“This condition had no name, under the pen of Freud it would become the Oedipus complex and create a universal pathology for the sole purpose that he could be less alone [with his creation].” […] Here is the key to the Freudian epistemology: the extrapolation of a universal theory from a personal adventure.”
– Michel Onfray, Le crépuscule d’une idole – l’affabulation freudienne (Twilight of the Idol – The Freudian Fable)
In the 21st century we have the results of various social engineering programmes made manifest. Alfred Kinsey managed to contribute to the gradual detachment of sex from love, and the fragmentation of family and community cohesion by placing the sexual act at top of the pleasure pyramid as an end in itself. As we saw in the previous post, the pathologising and mainstreaming of minority orientation and encouragement of greater and more extreme forms of unlimited sexual expression produced the prevalence of promiscuity and body-centric values which then became a dominant part of culture. This went beyond mere tolerance and acceptance of different forms of sexual identity and preference. It has led to acts of perversion as cool, anonymous sex as normal and sacred union based on love as old fashioned and silly.
That is not to say that we must all toe the line of heterosexual sex or that there is a right or wrong way to express ones sexuality. The key issue here is being true to yourself and whether or not sexuality and sex has been engineered in a certain direction and if it has benefited societies. If that is so, as I believe, then the choices presented to us as we are growing up are not choices at all, but a product of perception management. Are we getting closer to a greater understanding of not just our sexuality, but our place in the world or are we experiencing one expression of an endemic pathology that is tainting our sexual and emotional selves under cover of “normality”?
Are we roaming further and further away from our innate human potential while believing the opposite?
By delving into the reality of psychopathy within our socio-political institutions we might be able to find the answer.
Screen shot from the film ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ (2013) based on the book of the same name which involves a young woman’s exploration into sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism (BDSM). The book became a global best seller with 90 million sold worldwide by 2013.
Professor Amy Bonomi chairperson and professor in Michigan State University’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies conducted extensive studies which show that young adult women who read “Fifty Shades of Grey” are more likely than nonreaders to exhibit unhealthy behaviours. These include: eating disorders, binge drinking, having verbally abusive partners and a predeliction for multiple sexual partners. In other words, when films and books glorify and thereby normalise a narcissistic and/or psychopathic perception of reality, we can hardly be surprised that young people begin to exhibit stress and personality deformations. Or as Miriam Grossman M.D. observed: “There’s nothing grey about Fifty Shades of Grey. It’s all black.”
The sexual revolution was in large part a triumph of emotional immaturity and anonymous sex with women and men reflecting a caricature of their gender roles: literal objects to use and consume as a true reflection of our consumer society. Sure, there was also genuine examples of a mystical liberation through sex to which our pagan ancestors connected. There is no doubt that nature and the body was synonymous with a spark of ecstasy, a way to commune with God which developed into the cults of Dionysus and Bacchus and other body-centric, sensual rituals. The body as a bio-chemical conduit for achieving altered states can give that mystical “high” in the same way that drugs can bypass the brain filters and introduce to dimensions beyond the five senses – even if for a moment. Sometimes that’s enough to initiate dramatic change. But it is a short cut to a spiritual union that usually requires years of self development and inner work. Which is why drugs and sex magick tend to backfire. So, too the fire of sexual revolution which liberated more than just blocked emotions and neuroses. Could it be that the pendulum was allowed to swing much to far in the other direction?
As discussed, rather than feminism increasing the freedom of women’s rights in the West, under the elite-sponsored role of sexual emancipation it may have led to less rights for women and less happiness. The sexual freedom that women have rightly struggled for has proved poisonous where the modern woman is either trying to emulate the model of the alpha male in the corporate world or being caught between the false liberation of sexual promiscuity. In between those two poles lies confusion and doubt for women exemplified in the rise in narcissism.
This Kinseyian form of pseudo-scientific justification for abuse seems to be alive and well in the form of the American Psychiatric Association and the psychoanalysis tradition. Back in 2003, The American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debated whether “Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses.” Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco’s Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented a paper entitled, “DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal.” They argued that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously prescribed should not, for those reasons, be labelled mentally ill. These included exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism which are to be viewed as simply another form of sexual expression. They were also calling for paedophilia to be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Further, that all of us “normophilics” should allow paraphilias the freedom to be who they are and to remove the label of a mental illness forthwith. Though in the minority, a significant number of members agreed.
Another speaker at the same conference exclaimed: “Any sexual interest can be healthy and life-enhancing…” and “…that society should not discriminate against adults who are attracted to children…” noting that “many beloved authors and public figures throughout history have been high-functioning individuals who could actually be classified as paedophiles.”  This debate has continued to the present day.
Firstly, the emphasis is not to ostracise and place a judgment upon those of differing sexual preferences but to assist and heal if these extremes exhibit pathology that is negative to both the individual and the persons who do not harbour the same sexual preference. Healing the self by practicing bondage sado-masochism (BDSM) in the privacy of your own home is fine. Propagandising such a fetish and/or accepting predatory behaviour and sexual confusion as a template for society isn’t the way forward either. A sexual interest can indeed be “Healthy and life enhancing,” depending on which lens we have decided to view reality. Our focus can be tinkered with in order that it may flow in a direction not of our choosing, yet, we follow it by rote all the same.
Mainstreaming pathology: You can buy yourself a Black Padded PU Leather Hood “Gimp Mask” for Sensory Deprivation Bondage or be lead round the house on a lead if you so wish.
It is not a case of whether or not society should be free to choose how to heal and release what we perceive to be natural sexual expressions, but to explore why it is that those sexual preferences have arisen in the first place and if the various factors involved are indeed natural rather than carefully conditioned.
Ethics and values appear to be shifting in favour of a voting consensus that removes mental disorders without any safety net concerning rehabilitation and treatment, which begs the question: from what basis are these disorders or genetic predispositions decreed normal? What appears to be happening here is a spin that suggests that if it is defined as ill or pathological it is outdated and anti-progressive. If it can all be seen as just another deviancy and thus normalised we can all go home and stop being so retrogressive. If it is not an illness but one symptom among many drawn from narcissism or psychopathy, then we have clear and present implications for the safety of our nation’s health, especially children. The legitimisation of psychopathology via the Sex Establishment is joining forces with the politicisation of values that is reshaping our culture.
Paedophilia has qualities that align itself not only towards pathological narcissism but elements of psychopathy. It is interesting that there are a growing number of “scientists” of the behaviourist and psychoanalysis schools that advocate a redefinition of paedophilia rather than a redefinition of causes which could direct resources towards the treatment and prevention of child abuse. This includes learning every possible method of pulling the wool over the eyes of the authorities be it psychiatrist, policeman or lawyer, making the whole question of science, law and sexual freedom an increasingly difficult equation to solve. For to do so, means that we must see the distortion and deformation of sexuality and the sexual predators that personify such a malaise. We must see this through entirely new eyes and as a web of relations intimately connected with psychopaths in power.
Paedophilia and related pathologies may well be a symptom of biological, environmental, and traumatic abuse. It may also be a choice. What is conspicuous by its absence in the above appeals for paedophile rights are the rights of children for whom we must, by virtue of our roles as guardians and protectors, take a positive discrimination in these matters regarding their welfare and safety. People with “sexually unusual” interests, said Charles Moser and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz “may in fact be quite happy and well-adjusted,” which is entirely beside the point. The paedophile’s victims may not be quite so happy and well-adjusted after he has molested them. It is these kinds of remarks that feed into the mainstreaming” of pathologies under the guise of normality which may progressively alter the landscape of mass sexuality and under specific directives – then we have a problem, a problem that is not even the fault of those exhibiting sexual pathologies or otherwise.
We can regard all kinds of pathology and child trauma masquerading as healthy and well-adjusted living. This is not about making judgements about what is right or wrong in our sexuality but rather to question where we draw the line in favour of sexual expression that enriches society rather than infects it; where sexual boundaries are being pushed towards more and more extremes, rather than augmenting social relations.
Is the line between “healthy” and “damaged” becoming blurred here?
It is a contradiction that behind closed doors a select minority of paraphilics and a larger proportion of humanity seek to indulge their fantasies towards violence, fetishism, paedophilia, ritualistic sex and child molestation which may be indicative of a suppressed and learned behaviour caused by inverted and unresolved suffering. Meantime, an entirely different face is presented to the world at large. Genetics may play a significant role whereby traumas are imported down the generational line and impose “bombshells” on the next generation if no other role models exist. Yet what this means for society is the set up between the guardians of over-protection and the guardians of over-liberalisation with the resulting chaos created between the two, where opportunities for creative solutions are forever denied.
Noted luminaries were paedophiles or had paedophilic tendencies. There is certainly an historical basis in fact that much of the Establishment or “high functioning” individuals could be classed as paedophiles and/or child rapists. The nature of government, secret societies, occult fraternities, and religious institutions that offer protection of power and status as a class-based tradition may also offer a sanctuary for such people.
Is there a link that those with deviant sexual expressions gravitate towards that which can offer them cover?
This quote from The American Psychiatric Association sums up this conversive thinking in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: “302.71 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder’: ‘The essential feature of this so-called condition is a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity (Criterion A). There is little motivation to seek stimuli and diminished frustration when deprived of the opportunity for sexual expression. The individual usually does not initiate sexual activity or may only engage in it reluctantly when it is initiated by the partner.” 
This illustrates the point and might be drawn directly from Kinseyian sexology. If you do not have sexual fantasies, a desire for sexual activity, little motivation to seek stimuli and little frustration when an opportunity for sexual expression comes your way, or even – horror of horrors – you have minimal interest in sex, then you are abnormal. You have a disorder. Notice too, that the idea of love being a factor in this purely mechanical equation is of little importance. If clinically, the activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology “unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning,” then what is known as zoophilia *can be considered no more functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. Even having sex with a deer can be considered fine and dandy in our paralogical reality as one Wisconsin man’s attorney claimed in his client’s defence that the: “‘crimes against sexual morality’ statute prohibits sex with animals, but fails to mention carcasses … “The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass.” Getting this man off is not the issue but the social and developmental factors governing his desire to see a carcass as sexually fulfilling is obviously the real point of contention.  Paralogical and paramoralistic arguments are employed to suggest that it is perfectly normal for human beings to use animals for sex – be it dog, horse or the neighbour’s parakeet – should the desire be strong enough.
These are extreme examples. Nonetheless, what does this mean for more down-to-earth issues of sexuality? The fusing of definitions of acceptable and pathological become habitual and thus the propensity for normalisation. The manual’s criterion for mental illness appears to be getting both ever more flexible and increasingly restrictive. With a suitably biased psychiatrist, the manual can be used as a way to give undue credence to almost any abnormality or disorder depending on the required outcome. As a tool for removing subversive persons for example, a method to which psychiatry has long since lent itself. For instance, there is still no diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any of the other three hundred so-called mental disorders listed in the current edition. A cursory look at the manual gives the impression that American psychiatry is sometimes a mix of culturally biased, reactive, class-driven moral judgements of what it considers to be abnormal behaviour.
Sigmund Freud believed that any and all symptoms of perceived dysfunction or neuroses could be sourced from repressed memories, irrevocably tied to a repressed sexuality. Although Freud offered intellectual insights into our understanding of human sexuality, the final analysis reveals that his psychoanalysis was an indication of his own neurosis and sexual abuse which he was busy burying under a grandiose schema of rationalisation.
While casting out any possibility of incest as predatory, he rejected the body in favour of an acute form of biological asceticism; a kind of clinical denial that strangely lent itself to the exact kind of religious conservatism that he was trying to avoid. It may be true that his victims’ pleas for understanding were merely absorbed into his own fragmented, mechanical view of sexuality by turning them all into variations on the theme of Oedipus. His rejection of incest as abusive or traumatic fit perfectly with future psychiatry and Kinseyian programming. Proven cases of recovered memories were simply ignored. Repressed and false memories can exist but the battle between both is currently being expressed through their respective extremes with money and psychopathy as the deciding factor.
Freud’s simplistic associations have allowed pathocratic principles to burrow deeper into human consciousness and to drop our crumbling defences against the psychopath still further. Author George K. Simon, Jr., writes in his cautionary book: In Sheep’s Clothing: “The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud’s observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.” Simon further suggests: “We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or “run” too much.” 
The whole basis upon which Freudian psychoanalytical movement rests is the wholly subjective notion that all psychological illness is rooted in repressed sexual impulses, unconscious incestuous fantasies, the spectre of death and the fear of castration, the latter of which appears to have their roots in the genital mutilation (circumcision) of the Old Testament. Freudian psychoanalysis has given credence to the myth that girls secretly want to have sex with their fathers for example, which is crude, simplistic and on a par with the generalizations we can find in the Kinsey reports. In fact, if the denial of whatever sexual impulse is at work – whether depraved or perverted – then the basis for finding perversion distasteful must necessarily lie in one’s own unconscious desire for perverse practices. This is a both an intensely paralogical, materialist and nihilistic view of life that has no room for multiple psychotherapeutic dimensions of healing.
The psychoanalytical movement made claims that there’s was a new science when in fact it was nothing more than pseudo-science that developed a cult following. As Bob Altemeyer a Canadian professor of Psychology astutely sums up: “One gets nowhere with a theory that can ‘predict’ whatever happened, after it happens. Having an answer for everything may make one a great used car salesman, but it rings the death knell for a theory in science. In science, the best explanations are nailed-down-testable.” 
While undoubtedly breaking new ground in tapping the unconscious fears that lie within the human psyche, these successes paled in comparison to the fear and loathing of both sexuality and the feminine that Freud seemed to set in motion. Freud’s own neuroses as well as the broader fears of the Jewish culture were injected into this new “science.”
Psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley illustrated the cult of psychoanalysis in this way:
Today celebrated psychiatric authors “plainly demonstrate” by methods widely proclaimed as scientific that the chief reason human beings came in time to wear clothing lies in the ever-present influence of a “castration fear” of which they all remain unconscious. Not for protection against the weather, primarily, we are told, or for purposes of adornment, did primitive men and women first don bearskin coats or grass skirts. According to high authority, the real motivation lies deeper, in a universal but unconscious terror felt by each male that a jealous father will amputate his penis. Concealing his genital organs with apparel offers him, it is claimed, a slight measure of protection from this inescapable anxiety. The female (unconsciously), believing herself already dismembered as a punishment for (unconscious) incestuous aims, hastens to cover her mutilation and veil her shame.
Much of the reasoning and investigation classed as dynamic depends upon verbal constructs which can be readily manipulated by the accepted rules to furnish a bogus proof for virtually any assumption the human imagination might contrive. […]From the standpoint of modern operational logic, a theory must be expressed in such a way that it may be proved. This is surely the case with the Freudian theory. On the other hand, from the standpoint of modern methodology, the evidence or experiment which is designed to prove the theory must he one which could have a possible negative outcome and so disprove the theory. At the present time, many of the concepts of psychoanalysis are undoubtedly developed in such a way that only proof and not disproof is possible …
And it is this “bogus proof” and extreme subjectivity that gave the perfect cover for psychoanalysis to gain dominance in psychology, psychiatry and culture. It lent itself not only to misuse but acted as a gateway for any and all interpretations. Disagreements with Freud’s and his associates’ interpretations were summarily dismissed as products of “resistance.” This was a word used by Freud to illustrate the reluctance patients showed in speaking of painful or humiliating experiences during the process of analysis. He believed this resistance: “… often utilized the mechanism of repression to remove or to withhold from consciousness impulses or memories which the patient found it particularly unpleasant to accept and admit as his own.”  Therefore, when the medical psychology community did not accept these chief concepts Freud put this down to the theory of resistance thereby placing constructive criticism into a box he could padlock at will.
In the early part of the twentieth until the post war period, psychoanalysis firmly stamped its mark on the subconscious of the West. Although the diversity of psychology, psychotherapy and alternative medicine has diluted Freud’s power the legacy of his influence lives on as it did most strongly in the 1950s. As Cleckley outlines:
If a psychiatrist cannot accept as adequate the evidence Freud offers for his claim that at age four this patient was intensely motivated by a specific desire for his father to practice sodomy upon him, and was restrained in these inclinations by a fear of castration, he must be prepared to defend himself against the argument that similar (unconscious) desires and fears are determining factors in the dissident opinion. So, too, the critic who cannot accept the popular concept of universal bisexuality lays himself open to suspicions that an unrecognized homosexual tendency within himself, probably one of more than ordinary magnitude, is playing an important part in his alleged failure to accept evidence and react to it normally. 
Dr. Cleckley highlights the fact that Freud’s cherished beliefs do not necessarily equate with rigorous science. Politics and religion are bastions of such authoritarian, fear-based thinking that imposes the same fundamentalist beliefs upon others. Psychoanalysis is no different, which is why it has fallen out of favour in more recent times. The idea that those who disagree with the methods of the Freudian approach are somehow expressing resistance and respond: “…with unconscious longings to emulate the very thing being criticised is obviously a ridiculous simplification. The idea that the roots of all neuroses are from the repression of the procreative, biological sex impulse is equally fallacious.”
Perhaps the most revealing legacy of psychoanalysis is offered from author and consultant on abusive men and family issues, Lundy Bancroft. He wrote about Freud’s discovery at the turn of the 19th Century, of just how many of his female patients revealed instances of incest by their fathers and brothers. Early in his career Freud came to the conclusion that child sexual abuse was a key issue in emotional illness in adult women which resulted in his famous paper: “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” He reminds us it was at this juncture that Freud, so keen to be accepted by his peers found himself ridiculed and rejected for proposing such a thing. How could it possibly be that pillars of society with unimpeacable reputations could be perpetrators of incest? It was unthinkable. The results of this shock to Freud’s intellectual pride and the consequences for the future of psychology were enormous:
“Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. According to this theory any young girl actually desires sexual contact with her father, because she wants to compete with her mother to be the most special person in his life. Freud used this construct to conclude that the episodes of incestuous abuse his clients had revealed to him had never taken place; they were simply fantasies of events the women had wished for when they were children and that the women had come to believe were real. This construct started a hundred-year history in the mental health field of blaming victims for the abuse perpetrated on them and outright discrediting of women’s and children’s reports of mistreatment by men. Once abuse was denied in this way, the stage was set for some psychologists to take the view that any violent or sexually exploitative behaviors that couldn’t be denied—because they were simply too obvious—should be considered mutually caused. Psychological literature is thus full of descriptions of young children who “seduce” adults into sexual encounters and of women whose “provocative” behavior causes men to become violent or sexually assaultive toward them.”
Bancroft is under no illusions that the cultural influence of psychoanalysis remains strong and offers an anecdote from his experience to illustrate the point:
A psychologist who is currently one of the most influential professionals nationally in the field of custody disputes writes that women provoke men’s violence by “resisting their control” or by “attempting to leave.” She promotes the Oedipus complex theory, including the claim that girls wish for sexual contact with their fathers. In her writing she makes the observation that young girls are often involved in “mutually seductive” relationships with their violent fathers, and it is on the basis of such “research” that some courts have set their protocols. The Freudian legacy thus remains strong.”
We shortly discover just how strong this belief really is as we look further into the various expressions of abuse presently rising to surface within society.
 Bancroft, Lundy; Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men published by Berkley Books (2003) (kindle edition)