San Francisco - Wiener doesn't want to see weiners

[yogin]

I usually agree with you, Michael, but can't agree with your Freud quote. If someone served you a steaming plate of dogshit for dinner my guess is that your feeling of disgust would be untinged with desire. I just brought up an extreme case to make a point. As far as public nudity I am in full agreement that the strong reaction is based on our often unhealthy relationship to sexuality. We are born naked and it is our natural state. clothing is a fairly recent development originally designed to protect us from the elements and eventually becoming a form of expression. If you hang out in a situation where nudity is common the first thing that you notice is how plain most people look, not how stimulating.

[webco2]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

To which "Brown" are you referring?

And to discount everything Freud ever said is only to show your ignorance. If you ever use the term "unconscious", you are quoting Freud and being a hypocrite. There was no concept of the unconscious until Freud wrote about it. It is so widely accepted now that no one questions the concept of an unconscious. Yet you would throw that away and say it has no validity because you don't like Freud. I guess it is all or nothing for you.

Michael my friend, I surely would NOT be referring to your Governor Brown. Wake up, smell the coffee, Freud and Brown have been out of fashion for several decades now. Learn something about the subject matter you speak of, BEFORE you speak of it. Otherwise you look foolish as hell my friend.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by webco2

Michael my friend, Freud has been exposed, as the drug addicted perverted whore he was, several decades ago. To quote him or Brown, either one, is to not understand modern psychology.

That's funny. When I studied modern psychology (less than decades ago) Freud's research and theories were, and still are for the most part, considered the standard and the foundation for just about all of the field. Even his critics recognize that he is the standard.

I suppose the difference in "ultra modern psychology" would be that nobody does psychoanalysis anymore. They just write a couple of prescriptions and send patients on their way.

[webco2]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

That's funny. When I studied modern psychology (less than decades ago) Freud's research and theories were, and still are for the most part, considered the standard and the foundation for just about all of the field. Even his critics recognize that he is the standard.

I suppose the difference in "ultra modern psychology" would be that nobody does psychoanalysis anymore. They just write a couple of prescriptions and send patients on their way.

I beg to differ with you kind Sir. Brown and Freud both have been discredited as to thier main theories . One blames everything on "improper toilet training" and the other blames everything on " sexual fantasies of Mother Love" . That is not a full understanding of thier theories, but it's close enough for this forum. The standard textbooks discredit both of them. Just like homosexuality is no longer considered a mental deficiency.

[claytp1]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

The sensationalism has a lot to do with how repressed so many people are about their natural sexual impulses and much they need some outlet for all that pent up energy. If there were a saner approach to human sexuality and the human body, those guys sunning themselves in the Castro would have been a non issue.

I may not be quoting him exactly but Freud said regarding matters like this that "Beneath every disgust is a desire". That applies to a lot of what we are seeing here.

The result of Jerry Sandusky's pent up energy and sexual desire was to jam his pecker up boys' asses. I neither find that natural or a non issue. Nor in spite of my disgust and Freud's thoughts do I find it desirable.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by claytp1

The result of Jerry Sandusky's pent up energy and sexual desire was to jam his pecker up boys' asses. I neither find that natural or a non issue. Nor in spite of my disgust and Freud's thoughts do I find it desirable.

With all due respect, Sandusky is a sick individual and a pedophile. I agree his actions are neither natural or a non-issue.

The idea of disgust=desire is certainly not 100% true, but just like the little yappy dog who is always the most aggressive and the thief who constantly worries about someone stealing his stuff, I believe it is general nature to find our own faults in others and try to compensate for our own perceived weaknesses.

[1bdBagr]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

Clearly you have never been to New Orleans at Mardi Gras time.

Nope but i do remember seeing women at Laughlin getting tickets for showing their titz, and thought i heard of indecent exposure tickets at Mardi Gras time.

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

The sensationalism has a lot to do with how repressed so many people are about their natural sexual impulses and much they need some outlet for all that pent up energy. If there were a saner approach to human sexuality and the human body, those guys sunning themselves in the Castro would have been a non issue.

I may not be quoting him exactly but Freud said regarding matters like this that "Beneath every disgust is a desire". That applies to a lot of what we are seeing here.

Being gay does NOT give you carte blanche to act as though you and your fellow gays are better adjusted nor less sexually repressed.....Having sane and somewhat "normal" views on basic human sexuality i don't believe i'm suffering from any basal desires, nor have the need to be an exhibitionist. I don't judge gay and lesbian people and furthermore believe that the gov'ts place is NOT in yours, mine or anyone elses bedroom. Call me terminally straight but i really don't see the need to get shitfaced and act like a fool parading around naked, or throwing beads at chicks who are shitfaced making fools of themselves, but to each his her own. I guess self respect and being sexually repressed must be mutually exclusive as far as u think eh Mike?
Tim

[utrvp]

Originally Posted by Markk9

So, does this mean you don't know how to talk to your kids about subjects you don't like.

There is a time and place for everything. A public setting where children may be present is not the place for nudity. No parent should have to explain to a 6 year old why any man or woman has a ring through their genitals.

Also to take your previous statement, "If you believe that a child seeing naked person will be traumatized, you are a nut job. There is nothing wrong with nudity.", to it's natural conclusion, then no child should be traumatized by seeing a couple having sex in public either. Do you suggest we legalize sex in too? Oh my! I see you don't want your kids seeing sex in public. What about what I don't want my kids to see? Are your and Michael's the only opinions that count?

[spdrcr137]

How can you cc if your nekid

[lucille]

Michael .... in your earlier posts, you alluded to your past/present vocation as a 'counselor' ...
Does any part of this thread fall into the 'subject matter' that you've lent your expertise to?

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by yogin

I usually agree with you, Michael, but can't agree with your Freud quote. If someone served you a steaming plate of dogshit for dinner my guess is that your feeling of disgust would be untinged with desire. I just brought up an extreme case to make a point. As far as public nudity I am in full agreement that the strong reaction is based on our often unhealthy relationship to sexuality. We are born naked and it is our natural state. clothing is a fairly recent development originally designed to protect us from the elements and eventually becoming a form of expression. If you hang out in a situation where nudity is common the first thing that you notice is how plain most people look, not how stimulating.

That is not the kind of disgust that Freud is talking about. In this context it is more about feeling disgusted by other people's sexuality. And, if someone is disgusted by homosexuality, it doesn't mean they want to have homosexual sex. Their disgust might be related to their perception that homosexuals are promiscuous and they secretly have a desire to be more promiscuous. Under their disgust is that desire. That is in fact what I think a lot of the disgust that people feel about male homosexuals is all about.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by webco2

Michael my friend, I surely would NOT be referring to your Governor Brown. Wake up, smell the coffee, Freud and Brown have been out of fashion for several decades now. Learn something about the subject matter you speak of, BEFORE you speak of it. Otherwise you look foolish as hell my friend.

I am well aware of what aspects of Freud are still accepted and which of his ideas are no longer accepted. He was a pioneer and others have taken his work in many directions.

[luvstoride]

OK, Y'all win. I'm going HERE to talk about my Harley. I guess that's how it works.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by webco2

I beg to differ with you kind Sir. Brown and Freud both have been discredited as to thier main theories . One blames everything on "improper toilet training" and the other blames everything on " sexual fantasies of Mother Love" . That is not a full understanding of thier theories, but it's close enough for this forum. The standard textbooks discredit both of them. Just like homosexuality is no longer considered a mental deficiency.

You understand very little about Freud.

[Fred1369]

Originally Posted by luvstoride

OK, Y'all win. I'm going HERE to talk about my Harley. I guess that's how it works.