Do you think it's true everybody once wanted to make sweet love to their mom/dad?

Freshell said:

That said, I prefer dad stuff a lot more. 😎

Bakchos said:

Now that is because when you were trying to learn how to shit on a toilet as a kid your parents praised you too much for managing to do it, now you associate your anus with positive rewards.

Also instead of despising your father for fucking your mother, you admired him for being a so much better male and now seek validation from other males.

You just got freudied.

Seiya said:
I don't know, but I had this dream years ago, where my mom was in a tight, blue latex dress with no panties, and she bent over, as if she were presenting herself to me.

I still wonder if that dream was trying to tell me something. :P

Soverign said:


Yes that was me. Your super ego was far too resistant due to your social and cultural indoctrination. So I had to infiltrate your id to make your desire to dominate your Mother, that already existed, into a sexual compulsion. Face down to the floor ass up in the air.

Seiya said:


Whoa there, wait a minute.

What's going on here?

Bakchos said:
Now that is because when you were trying to learn how to shit on a toilet as a kid your parents praised you too much for managing to do it, now you associate your anus with positive rewards.

Orhunaa said:
Also miss me with that incestuous shit I only like that in doujins.

Kosmonaut said:
Now... Is this the best out of context quote of CD? Probably not, this is pure shit talk.

Orhunaa said:
Lol I thought penis envy meant guys envying those that are more well-endowed

Luchse said:
I most certainly had some thoughts of this kind, but they were stopped right in their tracks for it disgusts me.

Bakchos said:
The thing with sir Sigmund is that he said we felt that when we were really young, not sexually mature and that the way we deal with the realization that we will never tap our mom or dad is what defines our future sexual behavior.

All that shit of incest porn is peak Freud.

Freshell said:

Knowing my dad banged my mom only made me want to bang my dad as to place myself at the top of the dominance hierarchy, actually. Or to quote a legend himself:

Bakchos said:
I do not get why people are noping out of the thread. Is Freud just too powerful?

That can be it or you might have castration anxiety and think penis envy women that solved their realization of lack of dick badly (when solved well, they will want to birth a child with a penis) will want to either separate you from your penis or become your penis, so you go for other dick owners.

Freshell said:

I'd find that hot if it plays out like Sei So Tsui Dan Sha. I'm guessing my explanation is the correct one.

eastsip said:
Freud's been surpassed multiple times by now. Penis envy is the clearest example of how dated his theories are.

Maneki-Mew said:
At this topic again: the modern concept says that SOME people are looking for partners SIMILAR to their mother or father, because that's the relationship bond they know. Especially some abused people always get into new abusive relationships, because they are used to these patterns.
That doesn't mean they wanted to have somethinh sexual with their parents.

Bakchos said:

Yep, most modern psychology already denied Freud's theories. Still I think it is fun to play with it to showcase how surreal it all is because some people still treat them as making any semblance of sense. Jung was a much better theorist than he was and Jung's work more influential and game changing than his.

Nek0 said:
I read somewhere that people are attracted to partners who remind them of their parents. I lost interest in half my crushes after that.

traed said:
Keep in mind this is supposed to be a subconcious sexual desire so no one would consciously be aware.

However this makes his theory unfalsafiable which brings to question it's validity.

His theory of penis envy leading to the oedipus complex in females and castration anxity leads to it in males is pretty rediculous because it mistakenly assumes everyone thinks this way as a child and erroneously ties this into the oedipus complex.

His views were a product of his time and don't seem to apply today if theyeever did then.

Safeanew said:
One is aware of the subconcious, it is manifested in language as it's distortion, only by articulating it in words it becomes manifested. For example one has nervous ticks around someone, maybe it is some sickness or something, then one get the insight by some event that one is in love and everything collapses.

It is not a scientific theory, it is a method of analysis, it cannot be proven empirically, because it is a method of analysing it's own failures, that is the core of psychoanalytic procedure, to find where language fails.

The development of children is very uniform, every child's entry into language is a castration of their phallus, seperation from their symbiotic relation to their mother into the symbolic rule of the father, while one's specific parents is essential to how one's language forms, as in one learns one's parents language (most often one's mother's language), the same structure is opperative.

His views is contrary and opposed to his time, he was controversial from the very beginning by the fact that he challenged both the current gender norms/structure by making them more explicit and challenged the knowledge of doctors who treated hysteric patients as just hysteric, not worthy to listen to. The basic lesson of psychoanalysis was to really listen to hysteric patients. What was the hysteric patients trying to say with their convoluted way of expressing themselves?
The psychoanalyst just sits and listens and intervenes when approriate to help the patient express/manifest the distortion of their language.

traed said:
However I do think empirical evidence can be obtained for or against it if not now then in future perhaps.

Is the phallus supposed to be symbolic here or..?

I have no idea what you mean pertaining to language being a castration.

The rule of the father pertains to what?

How is making gender norms explicit challenging them? ... Is this not the case that his views were based on observations of what was the norm for the time in families?

Konradikon said:

I thought we'd most likely go for people who reminds us of ourselves because of the better chances of getting along with them.

Speaking for myself, I never once been attracted to someone that reminds me of my mother but more so repelled, because it's from her I experienced corporal punishment during my childhood and just left a bad impression to me as I grew up.

Going back to what you said, seems these people were brought up very well that they seek that kind of love they had with their parents too with their partners.

Nek0 said:

Well, there's the whole opposites attract theory, but I haven't had experience with the opposite gender.

As for partners who remind them of their parents, it could be like the same hair color, eyes, maybe body type. And/or personality, like maybe a partner that's really smart, or loves to cook, or talks a lot.

Maneki-Mew said:
He wasn't and that's not a psychological journal. That's "histronic personality disorder" now and quite different from what Freud believed.

Safeanew said:

While brain sciences and psychoanalysis intersect on some parts, they are moving different directions. Brain sciences study the biological organ in it's functions, this can compare/contrast to some psychological insights, but psychoanalysis with Lacan focus more on the structure of language, how it structures the intersubjective life of a person.

Safeanew said:

It is about the presence or absence of the organ and how it relates to the subject that is divided between the two.

Safeanew said:
As a baby one has a symbiotic relation with the mother's breast or attention, the castration is a seperation from this by the father that steals the mother's attention. The seperation of the breast becomes it's overbearing presence.
Language is based on this difference between symbol and the symbolized, as in the symbol replaces the symbolized, the presence of the symbol is the absence of the symbolized.

Safeanew said:

Language itself, langauge only works based on a third virtual observer. This virtual observer has many names: god, father, master, knowledge, woman.
Gut feelings is only possible with this virtual observer.

Safeanew said:

That was the most provocative part about Freud, he himself stated that all sexuality including heterosexuality is abnormal, there is no original normal sexuality. By showing the gender dynamics of his time, the absurdity of it became apparent, the traumatic element that people are not master over themselves became apparent.

traed said:
Not sure why the sudden mention of Lacan. I had to brief myself on him to see if he had anything to ad to the Oedipus complex and apparently he did however from what I read it seems his version isn't about sexual desire at least at first and the phallus is not a penis so somewhat irrelevant to the topic focus really.

I don't really follow. Is this of Freud or some other psychoanalyst?

Experience based memories aren't formed untill at least age 3 generally and even if we assume a child has emotion based subconscious mememories I can't see how those would tie into the father not the mother starting the weaning process because it is her rejection. Also didn't Freud view the oral phase as the child lacking a sense of self and the end of the oral phase is their externalization of the mother as an object to desire the attention of?

This sounds like a way of looking at it in retrospect. In it's day it wouldn't be profound even to laymens to suggest psychological immaturity of women and suggesting sexuality revolves around men. Freud certainly saw woman as inferior if you look at what has said about them and to them.

Though quite the desperate attempt of him among other psychoanalysts of trying to salvage Freud's errors instead of building something with it's own structure and terminology.

MasterGlyth said:
I'll just say that in regards to evolutionary psychology and those sorts of soft science, you can find and connect dots of facts from all sorts of places that seem to flow in a direction that sounds nice and plausible, but there are also various other strings of logic you can formulate to come to various other conclusions that also sound logical.
And people end up accepting the one that works for them and their biases probably.

Just important to keep in mind that these sorts of things are not hard science.