Apart from the renewed worry that Trump might be re-elected, I'm struck by what an immense difference it would make to people, if they could simply accept the fact that it's perfectly normal to feel certain things in certain situations. In fact, there's something wrong if you DON'T feel those things. Like stop feeling bad about feeling shy in a new naked encounter in a relationship, stop apologising for crying at funerals, stop worrying that you don't know what you're doing on your first day at a new job etc etc etc That SIMPLE message, so difficult for people to adopt, would make such a difference. Thought provoking as always, thank you.
Hi Mr. Carveth, thanks for your continuous effort of putting up comprehensible and interesting lectures, I've been a follower for quite some time now. I've been wondering what your opinion of Jung and his ideas might be, also regarding similarities and differences to other analytical theorists.
Actually, in my 20s, I found my way to Jung Before I got to Freud, but I soon form the impression that they wanted to kind of hold their nose is and make a mad dash through what they call the shadow, Freud’s personal unconscious, and quickly get to the mystical and the mysterious archetypes. I personally had problems to deal with in my shadow and shows a Freudian analyst with him to do this with and I’ve been a Freudian/Kleinian ever snce. I know that, especially in the UK, many Jungians have integrated a great deal of object relations thinking.
Doctor Carveth, have you ever read any of the paper by Bernard Apfelbaum? He was a sex-therapist who worked in the Berkley California area. He describes himself as an ego-analytic psychologist in his writing and has written some of the most interesting theoretical articles about sexuality and clinical intervention in sex therapy that I have read. Not sure what to make of him or if its appropriate for me to suggest something for your interest. Here is a link to some of his writing that have been preserved by some his colleagues: egoanalysisessays.wordpress.com
Thanks for these interesting considerations. Maybe you might give me an answer on this question: In your videos as well as at other authors I often wondered about the basis of what seems to me like a moral frame. I always wonder with this issue, on which basis one can view destructiveness as a perversion and constructiveness as "normal". I agree and like the view of "there is no normal sexuality and therefore no perverse sexuality" because of us being denatured animals. But which frame is it, that then enables this judgement on love vs hate, necrophilia vs biophilia and so on. When I try to deduce such a frame it seems to lead me to a biological reductionistic viewpoint. And this viewpoint seems to take away some of the existential freedom of a human life.
Well you are right, there is a moral frame, because there is conscience separate from superego. Conscience does have a biological grounding: primates show caring and cooperation; babies a few months old know right from wrong. As mammals and primates we come equipped with this knowledge. As free human beings we can choose to negate what we know, stifle our conscience. We are free to do that. But we are not really free to not have a conscience, only to ignore it.
Hi Don, I love your videos and am fortunate enough to work with Jean. One question I have is, what about resistance as an obstacle to the partners becoming partners in crime? If one or both partners is repressed, the analyst can help with that and it’s wonderful, but the patient(s) has(have) to 1) agree that it’s a problem that needs to be addressed and 2) put in the time talking and showing up in their individual sessions to address it. Whether it’s sexual repression or some other personality trait that both partners need to be able to discuss openly with one another, how does that even happen when one (or both) partner(s) dont even agree it’s an issue?
I would very much like to hear your perspective on Carl Jung as I haven’t yet heard you mention him ( not saying you haven’t but have not yet come across)
I have a pretty standard Freudian bias. Where is Freudian’s work almost entirely in what Young called the shadow, I have an image of unions kind of holding their noses and making a mad dash through the shadow to get on to what they are really interested in, the mystical archetypes of the old wise man, the magna Mater, the divine child it’s. I personally had a lot of psychopathology to deal with and my patients are the same. I know modern unions have integrated a good deal of object relations theory, so I’m describing an older kind of union perhaps. Also from a Judeo Christian perspective, Lake Martin Buber, I disapprove of Youngs gnosticism. God cannot be found in the unconscious because he cannot be found inside the self. He is that other that calls me to responsibility.
There is a very brilliant film called THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY about a highly ritualised relationship between two women that begins to break down. It illustrates some of what you speak about here.
Hello Don, thanks again for the wonderful videos. You mention in other lectures that there exists s/p religion and reparative position religion, the same can be said for politics (populism seems to be a s/p style of politics not sure if you agree?), I was wondering whether or not you believe that the same can be said for sexuality and that I suppose s/p sexuality would be the perverse kind ? Thank you again for sharing your wisdom with us.
Yes, about politics, but nowadays, in light of Benvenuto’s work and that of others, we can recognize “Perverse” sexuality on D as well as PS. I’m not sure all populism is PS, there could be democratic populism.
Thank you for your reply. So would it be fair to say that all s/p sexuality is perverse and some depressive sexuality is perverse? As you mention in previous lectures - we want to avoid the dichotomy of d good s/p bad and therefore perhaps it would be too reductionistic, and an act of splitting to say that all s/p sexuality is bad/perverse, however, s/p sexuality seems inherently perverse as it would entail a part object / narcissistic / illusory style of relating / sexuality. That being said - sexuality in the idealization s/p phase of love in the initial stages of a relationship does not seem perverse and perhaps is adaptive.. perhaps it would be fair to say that there exists both destructive and constructive forms of sexuality in both s/p and d and hence non perverse forms of sexuality in both s/p and d - the problem with that is that there is the turning away from truth / illusory aspect of s/p that is somewhat perverse but perhaps not all illusion is maladaptive/perverse.
Perhaps this notion of “perversion” can be applied to other concepts such as religion, nationalism, politics. The primary criteria of perversion being constructive/destructive rather than truth/non truth or s/p or d. For example when Fromm talks about narcissistic and non narcissistic nationalism he seems to be talking about perverse and non perverse forms of nationalism: ua-cam.com/video/pcX53MuX0ZI/v-deo.html
@@francisluke7889 That’s getting closer. But perverse no longer equals bad. Read Benvenuto. A successful “perversion“ amounts to a masterpiece, an artistic creation, yielding kinky pleasure to both participants, with no one getting hurt. People who cannot achieve this often have marriages characterized by “dead bed.“
I see - if i am understanding correctly, a successful perversion seems to be a phantasy/illusion that is not destructive, that allows for arousal - and it seems to be a necessary component of healthy sexuality in the long term according to Benvenuto. I will indeed have to read his work! Therefore some phantasy’s/illusions are adaptive such as John Steiner argues (m.ua-cam.com/video/pKqG6dYZzvQ/v-deo.html). Excited to hear your thoughts on Phantasy, Dreaming and Awakening!
But dont we know? Isn't these things well researched? Stoller clearly defined how male & female (quite different) transexualism developes and the parental framework. And as i have one in my family, i can see that the dynamics were exactly what he described. Isint it quite strange position to take, that we "just do not know". That somehow sexuality has become something we simply can't know, while we theorise and explain everything else? Would this lead to just saying "we cant know" anything. Why would explaining some phenomenon somehow take something away from it? Isint it more about the fact, that a lot of these variations arise from trauma and are ways to try to cope with it? That we are not "born this way", like lady gaga tries to say. Isint it well studied, that personality disorders are rampant in the transgender individuals? NPD being one of the major ones. In the LGB community, borderline is over represented. If we choose to ignore this, aren't we simply validating abuse? Arent we contributing to the hierarchical power structure of the nuclear family, that relies on perversions? While the right tries to stuff the scapegoats and victims back into the closet, the left tries to normalize them and say that its just what they are. That they chose it. Both essentially trying to protect the current order, the power hierarchy that sacrifices some members in order to keep it going. Kernberg described that there is a trend in the US, where the sick individuals now say that its normal for them to be a-sexual, multisexual, transsexual etc. That they are simply free. And both, Kernberg & Stoller actually studied sexual variations and perversions.
"Perversions, thus, is to serve society´s and the species abiding changelessness. But a constant threat to perversions smooth function is the perverse person and his paranoia. He who breaks the rules by refusing to play the part of a pervert as written in the society's norms and sanctions-- who rebels against his assignment and will not help his neighbour by being clown and victim-- may in time force social change, if not downright revolution." From Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred by Robert Stoller. As we are not only normalizing variations in sexuality, but also starting to normalize perversions.
Not sure where you got the idea that I say we can’t know anything. To say we don’t know something is not to say we cannot ever know it, only that we don’t know it very well yet. Psychoanalyst used to claim they knew the causes of homosexuality. Now we are more modest and admit we don’t even know the causes of heterosexuality. I am in favour of research and science, but not claiming to know when we really don’t. We know some things and not others.
@@doncarveth Well, its not like you can be sure about pretty much any of the psychoanalytic theory. As its mostly just theory. And most of it cant be proven until we can literally read minds and observe fantasies. One some of your video you mentioned that Smirgel was envious of Lacan. I was wondering that maybe it was more about how Smirgel criticizes the "american object relationist" and the overall "we cant be sure " style. He quite openly criticizes the what she called a "political agenda" underlying the modern trends of psychoanalysis in her "The Body as Mirror of the World" book. Tyranny of egalitarianism. "Accordingly, the analyst cannot pride himself on having any knowledge about the patient. These theories are often explicitly linked with postmodernism. Any understanding of the psyche and the treatment that takes no account of postmodernist philosophy is deemed to be both flawed and obsolete." The whole idea of using terms like "heteronormative" sounds really weird, for a species that has two distinct sexes and whose whole existence relies on this. I think its quite omnipotent to think that we are totally disconnected from nature. To say that we dont know how heterosexualit developes (to me its the baseline, and it can only be obstructed), and to compare it to homosexuality is for me quite absurd. To claim that there is no normal, is absurd. To claim that we dont know how homosexuali developes, i think its not correct. We do know, there are many ways this can develope and we don't know all of them or the totality of it. But its quite clear it requires a specific environment. I recently saw this interview of a female psychopath, who lives in a relationship with a woman. She offhandedly described this incident where she read about a man being molested, and noted that she got sexually aroused by this. She said it was just a quirk in her brain chemistry. She had immensely abusive father. So having her heterosexuality totally tainted by hatred and violence, is to me no surprise. And she describes herself as a psychopath, and still it was for her too much to admit these violent fantasies. If the overall theory is to retain pleasure, then i think its quite correct. If the heterosexual object is too dangerous, there is no other alternative to salvage your sexuality but homosexuality. I have seen this in numerous people. And sure, it most likely is not the sole reason or the only way. As a vegan, and i have also observed these weird "anti-vegans", who consume only meat. Often uncooked, raw. They brag about eating male organs, and think they will receive more maleness by doing this. One of them even wanted to consume and eventually did consume "virgin males blood" and talks a lot about cannibalism. Also you simply cannot exclude biology totally, even the variations like hormonal imbalances and chromosomal variations. If these biological variations can lead to different outcomes, its quite clear that biology plays its part. I think that the whole idea of constantly trying to include every minority in every sentence is pointless. Minorities will always be excluded from the mainstream by the very nature of being a minority. This does not imply any sort of active hatred towards these people. You will simply be endlessly twisting your tongue, and trying to please everyone if you jump into this. And i think it will only create this narcissistic victimhood space, that will just attract more and more sick people. That in the end, its just the sick society (mother) who loves its sick children. That we simply cant admit that our society produces sicker and sicker people. That there is something inherently wrong in our system. For me, this is the nuclear family construct that is simply too weak, and has no mechanisms to contain psychopathologies. And this is why i enjoyed Stollers point of view, who viewed perverts as scapegoats. Pressure valves of the family unit. That its a system that needs sacrifices to function. I agree that claiming we know exactly, is probably too much. But to claim that we don't know, is also too much. Also, i'm simply fascinated by all of this. So i might still be keen to believe that everything can be explained. And maybe it was extremely refreshing to actually even read about these subjects, as they have become so dangerous to have any sort of opinions on.
17:40 Feeling anxious for being naked in front of another human being is cultural, not a sign of mental sickness. Maybe there are extremes but my life experience tells me that context and culture play a big role in shame and nudity. I don't think sex and intimacy are always corelated.
Off-track but watched this, beginning as a new bee Marine Biologist never got p[ast year one I spent my hours in the library studying disillusioned with Japanese textbooks, the collected works of this man, and was awed and watching this now know why what a wonderful man : ua-cam.com/video/2AMu-G51yTY/v-deo.html Will watch the rest of your sexuality video later. God Bless, yes "moving forward ----->" Man cannot stand a meaningless life , no higher thing to strive for , no companion to question the great mysteries with , surrounded by ...Your'e videos are at least thought-provoking.
You are going ahead too quickly for me but a or the pivotal corner stone in classic psychoanalysis an extremely important topic! Apologies still listening to Part 1) my comments .. 10 mins in > Yes I see where you are coming from the complexity of sexuality in the homo sapien, the energy of sex is rooted in biomorphic or conscious fields and then has subsequently evolved to be more and more under conscious control or available to consciousness, we imagine, we believe, we think feel ....shaping sexuality, yes but then I totally break with the statement to be a psychopath you have to be highly empathic, for me the very thought of this seems counter to what psychoanalysis is about. Please explain ? The tendency is as Freud rightly said for perversion that is regression neurotic stuck ness, from early trauma and or a developmental period missed and so forth to create a regressive loop ie the husband who is addicted to porn or who likes putting on women's underwear or various other less obvious perversions . I think this is where we part company that is I believe there is Intelligence behind it all, or rather a supramental spiritual-consciousness that guides and is capable in the highest expression of delineating and discriminating between useful , good and perfect or ideal and the opposite , re Lamarck, Aurobindo and his integral yoga and of course other mystics and God men. But to get back to Part 1) ... 12 mins in ...> For me Heidegger--- Empathy is derived from Sympathy, isn't it ? A lot of the variations you speak of seeming different to Freud as he saw the Oedipal story as being transformed ie attachment to the male figure coming after resolution of the Oedipal phase and competition, sexuality is "root" energ. Sex has biological correlates? I really like your idea on orality makes a great deal of sense , again neurotic mothering not allowing tactile expression or joy in sensuality but orality overrides or is dominant, anality and your analogy here with bathroom and anal great way of describing it ! Sex is about arousal it is about allowing the orgasmic release, about the high of pleasure , which neurotically may or may not be allowed to a degree. Power sex - phallic world status money, bodybuilding capitalism a giant pissing contest yep ! Wonderfull Don , matured understanding of an experienced analyst, I agree totally boring sexuality, utterly transformed by agape into higher forms of love , it often is in marriage stale or boring yes this fits with the social evolution of sex, our earliest furtive sex exploration form the base of our forbidden desires.. I also agree Part 1 >> moralistic "neurotic" That is fear drives us , and somehow flips us into regression al or perverted modes which are dead ends , the puritanical superego bans it , reactionary repression and associations , subconscious mechanisms must be understood and then consciously as it were allowed up , classic analysis. But not necessarily acting out ! Here is the difference for me , otherwise we are completely stuck re recent Harvey Weinstein became the scapegoat but also the perpetrator of ...Sex crimes. Sex IS very powerful but not everything and in perhaps a final analysis the energy to be transformed into will , love and freedom to "be" again, but to be at the mercy of one's sexual impulse I cannot think anything more potentially destructive, again as different from the neurotic who is too scared to allow even the thought, desire and arousal and or the possibility of acting on it ...On to part 2 More explanation please Don i feel, regressional and immature self behaviourally bound loops in behaviour are what prevent us in a nutshell from becoming what we might or could be , ie I cannot imagine Einstein completing his Magnus opus if he had been a Don Juan , or some great artist, sportsman etc , but then the puritanical aspects as you echo Freud and I agree is equally destructive, which is to be unearthed in analysis , is it allowed to want to ...to imagine , to...? 1minute in the Sun is shining and it is too nice to be stuck at a PC desk , God Bless R
You can’t say transsexuality it’s normal. And then talk about the lies and truths. There’s no compatibility between trans and reality. I have one patient. She became a man. She felt she wasn’t only lesbian but she was a man. According to my observations this was a reaction after having a terrible father. Abuse, punches, insults. Everything. She felt that being a man she would escape from that. And somehow it happened that way. She found a job and started being promoted. Now she is in a great position in that company. She (now he) started dating a girl. But one day this girl said she couldn’t continue since she didn’t want t be catalogued as lesbian. And wanted in the future to have a family. My patient said: of course I understand her. She wants a real man, not this... My heart broke. We could make so much advances but she was right. She wasn’t a man even if she pretend to.
I did not say it was normal. I said for human beings nothing is normal. I defend the right of people to be transvestite and even transsexual. That is their choice of a way to live. But if a man chooses to live as a woman that does not make him a woman in a biological sense; he has male chromosomes.
Don Carveth ok they are men who make an effort to look like women. Now, a patient who refuses or feels bad by living through it’s given sex, what does that tells us as psychologist? Wouldn’t that be in the first instance, a main part of the problems to solve?
Yes, absolutely, that would be the task of the analysis. It’s complicated. There are many possible explanations. One possibility is a deep hetero sexism. Some men are so deeply against homosexuality that they feel they must turn into women in order to justify their desire for sex with men. But that is only one possible explanation. This would require careful analysis.
Don Carveth that’s a superb interpretation. I understand each case it’s an individual puzzle. But what you are saying it’s just too interesting. Thanks for sharing. I had a patient. When young he was training karate in Japan. Very hard training. So hard that he had an experience of seeing himself out from his body. He realized that he wasn’t his body, and the body was only a machine that helped him to do whatever he had to do. He became a very famous singer and composer in the 80’s. But years later he stopped having this success and got depressed. Then he wanted to become a woman, and started with hormones and everything it’s needed to have that look. He was almost 70 when started with this process He ended up becoming a very elegant and attractive woman. When I met her, had a very strategic mind. She had calculated whatever reactions her family could have. She was willing to wait until they had assumed this new reality. She came to me because she wanted her girlfriend back. Who left her after the hormone therapy. She liked women and loved her girlfriend. My interpretation was that she had a very powerful experience in Japan. And somehow unlinked him to his body in that days. Then he realized that becoming a woman would be part of the solution for his situation (no job, no money, nobody knew or remembered who he was) After his transformation, here in Mexico started to be a star again. Theatre, new CD, interviews, etc. I never told her my thoughts but to me it was clear that he learned to use and even abuse of his body in order to achieve goals. So as you say. We have to be very careful.
Bravo, Don! Your lecture was so cogent and well argued! Thank you a million for these video-lectures. I hope you keep them coming.
Thank you, I plan to do one on dreams and another on depression before too long.
Apart from the renewed worry that Trump might be re-elected, I'm struck by what an immense difference it would make to people, if they could simply accept the fact that it's perfectly normal to feel certain things in certain situations. In fact, there's something wrong if you DON'T feel those things. Like stop feeling bad about feeling shy in a new naked encounter in a relationship, stop apologising for crying at funerals, stop worrying that you don't know what you're doing on your first day at a new job etc etc etc That SIMPLE message, so difficult for people to adopt, would make such a difference. Thought provoking as always, thank you.
Yes. Thank you.
Hi Mr. Carveth,
thanks for your continuous effort of putting up comprehensible and interesting lectures, I've been a follower for quite some time now.
I've been wondering what your opinion of Jung and his ideas might be, also regarding similarities and differences to other analytical theorists.
Actually, in my 20s, I found my way to Jung Before I got to Freud, but I soon form the impression that they wanted to kind of hold their nose is and make a mad dash through what they call the shadow, Freud’s personal unconscious, and quickly get to the mystical and the mysterious archetypes. I personally had problems to deal with in my shadow and shows a Freudian analyst with him to do this with and I’ve been a Freudian/Kleinian ever snce. I know that, especially in the UK, many Jungians have integrated a great deal of object relations thinking.
Doctor Carveth, have you ever read any of the paper by Bernard Apfelbaum? He was a sex-therapist who worked in the Berkley California area. He describes himself as an ego-analytic psychologist in his writing and has written some of the most interesting theoretical articles about sexuality and clinical intervention in sex therapy that I have read. Not sure what to make of him or if its appropriate for me to suggest something for your interest. Here is a link to some of his writing that have been preserved by some his colleagues: egoanalysisessays.wordpress.com
Thanks for these interesting considerations. Maybe you might give me an answer on this question:
In your videos as well as at other authors I often wondered about the basis of what seems to me like a moral frame. I always wonder with this issue, on which basis one can view destructiveness as a perversion and constructiveness as "normal". I agree and like the view of "there is no normal sexuality and therefore no perverse sexuality" because of us being denatured animals. But which frame is it, that then enables this judgement on love vs hate, necrophilia vs biophilia and so on. When I try to deduce such a frame it seems to lead me to a biological reductionistic viewpoint. And this viewpoint seems to take away some of the existential freedom of a human life.
Well you are right, there is a moral frame, because there is conscience separate from superego. Conscience does have a biological grounding: primates show caring and cooperation; babies a few months old know right from wrong. As mammals and primates we come equipped with this knowledge. As free human beings we can choose to negate what we know, stifle our conscience. We are free to do that. But we are not really free to not have a conscience, only to ignore it.
Hi Don, I love your videos and am fortunate enough to work with Jean. One question I have is, what about resistance as an obstacle to the partners becoming partners in crime? If one or both partners is repressed, the analyst can help with that and it’s wonderful, but the patient(s) has(have) to 1) agree that it’s a problem that needs to be addressed and 2) put in the time talking and showing up in their individual sessions to address it. Whether it’s sexual repression or some other personality trait that both partners need to be able to discuss openly with one another, how does that even happen when one (or both) partner(s) dont even agree it’s an issue?
I would very much like to hear your perspective on Carl Jung as I haven’t yet heard you mention him ( not saying you haven’t but have not yet come across)
I have a pretty standard Freudian bias. Where is Freudian’s work almost entirely in what Young called the shadow, I have an image of unions kind of holding their noses and making a mad dash through the shadow to get on to what they are really interested in, the mystical archetypes of the old wise man, the magna Mater, the divine child it’s. I personally had a lot of psychopathology to deal with and my patients are the same. I know modern unions have integrated a good deal of object relations theory, so I’m describing an older kind of union perhaps. Also from a Judeo Christian perspective, Lake Martin Buber, I disapprove of Youngs gnosticism. God cannot be found in the unconscious because he cannot be found inside the self. He is that other that calls me to responsibility.
There is a very brilliant film called THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY about a highly ritualised relationship between two women that begins to break down. It illustrates some of what you speak about here.
Thank you, I’ll try to find it
Hello Don, thanks again for the wonderful videos. You mention in other lectures that there exists s/p religion and reparative position religion, the same can be said for politics (populism seems to be a s/p style of politics not sure if you agree?), I was wondering whether or not you believe that the same can be said for sexuality and that I suppose s/p sexuality would be the perverse kind ? Thank you again for sharing your wisdom with us.
Yes, about politics, but nowadays, in light of Benvenuto’s work and that of others, we can recognize “Perverse” sexuality on D as well as PS. I’m not sure all populism is PS, there could be democratic populism.
Thank you for your reply.
So would it be fair to say that all s/p sexuality is perverse and some depressive sexuality is perverse? As you mention in previous lectures - we want to avoid the dichotomy of d good s/p bad and therefore perhaps it would be too reductionistic, and an act of splitting to say that all s/p sexuality is bad/perverse, however, s/p sexuality seems inherently perverse as it would entail a part object / narcissistic / illusory style of relating / sexuality. That being said - sexuality in the idealization s/p phase of love in the initial stages of a relationship does not seem perverse and perhaps is adaptive.. perhaps it would be fair to say that there exists both destructive and constructive forms of sexuality in both s/p and d and hence non perverse forms of sexuality in both s/p and d - the problem with that is that there is the turning away from truth / illusory aspect of s/p that is somewhat perverse but perhaps not all illusion is maladaptive/perverse.
Perhaps this notion of “perversion” can be applied to other concepts such as religion, nationalism, politics. The primary criteria of perversion being constructive/destructive rather than truth/non truth or s/p or d.
For example when Fromm talks about narcissistic and non narcissistic nationalism he seems to be talking about perverse and non perverse forms of nationalism:
ua-cam.com/video/pcX53MuX0ZI/v-deo.html
@@francisluke7889 That’s getting closer. But perverse no longer equals bad. Read Benvenuto. A successful “perversion“ amounts to a masterpiece, an artistic creation, yielding kinky pleasure to both participants, with no one getting hurt. People who cannot achieve this often have marriages characterized by “dead bed.“
I see - if i am understanding correctly, a successful perversion seems to be a phantasy/illusion that is not destructive, that allows for arousal - and it seems to be a necessary component of healthy sexuality in the long term according to Benvenuto. I will indeed have to read his work! Therefore some phantasy’s/illusions are adaptive such as John Steiner argues (m.ua-cam.com/video/pKqG6dYZzvQ/v-deo.html). Excited to hear your thoughts on Phantasy, Dreaming and Awakening!
But dont we know? Isn't these things well researched? Stoller clearly defined how male & female (quite different) transexualism developes and the parental framework. And as i have one in my family, i can see that the dynamics were exactly what he described. Isint it quite strange position to take, that we "just do not know". That somehow sexuality has become something we simply can't know, while we theorise and explain everything else? Would this lead to just saying "we cant know" anything.
Why would explaining some phenomenon somehow take something away from it? Isint it more about the fact, that a lot of these variations arise from trauma and are ways to try to cope with it? That we are not "born this way", like lady gaga tries to say.
Isint it well studied, that personality disorders are rampant in the transgender individuals? NPD being one of the major ones. In the LGB community, borderline is over represented.
If we choose to ignore this, aren't we simply validating abuse? Arent we contributing to the hierarchical power structure of the nuclear family, that relies on perversions? While the right tries to stuff the scapegoats and victims back into the closet, the left tries to normalize them and say that its just what they are. That they chose it. Both essentially trying to protect the current order, the power hierarchy that sacrifices some members in order to keep it going.
Kernberg described that there is a trend in the US, where the sick individuals now say that its normal for them to be a-sexual, multisexual, transsexual etc. That they are simply free. And both, Kernberg & Stoller actually studied sexual variations and perversions.
"Perversions, thus, is to serve society´s and the species abiding changelessness. But a constant threat to perversions smooth function is the perverse person and his paranoia. He who breaks the rules by refusing to play the part of a pervert as written in the society's norms and sanctions-- who rebels against his assignment and will not help his neighbour by being clown and victim-- may in time force social change, if not downright revolution."
From Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred by Robert Stoller.
As we are not only normalizing variations in sexuality, but also starting to normalize perversions.
Not sure where you got the idea that I say we can’t know anything. To say we don’t know something is not to say we cannot ever know it, only that we don’t know it very well yet. Psychoanalyst used to claim they knew the causes of homosexuality. Now we are more modest and admit we don’t even know the causes of heterosexuality. I am in favour of research and science, but not claiming to know when we really don’t. We know some things and not others.
@@doncarveth Well, its not like you can be sure about pretty much any of the psychoanalytic theory. As its mostly just theory. And most of it cant be proven until we can literally read minds and observe fantasies.
One some of your video you mentioned that Smirgel was envious of Lacan. I was wondering that maybe it was more about how Smirgel criticizes the "american object relationist" and the overall "we cant be sure " style. He quite openly criticizes the what she called a "political agenda" underlying the modern trends of psychoanalysis in her "The Body as Mirror of the World" book. Tyranny of egalitarianism.
"Accordingly, the analyst cannot pride himself on having any knowledge about the patient. These theories are often explicitly linked with postmodernism. Any understanding of the psyche and the treatment that takes no account of postmodernist philosophy is deemed to be both flawed and obsolete."
The whole idea of using terms like "heteronormative" sounds really weird, for a species that has two distinct sexes and whose whole existence relies on this. I think its quite omnipotent to think that we are totally disconnected from nature. To say that we dont know how heterosexualit developes (to me its the baseline, and it can only be obstructed), and to compare it to homosexuality is for me quite absurd. To claim that there is no normal, is absurd.
To claim that we dont know how homosexuali developes, i think its not correct. We do know, there are many ways this can develope and we don't know all of them or the totality of it. But its quite clear it requires a specific environment.
I recently saw this interview of a female psychopath, who lives in a relationship with a woman. She offhandedly described this incident where she read about a man being molested, and noted that she got sexually aroused by this. She said it was just a quirk in her brain chemistry. She had immensely abusive father. So having her heterosexuality totally tainted by hatred and violence, is to me no surprise. And she describes herself as a psychopath, and still it was for her too much to admit these violent fantasies.
If the overall theory is to retain pleasure, then i think its quite correct. If the heterosexual object is too dangerous, there is no other alternative to salvage your sexuality but homosexuality. I have seen this in numerous people. And sure, it most likely is not the sole reason or the only way.
As a vegan, and i have also observed these weird "anti-vegans", who consume only meat. Often uncooked, raw. They brag about eating male organs, and think they will receive more maleness by doing this. One of them even wanted to consume and eventually did consume "virgin males blood" and talks a lot about cannibalism.
Also you simply cannot exclude biology totally, even the variations like hormonal imbalances and chromosomal variations. If these biological variations can lead to different outcomes, its quite clear that biology plays its part.
I think that the whole idea of constantly trying to include every minority in every sentence is pointless. Minorities will always be excluded from the mainstream by the very nature of being a minority. This does not imply any sort of active hatred towards these people. You will simply be endlessly twisting your tongue, and trying to please everyone if you jump into this. And i think it will only create this narcissistic victimhood space, that will just attract more and more sick people.
That in the end, its just the sick society (mother) who loves its sick children. That we simply cant admit that our society produces sicker and sicker people. That there is something inherently wrong in our system. For me, this is the nuclear family construct that is simply too weak, and has no mechanisms to contain psychopathologies. And this is why i enjoyed Stollers point of view, who viewed perverts as scapegoats. Pressure valves of the family unit. That its a system that needs sacrifices to function.
I agree that claiming we know exactly, is probably too much. But to claim that we don't know, is also too much. Also, i'm simply fascinated by all of this. So i might still be keen to believe that everything can be explained. And maybe it was extremely refreshing to actually even read about these subjects, as they have become so dangerous to have any sort of opinions on.
Great question, thank you! We are on the same page.
17:40 Feeling anxious for being naked in front of another human being is cultural, not a sign of mental sickness. Maybe there are extremes but my life experience tells me that context and culture play a big role in shame and nudity. I don't think sex and intimacy are always corelated.
Arguable
Off-track but watched this, beginning as a new bee Marine Biologist never got p[ast year one I spent my hours in the library studying disillusioned with Japanese textbooks, the collected works of this man, and was awed and watching this now know why what a wonderful man :
ua-cam.com/video/2AMu-G51yTY/v-deo.html
Will watch the rest of your sexuality video later.
God Bless, yes "moving forward ----->" Man cannot stand a meaningless life , no higher thing to strive for , no companion to question the great mysteries with , surrounded by ...Your'e videos are at least thought-provoking.
You are going ahead too quickly for me but a or the pivotal corner stone in classic psychoanalysis an extremely important topic!
Apologies still listening to Part 1) my comments ..
10 mins in > Yes I see where you are coming from the complexity of sexuality in the homo sapien, the energy of sex is rooted in biomorphic or conscious fields and then has subsequently evolved to be more and more under conscious control or available to consciousness, we imagine, we believe, we think feel ....shaping sexuality, yes but then I totally break with the statement to be a psychopath you have to be highly empathic, for me the very thought of this seems counter to what psychoanalysis is about.
Please explain ?
The tendency is as Freud rightly said for perversion that is regression neurotic stuck ness, from early trauma and or a developmental period missed and so forth to create a regressive loop ie the husband who is addicted to porn or who likes putting on women's underwear or various other less obvious perversions .
I think this is where we part company that is I believe there is Intelligence behind it all, or rather a supramental spiritual-consciousness that guides and is capable in the highest expression of delineating and discriminating between useful , good and perfect or ideal and the opposite , re Lamarck, Aurobindo and his integral yoga and of course other mystics and God men.
But to get back to Part 1) ...
12 mins in ...> For me Heidegger--- Empathy is derived from Sympathy, isn't it ?
A lot of the variations you speak of seeming different to Freud as he saw the Oedipal story as being transformed ie attachment to the male figure coming after resolution of the Oedipal phase and competition, sexuality is "root" energ.
Sex has biological correlates? I really like your idea on orality makes a great deal of sense , again neurotic mothering not allowing tactile expression or joy in sensuality but orality overrides or is dominant, anality and your analogy here with bathroom and anal great way of describing it !
Sex is about arousal it is about allowing the orgasmic release, about the high of pleasure , which neurotically may or may not be allowed to a degree. Power sex - phallic world status money, bodybuilding capitalism a giant pissing contest yep !
Wonderfull Don , matured understanding of an experienced analyst, I agree totally boring sexuality, utterly transformed by agape into higher forms of love , it often is in marriage stale or boring yes this fits with the social evolution of sex, our earliest furtive sex exploration form the base of our forbidden desires..
I also agree Part 1 >> moralistic "neurotic"
That is fear drives us , and somehow flips us into regression al or perverted modes which are dead ends , the puritanical superego bans it , reactionary repression and associations , subconscious mechanisms must be understood and then consciously as it were allowed up , classic analysis. But not necessarily acting out !
Here is the difference for me , otherwise we are completely stuck re recent Harvey Weinstein became the scapegoat but also the perpetrator of ...Sex crimes.
Sex IS very powerful but not everything and in perhaps a final analysis the energy to be transformed into will , love and freedom to "be" again, but to be at the mercy of one's sexual impulse I cannot think anything more potentially destructive, again as different from the neurotic who is too scared to allow even the thought, desire and arousal and or the possibility of acting on it
...On to part 2
More explanation please Don i feel, regressional and immature self behaviourally bound loops in behaviour are what prevent us in a nutshell from becoming what we might or could be , ie I cannot imagine Einstein completing his Magnus opus if he had been a Don Juan , or some great artist, sportsman etc , but then the puritanical aspects as you echo Freud and I agree is equally destructive, which is to be unearthed in analysis , is it allowed to want to ...to imagine , to...?
1minute in the Sun is shining and it is too nice to be stuck at a PC desk , God Bless R
You can’t say transsexuality it’s normal. And then talk about the lies and truths.
There’s no compatibility between trans and reality.
I have one patient. She became a man. She felt she wasn’t only lesbian but she was a man. According to my observations this was a reaction after having a terrible father. Abuse, punches, insults. Everything. She felt that being a man she would escape from that. And somehow it happened that way. She found a job and started being promoted. Now she is in a great position in that company.
She (now he) started dating a girl. But one day this girl said she couldn’t continue since she didn’t want t be catalogued as lesbian. And wanted in the future to have a family.
My patient said: of course I understand her. She wants a real man, not this...
My heart broke. We could make so much advances but she was right. She wasn’t a man even if she pretend to.
I did not say it was normal. I said for human beings nothing is normal. I defend the right of people to be transvestite and even transsexual. That is their choice of a way to live. But if a man chooses to live as a woman that does not make him a woman in a biological sense; he has male chromosomes.
Don Carveth ok they are men who make an effort to look like women. Now, a patient who refuses or feels bad by living through it’s given sex, what does that tells us as psychologist? Wouldn’t that be in the first instance, a main part of the problems to solve?
Yes, absolutely, that would be the task of the analysis. It’s complicated. There are many possible explanations. One possibility is a deep hetero sexism. Some men are so deeply against homosexuality that they feel they must turn into women in order to justify their desire for sex with men. But that is only one possible explanation. This would require careful analysis.
Don Carveth that’s a superb interpretation. I understand each case it’s an individual puzzle. But what you are saying it’s just too interesting. Thanks for sharing. I had a patient.
When young he was training karate in Japan. Very hard training. So hard that he had an experience of seeing himself out from his body. He realized that he wasn’t his body, and the body was only a machine that helped him to do whatever he had to do.
He became a very famous singer and composer in the 80’s. But years later he stopped having this success and got depressed.
Then he wanted to become a woman, and started with hormones and everything it’s needed to have that look. He was almost 70 when started with this process
He ended up becoming a very elegant and attractive woman.
When I met her, had a very strategic mind. She had calculated whatever reactions her family could have. She was willing to wait until they had assumed this new reality.
She came to me because she wanted her girlfriend back. Who left her after the hormone therapy. She liked women and loved her girlfriend.
My interpretation was that she had a very powerful experience in Japan. And somehow unlinked him to his body in that days. Then he realized that becoming a woman would be part of the solution for his situation (no job, no money, nobody knew or remembered who he was)
After his transformation, here in Mexico started to be a star again. Theatre, new CD, interviews, etc.
I never told her my thoughts but to me it was clear that he learned to use and even abuse of his body in order to achieve goals.
So as you say. We have to be very careful.
Harphôsh Hâine Yvanehtnioj Yes. Thank you for sharing this interesting case study. These matters are so complex.