The phallic position : The core of Masculinity

[Leo Gura]

Freud's worldview might have made sense in a world where people were insanely sexually repressed.

Those fucking Christians are to blame.

Edited 13 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Freud's worldview might have made sense in a world where people were insanely sexually repressed.

Those fucking Christians are to blame.

Again Freud wasn't a sex maniac; he was just very pragmatic, dry, even a bit cynical, and quite conservative; You would have appreciated him.

Not having sex doesn't have that many negative effects on the psyche, so I don't really buy into the idea that the psyche is particularly influenced by supposed sexual repression.

 

It's William Reich the pervert you're looking for lol; he was quite obsessed and wrote about how, when he was young, he got horny watching the animals on the family farm having sex lol, how he lost his virginity in pre-adolescence with the family maid, and all sorts of things like that.

Edited 13 hours ago by Schizophonia

[AION]

Freud is the founder of modern psychology. He opened the doors to the psyche. So knowing his stuff has some value because he got influenced by esoteric spirituality like Kundalini (sexual power) but it is wrong to be stuck with his paradigms. Even his student Jung was in odds with Freud. It is time you level up to Jung and beyond and not be stuck in the penis and pussy paradigm. For example Jung’s red book has so much depth. Very few can even phantom his work is so astronomical. They simply lack the processing powering to understand it. 

Edited 12 hours ago by AION

[AION]

Being stuck on Freud is like being stuck on Windows 97 while there is Windows Vista, 10 and 11. I know quite some people who are obsessed with Freud and when I talk to them I was struck that they only know Freud style stuff. Nothing about Jung, Neo Jungians or modern psychology. When I was talking about up to date psychology they looked at me like I was talking in a language they didn’t understand and they were actively blocking it mentally. Most of these people have some of the fetishes Freud had but the thing is that it is true for this group of people. Not true in general for all humans. 

[Elliott]

You guys are just attacking Freud personally. Please provide an example of where Freuds work is missing something.

[Hojo]

Wouldnt a pervert be the best person to ask about sexual related desires if hes analyzed them? The word phallic dosent mean anything its just a representation of what a pervert would use, the phallic can be anything and exists in all domains. Its like a pervert saying I figured out why I am a pervert and its this representation and it exists in everyone. Just saying hes a pervert cause hes sexually repressed and uses the word penis alot, isnt intellectual at all.

Edited 11 hours ago by Hojo

[Schizophonia]

@AION I consider Jung being inferior to Freud or Lacan.

Not holistic enough

[Schizophonia]

16 minutes ago, Hojo said:

Wouldnt a pervert be the best person to ask about sexual related desires if hes analyzed them? The word phallic dosent mean anything its just a representation of what a pervert would use, the phallic can be anything and exists in all domains. Its like a pervert saying I figured out why I am a pervert and its this representation and it exists in everyone. Just saying hes a pervert cause hes sexually repressed and uses the word penis alot, isnt intellectual at all.

No i I explained the source of the language elements.

On 05/12/2025 at 5:50 PM, Schizophonia said:

 

The term phallus isn't even patriarchal or anything like that; it refers to children's tendency, when they discover that girls don't have penises, to interpret the difference between the sexes as a litteral castration.
Thus, in psychoanalysis, when we speak of "castration," of "losing the phallus," we are indeed talking about the possibility of losing objects to which the ego is attached or identifies.

[Hojo]

@SchizophoniaWhen I first had dreams of naked woman they had penis'. Maybe this is the case for people who were exposed to vaginas early on but I didnt see a vagina until I was like 9. I already was told that woman dont have penis' before I saw one so I wasnt scared. Maybe if you are a baby and see one and have to make something up.

Edited 11 hours ago by Hojo

[AION]

56 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

@AION I consider Jung being inferior to Freud or Lacan.

Not holistic enough

in what way not holistic enough?

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, AION said:

in what way not holistic enough?

As I've already said it's overly conceptual and even uses too much New Age jargon, It aims to be more complex and organic.

Freud on the other hand is down-to-earth, simple, more fundamentalist in general.

Simplicity vs Multiplicity

People accuse Freud of being too influenced by the socio-cultural conditions of his time but this is only true for the Oedipus complex, and even then he specified that of course the family dynamics and environmental scenarios that accompanied psychosexual development are variable;not everyone is going to grow up in the typical model he presents but psycho-sexual development will still take place in its own way with the same potential difficulties; it is not the signifiers (daddy, mommy) that fundamentally matter but what is signified, that is to say the law/limitations or the desire.

Jungian epistemology leaves much more room for these socio-cultural biases because of its organic, not to say romantic form.

How do you know that x belongs to the animus and y to the anima? How do you justify attributing qualities to these respective categories?
Unless you're simply saying, "Oh well, I've often seen that, it seems to be that," in which case your epistemology is mediocre, there must be an underlying system that serves as the "why" for this division.

And if we have this system (the phallic position in this case), then we might as well get rid of this division.

One might say that it's the same thing, but again the more we create precise concepts rather than vague and romantic ones, the closer we get to the signified.

Edited 8 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

On 05/12/2025 at 5:50 PM, Schizophonia said:

 

This idea of being "in the right place," the ultimate signifier hidden behind every object of desire, is what Freud called the "phallus."

 

signifier of the lack*

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Hojo said:

@SchizophoniaWhen I first had dreams of naked woman they had penis'. Maybe this is the case for people who were exposed to vaginas early on but I didnt see a vagina until I was like 9. I already was told that woman dont have penis' before I saw one so I wasnt scared. Maybe if you are a baby and see one and have to make something up.

I didn't experience that, but I remember erotic dreams from before I was sexualized.

I remember rolling around in paint (a bit of an anal sadist eheh) and it was exciting.

[Hojo]

@Schizophonia i didn't know what a vagina looked like so I guess my brain just put a penis there. I don't remeber being scared of being castrated because I never saw a vagina therefore the fear of castration never came to me and this whole thought process never happened.

It kind of seems like he had a fear and is imposing it on everyone here. Maybe it was a fear for peoole that saw vaginas but if you didn't see one how could you have that fear? In this society we get mentally castrated when we have to go out and prove that we belong.

Was the paint brown?

Edited 8 hours ago by Hojo

[AION]

Jung is more complex because reality is complex. In my opinion Freud is too simplistic and boils everything down to his perversions. For example Oedipus complex is widely discredited.

At least Carl Jung has stuff like archetypes which is still being used today. Think of models like Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is practical and useful. And his insights on the unconscious is undisputed. He is still being referenced in modern books.

Both Freud and Jung offer interesting lenses but Freud's level is basically kindergarten level stuck at the level of the penis and the vagina. I don't see anything holistic about that unless you are watching a 3d porn or something. Archetypes on that other hand do a good job of charting the psyche.

Edited 8 hours ago by AION

[Leo Gura]

Jung is leagues above Freud.

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, AION said:

Jung is more complex because reality is complex.

No, it's a matter of perspective.
It's by moving towards ever simpler models that we can progress towards higher levels of intelligence.
It's because you no longer know how to produce ATP, how to carry out the billions of metabolic processes essential to the body, that you know how to do something like drink a cup of coffee.
It seems simple to drink a cup of coffee, yet it's made possible by the most complex form of intelligence found on Earth; knowing how to produce ATP is fine for single-celled organisms.

Quote

In my opinion Freud is too simplistic and boils everything down to his perversions. For example Oedipus complex is widely discredited.

The Oedipus complex is not "widely discredited"; it is essentially closed-minded people who "find it weird" and ridicule it.

There are no particular perversions in his work; he just says that the main object of love is (normally, within the framework of a mononuclear family) the mother up to the phallic phase and the internalization of the incest taboo, sometimes strange/funny speculations through dream analysis such as the "primitive horde".

Quote

At least Carl Jung has stuff like archetypes which is still being used today. Think of models like Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is practical and useful. And his insights on the unconscious is undisputed. He is still being referenced in modern books.

Both Freud and Jung offer interesting lenses but Freud's level is basically kindergarten level stuck at the level of the penis and the vagina. I don't see anything holistic about that unless you are watching a 3d porn or something. Archetypes on that other hand do a good job of charting the psyche.

It's the opposite; because Jung is more complex in the sense of being less holistic, "less profound, more expansive," as Ken Wilber would say.

That's why it's so popular; average people can read it easily and feel intelligent because they "have read Jung" even though it's actually very boring and useless because of its heaviness/inefficiency.

Edited 6 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Jung is leagues above Freud.

I'm sure you haven't studied Freud even a little bit, it's just another thing you say because you imagined it in the shower.

See my response to AION.

Is Ayahuasca superior to 5 MeO DMT because it's "much more complex"? No, you'll probably say that on the contrary ayahuasca's "complexity" is primitive fantasies and corrupting, and that it's with 5 MeO that you become a kangaroo alien.

It's the same here.

Edited 6 hours ago by Schizophonia

[AION]

@Schizophonia how did you field test your stuff?

[Elliott]

So, why do you guys think Freud was so widely successful if his theory only applies to sexual issues?

 

To me, Jung uses similar mechanisms, except he skips identifying any root from ones past.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott