I take it that the leftists are not well acquainted with the work of Sigmund Freud, who concluded from his interviews with patients and from his own dreams as an adult (!) that children are sexual beings. Setting his dreams aside and focusing on his patients, the adult women he was seeing reported to him quite a bit of sexual tension and acting out within their families. This included reports of having been molested by the father or other adult male relatives of the patient.
Freud initially believed these reports and was horrified not only because sexual abuse of children is innately horrifying, but because some of the men being accused by his patients were prominent gentlemen within his affluent social circle. Freud was subjected to enormous social pressure and damage to his reputation by the pushback to his "seduction theory" of psychopathology, i.e., that his patients had been damaged by sexual abuse within their families. He then recanted this theory and replaced it with his theories of infantile sexuality, in which he proposed that his patients must have imagined the charged and abusive atmosphere within their families.
The new idea required one to accept that children commonly have fantasy lives that include sexual relations with their own parents. The overall theory is called Freud's theory of psychosexual development, in which children are described going through a succession of stages in which sexual feelings take a specific form in relation to the child herself or himself, or towards the child's parents.
Meanwhile, another man working with a similar patient population, Pierre Janet, was also listening to sexual abuse stories from his patients. Unlike Freud, Janet persisted in his belief that the stories he was hearing were true, and were the reason that his patients had the kinds of symptoms that Freud had described in his own practice. Janet developed a comprehensive theory of the relationships between childhood trauma, including sexual abuse, and the severe form of psychopathology known in Freud's and Janet's time as "hysteria." Janet's detailed descriptions of patients' symptoms and his brilliant analysis received little acclaim from the psychoanalysts, and most of his work remained untranslated until recent years.
Thank you as always for a thoughtful and entertaining episode. I also appreciate so much that you ended on something positive. That first paper was literally sickening... thank you for reading it so we don't have to. Blech!
How many words did you just put into their mouths there?
Listen, bud, do you know any scientists? Do you believe that your brain works the same as a scientist’s brain?
I could be wrong, I suppose, but I am sensing that you are taking what you want to hear and running with it quite a bit.
My guess is that they are actually trying to say “Look around you, or imagine yourself back in your own childhood. Did you have a shit ton of sexual energy and have no idea what was actually going on because you were left to learn from peers just as clueless at the lunch table, an older sibling/relative/neighbor, or the internet before or after smartphones?
All I’m saying is to look past your immediate emotional response. You can learn from them, but they rarely tell you what you think they are.
I think anyone who are pro-sexualization of children need to have their computer hard-drives checked. Academia is just one of many hiding places for perverts.
I take it that the leftists are not well acquainted with the work of Sigmund Freud, who concluded from his interviews with patients and from his own dreams as an adult (!) that children are sexual beings. Setting his dreams aside and focusing on his patients, the adult women he was seeing reported to him quite a bit of sexual tension and acting out within their families. This included reports of having been molested by the father or other adult male relatives of the patient.
Freud initially believed these reports and was horrified not only because sexual abuse of children is innately horrifying, but because some of the men being accused by his patients were prominent gentlemen within his affluent social circle. Freud was subjected to enormous social pressure and damage to his reputation by the pushback to his "seduction theory" of psychopathology, i.e., that his patients had been damaged by sexual abuse within their families. He then recanted this theory and replaced it with his theories of infantile sexuality, in which he proposed that his patients must have imagined the charged and abusive atmosphere within their families.
The new idea required one to accept that children commonly have fantasy lives that include sexual relations with their own parents. The overall theory is called Freud's theory of psychosexual development, in which children are described going through a succession of stages in which sexual feelings take a specific form in relation to the child herself or himself, or towards the child's parents.
Meanwhile, another man working with a similar patient population, Pierre Janet, was also listening to sexual abuse stories from his patients. Unlike Freud, Janet persisted in his belief that the stories he was hearing were true, and were the reason that his patients had the kinds of symptoms that Freud had described in his own practice. Janet developed a comprehensive theory of the relationships between childhood trauma, including sexual abuse, and the severe form of psychopathology known in Freud's and Janet's time as "hysteria." Janet's detailed descriptions of patients' symptoms and his brilliant analysis received little acclaim from the psychoanalysts, and most of his work remained untranslated until recent years.
Why do none of these crazy articles even surprise me anymore?
IKR? slippery slope to hell
Thank you as always for a thoughtful and entertaining episode. I also appreciate so much that you ended on something positive. That first paper was literally sickening... thank you for reading it so we don't have to. Blech!
How many words did you just put into their mouths there?
Listen, bud, do you know any scientists? Do you believe that your brain works the same as a scientist’s brain?
I could be wrong, I suppose, but I am sensing that you are taking what you want to hear and running with it quite a bit.
My guess is that they are actually trying to say “Look around you, or imagine yourself back in your own childhood. Did you have a shit ton of sexual energy and have no idea what was actually going on because you were left to learn from peers just as clueless at the lunch table, an older sibling/relative/neighbor, or the internet before or after smartphones?
All I’m saying is to look past your immediate emotional response. You can learn from them, but they rarely tell you what you think they are.
It is clear the libs are trying to justify pedophilia
I think anyone who are pro-sexualization of children need to have their computer hard-drives checked. Academia is just one of many hiding places for perverts.
Woke scholars is an oxymoron
Oh my god. What