That's why I believe reading Freud when you are younger than 21 will cause distress and great hazard for your mental and physical health (yes, worse than cigarettes). I couldn't stop thinking about stuff like, Where do children come from? The complement to this tendency, the curiosity to see other people's genitals, probably only becomes apparent rather later in childhood, when the obstacle of the feeling of shame has already become fairly well developed. I admire Freud in a similar way to that which I encounter Augustine.Therefore if I were the president of the country, I'd place Freud works in a special, locked cabinet and label it something like READING FREUD SERIOUSLY HARMS YOU AND OTHERS AROUND YOU. Despite glaring mistakes, there is a pellucid grace to the prose.
The fact that Freud basically theorizes that the first few years of a person's life will dictate how that person forms relationships with others (esp.
amorous relationships) should be enough to put every potential and actual parent on full alert.
The excerpt read like this: Contact between the child and its carer is, for the child, an endlessly flowing source of sexual stimulation and satisfaction of erogenous zones, particularly since the carer—more generally the mother—bestows upon the child feelings derived from her sexual life, stroking, kissing and rocking the child, and quite clearly taking it as substitute for fully valid sexual object. We are not in a position to give so much as a hint as to the causes of these temporal disturbances of the process of development.
My friend I showed an excerpt of Freud's writing to my friend over lunch earlier this afternoon. A prospect opens before us at this point upon a whole phalanx of biological and perhaps, too, of historical problems of which we have not even come within striking distance.
(Freud notes that we are all born sexually "polymorphous") Freud, however, did not invoke the reductionist biological theory often heard today, but instead poses an interesting little theory about identification with a strong female early in one's life (If anything, Freud might concede that one is biologically predisposed to identify with such a strong female, but the presence of said person is obviously completely up to circumstance). Freud theorizes about female sexuality, but the fact that he bases it on male sexuality makes it dubious from the start.
I haven't read the feminist literature on Freud, though I'd be interested in doing so. At any rate, this book is worth reading and maybe even reading again (it's only like 160 pages).
So, do Freud's theories hold up under the nearly 100 years of criticism and revision (some friendly, some not)? But, reading the original is the best way to even begin to form an opinion of how and what one should think about Freud."Moreover, the kiss, one particular contact of this kind, between the mucous membrane of the lips of the two people concerned, is held in high sexual esteem among many nations (including the most highly civilized ones), in spite of the fact that the parts of the body involved do not form part of the sexual apparatus but constitute the entrance to the digestive tract."Freakin' Freud, man. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, during the time of peak therapy weirdness i.e.
Is this the book that takes your innocence away, corrupts every fiber of your being and makes you think of anything but pure love when you see a mother breastfeeding her child? psychodrama, primal therapy, and all other forms of cringeworthy catharsis oriented human potential movement, new age hippy shit.
This assertion may have tacitly implicated some of the rich and powerful men in Freuds community as perpetrators of rape and incest.
In later editions of Three Essays, Freud included the (rather repugnant) concept of penis envy, to explain the symptoms of his female clients.