This chapter explains why the loss and recovery of trauma memory is considered to be controversial. It also explores the historical themes that maintain or exacerbate the controversy. Consensus papers have appeared in scientific journals, at times written jointly by clinical researchers and non-clinical cognitive researchers. The chapter emphasizes that extremity is obviously in the eye of the beholder and details a few of the historical sources of the zealotry. The acrimony that has fueled the debate on recovered memory has abated in most arenas, clearing the way for scientific research that has clearly established the reality of the phenomena of both false memory (FM) and accurate recovered memory. Further work will benefit from a clearer distinction between the study of phenomena (both recovered and FM) and their mechanisms (suggestion, repression, and dissociation), and direct and forthright debate about the nature and weight of types of evidence.

The issue of selective forgetting of childhood sexual abuse has produced very complicated and sometimes confusing arguments. Essentially, they revolve around the question of whether or not trauma can be forgotten and later remembered. Early advocates of the concept of selective forgetting took the extreme view that all instances of recovered memories have historical truth. The challenge to the notion of selective forgetting is consistent with evidence from patients suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In these cases, memories for trauma intrude into consciousness and are remembered unintentionally. The individual would prefer not to remember details of the trauma; yet, thoughts and memories of the trauma cannot be controlled. Many people's lives have been profoundly affected by the phenomena of recovered memories: parents who have been falsely accused; retractors (people who recover memories and later retract their accounts), and people who recover memories of genuine childhood sexual abuse.