Was he right about anything?

I'm sorry for your loss. Deaths of mothers has been a recurring theme in my life for the past month or so. This synchronicity saddens me. Also, you're likely never going to find that gentle femdom gf unless you're Chad.

Thank you for your genuine concern. It's just devastating knowing I'm a wholly different person for the worse due to something entirely outside of my control. I wish you well in your life moving forward. I never meant to bring up painful experiences in your life, I'm just horribly alone atm and it's been tough recently.

Freud's mistake was believing that he had tapped into common ground shared universally by humanity. His work regarding trauma theory, repression, and repetition compulsions is absolutely useful still in helping treat PTSD and other similar conditions. It is foolish to think every woman is motivated by penis envy--it is not foolish to think that a traumatic experience can dictate a subject's actions in insidious and cloaked ways.

The unconscious mind and how it works like a language

Sully elsewhere you anti-semite coward

Freud really never looked into actually solving any of those problems though. In fact he was so obsessed with telling people they were trying to fuck their mom he really has almost no contribution to any type of learning

Based and Freudpilled

He was right about everything.

Just seeing this comment just might start to have an affect on me. Fuck you for jinxing me

big balconies of sand

I'm not a Chad but I have the gentle femdom gf.

Three pieces of advice:
1. Be a caring an considerate person. Women dig that despite what you may think, but you should do it for its own sake anyway.
2. Go for the "soft" femboy-ish look. Girls like "cute boys", the idea that they like Chads is complete heteronormative horseshit honestly.
3. Go for trans girls, they are generally easier to get to go along with this sort of thing than cis girls.

>You see this big tower, people made it because it looks like a dick

He ball-parked a lot of ideas fairly well, but he did not map the origins of the human mind with any reliability.

How did your faggot ass get here from Reddit? Continue dating trannies so you keep away from the gene pool.

Attached: stalin.jpg (540x404, 45K)

Nice ressentiment, I totally can't tell you're single. Cope harder.

The ending of your unnatural life will be an unnatural death.

Read Hume, please.

truly an evil man, comparable to john money

there's a reason for his books having been the most prominent ones during the book burning of the 30s

>3. Go for trans girls
HAHAHAHAHA

Plenty. cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/C35CBB2112D180525EE95D11C474D13C/S2056474017000046a.pdf/scientific_standing_of_psychoanalysis.pdf

retard

Is there a Freud Yea Forums chart? In what order do you read his books?

At a level of shared human experience, he was wrong about the myths and categories he applied to the psyche in order to understand it, because he universalised his own neuroses and pathologies. What he did that was SO important however was to construct a discourse surrounding the function of desire, to elaborate on the processes of self-regulation that ensure deviant sexuality or behaviour is inhibited or put to work in a productive or creative way. His work on the death drive and sublimation is still relevant today imo

Everything he's made has been discredited so nope, literally wrong about everything

Attached: a62.png (800x778, 317K)

Everything we now take for granted.

He's kinda all over the place. There isn't really any good special ordering apart from the chronological one. I think starting with secondary literature is best, like Fink's "A Clinical Introduction to Freud" + "Reading Freud" by Quinodoz would be a great duplet. Then you'll know which part interests you the most and consequently also which primary literature to start with.

Attached: 1561700314437.webm (1280x720, 2.28M)

go cry to your rabbi, schlomo.

Pseudoscientific doesn't even begin to describe the level of wrong he was on. No wonder he's not even being taught in psychology and psychiatry anymore.

Freud was the intellectual successor of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and he's hella based.

Based

No. Carl Jung was though

Breast feeding is definitely sexual in nature. The mother gets her nipples stimulated while the infant develops attachment to milkies and that's why straight men like big milkers, it reminds them of that feeling of warmth and security they felt when they suckled on their mothers breasts

Attached: very Freudian.jpg (1280x720, 141K)

This is a misleading post, its not the act of suckling itself that is sexual but the fantasy which imbues certain acts with sexual connotations. Without fantasy there is nothing "sexual" about breastfeeding, stop trying to make your weird fetishisms into a universal.

Attached: madotsuki vomiting.jpg (680x680, 85K)

Repression is social

Attached: 1555545261265.jpg (620x419, 31K)

Why do people get uncomfortable when they see a woman breastfeeding in public? Because it is in fact a sexual act

>tfw no reincarnated mommy gf

Only sexual deviants find it uncomfortable, for everyone else its perfectly acceptable. So far all you've done is outed yourself as a pervert by assuming everyone is a degenerate cumbrain like you, anything else you'd like to add?

Female nipples are inherently sexual, that's why men can run topless but women can't. Anything having to do with female nipples is inherently sexual, that's just normal human sexual behavior, nothing to do about it buddy. Freud knew this

This is some shitty advice user

>Female nipples are inherently sexual
Evidence please, you can't claim that they're "inherently" sexual without justification. Besides, some women have zero sensitivity in their nipples whatsoever. Some will feel agony when getting it pierced, others will feel nothing. The same goes for sensual touching. What you're saying is nipples are sexual to YOU, whereas a lot of women find the whole "automatic boob grab" thing that guys do while making out is tedious and not very erotic, because its just so predictable. Everything in your claim points to it being your perspective that sexualises the nipple, not that the nipple is itself sexual.

Also, running topless has nothing to do with it, breasts can be very painful if you're running without a sports bra. I honestly can't believe its something that needs explaining to you.

>I know more about human sexuality than professionals with Phds in the field
Ok buddy. Circumcised men have lower sensitivity on their dicks than uncircumcised men, doesn't mean that it's supposed to be stimulated during intercourse

Sorry, but if you have a PHD in the subject of women's erogenous zones (which, btw, I'm skeptical is even a real doctorate), then you should be able to provide at least one piece of evidence to support your claim. But so far, you've just said "inherently" a bunch of times and then pointed to some irrelevant shit like jogging to prove your point. That's certainly not how someone wit a PHD would make their case.

wrong, they're sexualised because of our society's puritanism, african women walk barechested and men don't react to it

There's been studies made on the subject. The nipples are highly sensitive, and scientists have discovered that stimulation of the nipples activates the same regions of the brain as vaginal stimulation. You can find Komisaruk's study online

>You can find Komisaruk's study online
I need you to link me the source, not just a vague direction. Besides, that has no relation to your claim that women find breastfeeding to be an "inherently" sexual act, just that nipple stimulation can be erogenous. Like I said before, they aren't going to be turned on if there isn't a structuring fantasy through which the act becomes erotic. Freud knew this too.

Also I have to ask, have you even bothered to speak to women about this? Because they'd straight up think you were an ill-informed creep if you're trying to tell them that feeding their child is an inherently sexual act.

>Also I have to ask, have you even bothered to speak to women about this? Because they'd straight up think you were an ill-informed creep if you're trying to tell them that feeding their child is an inherently sexual act.
Obviously I haven't. Because it's one of those things you don't talk about in polite conversation, the things we don't want to admit. For example, old people have sex. There, I said it, but the act is no one wants to think or talk about it, because its disturbing. The same goes for the fact that women enjoy getting their breasts sucked by their infants. Also, I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

Attached: this is gonna sting.jpg (1920x1080, 177K)

i wasn´t breastfeed when i was a baby but i still like boobies (i have a weak body tho)

Freud literally said the men get a milkies fixation if they were breastfed too much or too little

I heard he plagiarized on Empedocles.

The idea that old people have sex is less taboo than women getting off on breastfeeding. But that’s irrelevant because whether or not something is taboo has no bearing on whether something is true, and it’s the latter I’m still waiting for you to justify.

>I’m not going to spoonfeed you
You’re not, your defending your retarded positions by sourcing your claims correctly. You’ve already ‘spoonfed’ me the information in your first post, I’m just waiting for you to back it up with literally anything substantial, but it looks as though you’ll just continue to be evasive.

Yes i want to fug my mom
Can confirm i was breastfeed too much and now i love milkies

Pal I'm not the guy you're responding to but this isn't a website for publishing academic papers, he doesn't have to do in text citations for any claims. He gave you the name of the study, go read it or just stop replying.

No he doesn't, but as I pointed out earlier the study he's referencing doesn't even justify the claim he's trying to make. "women's nipples are erogenous zones" is not the same claim as "breastfeeding is an inherently sexual act".

Besides, when I googled the author's name I couldn't find that particular paper, but I did find another by the same author which made almost the opposite case, that women can become aroused without any physical stimuli whatsoever. That does more to serve my claim about the function of fantasy than it serves his about erotic breastfeeding.

morning wood is low test? the fuck

Dream analysis. Association. Beyond the pleasure principle. He was right enough that his nephew Edward Bernays was able to craft new effective propaganda methods from his research. Overall, he was a bit dogmatic. Jung was better

>tfw no gf whose tits are so big that i can stand on em
one day, lads

Attached: Yellow.jpg (625x801, 43K)

I'm not trans. But I can confirm that shy, sweet guys spark my interest and bring out the femdom in me.

>tfw i want a femdom gf but i'm tall as fuck
Not fair bros...

>1.
Ehhh, all women want their men to be men, but not being a total misanthropic sperg helps.
>2.
I wouldn't do that. Wait, "heteronormati-"
>3.
JUST

Don't sleep in a warm enviroment and stop watching as much porn, and they will be reduced.

i think it's beacuse of >sometimes

African tribal men walk with their dicks out all day too. You wanna claim dicks aren't sexual?

Stop being a cumbrain.

they aren't. dicks are for peeing. if you use them for anything else you are a filthy pervert

but user, don't you know that cylinders = dick and spheres = boobs? Euclid is clearly pornographic.

Civilization is an elaborate mechanism for sublimating animalistic impulses. Culture is just a code genetics uses to replicate itself. He nearly got his oedipus theory correct, we love our mothers because they validate us and give us belonging so we seek to recapture that. We also hate our fathers because we cannot understand (there is no valid reason other than our fathers own self validation (acknowledging anatta)) why they would bring life into a futile universe and so we have aversion to anyone who undermines us or our ability to self validate.

Ultimately all life is for the comfort, pleasure and security of genetic systems as they roll down the universe until they can no longer arise. Thats what i think he meant by Eros and it is in contention with the death drive which is just the critical, undermining influence that most of us are averse to.

Let me guess, he never gave the 'correct' amount of it so he could bullshit either the too much or too little excuse on every single case.

What about jerking off to completion?

he was right about doggos

Attached: Screen-Shot-2015-04-28-at-4.14.25-PM[1].png (823x542, 735K)