As may be evident, I’m still recovering from all that. But recently, quite to my surprise, I have become increasingly open, amenable and even enamored with Freud and the psychoanalytical model. That’s a (less than economical) way prefacing the fact that I’m a neophyte when it comes to Freud.
But now is not the time or place to further elaborate (in any greater detail than what I have already over shared). In my training and early career, I rejected Freudian ideas, and I gravitated to evidence based therapeutic modalities, grounded in experimental science and sound theoretical fundaments. And it has vitalized my practice, world view, sense of self, way of being. So take everything I have to say on the subject with a serious grain of salt.
(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).
Whereas the female is not comfortable with her desire, and the desire thus manifests itself as a strong aversion and the physical affects of hysteria. If you have read any of my other reviews, you may already know that I’m a reluctant and late convert to the psychoanalytic model. For those of y’all that are unfamiliar, reaction formation is a quintessential Freudian idea (posited by Anna Freud) th Wow. For example, someone who is latently homophobic or racist, who adopts an overt, reactionary, obnoxiously “woke” attitude. I became a therapist rather late in life and had a strong impulse to distinguish myself from aspects of the field that were insubstantial or otherwise unsound, maybe just to gain a sense of certainty and validity.
Clearly a feminist critique can (and has been) applied here. I also have a lot of shame regarding psychotherapy’s past foibles and transgressions.
Here, Freud outlines the core features of libido theory, his grand view of the psychology of sexuality: sexual perversion is a matter of human nature and "normal" sexual behavior only appears later in life, sexual urges begin in infancy, and these urges turn their attention outward as we mature through puberty.
Freud first wrote Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality in 1905 and spent the next two decades making major revisions to the text. It's knowledge anyway; very tempting, just like the Apple of Eden, that once you've had it, usually you'd be in the point of no return—you'd fall.
For one, and you won't read this in any reviews or general talk about this book, i I suppose having an idea of how to think about Freud's work is necessary to begin to answer what one can/does/should think about it.
For one, and you won't read this in any reviews or general talk about this book, it's surprising that the public at large has only recently begun to accept (male) homosexuality as a genuine manifestation of sexuality rather than a perversion when Freud condoned that very notion when this was published in 1905.