'If a reconsideration of what Freud actually meant prompted a reset, it would certainly be welcome.' (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Kathleen-100x100.jpeg)
According to an old joke, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung are enjoying some pastries in a Viennese coffee shop. The younger analyst hesitantly asks the elder: “Tell me, Herr Professor Freud… vat lies between fear und sex?”. With furrowed brow, Freud thinks for several minutes. Finally comes his triumphant answer: “Fünf!”
The daft incongruity of this answer works — at least for me — because the one thing everybody knows about Freud is how seriously he took sex. According to the canonical interpretation, lascivious urges and impulses buried deep in the unconscious are responsible for large chunks of our behaviour, and indirectly for much of the content of culture generally. If you’ve ever bitten your fingernails at a moment of tension, felt strangely aroused looking at a skyscraper, or wanted to kill your father over a competitive round of minigolf, Freud has an explanation for you. It may not be empirically falsifiable, but you can’t fault it for local colour.
Freud’s foundational insight, that human minds have unconscious aspects, has since proved invaluable — not least as a corrective to Enlightenment fantasies of perfectly rational interactions between participants, each transparently aware of his own beliefs and motivations. When it comes to the self and its patterns of decision-making — perhaps a bit like the government of the United States at the moment — we don’t always know who or what is in charge. Though the real-life Jung took this point and ran with it in his own work, he eventually fell out with Freud, judging the latter’s obsession with sex too dogmatic and itself in need of psychoanalysis. In the memoir Memories, Dreams, Reflections, he recalled: “There was no mistaking the fact that Freud was emotionally involved in his sexual theory to an extraordinary degree. When he spoke of it, his tone became urgent, almost anxious, and all signs of his normally critical and sceptical manner vanished.”
But the recent republication of one of Freud’s most famous works seems to have put the monomania of its author in some doubt. As reported in The Observer last week, in a commentary upon a new edition of The Interpretation of Dreams, analyst and neuropsychiatrist Professor Mark Solms argues that Freud was using the term “sexual” throughout his oeuvre in a way that differed from ordinary usage. Instead, his intended object was “any activity that was pleasure-seeking in its own right — anything that one does for the purposes of pleasure alone, as opposed to practical purposes”. It seems clear that this might well include activities only tangentially connected to the nether regions, if at all: enjoyably attending to music, food, art or sport, for instance. Indeed, Freud apparently described a child kicking a football or swinging on a swing as “sexual’ in this vastly extended sense. And far from being the sort of cultural radical beloved of the avant-garde, Solms underlines that Freud was “a rather conservative gentleman and shared none of their revolutionary social inclinations”.
If this textual interpretation is right, then it too is funny: for it appears bathetically to undercut a century’s worth of edgy academic posturing about the supposed centrality of polymorphous perversity to the human condition. Perhaps poor Bertha Mason, stuck in Rochester’s attic, isn’t Jane Eyre’s sexual alter ego after all. Perhaps Hamlet’s interest in his mother is perfectly healthy. Perhaps Rosebud really is just the name for a sledge.
But there is a serious side to this too. One unfortunate aspect of modern (mis)readings of Freud is the way they have set up shop for the hideous idea of “childhood sexuality”, implicitly justifying perfect relaxation at the sight of young girls twerking in crop tops to Meghan Thee Stallion or cavorting with drag queens at Olympic opening ceremonies. If a reconsideration of what Freud actually meant prompted a reset, it would certainly be welcome.
On the face of it, Solm’s thesis seems to resemble one put forward by the philosopher and psychoanalyst Jonathan Lear, commenting in an illuminating book about Freud on his notion of an “erotogenic zone”. In early infancy — as all through life — we seek pleasure as a calming release from tension, pain, and agitation. The baby sucks at the breast or bottle and experiences gratification. Later, it is moved to find substitute objects that simulate or expand upon the original pleasure, investing them with motivational affect instead. As Lear puts Freud’s point: “In infancy we suck at breasts and plastic nipples, then we suck thumbs and blankets, then we suck on ice cream and candies and other delicious foods, then we kiss, and later we again get to suck on breasts and genitals.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“avoid using children as the canvas for the projection of contemporary adult dramas”.
Thanks Kathleen for raising something that for many is so very obvious. I’m wanting to add though I don’t think the commentary goes anywhere near far enough or strongly enough to the detrimental effects the early sexualization of children really is. Let alone leaving children open to sexual abuse itself. Like all things, we don’t know who we really are. There is a plethora of information regarding the detrimental, often lifelong effects of this. You are right in your alluding that what this will wrought on these generations as they grow up beggars something that is too horrendous to contemplate. The overt grooming – a well known series of ‘acts’ by s**X**l predators, has already begun. First you gain trust from the unsuspecting person, now in this case public, normalize it, separate child from parents, think California has just released laws stopping schools from telling parents about their child if they choose to change gender, introduce sexual imagery, and then the obvious. The Paris opening furor over that scene – the Last Supper, per se, had the smattering of ped**phila right there with a nearly nude blue man smoozing and gyrating with a young girl. A more than sneak preview of what’s coming. Apparently he was singing “and we’ll all be naked”…..
Just ask any adult survivor of child sexual abuse.
How can any of us be complacent is beyond me. I say this without my own hysteria but an almost urgent, too late desperation for people to Please wake and and actually SEE.
Heaven help us all. I fear it is too late.
It’s striking how many of the progenitors of woke ideology had a sexual interest in children. Foucault only managed to stay out of prison thanks to the intervention of Francois Mitterand.
Don’t forget John Money, the champion of paedophiles.
Similar to Gabriel Matzneff, whose exploits were openly known to all in his memoirs and carried a letter of support from Mitterand in his pocket. Vanessa Springora’s unforgettable memoir Consent attests to the Parisian intellectual support of his behavior.
You haven’t figured out yet the Paris opening tableau in question had nothing to do with The Last Supper? While stupid and not suiting my aesthetic at all, it was deliberately patterned after the Wedding of Dionysus.
![comment image](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detail_of_the_Dionysus_Mosaic_depicting_scenes_from_the_life_of_Dionysus;_the_wedding_of_Dionysus_with_Ariadne,_Sepphoris,_Israel_(15628053511).jpg)
That’s why the blue was there.
Just as men that like to watch genetically-male boxers beat females at the Olympics are deeply suspect, so are men who are interested in “queering childhood”. Sadists and peados hide in plain sight largely due to the dopey acquiescence of women who fancy themselves avant-garde.
Fair enough. But, it’s not just men. Much of the queer theory garbage has grown out of feminism from women (Judith Butler and others). In fact, at least here in the US, it’s often women in positions of authority over children (public school teachers and the like) who are most aggressive when it comes to ‘queering’ children and childhood. Also, have a look at any group of parents and children attending those creepy drag shows for children (especially ones where the kids wind up dancing along with the ‘queens’). You will see a lot more women (mothers) there with their children than men.
I completely agree but my point is while these women are pushing these philosophies, no doubt feeling they are “on the right side of history etc”, they are actually, unconsciously aiding and abetting woman-beaters and nonces.
Maybe you are wrong about “woman-beaters and nonces”. We, men, have so many defects of our own that the contribution of these stupid women is insignificant in comparison.
Men as a sex don’t have defects. Some men are deviants and a danger to women and children. Of course it is them who are at fault but there is a class of women who defend transvestite males competing in women’s boxing or who promote creepy men who talk about releasing children’s sexuality who are in reality sex offenders. They must share responsibility for the actions they facilitate.
The feminists you describe are only one branch. Many are gender critical and want to protect children from the those who want to sexualuize them and change their sex. We want to protect children’s innocence..
I agree. But, none of this ‘queering’ of children would have any traction in society if it was only being performed by men, queer or otherwise. It’s the women (including mothers) who provide the cover of legitimacy. If it was only men, the reaction of society would be quite different.
Yes, mothers like Susie Green of Mermaids fame.
It seems to me that the support for Woketarianism (as a general phenomenon) tends to come from women.
I was a teenager in the 1970s when sex was a free-for-all for the first time as a result of The Pill and Women’s Lib. Needless to say abortion, depression, VD and attempted suicides were not uncommon.
I remember going to a party when I was fifteen, a much posher party than I was used to, where 14 and 15 year olds were rolling around on the carpet in pairs (male and female), snogging and fondling as if their lives depended on it. Too boring for me and we left.
I’m not sure how this anecdote fits in with KS’s article except that 50 years later I’m not sure under-18s are ready for sex, it’s not a game, it’s a creative force that brings about the next generation. The general trend of sexualising younger and youger children in the UK since the 1960s seems degenerate. I think individual good parenting might be the only answer in the face of it.
Freud had some useful ideas, but not about sex, far too neurotic himself imo.
He was also an atheist, which led him to reduce sex to a human activity driven by his own hypothetical neuroses, eg, the Oedipus complex.
I prefer Jung.
“Freud had some useful ideas, but not about sex, far too neurotic himself imo.”
Freud was a confidence trickster. He may have believed his patter, but that does not make it real.
Try anything by Professor Fred Crews (“Follies of the Wise” is a wonderful collection of essays on post-Freudian – and other – idiocies).
I share your – and Ms Stock’s – serious concerns at those tempted to explore “child sexuality”….
I second your recommendation of the late, great Fred Crews’ Follies of the Wise (and his other books.)
Freud was dishonest and a quack.
I firmly believe that most of the ills that have befallen children over the last 20-30 years are the result of either poor parenting, or lack of parenting due to either the parents not caring, or both having to work all the time to sustain a family.
Having a stay-at-home parent is just so important in my mind. Kids need to be properly educated more than ever because there are so many more bad influences that are easily accessible, thanks to the internet.
I’m not blaming women for wanting to go to work, or anything like that. I don’t have a solution, just a description of what I think is the biggest problem facing our current generation, and future generations, of children.
‘For, as is also highlighted by Lear in his book and by Freud before him, unlike with the sexual behaviours of other species, human sexuality is highly plastic.’ I am absolutely no expert on this, other than having (I hope) a basic moral compass, but it seems to me the prevailing ideology is the exact opposite: that sexuality is an identity, part of your make up, what you are. There is no room at all for social conditioning, personal development or moral choice. Otherwise the whole paraphernalia of Pride festivals, Stonewall-authored youth policies, bans on conversion therapy, etc, makes no sense.
But given this view, it is a very small logical step to claiming that if sexuality is innate, it must be there at least in some latent form in children, even small children. It’s only another short step, following this logic (which for clarity I utterly reject), to saying that this identity should be nurtured and expressed. Indeed it would be cruel not to. Ideas like this are not the preserve of some wild fringe of academia, they are very much in the mainstream now.
“if we stopped thinking of sex as the root of all interesting human behaviour, we eventually might start having more of it.”
That’s how it was back in my teenage and youth years, a couple decades ago. Happy times.
“researchers desperate to uncover a new and profitable victim class are imposing adult frameworks upon younger groups, and reaping the professional spoils of grants and research outputs accordingly.”
Taken more broadly, this sentence perfectly sums up the main current trend in the world: making up victims for someone to “stand up” for their rights and take full advantage of that.
Well done, Kathleen!
I also feel like the rise of the latest feminist movement had a rough effect on sex for men. I’ve heard women say things like they don’t want to be sexualized by men, we are all pigs, part of the evil patriarchy, toxic, whatever. All of these things have affected the way I approach women. It used to be very casual, now I over-think things and wonder if I am offending and it often makes encounters a bit weird before they even start. Then the metoo movement after that, which rightly called out evil men and sexual predators, but also seemed to generalize all men who show interest in women as the enemy. Maybe I’m internalizing a lot of this but it’s just how I’ve felt.
Maybe it’s because I’m old, but I feel that sex evolved as a means of reproduction and any activity that doesn’t involve the possibility of that is simply erotic play. Nothing wrong with play of course, but I feel that a society that has forgotten that distinction and the basic purpose of sex is in its twilight.
I am not sure that you are right. It seems to me that the “excessive” role of sex in human life has an evolutionary origin and is connected with the fact that the process of bearing a child and its long-term complete dependence on the mother made human females excessively vulnerable in every sense of the word, so they took the path of tying males to themselves with the help of well known female “tricks”: on the physiological level constant readiness for sex, neoteny, on the psychological level demonstration of weakness, need for protection, etc., on the social level – women generate the majority of public opinion, alas.
Perhaps this is the reason why religion pays so much attention to sex; large human communities need regulation of sexual behavior, otherwise they are apparently doomed.
I think that many parents experience of evolution is that new mothers aren’t generally ready for constant sex, and that the father’s testosterone levels fall off a cliff so he is more likely to hang around and rear the baby.
I believe the key for children is the intrusion of the virtual world of gaming and social media reinvention – in both cases, the creation of avatars of the self- into the domain of sexuality.
As for psychoanalysis, yes it it’s entirely appropriate and probably very profitable when engaging with adult transgendrism.
Once I saw drag queens dancing in front of children I realized the demonic does exist.
Perhaps if we stopped thinking of sex as the root of all interesting human behaviour, we eventually might start having more of it
That presents quite the conundrum. While young adults are having less sex than previous generations, there is a full-court press on sexualizing children as early as possible. There was a recent article in Real Clear Investigations, a US site, that showed allegations of sexual misconduct in the public education system – and by that, I mean teachers and underage students – make the Catholic church scandal look weak.
Thank you Kathleen for this wonderful, thought-provoking and amusing article. I always feel in safe hands with you (no sexual.implication, I assure you).
Unfortunately this whole subject and where we are heading is actually no laughing matter. To make light of it, whilst l don’t condone morbid hysteria, does not take seriously the very real consequences. It will only serve to make all of us complicit in a hands off way if all of us do nothing. In as much doesn’t speak out or call out these actions. Much like has been done historically on this very subject.
Who are these “edgy academics”? Mathematicians? Neuroscientists? Organic chemists? Oceanographers? Pharmacologists? Astronomers? Geologists? Biologists? Particle physicists? Immunologists? Electrical engineers? No, they are the practitioners of the various “studies”, the most pernicious development in academia in the past 50 years, carrying titles and prestige equal to those in actual sciences while practicing nothing but pseudoscience, empty verbal acrobatics, spewing incomprehensible garbage, unaware of their own stupidity but very much aware of their power over others which I would love to know how they managed to develop.
I believe that the entire system of academic research and education should be changed form the bottom up: hard sciences should remove themselves from the current academic centers and establish schools strictly related to science and maybe to theories about science (yes, philosophy) and let the “studies” departments chew the fat until they fade into irrelevancy.
You might find some edgy academics if you do an MA in Queer History at Goldsmith’s College. https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-queer-history/#:~:text=Why%20study%20MA%20Queer%20History,postgraduate%20programme%20in%20Queer%20History.
Or the MA in Queer Studies at York: https://www.york.ac.uk/study/postgraduate-taught/courses/ma-queer-studies/
As someone who was sexualised at a very early age, I’ve spend most of my life trying to repair the considerable damage that has been done by these experiences. Being forced to have sexual experiences before one has the physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual plumbing to cope with it, causes fuses to blow and pipes to rupture. Flashing red lights across the board. Some of this damage turns out to be unfixable.
I might be wrong, but it appears that these trendy academics have not thought to talk to people who have actual empirical data from the coal face of early child sexualisation. People like me. I’ve been in and out of therapy all my life and am mystified by the lack of curiosity that most therapists display towards the actual, granular, real life consequences of sexual abuse.
What am I saying? Err, I suppose, that we have definitive real world answers to many of the questions that these academics are posing. There is no mystery, the data pool is huge, and there are many articulate voices from this community, many if whom have interesting perspectives. So why is nobody listening?
My lived experience (to use that fashionable expression,) is one of awkwardness and embarrassment. Not me, you. We are an awkward detail for you all, a messy complication that you would rather just go away. (And die?) Maybe that’s a bit excessive. But many of us do; die that is. Early and by our own hands.
If Ms Stock is be believed, we are about to manufacture a generation of profoundly dysfunctional people. Who won’t be able to become aroused, demonstrate sexual agency, get it up, orgasm, give consent, withhold consent; understand consent even. It’s terrifying.
Now you may argue that I’m conflating, the normalisation childhood sexual expression with sexual abuse. Actually I am; the conversations that I’ve had within the community suggest that ALL early sexualisation is damaging. In some ways loving, intimate, tender sex at an early age is even more damaging than the coercive kind, because the boundaries are so fuzzy. I.e. I’m damaged but I can’t find the smoking gun. WTF! But also if you normalise early childhood sexualisation the the pervy bastards will pile in like it’s suddenly Christmas.
I’m 58 now, I’ll probably be dead in 20 odd years, so I won’t have to live though the tsunami of shit that is coming at us. And thank Christ for that.
Taking the liberal approach of “let’s try this, without considering what the consequences might be”, or the French approach of “let’s destroy everything and start again”, rarely works, especially when this is repeated, again and again, at the same target. It’s like creating a clearing in a forest, repeatedly: eventually, there’s no forest to supply what was always available.
And it’s happening with so many ‘activities’, from adapting university courses, school curricular, Policing, Health policy, Family activities and relationships, Energy production, in fact, there’s nothing that escapes the malevolence forces, with the corruption of children being the most damaging, most long lasting and the most difficult to remedy.
It’s why Free Speech is so important, not to allow the ignorant to lead the herd, but ensure they don’t.
For example, the emphasis of getting EVERYONE equally as knowledgeable in as many subjects as possible only leads to few knowing what they are good at. So most leave school having little idea what career they might choose, what further education might be beneficial, let alone be enthusiastic about it.
How come, if child sexuality were just a figment of Freud’s fevered imagination, so many kids are winding up on the sex offender registers in the US and UK just for doing what comes naturally with each other? About a third on these registers are minors, and even kindergarten kids have been stigmatised for their alleged misdeeds.
How come, as so-called child protection (aka suppression) outfits such as NSPCC and Internet Watch Foundation routinely report, preteens are going in for “sexting” each other without any adult involvement or encouragement?
How come, if Stock is right, ultrasound evidence has demonstrated the phenomenon of even pre-natal masturbation? I’ll give a medical reference, as some may otherwise be incredulous: Giorgi, G. & Siccardi, M. “Ultrasonographic observation of a female fetus’ sexual behavior in utero”. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 175(3), 753 (1996).
How come numerous surveys from the Kinsey era onwards have indicated extensive childhood masturbation and orgasm years ahead of puberty? If this were not true, why would there have been a grotesque campaign using medieval-style torture methods to suppress childhood masturbation in the days when dogma held that masturbation causes insanity?
Freud neither discovered nor fantasised child sexuality. Rather, he detonated an explosion of public discourse on it along with other pioneers of his day, including Havelock Ellis and Albert Moll – ever since which there have been increasingly determined but occasionally desperate (Kathleen Stock!) efforts to slam the lid back on Pandora’s Box – or bury little Oedipus and Electra in fig leaves.
Historian Steven Angelides, in a much cited paper, called it the “erasure of child sexuality”, a theme he followed up in his book The Fear of Child Sexuality five years ago.
Stock’s panic on behalf of “your kids” is flagged by her fact-free scramble to dash off a response to a new book about Freud. It’s the century or so of empirical research on child sexuality since Freud that is revealingly absent from her article, especially from the era of Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues – a less squeamish, censorious, neo-puritan one than that which sadly prevails today.
I find this fascinating and thank you for being a disruptor in this space, but I have a few questions for you. I tend to fall back on lived experience these days because nobody can agree on anything at the moment about, well anything I suppose. So I always ask myself, does this assertion make sense? Does it pass a common sense sniff test, based on what absolutely know for certain, which would be what I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own ears and experienced with my own body?
So using this metric how does what you assert stack up with what I know for sure.
Okay, when I was abused, I had not idea what it was we were doing it or why we were doing it. I have no memory of sexual inclinations before, during or after the abuse. My sex drive, such as it is, kicked in pretty much on-time at the age of about 14. I have precisely one memory of a conversation before this at the age of about 11 concerning sex. We were in a state of disbelief at what adults got up to. We had heard that a man puts his willy in a woman, but we’re of the opinion that we were supposed to take a piss in there. It sounded absurd to us. Then at 14 puberty happened, the wheels came off and hilarity ensued.
So no part of what you describe has any purchase on any of my childhood at all. But I’m just one guy with one set of memories. How about you? Does this scholarly research chime with your own experience or people you have talked to? Does it sound reasonable? Does it pass your own common sense sniff test?
I take it you missed this part “…a child’s unfocused and exploratory touching is significantly different from what a grown adult knowingly does when clicking on PornHub.”?
Masturbation in pre-pubescent children and infants is completely natural and occurs because touching themselves feel pleasant and comforting – it is self-soothing. As Kathleen said in the article, it is a dangerous leap to take that as evidence of a child wanting sexual touch from another person. Why are you so keen to make that leap?
Sexualised behaviour towards other in pre-pubescent children, especially ‘kindergarten’ aged children, can be indicative of that child having seen things that no child of that age should see, and/or having been sexually abused.
So the moderators decided to remove my post. I’m not surprised, the direction of my ire to you the reader was deliberate you see. The problem with sexual abuse is silence. Often smart, educated people such as unherd readers are too polite, too nice. They don’t know what to say, so they say nothing. And the abused individual remains invisible. Again. And angry. Obviously.
So which bit did people find offensive? Was it the finger pointing? Was it the suggestion that child sexual abuse can occur in a gentle loving context? Was it the suggestion that sexual abuse can replace one’s libido with a vacuum, with no up or down? Or my apocalyptic view of the future? How can I craft a message that people can engage with if any attempt to explain the real world consequences of child sexual abuse are ignored reflexively. I get no nuance, no steer.
I’ve tried being nice about it. If anything, in that instance, my observations get even less attention. To be honest getting cancelled is at least demonstrates that somebody actually read the thing. Believe it or not getting sent to the naughty step is an improvement.
So come on, tell me, what was it that pissed you off enough to cancel me?
You speak to truth. I hear you. I acknowledge you and l understand you completely. So much more needs to be said.
Thanks Bird, too kind. So tell me please, were you triggered? You see without the detail I’m going to think you’re just humouring me, like we all do with the crazy guy wandering around at the bus station. With his fly half open and yesterday’s food in his beard.
I can see your post above, Howard, so I don’t think it’s been removed. Unless you wrote a third post?
You can twist it whatever way you like, but anyone who comes for my children is going to live to regret it!
One of the delights of reading Kathleen Stock is the ability to google all sorts of interesting expressions distant to me such as “Japanese Rope Bondage and Dipping”. I have signed up for a course in Chicago more to get the pre-reading before deciding not to hand over my hard earned money. Oh if all those New Yorkers who spent $Billions on “therapy” could have read articles such as this.
Okay, having read all the comments posted here. It’s clear that we all hate the baddie-nutter-trans-twats. Good. Clearly their beliefs are at substantial variance with any sane person’s lived experience. Are contrary to the experience of the vast majority parents and the laws of physics (probably.) But why do they believe this nonsense? We could waste buckets of ink detailing the endless absurdities implicit in their beliefs. But they won’t debate us, so we will probably never know.
So, to advance a not unfamiliar thesis, is this “movement” nothing short of a counter-reformation against 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. It does rather upend all the cosy assumptions of the late 20th century settlement between the sexes. After all it appears that it’s women that suffer here. You know, guess what! Women don’t exist anymore, so good luck finding anything substantial to pin your hard earned liberties on!
I know, I know, this particular piece of lunacy is directed at kids, not women directly. But who will be affected more? Who is going to lose more sleep? Who will take more time off work as a result? Women.
These people have leaned something from the tech bros. Move fast and break things, in this case systems of belief. We will remain off balance until we see the larger strategy. So is this just another front on a war on women, or am I being silly?
Fantastic article about the intellectual veneer given to the NAMBLA mentality.
Jeffrey Mousaieff Masson covered Freud’s shift in thinking about childhood sexuality in a number of books, particularly in The Assault on Truth. His thoughtful and detailed work on childhood trauma and sexuality led him to be skewered by the intelligentsia, involving a takedown from no less than Janet Malcolm. Read Michel Foucault/Judith Butler/etc. or watch any films from celebrated seventies autuers like Pretty Baby, Manhattan, Taxi Driver, etc. and you’ll see the playbook for what is resurging now in terrifying ways in the name of liberation. Hell, revisit Brave New World. Childhood sexuality was a key tenet of this “utopia” where the dirtiest word was viviparous.
When I teach about this in classes–letting the primary documents from Foucault, Butler, etc. speak for themselves, it is shocking for many students to ponder what these sacred icons of progressivism actually said about this matter.
It’s interesting that Judith Herman’s ideas about trauma–which take the body seriously–came up at the same time. This overemphasis on social construction Butler champions “removes” the moral and physical effects in the progressive idea of childhood sexuality.
Another illuminating, insightful piece by Stock.
The notion that Freud would use “sexual” — which has a specific and well-understood meaning — when he intended something more expansive is dubious. He was an educated man who understood the meaning of words and chose them appropriately.
Solms’ view that Freud nonetheless meant something more (and different) than “sexual” when he used “sexual” reminds me of the SCOTUS ruling in Bostock that “sex” — again, a clear word, commonly understood when used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to even any imbecile now — actually includes sexual orientation and “gender identity.”
Such needless re-interpretations of completely clear language are exhausting, and seem to serve only professional, personal or political aims.
I’ve come to think that part of the problem is a juvenile form of reasoning that prevails on the left:
(1) Some people want to do x.
(2) After a few seconds of thought and no seconds of research, I (usually aged about14-24ish) can’t think of any overridingly weighty reason why they shouldn’t.
Therefore: (3) x is permissible.
I hear this general sort of reasoning from my students when we discuss topics like polygamous marriage. They have never even considered the idea that there might be human consequences of such a thing that go beyond what they can come up with after five seconds of reflection.
I can tell you that I used to reason like this when I was young and stupid(er).