According to you, its perfectly natural behaviour. And since you implied I was guessing, I assumed you must have evidence.
The "homophobic" lie
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
According to you, its perfectly natural behaviour. And since you implied I was guessing, I assumed you must have evidence.
OEDIPUS COMPLEX
Introduce Topic
Recommended Resources
Course Assignments
INTRODUCE TOPIC
I stress the dynamics of poor boundaries in families rather than explicit sexual incest. I always have at least one student who knows a family in which mother and son are overly flirtatious or father and daughter are inappropriate confidantes, for example. This makes the topic more approachable, less threatening, so students are open to thinking about it rather than immediately dismissive.
ALSO, very important and helpful: I first ask the class, where does the name OEDIPUS come from? They know it's Greek, and I stress the fact that Freud did not invent the idea of oedipal dynamics, the Greeks had already recognized them, and Freud just talked about it more clearly. This is extremely important because otherwise students think Freud is a sick weirdo who had sexual feelings for his mother and he's unique in that.
Rhonda Reinholtz, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer
University of Wisconsin-Madison
rreinholtz@wisc.edu
*****
I spend quite a bit of time on this, with a reading and class discussion. I think this is one of the most misunderstood concepts, with the most anti-Freud propaganda about incest. I emphasize that the child is too young to have adopted the incest taboo, but develops it through the parents' responses to the Oedipal/Electra conflicts.
Matthew Westra
Psychology Coordinator
MCC-Longview
Matthew.westra@mcckc.edu
http://www.mcckc.edu/~westra/WESTRA.HTML
*****
You were ONLY three OR FOUR YEARS OLD when you thought your mother was a goddess. Why does this seem so unlikely to you? Think about your parents having sex. Why is that so repulsive?
*****
I spend an entire 3-hour lecture on this. I explain that it's based on an integration of the physical pleasure from masturbation with attachment to both parents from previous development. Then 'the fun begins', meaning all the conflicts about babies (which both boy and girls want) and penises (which both boys and girls want). I explain that children want everything because they're 2 o 3 years old! How could they know? I also add that the way parents handle the children's masturbatory play and questions, as well as nudity and discipline, affects children. I usually say that psychoanalysts differ from other mental health types because we believe 'parenting counts.'
Jerome S. Blackman, M.D.
Adjunct Professor of Psychology
Virginia Wesleyan College
Jsbmd1@cox.net
jblackmanmd@aol.com
*****
I teach it, but because students are likely to take overly simplify it, I downplay it some. I point out that its not the only stage and yet its important because of the triad that replaces the child's former dyadic relationship.
*****
Here I am careful. Of course we love our parents! Of course little girls flirt with, love, and want someone with dad's special qualities (and moms matter too!) and little boys. Too much oedipal material makes adolescents in a class edgy. A little at a kind of sensible level can be talked of. I stay at the sensible level.
*****
I explain the concept. I give real examples that I make up about: college students, high school students, parents of these student, professors people in their world. I don't use jargon without defining it. Then, I ask them to explain and to give examples from the people around them. I am very careful about articulating ground rules (i.e. not writing about other people in the community).
Lynn Friedman, Ph.D.
Adjunct Faculty
Carnegie Mellon/ Johns Hopkins University
Email: drlynnfriedman@comcast.net
www.drlynnfriedman.com
*****
I talk about the Oedipal phase as a time when children come to terms with the painful reality that some relationships do not, and never will, include them. I say something along the following lines: “Up until about three or four, children believe that the only relationships are ones that involve them. A toddler knows that she has a relationship with her mom and with her dad, but gives no thought to the fact that her mother and father have a relationship with each other. Toddlers are often quite pained and shocked when this reality dawns on them. They feel small and excluded as they become aware that the two people who they love best have an exclusive relationship from which they will always be excluded. Not surprisingly, this gives rise to a toddler’s efforts to intrude on the relationship, to compete with the same-sex parent for a place in the relationship (because toddlers put together the boy-girl aspect of the parental relationship) and so on. To pass through the Oedipal phase successfully, children need help coming to terms with the reality that their role in the family differs from that of the adults, that they are children and will be so for a long time, and that eventually the time will come when they can have an exclusive romantic relationship of their own.” Put this way, students seem to appreciate why the Oedipal phase is so ubiquitous and so crucial to personality formation.
Lisa Damour, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor of Psychology
John Carroll University
ldamour@jcu.edu
Introduce Topic
Recommended Resources
Course Assignments
INTRODUCE TOPIC
I stress the dynamics of poor boundaries in families rather than explicit sexual incest. I always have at least one student who knows a family in which mother and son are overly flirtatious or father and daughter are inappropriate confidantes, for example. This makes the topic more approachable, less threatening, so students are open to thinking about it rather than immediately dismissive.
ALSO, very important and helpful: I first ask the class, where does the name OEDIPUS come from? They know it's Greek, and I stress the fact that Freud did not invent the idea of oedipal dynamics, the Greeks had already recognized them, and Freud just talked about it more clearly. This is extremely important because otherwise students think Freud is a sick weirdo who had sexual feelings for his mother and he's unique in that.
Rhonda Reinholtz, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer
University of Wisconsin-Madison
rreinholtz@wisc.edu
*****
I spend quite a bit of time on this, with a reading and class discussion. I think this is one of the most misunderstood concepts, with the most anti-Freud propaganda about incest. I emphasize that the child is too young to have adopted the incest taboo, but develops it through the parents' responses to the Oedipal/Electra conflicts.
Matthew Westra
Psychology Coordinator
MCC-Longview
Matthew.westra@mcckc.edu
http://www.mcckc.edu/~westra/WESTRA.HTML
*****
You were ONLY three OR FOUR YEARS OLD when you thought your mother was a goddess. Why does this seem so unlikely to you? Think about your parents having sex. Why is that so repulsive?
*****
I spend an entire 3-hour lecture on this. I explain that it's based on an integration of the physical pleasure from masturbation with attachment to both parents from previous development. Then 'the fun begins', meaning all the conflicts about babies (which both boy and girls want) and penises (which both boys and girls want). I explain that children want everything because they're 2 o 3 years old! How could they know? I also add that the way parents handle the children's masturbatory play and questions, as well as nudity and discipline, affects children. I usually say that psychoanalysts differ from other mental health types because we believe 'parenting counts.'
Jerome S. Blackman, M.D.
Adjunct Professor of Psychology
Virginia Wesleyan College
Jsbmd1@cox.net
jblackmanmd@aol.com
*****
I teach it, but because students are likely to take overly simplify it, I downplay it some. I point out that its not the only stage and yet its important because of the triad that replaces the child's former dyadic relationship.
*****
Here I am careful. Of course we love our parents! Of course little girls flirt with, love, and want someone with dad's special qualities (and moms matter too!) and little boys. Too much oedipal material makes adolescents in a class edgy. A little at a kind of sensible level can be talked of. I stay at the sensible level.
*****
I explain the concept. I give real examples that I make up about: college students, high school students, parents of these student, professors people in their world. I don't use jargon without defining it. Then, I ask them to explain and to give examples from the people around them. I am very careful about articulating ground rules (i.e. not writing about other people in the community).
Lynn Friedman, Ph.D.
Adjunct Faculty
Carnegie Mellon/ Johns Hopkins University
Email: drlynnfriedman@comcast.net
www.drlynnfriedman.com
*****
I talk about the Oedipal phase as a time when children come to terms with the painful reality that some relationships do not, and never will, include them. I say something along the following lines: “Up until about three or four, children believe that the only relationships are ones that involve them. A toddler knows that she has a relationship with her mom and with her dad, but gives no thought to the fact that her mother and father have a relationship with each other. Toddlers are often quite pained and shocked when this reality dawns on them. They feel small and excluded as they become aware that the two people who they love best have an exclusive relationship from which they will always be excluded. Not surprisingly, this gives rise to a toddler’s efforts to intrude on the relationship, to compete with the same-sex parent for a place in the relationship (because toddlers put together the boy-girl aspect of the parental relationship) and so on. To pass through the Oedipal phase successfully, children need help coming to terms with the reality that their role in the family differs from that of the adults, that they are children and will be so for a long time, and that eventually the time will come when they can have an exclusive romantic relationship of their own.” Put this way, students seem to appreciate why the Oedipal phase is so ubiquitous and so crucial to personality formation.
Lisa Damour, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor of Psychology
John Carroll University
ldamour@jcu.edu
Oh come on. This is a foundational topic in modern psychology. Do a bit of google, will ya?
Yeah Baron I am done with her.
Sure was, although it is a valid point. But Orleander freaks out when you call her son "lacking in common sense," lucifer's angel has threatened to "track me down" over something someone else said about her child, and now you're swearing, which you haven't before, because SAM suggested that your son might be attracted to you - which would follow from your assertion that children might sometimes be attracted to their parents.
Actually, its a dated concept in psychology. Both Adler and Popper have refuted Freud since eons for being nonscientifc.
Notes around
Why should I bother providing you information you're not going to pay any attention to? If you'd be so cooperative as to tell us what proof looks like to you, then maybe we might be able to figure out how to explain it in terms that you will both accept and understand. However, you've pretty much said that there is no proof whatsoever, so it's not about continuing to state the obvious and known, but, rather, finding a way to communicate this to you.
In the meantime, all you can do is hump Godwin's leg while complaining that I'm not serving you course after course of information that you don't want.
Furthermore, since your rejection is based in your contrarian crusade that focuses not on the information in question but the individuals broadcasting it, all you're doing is creating chatter to avoid thinking about your own fears of inadequacy. In your case, Max, I'd say the fear stems from ignorance about yourself, which prevents you from learning certain things about others, thus creating a broad ignorance that scares the hell out of you.
I mean, look at you: You're making noise because nobody can provide you with the perfect proof that you'll reject anyway.
Reasonable people generally don't pretend that life provides perfect proof.
It's rather quite amazing. Maybe someday I'll film the goings-on at my brother's place during (American) football season, or baseball season. It's a curious set of circumstances:
It is worth noting that I was called out by a friend in front of W once upon a time in Vegas. W ... took it strangely, entering a complex denial of the fact and nature of the discussion. Everyone suspects that W will drop the front when confronted with a homosexual in the social circle; none who have enjoyed the love that dare not speak its name have bothered testing the thesis, since it's not a functional homophobia.
It's the kind of homophobia gays will put up with because it is at once celebratory and defensive.
And it sets a tough standard for Sciforums' homophobes. Compared to the complexities I can witness in people I know, the frozen-vegetable simplicity of the homophobic justifications around here is insulting to the very concept of intelligence. Take Draqon, for example ....
Touché, Draqon.
Baron Max said:
Why should I bother providing you information you're not going to pay any attention to? If you'd be so cooperative as to tell us what proof looks like to you, then maybe we might be able to figure out how to explain it in terms that you will both accept and understand. However, you've pretty much said that there is no proof whatsoever, so it's not about continuing to state the obvious and known, but, rather, finding a way to communicate this to you.
In the meantime, all you can do is hump Godwin's leg while complaining that I'm not serving you course after course of information that you don't want.
Furthermore, since your rejection is based in your contrarian crusade that focuses not on the information in question but the individuals broadcasting it, all you're doing is creating chatter to avoid thinking about your own fears of inadequacy. In your case, Max, I'd say the fear stems from ignorance about yourself, which prevents you from learning certain things about others, thus creating a broad ignorance that scares the hell out of you.
I mean, look at you: You're making noise because nobody can provide you with the perfect proof that you'll reject anyway.
Reasonable people generally don't pretend that life provides perfect proof.
• • •
S.A.M. said:
It's rather quite amazing. Maybe someday I'll film the goings-on at my brother's place during (American) football season, or baseball season. It's a curious set of circumstances:
• None are acknowledged homosexuals.
• The decades-long joke is that S is homosexual.
• S has had a girlfriend for most of that time.
• B is the suspected closet homosexual; a fashion-plate, a job as a flight attendant, a girlfriend who always lives in a different city, and a really strange photo of B and J standing shirtless together atop a mountain.
• A likes to date "barely legal" girls, views more porn than most are willing to admit to, and makes the most affectionate jokes about having homosexual relations with his roommates.
• W is the most demonstratively homophobic, which everyone knows is a front.
• The decades-long joke is that S is homosexual.
• S has had a girlfriend for most of that time.
• B is the suspected closet homosexual; a fashion-plate, a job as a flight attendant, a girlfriend who always lives in a different city, and a really strange photo of B and J standing shirtless together atop a mountain.
• A likes to date "barely legal" girls, views more porn than most are willing to admit to, and makes the most affectionate jokes about having homosexual relations with his roommates.
• W is the most demonstratively homophobic, which everyone knows is a front.
It is worth noting that I was called out by a friend in front of W once upon a time in Vegas. W ... took it strangely, entering a complex denial of the fact and nature of the discussion. Everyone suspects that W will drop the front when confronted with a homosexual in the social circle; none who have enjoyed the love that dare not speak its name have bothered testing the thesis, since it's not a functional homophobia.
• During major sporting events, one game to play is called the "Gay-off" (derived from "playoff", as the game was invented during one or another playoff season). The object is to identify the gayest-sounding statement made, either on television or by someone else in the room.
• The salute made when the favored team does well is called "fisting"; when the team scores, a "double fist" is invoked, and all men in the room are expected to gather together and punch fists together. This results in many statements of, "Who didn't I fist?" and "Fist me."
• When mundane guests are present, A seeks to unsettle them by making affectionate jokes about W and B. Nothing unsettles a co-worker's girlfriend like hearing about big, sloppy ejaculations all over the leather sofa. Okay, except maybe hearing about being f@cked in the ass until you can't tell when you're shitting yourself.
• The salute made when the favored team does well is called "fisting"; when the team scores, a "double fist" is invoked, and all men in the room are expected to gather together and punch fists together. This results in many statements of, "Who didn't I fist?" and "Fist me."
• When mundane guests are present, A seeks to unsettle them by making affectionate jokes about W and B. Nothing unsettles a co-worker's girlfriend like hearing about big, sloppy ejaculations all over the leather sofa. Okay, except maybe hearing about being f@cked in the ass until you can't tell when you're shitting yourself.
It's the kind of homophobia gays will put up with because it is at once celebratory and defensive.
And it sets a tough standard for Sciforums' homophobes. Compared to the complexities I can witness in people I know, the frozen-vegetable simplicity of the homophobic justifications around here is insulting to the very concept of intelligence. Take Draqon, for example ....
• • •
Draqon said:
Touché, Draqon.
This is such bad methodology.
"Green fairies exist. My evidence is this paper I wrote about the wing length of green fairies."
"Green fairies exist. My evidence is this paper I wrote about the wing length of green fairies."
Don't lie and twist my words and ignore the current Phd respondants I just posted.
Freud is a reference point only. The oedepal phase is well recognized in current psychology.
Get over it.
And a simple Wikipedia search on Foucault is enough to debunk the entire industry.
Hmm I suggest you read some Adler. Freud is passe and only appeals to closet homosexuals who enjoy sucking on cigars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Adler
Ever heard the term "addle minded"? Wonder where it came from?
I did. It is about as valid a scientific concept as green fairies are.
From those who did not coke up and think little boys were horny for their mummies?
That's such a well reasoned argument, I think I'll just capitulate and thank you for setting me straight.From those who did not coke up and think little boys were horny for their mummies?
Pretty much. Unless you can back it up with more than recovered memories.
Then why the hell are we even discussing a psychological attribute of human beings in the first place?