Freud believed that neurosis was caused by the inner sexual desires being repressed by the external world.

Therefore Freud ultimate cure must be sexual freedom?

Does this Theory stand the test of time? We do have a much greater level of sexual freedom these days but has this reduced the amount of mental illness? If not, why not? Or was Freud wrong?

Freud was wrong. About pretty much everything.

It wasn't entirely his fault, though. He was speculating with very little data to go on. He just made things up that made sense to himself, used his own psyche as a universal example, and defended all criticisms of his theories with a fury unmatched.

Psychology is only now coming into its own, as a science. I think the turn of the century will be viewed, hundreds of years from now, as the beginning of modern psychology. And Stephen Pinker and Judith Harris will be the names that people remember, not Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

Studying Freud is just studying the history of psychology, not actually studying psychology. That is what stinks about into psych courses, they are really history courses. Most of that theory has been thrown out the window. Pavlov's work was discredited way back in the 60's, by a brilliant professor at Berkley, but people still teach his theories in psych classes as if there is any application in the field today.

I don't know...

look at -some- of the crimes today :

Rape - roots in sexual frustration
Robbery/Theft - pursuit of money. Money brings lots of women and power.
Drug trafficking - see 'Robbery/Theft'
etc and etc...


Many crimes, but NOT most, are rooted in sexual frustration......... I really do believe that sexual frustration is a part of the problem. The lack of a woman and the lack of sexual freedom can cause depression and bitterness. This in turn can cause someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have normally commit. No, I am not projecting. I am -happily- married.

The roots of rape do not lie in sexual frustration, that theory is as passe as Freud. Rape is a crime of anger, of control, not libido. The rapist simply uses the weapon that is easiest to carry around without arousing suspicion to perform the crime that many people consider even worse than murder, because they live to remember it. Convicted rapists volunteer to be castrated as a condition of parole but evidence indicates that doesn't work. They just find another weapon to use and keep committing acts of degrading violence.

If you're horny enough you may well fantasize about rape, but I guarantee you will never actually do it unless you're one of a very tiny minority of men who have been profoundly abused or are just wired wrong.

"Neurosis" is no longer a medical diagnosis.

Jung is hardly on the road to being discredited. His work with mythology, dreams, and the collective unconscious gives us a much-needed insight into why seeming aberrations such as religion keep popping up over and over, with the same recycled motifs. Any body of work as large as his is bound to have bits of it successfully challenged, but his basic paradigm is sturdy enough and adaptable enough to withstand it.

The roots of rape do not lie in sexual frustration, that theory is as passe as Freud. Rape is a crime of anger, of control, not libido.

That theory is now passe as well. That is the politically correct version that came out of the feminist movement, when it became popular to see all sex as violence.

Evolutionary psychology sees rape as a last-ditch effort attempted by a genetic code that is not able to be passed down through normal means. It is resulted from rejection, and it is 100% about procreation, not about control.

The quaint theory that you are talking about never took into account the prevalence of rape in the animal kingdom outside of homo Sapiens. Trust me when I say that ducks are not raping other ducks in a display of anger and control. They are trying to have baby ducks.

Evolutionary psychology is a much better descriptive and predictive framework for understanding humans. It has had more success in a short period of time than 100 years of Jungian thought. You are quite correct to say that Freud's time has passed, but so has almost all of behavioral and psychodynamic psychology.

Rape comes from sexual desire and such.

Anyway, I guarantee a lot of people would be happier if their sexual desires were satisfied. Human touch is essential. Lack of sexual gratification brings depression and frustration. Feelings of rejection, unworthiness, humiliation, etc....

I think you must understand Psychoanalysis to realize just how accurate it has become since Freuds initial conception of it. That being said I think the act of rape (something I've had fantasy's about) in itself is sexual in nature. No doubt you've heard of woman being victimized by a rapist that bonded, tortured, an controlled them however this isn't always the case. Most of the time men just are seeking sexual arousal an if the woman isn't consious it really doesn't matter to them.

So where does that leave it? I think Lack of sexual intercourse brings on depression, frustration, feelings of rejection, unworthiness, humiliation, loneliness, longing, despair, mostly because I've experienced those first hand. I am on antidepressants to keep from feeling so bad over it all, but while Freud would say the limbido is the cause he would also suggest there was an underlying unconsious reason for the limbido to be so skewed from the norm.

Sderenzi:

Why don't you simply find yourself a woman if you feel depressed over not having sex?

... an if the woman isn't consious it really doesn't matter to them.

Not according to anything that I have ever heard from a woman, so I doubt your sincerity on this.

Did anybody ever actually agree with you on the subject, or is your would be symptom of psychosis rather intended to bait us?

--- Ron.

I meant matter to men, not to woman man. Of course a woman is gonna care, but a guy could care less.

I meant matter to men, not to woman man. Of course a woman is gonna care, but a guy could care less.

So what matters to a woman is not to matter, beside the point?

Do you mean to cause offence with this, or stupid?

Sex is a matter of union, mattering to both, literally, really.

--- Ron.

He is talking about rape.
When a man rapes a woman, the rapist usually doesn't care if she is conscious or not. That is what he is saying. To be honest, he's right. The majority of the time, the woman is drugged or knocked out unless the rapist WANTS her to be awake.

When sderenzi said, " an if the woman isn't consious it really doesn't matter to them." he meant " an if the woman isn't consious it really doesn't matter to the man."

i think you misunderstood him

When a man rapes a woman, the rapist usually doesn't care if she is conscious or not. That is what he is saying. To be honest, he's right. The majority of the time, the woman is drugged or knocked out unless the rapist WANTS her to be awake.

Do you have some statistical evidence to substantiate that?

--- Ron.

Do you have some statistical evidence to substantiate that?

--- Ron.
first, do you acknolwedge you misunderstood him?

first, do you acknolwedge you misunderstood him?

No.

Did you read his previous thread about it?


....if the woman isn't even aware she's having sex then there isn't any reason she'd be tramatized by it.

--- Ron.