schedule are conducive to helping the target person relax & listen to what's being shared. (Have the session at a neutral site; not at a psychiatric hospital or chemical dependency treatment center). 

Step 6. Invite the target person to meet at the scheduled date, time & place of the planned intervention. Don't reveal the agenda of the meeting or the participants. This is important as he may resist coming to such a meeting if he suspects he'll be confronted w/his denial. 

Step 7. Bring the target person to the meeting & introduce the intent of the meeting to him. It's to share the love & concern of his family & friends who're in attendance. The family & friends are there because they're concerned about the target person's health & happiness & about how the denial pattern is affecting their relationship. 

Step 8. A moderator (selected by the group in Step 4) then introduces each intervenor, one at a time. The intervenors use the written scripts to explain all of the denial incidents. Each speaker continuously reassures the target person that he is loved. They share their concern about his welfare if he continues to use the denial pattern. 

Step 9. Once all of the intervenors have presented their scripts, the target person is faced with verbal & written evidence of the denial pattern. The moderator then shares with the target person an outline of steps to be taken to assist the person in overcoming the denial pattern. (These steps are decided by all of the intervenors at the meeting in Step 4.) 

Step 10. The target person may then be introduced to the counselor or mental health professional, if present, who shares a clinical perspective on the denial pattern & can explain what treatment is available. 

Step 11. The intervenors then let the target person react to all that has been presented. The group "problem solvers" with the target person about the next steps in breaking the denial pattern. 

When Marital Relations Become a Moral Dilemma - When one partner craves something
that the other honestly considers to be a perversion

If wife has suffered sexual trauma it is most important to first read:
When a Woman Doesn’t Want Sex 

What happens if one partner craves a particular act & the other thinks that it’s more spiritual to deny oneself that type of sex? Say, i.e., Marsha, believing it’s her only hope of reaching a climax, longs for her husband Terry to manually arouse her in foreplay.

He, however, equates that act with masturbation & regards it as morally wrong. “That’s what lesbians do!” he exclaims in horror. Should Marsha be denied & left sexually frustrated & vulnerable to extra-marital temptation, or should Terry go against his conscience?

This & many variations on the theme, is a very real dilemma that I wish I didn’t have to address, but although burying my head in the too hard basket might be a novel way of improving my looks, it can't change the fact that innumerable couples must face quandaries of this magnitude, with one partner craving something that the other honestly considers to be a perversion.

If this subject doesn’t interest you, please go to True Love

My intention isn't to make a decision for you, but to make crystal clear issues that are often fuzzy in Christian minds. You won’t agree with every view expressed below. In fact, that would be impossible because I’ll explain opposite viewpoints. The idea is to provide an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to highlight whichever views your Lord wishes you to hold.

Such spiritual revelation will probably not happen upon a single reading. Our Lord usually takes time to reveal things to us. Nor is it likely to happen without prayer. I therefore suggest the following as the first of many prayers you should offer God on this subject:

Lord, I’m so thankful that you're a God of compassion & power. I praise you that what you want for me is the greatest good your infinite wisdom can conceive. Though they might initially seem challenging, I know I’ll spend all eternity marveling at your choices for me & being thankful for every time I chose your will above my own. I ask that as I continue to read this webpage you highlight to me those parts that you wish for me to take on board. May wrong views mentioned in this webpage - whether totally wrong or simply not applicable to my marriage - just bounce off. But affirm to me, I pray, everything that you wish me to take to heart.

Please open me up to your Spirit & to your ways & expose to me any lies of the enemy that I have unknowingly absorbed. Cause me to enjoy your gifts to the full & fill me with your purity. Free me from false guilt, while softening my conscience to your whispers.

The Perfect Attitude

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3: 16).

How easy it is for the eye to slide over those words “laid down his life!” It involved devastating humiliation - stripped naked, publicly exposed & branded a criminal so depraved as to have no right to live - & indescribable physical torture. He willingly suffered what he didn’t deserve, so that we might be spared what we deserve.

That’s the type of love God wants to foster within us; not the gooey selfishness that often passes for love in romantic fiction, but the genuine article.

It's common in marriages for one partner to seem more spiritual than the other. In such cases it's important to realize that the person who seems more spiritual may not always be the one who is right, even on spiritual matters. Remember Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee & the tax collector who went to the temple to pray. The Pharisee was certain, along with almost everyone else in Jerusalem, that he was by far the more godly of the two & the tax collector would have shamefacedly agreed.

Nevertheless, in God’s eyes it was the “unspiritual” tax collector, not the pious Pharisee, who was right (Luke 18:10-14). “The man who thinks he knows something doesn't yet know as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2). “So, if you think you're standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!” (1 Corinthians 10:12).

Partners with opposite views need to approach the matter with as close to the ideal attitude as possible. You’ll see from what I describe below that the same basic attitude is expected of both partners. In reality, one partner is often more advanced in developing this attitude than the other. That’s of no consequence. What matters is that you focus on getting your own attitude right & that you eliminate all self-righteous feelings.

If you've felt superior, thoroughly, even tearfully, repent before God & your partner.

A closed mind sabotages our ability to hear from God & strong cravings or fears scream so loudly as to threaten to drown out the Spirit’s whispers. The best way to neutralize our personal bias & so heighten our ability to hear from God, is to do all we can to nurture within ourselves attitudes & desires that are opposite to those that we currently hold. This putting ourselves in our partner’s shoes is also a valuable way of reducing marital conflict.

You'll probably find the attitudes suggested below so contrary to your present beliefs as to be quite alarming. Note, however, that the aim isn't to change your behavior but to break any stubbornness, close-mindedness or smugness. These attitudes sometimes even deceptively masquerade as godliness. By freeing yourself from these attitudes you'll be better placed to double check what you believe to be God’s guidance.

The mere fact that God has given you a partner who has an opposite view to you on this matter is sufficient reason for stripping oneself of all preconceptions & humbly opening yourself up to God to completely re-evaluate your position. If you & your partner are headed for a stalemate on this issue, this is the best way to break the impasse & it's best for you to take the lead. You have nothing to fear. You don’t want to miss God’s best & unless you were mistaken the first time, approaching the matter from the opposite direction will produce the same result.

Here's another important consideration. Issues such as these inflame deep emotions. In one’s pain & frustration it's easy to start viewing your beloved as the enemy. Instead, remember Scripture’s revelation that our fight isn't with flesh & blood but with evil spiritual powers (Ephesians 6:12). You & your partner have a common enemy that would like to set you against each other. Don’t give the forces of evil a victory by fighting each other. Rather, fight this battle together, in the strength of our mighty Lord.

Both of you should:

• Face the fact that no matter how convinced you feel, you're not infallible. Be willing to start from scratch & before God re-evaluate your entire stand on this matter. Openly & convincingly admit to your partner & to God that you could be wrong & that you long to do what God says is best, no matter how much it clashes with your preconceptions.

• Foster the attitude that you'd prefer your partner to be proved right than for yourself to be proved right.

• Do your utmost to convince your partner that despite this area of difference, you still passionately love your partner & hold him/her in the highest esteem.

• Seek God for deep insight both into God’s ways & into your partner’s views & feelings.

• Recognize that sex is an undeserved gift of God & that millions of people, no more unworthy than yourself, must go thru life without a fraction of the pleasure you've enjoyed. Be thoroughly appreciative of your partner.

• Fervently seek & want only God’s will. Fight every satanic delusion that God’s will is something to fear. If this is a slight problem for you, see God’s Will for You: More wonderful than you could imagine!

• Love God so much that you would sacrifice anything for him. Trust him.

If you're the one craving the disputed act:

• Believe deeply in your partner’s sincerity & love for you.

• Although you're unlikely to be able to imagine how much this matter means to your partner, do your utmost to understand. For insight into the psychological & spiritual pressures, imagine how it would feel if your partner said that to prove your love you must regularly eat cockroaches & worship idols.

• Seriously consider that your partner’s hesitance could be the only thing keeping you from grieving your Lord.

• Recognize that if your partner is persuaded to meet your desires, that doesn't of itself indicate God’s approval. It could, in fact, make you responsible for both of you incurring God’s displeasure.

• Thru fervent prayer & constant reprogramming of your mind, foster such intense love for your partner that you'd willingly endure a lifetime of sexual frustration & deprivation for his/her sake. Make your partner’s feelings paramount.

• Genuinely long for the removal of your craving for this aspect of lovemaking. Yearn for the ability to experience full sexual excitement & fulfillment without this act.

• Believe that your loving, all-powerful Lord is able to so change things that you could receive as much pleasure & satisfaction by means acceptable to your partner as you could ever imagine experiencing from the disputed means.

If you're the one not wanting the disputed act:

• Believe deeply in your partner’s purity & love for you.

• Although you're unlikely to be able to imagine how much this aspect of lovemaking means to your partner, do your utmost to understand. Try to imagine what it would do to you if your partner thought you were perverted. Imagine what it would be like if your partner insisted you must give up what to you are important aspects of lovemaking, such as never again being allowed to kiss or to touch bare skin beyond what is physically unavoidable for intercourse.

• Seriously consider that by denying your partner you could be in grave danger of grieving God. He might possibly see you as refusing to meet your most basic spiritual marital duty & thereby abandoning your partner, exposing him/her to spiritual danger.

• Recognize that if your partner becomes willing to deny himself/herself for your sake, that doesn't of itself release you from your marital responsibility to give your partner what he/she craves. Nor does it mean that your partner will not be subjected to temptation for which God holds you responsible.

• Thru fervent prayer & constant reprogramming of your mind, foster such intense love for your partner that you would eagerly endure the most humiliating & distasteful thing in order to thrill your partner & to protect him/her from the slightest temptation. Make your partner’s feelings paramount.

• Genuinely long for the removal of whatever it is that's currently hindering you from giving your partner everything he/she desires. Long for divine confirmation that you had misunderstood when you thought this aspect of lovemaking didn’t have God’s approving smile. Long for your revulsion concerning this act to change to sheer delight in it.

• Believe that your loving Lord is able to so change you that the act you presently recoil from can become for you a most beautiful, precious, exciting & fulfilling expression of the deepest, holiest love.

Plunging In

Let’s not be too hasty is assuming a guilty conscience is the work of the Holy Spirit. I was taught as a child that my conscience is from God & even that it's God speaking. That might suffice for a young child, but it’s a dangerous oversimplification that could get anyone older into serious difficulty. (Scripture)

False guilt is one of the devil’s deadliest weapons. We all know how some people can remain so guilt-ridden after genuinely seeking forgiveness that they put more faith in deceptive guilt feelings than in Christ & in total despair they can fall away from God. Others can feel so guilty about rest that they drive themselves to a breakdown. Remember Pastor Rob (in the previous webpage)? Satan twisted Rob’s wonderful compassion for the lost until he was riddled with guilt whenever he got remotely close to giving his wife adequate consideration.

There are Christians who, even when sex is strictly for procreation, believe it's an immoral indulgence of the flesh to allow oneself to enjoy the experience. If William grew up convinced that this is the view of the Holy God, you can be sure he would suffer severe guilt pangs if he found himself enjoying sex.

As a young teen, Beth once yielded to seduction. Even though the moral context is a different as love & hate, Beth is likely to feel at least a trace of guilt on her honeymoon if she engages in the same act that had flooded her with shame so many years before. Sabrina might also feel guilt when her husband lovingly does something perfectly acceptable that happens to be identical to what a rapist once did to her. It can at times be most difficult to distinguish between Spirit-induced guilt & echoes of childhood misconceptions or largely forgotten bad experiences from the past.

On the other side, however, we dare not underplay the significance of someone thinking a particular act is offensive to God, even if it's nothing more than holding hands. Scripture is emphatic that if I'm convinced that something innocent is sinful & I deliberately go ahead & do it, then in the eyes of the God who sees my heart, I have sinned (Romans 14:14, 23; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13).

Suppose Pamela, while waiting at the hairdresser’s, picks up a women’s magazine. Ten Ways to Spice up Your Relationship catches her eye. She reads the article & goes home inspired to try something new with Don. A mixture of embarrassment & a desire to surprise Don keeps her silent, but next night she slowly introduces this new adventure into her lovemaking, sensitively allowing Don plenty of time to indicate if he feels the slightest uncomfortable about it.

Not only does he not object, it’s obvious he thoroughly enjoys it. Thrilled that she’s been able to give Don this special pleasure, Pamela looks forward to the next time she will delight him this way, totally unaware that from Don’s perspective he has just yielded to temptation. Now he’s feeling too guilty & defeated to admit it.

Such a scenario demonstrates how vital it is that a couple have full knowledge of each other’s view on every aspect of lovemaking. It's not even safe to glibly assume that one’s partner is morally comfortable with what you've been doing together for years. For your partner, it could be a serious area of defeat. Soberly talking & praying about this together is the only safe course of action. I understand the difficulty some couples have about coldly discussing such matters, but waiting until the heat of the moment is fraught with moral danger.

I suggest that Pamela should have first sought Father; lovingly submitting this matter to God as the world’s best sex expert & trusting him as the greatest authority on Don’s spirit & emotions. She could have asked God that if she shouldn’t take this to the next stage that he make it abundantly clear. Then, after having sought God’s face & given him time to answer, if she feels at peace, she should discuss it with Don, preferably in a warm but non-sexual setting & pray about it together.

Depending on how comfortable Pam is with praying &/or talking about such intimate things with Don, this might take a lot of courage & it might seem coldly clinical. However, there’s great power in it. The very act of praying together, especially about such an intimate thing, will strengthen the ever-deepening bond between them & it'll bring their loving Lord even more into this important area of their marriage.

Ideally they should yield yourselves utterly to God’s holy will & seek whatever delights him, laying their own desires at his feet & longing only for his glory & the perfection of his purposes. Never forget, however, that God’s desires include the strengthening of their marriage & the enjoyment of his gifts. They should seek God’s loving smile on all they do & be motivated not by mere pleasure nor by fear or prejudice but by a longing to be bonded more deeply & more permanently in holy matrimony, with their powerful Lord as the loving cement in that bond.

Let’s bring together what we have discovered in this & the previous webpage & examine the implications for Terry & Marsha. (You’ll recall that Marsha ached for foreplay that Terry thought was perverted.)

No matter what God thinks of the act itself, if Terry believes an act is as perverted as homosexuality & nevertheless proceeds with it, he is guilty before God of a grave offense, by the mere fact that he thought he was offending. The problem is that it can also be a serious offense to knowingly make Marsha vulnerable to temptation by denying her. What a dilemma!

We seem to have a natural tendency to assume that the godly option is always to deny oneself, but Scriptures we’ve examined show otherwise. We could paraphrase part of Proverbs 5:19 Drink your fill of marital pleasure; continually find total satisfaction in your partner. Paul said neither partner had the right to defraud the other sexually & implied it's flirting with danger to even briefly deny each other. To reinforce this principle, consider Jesus’ teaching that “whoever divorces his wife . . . causes her to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32).

It seems that by withdrawing from his wife, the man becomes responsible before God for every subsequent sexual temptation the woman is subjected to. She's still responsible for her actions, but her vulnerability to temptation is the ex-husband’s fault. (See Note) Can you see how this same principle could apply if the man didn’t divorce her but nevertheless didn’t do what he could to satisfy her?

After working their way thru the steps outlined in The Perfect Attitude maybe Terry & Marsha could begin their quest to find God’s will by praying along these lines:

Lord, we revel in your love, delighting in the fact that you, the Holy Lord, care for us so passionately that you’re delighted when we discuss intimate things with you. We thank you for entrusting to us your precious gift of sex. May we, in turn, honor you with how we use this sacred privilege.

Empower us to gather our every trace of sexual energy & focus it solely upon each other. Cause us to give & to receive total sexual fulfillment in each other.

By the power & authority of Jesus we break in our lives every concept, every thought, every fantasy & desire & every fear & revulsion that isn't of you. Free us from every inhibition & from every attempt of the Evil One to spoil your best. May we not miss the tiniest fraction of all the delights you've prepared for us. Cause us to tap into your infinite love & to express as freely as possible the vastness of the love you give us for each other.

Your will is perfect for us. It's our security, our wisdom, our joy. In your immense love you want to pour out your blessings upon us, withholding not one hint of pleasure, unless you know there is an even higher good awaiting us. So with confidence we yield to you, laying at your feet our own imperfect desires & understanding. Expand our mind. Flood us with your purity. Rid us of selfishness. Make us like you.

Cause us to think highly of each other, even though we presently differ. We thank you that good is already coming from this matter because it's causing us to involve you more than ever in this precious aspect of our union. We bring our differing views to you & ask that you reveal your holy will to us. Cause us to soon become one on this matter, so that we can say with utter conviction as they did in the book of Acts, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit & to us . . .”

Stretching Scripture to its Limits

Surely a couple is free to believe they have divine approval in banning from their sexual repertoire any act that neither partner has a desire for. Has one the right, however, to play God by enforcing on one’s marriage a definition of sin stricter than that specifically stated in Scripture, at the expense of exposing one partner to the temptation of adultery, an act which Scripture unambiguously declares to be sin?

“You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition,” complained Jesus to the Pharisees (Matthew 15:6). Their sincere attempts to be stricter than what Scripture spells out, led them to miss the clear thrust of Scripture. Could Terry be in danger of that same type of error?

Has anyone the right to take a higher moral stance than the revealed Word of God, when so doing is forfeiting one’s scripturally explicit responsibility to keep one’s partner from sexual temptation? Terry must as carefully & as openly as he can pray thru the personal implications of this.

We must be aware, however, that one can safely conclude almost nothing from the silence of Scripture.

For example, although the Old Testament clearly forbids men relating sexually with men, there is stony silence about the female equivalent - lesbianism. In fact, reference to women seems deliberately omitted:

Don't lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (23) Don't have sexual relations with an animal & defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that's a perversion (Leviticus 18:22-23).

By itself, the omission of reference to women in verse 22 doesn't seem to say a lot, but when read in context, it's startling, given the specific mention of women in the very next verse.

Moreover, this is virtually all the Old Testament says on the subject. One could build a seemingly strong, but seriously wrong, case from this peculiar omission that lesbianism must be acceptable to God. There is nothing in the Old Testament to clearly indicate otherwise. The gospels are also silent, as are the writings of Luke, James, Peter & John. Thankfully, God in his mercy included one verse (& only one) in the New Testament to protect us from making a disastrously wrong assumption (Romans 1:26-27). The Lord clearly, however, didn't expect all the previous generations to conclude that Scripture’s silence implies God’s neutrality on the subject.

Scripture’s silences are frustrating, but much of our frustration is because we often come to the Bible as if God has died & left a book of instructions. In reality, God is our ever-present teacher & personal tutor. He has thoughtfully handed us a text book - a written summary of his teaching - but he is constantly with us to guide our reading of it & to help us with our questions.

The Bible is all that God wishes to reveal to humanity as a whole, but there are additional, personal things he wishes to whisper in the ears of individuals. Personal guidance is a glaring example. We sometimes think we need to know when we don’t, but when your need to know is genuine, God will reveal it to you as you seek him. Don’t, however, expect what he tells you to necessarily be identical to what he tells others, any more than you'd expect the Lord to tell every Christian to go to Africa as a missionary.

There's a further lesson to be heeded from the mistake of the Pharisees. They thought they were taking the higher moral ground, when they were actually exposing themselves to the wrath of God by letting their “moral superiority” blind them to the virtue that God values most - love. The partner thinking that the other has perverted desires must be very wary of this deadly trap. Love “is ever ready to believe the best of every person,” (1 Corinthians 13:7, Amplified Bible). “. . . in humility consider others better than yourselves,” (Philippians 2:3).

“You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat,” (Romans 14:10).

Denial of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Also Harms Women

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander

Old Proverb

What’s bad for the gander is also bad for the goose

Richard A. Gardner

Since the 1970's, we have witnessed a burgeoning of child-custody disputes unparalleled in history. This increase has primarily been the result of 2 recent developments in the realm of child-custody litigation, namely:

• the replacement of the tender-years presumption with the best-interests-of-the-child presumption
• the increasing popularity of the joint-custodial concept

Under the tender-years presumption, the assumption was made that mothers, by virtue of the fact that they're female, are intrinsically superior to men as child rearers.

Accordingly, the father had to provide the court with compelling evidence of serious maternal deficiencies before the court would even consider assigning primary custodial status to the father.

Under its replacement, the best-interests-of-the-child presumption, the courts were instructed to ignore gender when adjudicating child-custody disputes & evaluate only parenting capacity, especially factors that related to the best interests of the child.

This change resulted in a burgeoning of custody litigation as fathers found themselves with a greater opportunity to gain primary custodial status. Soon thereafter the joint-custodial concept came into vogue, eroding even further the time that custodial mothers were given with their children.

Again, this change also brought about an increase & intensification of child-custody litigation.

The Parental Alienation Syndrome

In association with this burgeoning of child-custody litigation, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the frequency of a disorder rarely seen previously, a disorder that I refer to as the parental alienation syndrome (PAS).

In this disorder we see not only programming ("brainwashing") of the child by one parent to denigrate the other parent, but self-created contributions by the child in support of the alienating parent’s campaign of denigration (see the definition below) against the alienated parent.

Because of the child’s contribution, I didn't consider the terms brainwashing, programming, or other equivalent words to be applicable.

Accordingly, in 1985, I introduced the term parental alienation syndrome to cover the combination of these 2 contributing factors (Gardner, 1985, 1987a). In accordance with this use of the term I suggest this definition of the parental alienation syndrome:

The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a good, loving parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations & the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse &/or neglect is present the child’s animosity may be justified & so the parental alienation syndrome diagnosis isn't applicable.

The alienating parent’s primary purpose for indoctrinating (see definition below) into the children a campaign of denigration (see definition below) against the target parent is to gain leverage in the court of law. The child’s alienation has less to do with bona fide animosity or even hatred of the alienated parent, but more to do with the fear that if such acrimony isn't exhibited, the alienating parent will reject the child.

These are the primary symptomatic manifestations of the parental alienation syndrome:

1. A campaign of denigration. (see definition below)

2. Weak, absurd, or frivolous rationalizations for the deprecation

3. Lack of ambivalence

4. The "independent-thinker" phenomenon

5. Reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict

6. Absence of guilt over cruelty to &/or exploitation of the alienated parent

7. The presence of borrowed scenarios

8. Spread of the animosity (see definition below) to the friends &/or extended family of the alienated parent

There are three types of parental alienation syndrome: It goes beyond the purposes of this article to describe in full detail the differences between these 3 types. At this point only a brief summary is warranted.

• mild: In the mild type, the alienation is relatively superficial, the children basically cooperate with visitation, but are intermittently critical & disgruntled with the victimized parent.
• moderate: In the moderate type, the alienation is more formidable, the children are more disruptive & disrespectful & the campaign of denigration (see definition below) may be almost continual.
• severe: In the severe type, visitation may be impossible so hostile are the children, hostile even to the point of being physically violent toward the allegedly hated parent. Other forms of acting-out may be present, acting-out that is designed to inflict ongoing grief upon the parent who is being visited.

In some cases the children’s hostility may reach paranoid levels, e.g., they exhibit delusions of persecution &/or fears that they'll be murdered.

Each type requires a different psychological & legal approach. Further details about the diagnosis & treatment of the parental alienation syndrome have been described elsewhere (Gardner, 1992, 1998, 2001a).

Mothers as Alienators

In the early 1980s, when I first began seeing the PAS, in about 85% to 90% of the cases the mother was the alienating parent & the father the targeted parent.

Fathers were certainly trying to program their children to gain leverage in the custody dispute; however, they were less likely to be successful. This related to the fact that the children were generally more closely bonded with their mothers.

Recognizing this, I generally recommended the mother to be designated the primary custodial parent, even though she might have been a PAS indoctrinator. It was only in the severe cases (about 10%) - when the mother was relentless &/or paranoid & unable to cease & desist from the programming - that I recommended primary custodial status to the father.

I wasn't alone in recognizing this gender disparity, which was confirmed during that period by others. In my experience, the time frame during which mothers were the primary alienators was from the early 1980s (when the disorder first appeared) to the mid-to-late 1990s (when fathers became increasingly active as PAS indoctrinators).

The largest study confirming the preponderance of mothers as PAS alienators during the 1980s was that of Clawar & Rivlin (1991).

During this early period, it was quite common for mothers, with the full support of their attorneys, to not only deny that they were PAS programmers, but even went further & denied that the PAS existed.

And this denial was especially common in courts of law where their attorneys would argue that there was no such thing as a PAS & therefore, their clients couldn't be suffering with a disorder that doesn't exist.

In many cases, neither the mothers nor their attorneys could deny that the children were alienated, but would claim that the alienation was the result of abuse &/or neglect to which the children were subjected by their fathers.

Under such circumstances, confusion prevailed & "the waters were muddied," especially in the courtroom. The PAS diagnosis demands the identification of the specific alienator. Other sources of abuse &/or neglect don't produce this particular constellation of symptoms & don't focus so clearly on a specific alienator.

In this more confused environment, the mother’s diagnosis as a PAS programmer might never come to the attention of the court -especially if the lawyer was able to convince the court that there was no such thing as a parental alienation syndrome.

"PAS is Not a Syndrome"

Often, the mother’s lawyer would argue that PAS wasn't a syndrome, with the implication that it doesn't exist.

A syndrome, by medical definition, is a cluster of symptoms, occurring together, that characterize a specific disease. The symptoms, although seemingly disparate, warrant being grouped together because of a common etiology or basic underlying cause.

Furthermore, there's a consistency with regard to such a cluster in that most (if not all) of the symptoms appear together.

Accordingly, there is a kind of purity that a syndrome has that may not be seen in other diseases. For example, a person suffering with pneumococcal pneumonia may have chest pain, cough, purulent sputum & fever.

However, the individual may still have the disease without all these symptoms manifesting themselves. A syndrome is more "pure" because most (if not all) of the symptoms in the cluster predictably manifest themselves.

An example would be Down’s Syndrome, which includes a host of seemingly disparate symptoms that don't appear to have a common link. These include mental retardation, mongoloid-type facial expression, drooping lips, slanting eyes, short fifth finger & atypical creases in the palms of the hands.

There's a consistency here in that the people who suffer with Down’s Syndrome often look very much alike & typically exhibit all these symptoms. The common etiology of these disparate symptoms relates to a specific chromosomal abnormality.

It's this genetic factor that's responsible for linking together these seemingly disparate symptoms. There's then a primary, basic cause of Down’s Syndrome: a genetic abnormality.

Similarly, the PAS is characterized by a cluster of symptoms that usually appear together in the child, especially in the moderate & severe types. Typically, children who suffer with PAS will exhibit most (if not all) of the 8 symptoms described above.

This is almost uniformly the case for the moderate & severe types. However, in the mild cases one might not see all 8 symptoms. When mild cases progress to moderate or severe, it's highly likely that most (if not all) of the symptoms will be present. This consistency results in PAS children resembling one another.

It's because of these considerations that the PAS is a relatively "pure" diagnosis that can easily be made. Due to this purity the PAS lends itself well to research studies, because the population to be studied can easily be identified.

Furthermore, I believe that this purity will be verified by interrater reliability studies. As is true of other syndromes, there's an underlying cause:

programming by an alienating parent in conjunction with additional contributions by the programmed child.

It's for these reasons that PAS is indeed a syndrome & it's a syndrome by the best medical definition of the term.

"PAS Doesn't Exist Because It Isn't in DSM-IV"

Commonly, the mother’s attorneys would argue that PAS doesn't exist because it isn't in DSM-IV (1994).

The DSM committees justifiably are quite conservative with regard to the inclusion of newly described clinical phenomena & require many years of research & publications before considering inclusion of a disorder. This is as it should be.

Lawyers involved in child-custody disputes see it repeatedly. Mental health professionals involved in such disputes are continually involved with such families. They may not wish to recognize it. They may refer to PAS by another name (like "parental alienation") (Gardner, 2002a). But that doesn't preclude its existence.

A tree exists as a tree regardless of the reactions of those looking at it. A tree still exists even though some might give it another name. If a dictionary selectively decides to omit the word tree from its compilation of words, that doesn't mean that the tree doesn't exist.

It only means that the people who wrote that book decided not to include that particular word. Similarly, for someone to look at a tree & say that the tree doesn't exist doesn't cause the tree to evaporate.

It only indicates that the viewer, for whatever reason, doesn't wish to see what is right in front of him (her).

DSM-IV was published in 1994. In the early 1990s, when DSM committees were meeting to consider the inclusion of additional disorders, there were too few articles on the PAS in the literature to warrant its submission for consideration. That is no longer the case.

It's my understanding that committees will begin to meet for DSM-V in 2003. At this point, DSM-V is scheduled for publication in 2010. Considering the fact that there are now more than 135 articles on the PAS in peer-review journals, it's highly likely that by that time there will be many more.

Furthermore, considering the fact that there are now more than 65 rulings in which courts have recognized the PAS, it's probable that there will be even more such rulings by the time the committees meet.

These lists are being continually updated & can be found on my website (www.rgardner.com/refs). At the time the DSM-V committees meet, these lists will be in the proposal to include PAS in DSM-V.

Elsewhere (Gardner, 2002b) I have discussed the various alternative diagnoses that therapists might use in courts that stringently refuse to accept the PAS diagnosis at this time.

It's important to note that DSM-IV doesn't frivolously accept every new proposal. Their requirements are quite stringent & justifiably so. Gille de la Tourette first described his syndrome in 1885. It wasn't until 1980, 95 years later, that the disorder found its way into the DSM.

It's important to note that at that point, "Tourette’s Syndrome" became Tourette’s Disorder. Asperger first described his syndrome in 1957. It wasn't until 1994 (37 years later) that it was accepted into DSM-IV & "Asperger’s Syndrome" became Asperger’s Disorder.

DSM-IV states specifically that all disorders contained in the volume are syndromes & they wouldn't be there if they weren't syndromes. Once accepted the name syndrome becomes changed to disorder.

However, this isn't automatically the pattern for nonpsychiatric disorders. Often the term syndrome becomes locked into the name & becomes so well known that changing the word syndrome to disorder may seem awkward.

For example, Down’s syndrome, although well recognized, has never become Down’s disorder. Similarly, AIDS (Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome) is a well-recognized disease, but still retains the syndrome term.

"Believe the Children"

Lawyers for the mothers would often say to the judge, "Your Honor, why don’t we really listen to what these children are saying. If you don’t feel comfortable putting them on the witness stand, then bring them into your chambers. They will tell you how they feel. Let’s respect their opinions."

Judges not familiar with the PAS might be taken in by these children & actually believe that they were subjected to the terrible indignities that they described. As far back as 1987 I wrote an article advising judges about this problem & providing them with guidelines for interviewing these children (Gardner, 1987b).

Although there are certainly judges who are now more knowledgeable about the PAS than in the late 1980's, judges still play an important role in the etiology & promulgation of the PAS, especially with regard to their failure to impose reasonable sanctions on PAS indoctrinating parents.

Elsewhere (Gardner, submitted for publication), I have elaborated on this problem. The believe-the-children philosophy was - & still is -espoused by therapists ignorant of the PAS. Many therapists sanctimoniously profess that they really listen to children (as opposed to the rest of us who presumably don't).

They profess that they really respect what children want (with the implication that the rest of us don't). What they are basically doing is contributing to pathological empowerment, which is a central factor in the development & perpetuation of the PAS (Gardner, 2002c).

Again, it's beyond the purposes of this article to describe therapists’ role in the development & perpetuation of the PAS. PAS indoctrinators know well that they can rely upon most therapists to empower children’s PAS symptomatology & that they're readily duped into joining the PAS indoctrinator’s parade of enablers & supporters.

Such therapists are often brought into the courtroom to support the mother & her lawyer’s denial of the existence of the PAS & to encourage the court to "really listen" to the children.

"Those Who Make the PAS Diagnosis Are Sexist"

Because mothers were the primary alienators during this early period, PAS was viewed as being intrinsically biased against women. And I, as the person who first wrote on the phenomenon, was viewed as being biased against women & as being "sexist."

The facts are that during this time frame women were the primary alienators. Labeling those who diagnose PAS as sexist is the equivalent of saying that a doctor is biased against women if he claims that more women suffer with breast cancer than men.

And the sexist claim has also been brought into courts of law. Fear of being labeled "sexist" has been one factor in many evaluators’ eschewing the PAS diagnosis.

Denial of the PAS Has Caused Permanent Alienation

The denial of PAS has caused many men to suffer formidable psychological suffering. The lawyers of women who have been PAS indoctrinators have convinced courts that PAS doesn't exist, and therefore the children’s animosity against their fathers is justified.

an·i·mos·i·ty

   n. pl. an·i·mos·i·ties

The fact that women are increasingly suffering as target parents gives these men little solace, because many of them have lost their children permanently. In my recent follow-up of 99 PAS children, I provide compelling confirmation that the denial of PAS by courts has resulted in permanent estrangement in the vast majority of cases (Gardner, 2001c).

Fathers as alienators & Mothers as Target Parents

In the last few years, starting in the late 1990s, there has been a gender shift. Fathers, with increasing frequency, are also indoctrinating PAS into their children (Gardner, 2001b).

At this point, my own extensive experiences with PAS families have led me to the conclusion that the ratio is now 50/50, with fathers being as likely as mothers to indoctrinate children into a PAS. And colleagues of mine in various parts of the country are reporting a similar phenomenon.

Why this shift? One probable explanation relates to the fact that fathers are increasingly enjoying expanded visitation time with their children in association with the increasing popularity of shared parenting programs.

The more time a programming father has with his children, the more time he has to program them if he is inclined to do so. Another factor operative here probably relates to the fact that with increasing recognition of the PAS, fathers (some of whom have read my books) have learned about the disorder & have decided to use the same PAS indoctrinational maneuvers utilized by women.

It's probable that other factors are operative as well in the gender shift, but these are the 2 best explanations that I have at this point.

With the gender shift of PAS indoctrinators, there has consequently been a gender shift in PAS target parents.

Mothers are increasingly finding themselves victims (I use the word without hesitation) of their husbands’ PAS indoctrinations of their children. Such mothers know well that PAS exists. They read my books & say, as have the father victims before them,

"It’s almost as if you’ve lived in my house. You’re describing exactly what has been going on."

These mothers find themselves helpless. They can't get help from therapists who are still mouthing the old mantras, "PAS is just Gardner’s theory," "PAS doesn’t exist because it’s not in DSM-IV," "PAS is not a syndrome."

Their lawyers, too, will tell them, "PAS might exist, but the court will not recognize it. I can’t use the word syndrome in the courtroom. It’s the ‘big S’ word." Worse yet, many leaders in the Women’s Rights movement are reflexively chanting the same incantations, thereby abandoning the women whose cause they profess to espouse.

These mantras have become deeply embedded in the brain circuitry of most of the people the alienated women are looking to for help - therapists, lawyers, guardians ad litems & judges.

And these groups can't even turn to the Women’s Rights groups because they have long ago stridently taken the position that PAS doesn't exist, that PAS isn't a syndrome, etc., etc. We see here how those who deny the existence of PAS are adding formidably to the grief of women.

Women’s past denial & discrediting of PAS has now come back to haunt them. Women are now being injured by their own weapons, or, as the old saying goes, they're being "hoist by their own petards." (A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.)

The Relationship Between PAS & Bona Fide Abuse