Abstract This paper briefly examines the debate regarding adult of childhood sexual abuse and suggests a reasoned clinical response. The perspective related to memories of abuse, as well as that of advocates of memories, are considered. It is concluded that although there is considerable rhetoric on topic, there is little definitive information to support one position or the other. A middle ground perspective, that recognizes both the legitimacy of childhood abuse and its negative influences, as well as the possibility of poor clinical practice leading to false reports of abuse, is advocated. Implications of middle ground perspective for clinical practice, training and research are discussed.Resume Cet article examine brievement le debat sur la facon dont les adultes se rappellent de la violence sexuelle qu'ils ont subie etant enfants et suggere une intervention raisonnee. La perspective des partisans de la theorie des > et celle des tenants de la theorie des souvenirs retrouves sont considerees. L'article conclut que, bien que ce sujet suscite un debat anime, il existe peu de preuves absolues pour soutenir l'une ou l'autre de ces positions. Il defend une perspective intermediaire, qui reconnait l'existence de mauvais traitements infliges a des enfants et leur incidence negative, ainsi que la possibilite de mauvaises methodes menant a de fausses declarations. Les repercussions de cette position pour la pratique, la formation et la recherche sont examinees.The literature on of childhood sexual abuse reveals a polarized debate. One side insists that of childhood sexual abuse are rarely, if ever, lost. According to perspective, recovered after a period of amnesia, are by definition almost always false. The reasoning continues that these memories are perpetrated by the suggestions of misguided, unskilled or possibly unscrupulous practitioners, who exert their influence on unsuspecting clients, sometimes destroying previously happy families in the process. The other side counters that are for real events that have been blocked due to past trauma and vulnerability. They claim that of childhood sexual abuse can appear many years after the event, in and out of therapy, when individuals feel emotionally supported. According to side, efforts to deny the truth of childhood sexual abuse or these are perpetrated by the accused (usually fathers), whose vicious attacks on the professional integrity of therapists are really efforts to protect themselves and deny personal responsibility.One side sets out to protect alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse; the other side sets out to protect potentially innocent parents from faulty accusations of abuse. Each side has its rhetoric, its tales and its warnings. Each side has responded to the claims of its opposition in an adversarial fashion. As Bloom (1995) observes, this is not [only] an intellectual war, but a war that is being fought in the media, in the courtroom and in legislative chambers (p. 274). Clinical practice has come under scrutiny. Courtois (1995) observes that while reconciliation and collaboration are sorely needed it appears that old debates and turf battles (both inside and outside of psychology) have been resurrected and applied to already complex and controversial issue (p. 295). She notes that in response to debate, U.S. state and federal legislation has been prepared that could seriously restrict the practice of psychotherapy.How can the clinician understand and learn from polarized conflict? How can the discipline and profession of psychology respond to the dialogue? This paper sets out to review the history of the debate, examine the rhetoric, summarize the evidence, and propose some solutions for informed clinical practice. …