Mexican families are really close, they never had Freud so mothers and sons are really close too. That said, most Mexicans would say that's too close.
Mexican families are really close, they never had Freud so mothers and sons are really close too. That said, most Mexicans would say that's too close.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
uh no. It's not used anymore and back in the "good ole days" pretty much anyone could drive a spike through your frontal cortex.
- - - Updated - - -
Modern psychology incorporates all schools of thought and most of Freud's work is still recognized. Transference is a thing, the stages of development in children is still recognized such as the phallic stage, penis envy occurs in some women, etc. About the only thing that's debated is his analysis of dreams and whether or not they are substantial.
You and vain are the ones out of touch... I studied psychology as my undergrad at a top 10 university. I'm fairly certain I remember most of it.
Why are people separating lovers?
Makes no sense i don't care if they are also mother and child.
Love TRUMPS all.
When I bang my sister we always use protection
How long ago? Because things change. I'm not out of touch at all in saying that Freud is no longer held as fact, they look at his ideas but they by no means teach him as fact anymore. I just graduated university this past year so I assure you, Freud's theories are not being taught as if they were correct.
I'm not saying ALL of them are correct either. As I said some are partially correct or completely wrong, but important to learn since everyone's mind is different. I graduated 4 years ago. There wouldn't be much of a difference. Your broad assertion that the "majority of Freud's work" is wrong is false. Even the lay person has experienced a Freudian slip.
Very few psychologists if any that I can recall haven't had some work disproven by now, but it's amazing how much of his work still holds up. He is the most recognizable figure in psychology and that's why I mentioned it to Vain, but it's clear he was just trolling by his grammar and repetition.
Last edited by Aboubacar; 2016-08-10 at 01:50 PM.
One or two things here and there, or being partially right about something, or laying the ground work for someone else to be right while being totally wrong, doesn't change the fact that most of Freud's ideas are not held as fact. The point is you are talking about the Oepidus Complex and claiming everyone subconsciously wants to have sex with their own parent when that is bullshit.
A shame it's not father son, since it's a heterosexual relationship they'll probably get the gas chamber
No... A lot of people subconsciously want to have sex with their parents and it is normal. We are way too repressed about sex. Especially fetishes. If you mention anything other than missionary people think it's disgusting.
Also facts:
Freudian slips
transference
existence of libido
developmental phases of the oral, the anal and the phallic
Last edited by Aboubacar; 2016-08-10 at 01:58 PM.
You based your claim on dreams and Freud's interpretation of them, then admitted that his analysis of dreams is not held as fact. We don't know why we dream about what we dream about. If you tell someone not to think about something disgusting they generally involuntary end up thinking about said disgusting thing. So no, just because Freud said having a dream about something like that is evidence that you subconsciously want the thing you dreamed about, does not mean he was correct. And you even already said it yourself.
The thread isn't about dreams. It's about sex between parents and children of legal age. Having a dream about it is just an example of how an every day person may encounter this. It's been documented, but there's no reliable numbers saying how many due to memory issues with dreaming and dreams not being fully understood yet. I'm simply trying to spread a culture of acceptance for sexual practices that do not harm anyone.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-sti...ost-1055800815
There’s no proof of the id, ego, or superego. There’s also no evidence to support the notion that human development proceeds through oral, anal, phallic, and genital stages. Nor that the interference, or arresting, of these stages leads to specific developmental manifestations.
The developmental stages are still taught and can be observed in any infant you come across today. Gizmodo isn't exactly a scientific source. It's a tech news site where you'd go to read about the latest hoverboard or graphics card.
Freudism or any psychology isn't used as much today because people are too lazy to commit to talk therapy, which he also had a hand in creating, and they just pop whatever their upper or downer of choice is.
Last edited by Aboubacar; 2016-08-10 at 02:15 PM.
You're the one who brought it up. Either way, whether it is harmful or not doesn't mean it's normal or subconsciously held in many people. Did you know that the most common taboo in all societies around the world is the incest taboo? Different cultures have different standards of what counts as incest but incest is by far the most common taboo around the world. Whether it is harmful or not, in a case like this where it is clear the child wasn't groomed for it because he was not raised by her, no it's not harmful. But good luck trying to make incest "normal" and not have people judge it because back in the day Freud said everything related to sex and your parents.
Hmf...something like this should probably be discouraged.
I made sure it had sources at the end of the article (actually those are just the ones not cited, there are source links throughout) before I linked it. Developmental stages in babies are not talked about as relating to sex these days, at least not that I've ever heard or seen.
I'm not attracted to my mother but the thought of having sex with a mother figure turns me on
NIMBYism...
Because not a whole lot of people want that around their own...children or other...