Jung was completely sick and insane. - A Dangerous Method (2011) Discussion

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

Jung's work was rooted in eugenics .So yes i would agree %100 that the man had issues .Eugenics is what the nazi's used in there ethnic cleansing rituals .the crazy part about it .when it comes to acting .is Lee strasberg's method acting comes from Jung's analysis .You could call it the Eugenic method HA! (attempt at dry humor)

reply

[–] Esuma 12 years ago

Sorry this is pretty off-topic, but I feel it's an important fact related to eugenics.

Eugenics wasn't just a disgusting thing confined to Nazis - the US and many other countries had their own 'movements'. The US government was actually one of the first countries, before the war and indeed after, to perform forced sterilisation... around 60,000 people were sterilised in the US, due to disability, deformity, mental illness, criminality and so on. Pretty shocking stuff since most people don't know about it... America was the inspiration for the Nazis on this one...

reply

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

that's true i forgot about that part they started doing it to people in the south i went to some museum in hollywood,ca that showed a history of this..it's messed up because Freud was part of the eugenics to

reply

[–] Jane_Claire 12 years ago

"The US government was actually one of the first countries, before the war and indeed after, to perform forced sterilisation... around 60,000 people were sterilised in the US, due to disability, deformity, mental illness, criminality and so on. Pretty shocking stuff since most people don't know about it... America was the inspiration for the Nazis on this one... "

Yes!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anomony 11 years ago

Eugenics?

There are Conservative Republicans so I guess they missed a few.
;)

reply

[–] ace_m 10 years ago

"like"

reply

[–] triachgul3 9 years ago

Not to mention FORCED sterilisation in Native American reservations, by US doctors. They would deliver a baby and without telling the mother, then sterilize the unknowing woman.

The US is a master of lies and revisionism.

reply

[–] kevinis40 8 years ago

Bravo!!! I mean this because you are the first person I have come across to point this out. I have been reading on Eugenics now for a little less than a year and support your points.

Making A Living Seeing

reply

[–] suzzmartin 12 years ago

Jung's work rooted in Eugenics? Where on Earth did you get that from? I'd American history is founded on Eugenics, including the extermination of human beings, that continues to this very day.

reply

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

Eugenics museum .

reply

[–] kepotaz 11 years ago

Bullcrap. Jung had nothing to do with eugenics, least of all had his theories based on it.

reply

[–] binabik-1 12 years ago

I'm not sure where you got that Jung's work was rooted in eugenics. There does not seem to be a lot of evidence that he supported or even was interested in eugenics. As for his ties to Nazism, most of those have been debunked (although there was an attempt to tie him to those ideas in the 60s). Jung was Swiss and had many ties in Germany, but he for the most part despised Hitler and was even frightened at the fervor of Nazism. He said that Germany was "infected" by Hitler who was moving all of Germany "towards perdition" in 1936, in his essay "Wotan" two years before the second World War.

It has been suggested that Jung's fascination with mythology validated in some ways the Nazi fascination with mythology. However that seems like a pretty sparse argument and overstates Jung's influence and ignores that German Volkstumsbewegung developed pretty much independent of Jung's influences. Jung tried to distance himself from that movement in the 1930s. Again, this really has nothing to do with Eugenics itself.

I think you may be confusing Jung with G. Stanley Hall, who was a contemporary of Jung's. Hall was an American Psychologist who did theorize quite a bit about racial eugenics. Jung and Freud traveled to the United States in 1909 to attend a conference organized by Hall, but that does not mean they endorsed most of Hall's ideas. Jung, for the most part, tried to distance himself from them, and Jung and Freud's purpose in attending the conference was to help establish and spread the acceptance of psychoanalysis in North America.

reply

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

Jung was not a member of the Nazi party, but he sure was a collaborator! All the top psychologists of the Berlin Psychological Institute quit in protest when the Nazis ordered them help identify psychology contaminated by Jewish influence, but Jung volunteered to accept the assignment. You should look up the list of books banned by the Third Reich. They include books by Freud and Adler, but not Jung's; this in spite of the fact that Jung's talking cure was no different from Freud's even after the split. If you want to read something funny, read Jung's apology. He said he was acting as a mole to fool the Nazis into thinking he was censoring Jewish psychology while secretly protecting it. It reminds me of the way all German civilians protested to invading American troops that they weren't Nazis. They all hid Jews in their cellars by golly!!!

reply

[–] max7171 12 years ago

@kidjay83 - Your obnoxious placement of periods makes your comment hard to follow. Almost to the point of not wanting to read it at all. Seriously, who taught you punctuation....Stevie Wonder?

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

Have you read any of Jung's letters of apology? Here's one written in 1934:

"If the German section of the society wants to exist at all the oath of allegiance is inescapable, as any reasonable person will understand. It was therefore planned that the managing editor of the Zentralblatt, Dr Cimbal of Hamburg, would bring out a special issue with statements by leading psychotherapists, together with a signed introductory statement by the president of the German society, professor Goring (Hermann Goring's cousin) of Eberfeld, for exclusive circulation in Germany. Such, too, were the instructions I gave to the managing editor. To my great surprise and disappointment, professor Goring's political manifesto was suddenly printed in the current issue of the Zentralblatt. I do not doubt that there were inside political reasons for this, but it was one of those lamentable tactical gaffes which were the bane of German political foreign policy even in the Wilhelm era. In this way my name appeared over a National Socialist manifesto, which to me was anything but agreeable. But after all, what is help and friendship that costs nothing? The incident is naturally so incriminating as to put my editorship seriously in question. My support for the German doctors has nothing to do with any political attitude."

The crucial element of this letter is that Jung actually signed the oath of allegiance to the Nazi party before they let him take over as editor of the Zentralblatt. He kept the post until 1940! In case you have any doubts about Jung's take on race, he wrote the following in 1910 for the Psychoanalysis Jahrbuk:

"The psychological peculiarity of the Americans evince features which are accessible to psychoanalytic investigation. These features point to energetic sexual repressions. The cause for the repression can be found in the specific "American Complex," namely, in the living together with lower races, especially with Negroes. Living together with barbaric races exerts a suggestive effect on the laboriously tamed instinct of the white race and tends to pull it down. Hence the need for strongly developed defensive measures, which precisely show themselves in those specific features of American culture."

By the way, you implied that Jung's cooperation with the Nazis was due to a fear of reprisals. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I swear I read somewhere that Jung never entered Nazi Germany. Instead he did his business with the Nazis from the safety of Zurich. I'm ready to accept a correction on this if I am wrong, but I would sure appreciated some documentation from you on it.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bob Pr. 12 years ago

How could anyone fall in love...with a woman who tells you such things, that she got excited when her dad beat her and also gets aroused while defecating? those are about the two most disturbing things i've ever heard.

Over time, in the intimacy of intense therapy relationships, that can happen. It's known as "counter-transference." "Transference" is when patients put on to their therapists strong emotional feelings that came from relationships they had in their families or with other intimates. "Counter-transference" is when the therapist is influenced by that &/or has reciprocal feelings. It can happen. It's definitely NOT ethical to act on it and it ruins treatment.

now i'm not saying people with a mental disorder don't deserve to be loved, but i think that because he knew how insane she really was, he couldn't have loved her.

Are you saying that makes her a different species? --not really fully human? Some people working in mental hospitals do have that opinion, that THEY are above THOSE people. It doesn't lead to helpful or compassionate treatment. One of my pieces of art is a bas-relief of 3 similar appearing, standing male figures; 2 are dressed in the gray pants and shirts then worn by male patients @ Topeka State Hospital. The other man is wearing white pants and shirt--as then worn by male aides @ TSH. A vertical gold bar or barrier separates the figure in white from the 2 in gray. IIRC, the piece is called either "The Difference" or "The Barrier" and I bought it because it symbolizes so well how easy it is to separate one's self from those one is caring for. (A few years later, patients wore ordinary street clothes and so did all hospital personnel to remove that visual stigma.)

I think this movie's premise was just awfuland I sncerely hope that one of the founders of psychology was not this perverted.

The movie is based on true events, many of which have only recently (the past 20-30 years) come to light with the discovery of many boxes of correspondence by some of the principals.

Jung was not a founder of "psychology."

Psychology existed before him and largely apart from him. Psychology in the USA was not very involved in patient care or treatment until the advent of testing techniques (e.g., intelligence, projectives, in the 1920s & later) and then a little later "counseling psychology" & "clinical psychology" (starting mainly in the 1940s & gathering more steam in the '50s and later).

Jung helped Freud found psychoanalysis but then, as the movie shows, he split away from Freud and created his own distinct form of psychoanalysis. But Jung did later repeat having an affair with one of his patients, Toni Wolff, and she became his mistress for many years (he called her "my other wife.")

reply

[–] ada_rockchick 11 years ago

I am reading this thread again... Thank you for taking the time to explain everything, I guess I got carried away a bit after watching the film and wrote some things that may seem ignorant. I still stand by most of what I wrote in the post, though. And I think you got me all wrong about the love thing... but nevermind

reply

[–] GethinVanH 12 years ago

You'd be surprised how many people are into S&M. It's a huge community. I don't personally 'get it' but if two consenting adults want to do that then I have no problem with it. If you think this is disturbing you're pretty sheltered because there are other more 'disturbing' fetishes such as coporophagia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia#Sexual_aspects

Eugenics is a disgusting belief but it was in vogue at the time and a lot of great thinkers believed in it. I don't think their other theories should be discounted just because of this. I live in Canada and some of the women who fought for a women's right to vote believed also in eugenics. Alexander Graham Bell also believed in eugenics. It's just to say that a lot of great people who made significant changes in society believed in this awful idea.

reply

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

Well, be that as it may, Freud and Jung had different takes on race: Here is what Freud wrote in *Totem and Taboo:*

The Australian aborigines are regarded as a distinct race, showing neither physical nor linguistic relationship with their nearest neighbours, the Melanesian, Polynesian and Malayan peoples. They do not build houses or permanent shelters; they do not cultivate the soil; they keep no domestic animals except the dog; they are not even acquainted with the art of making pottery. They live entirely upon the flesh of all kinds of animals they hunt, and eat roots which they dig up. Kings or chiefs are unknown among them; communal affairs are decided by a council of elders. It is highly doubtful whether any religion, in the shape of a worship of higher beings, can be attributed to them. The tribes in the interior of the continent, who have to struggle against the hardest conditions of existence as a result of the scarcity of water, appear to be more primitive in all respects than those living near the coast.

We should certainly not expect that the sexual life of these poor, naked cannibals would be moral in our sense or that their sexual instincts would be subjected to any great degree of restriction. Yet we find that they set before themselves with the most scrupulous care and the most painful severity the aim of avoiding incestuous sexual relations. Indeed, their whole social organization seems to serve that purpose or to have been brought into relation with its attainment."

-Totem and Tabu, 1912

Here is what Jung had to say on the subject:

"The psychological peculiarity of the Americans evince features which are accessible to psychoanalytic investigation. These features point to energetic sexual repressions. The cause for the repression can be found in the specific "American Complex," namely, in the living together with lower races, especially with Negroes. Living together with barbaric races exerts a suggestive effect on the laboriously tamed instinct of the white race and tends to pull it down. Hence the need for strongly developed defensive measures, which precisely show themselves in those specific features of American culture."

-Jung (Jahrbuk, 1910

reply

[–] justglaze 12 years ago

"Psychoanalysis is no longer a significant medical therapy" in no way is this true, neurosis, drug addiction, and any medical condition that stemmed from early childhood trauma requires psychoanalysis. I am in medical school and they always refer to freud in psychiatric textbook. His contributions as far as repression and developmental psychology are still used along with jung and adlers views.

And calling jung an "egotistical gobbledygook" reeks of 20 year old kid who took an introduction to psychology course in college and thinks hes a know it all. Ive read countless jung, adler, freud, Rank, janet, and abraham books and i have to say jung is one of the most effective and brilliant of all of them. Jung read countless books, both philosophical and psychological, and took into account other peoples work, so judging by the fact that you called him arrogant and egotistical leads me to believe that you have never read a jung book in you life.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] justglaze 12 years ago

your completely wrong about no insurance coverage for it there is plenty of insurance for it in almost every state but New Mexico where they allow clinical psychologists to prescribe medicine and im guessing you dont know the difference between psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is still the only treatment for neurosis, which is extremely common. Your referencing psychotherapy, which is the 15 minute consultations for treatment of things like depression and phobias.

As for jung vs. freud, jung graduated from medical school, worked under freud, and cured many patients, which is the only thing that matters. Freud's methods worked sometimes in patience whos neurosis stemmed from sexual repression, but with all other patients jung was more effective. As for jung's belief in archetypes, there is no way to prove that with science, so jung was merely stating his theories, i dont understand whats wrong with that.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eYeDEF 12 years ago

"In California, Blue Cross/Anthem and Blue Shield, for example, severely limit the number of outpatient psychiatric visits per year, certainly way below the 2-3 visits per week for years required in psychoanalysis."

Ever consider this is strictly due to the prohibitive cost and duration of treatment of psychoanalysis? I have my company's Blue Cross/Anthem premium insurance and yes, outpatient psychiatric visits they cover are limited per year, but the limitation is not strictly on psychiatric care specific to psychoanalysis. To use the argument that psychoanalysis has been discredited because insurance companies aren't keen on covering it is particularly disingenuous. There are plenty of legitimate treatments they refuse to cover due to cost.

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] janhatesmarcia 12 years ago

Jung was also a trained physician and served as a doctor in the Swiss army during WWI. He acquired his basic medical training at Basel University and went on to the University of Zurich where he specialized in psychiatry. He was a complex, flawed human being and never claimed that he was infallible. His "irrational romanticism" would have been a part of his belief system with or without the Nazi party.

The length of time a psychiatrist spends with a patient is comparable to that of a primary care physician. Due to the high cost of liability insurance and tuition, most doctors--whatever their speciality--are more or less forced to take on too many patients. And, yes, there is a great deal of subjectivity in psychiatry, the chief danger arising when everything a person does is interpreted as a "symptom" of his/her diagnosis.

However, psychiatry is still a young field of study, compared to medicine. In recent decades advances in research and the accumulation of patient data are pushing psychiatry toward a biochemical bias. The best treatment doctors and researchers can use for "mental illness" is one where body and mind are not separate. Medication, in addition to therapy (which may or may not include classical psychoanalysis) is currently the standard method of treatment. Jung and Freud were two of the leading figures in the field and both their contributions are valuable, no matter what their personal lives may have been.

reply

[–] justglaze 12 years ago

first of all dont believe everything you see in this move, cronenberg would be the first to tell you he polished it up with fictional details. Also the time when freud/jung were in practice was right after the victorian era which was a time of sexual liberation so they were likely caught up in the times. All im saying is dont let any movie sculpt your views of anyone.

Read memories, dreams, and reflections and you will see the real carl jung. He once spent 7 years with a schizophrenic patient, then frued asked him "how could you spend so much time with such an ugly girl". Jung just liked to help people, the movie doesnt really do him justice.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bob Pr. 12 years ago

bluesdoctor said

Psychoanalysis has been repudiated. Even among doctors, it is the least respected specialty. Most shrinks spend no more than 15 minutes per patient and merely dispense or monitor drugs.

As I said, there's no insurance coverage for psychoanalysis. Appropriately, psychiatrists earn the least of all the medical specialists. In fact, they can be and often are replaced by nonmedical psychologists.

You apparently don't know what psychoanalysis is. Better do some research. The notion of lying on a shrink's couch 2-3 times a week for 5 years is obsolete and irrelevant. I don't think it's covered by Obamacare.

The problem with psychoanalysis, of course, is the psychoanalyst. Psychoanalysis is no better than the psychoanalyst, who, as this movie amply demonstrates, has no claim to scientific objectivity.

bluesdoctor, you're obviously wearing a chip far bigger than your knowledge.

I'm a retired PhD clinical psychologist and, when I took my 1st doctoral level job @ Topeka State Hospital, psychoanalysis was greatly favored. The top supervisors (psychiatrists & psychologists) were either analysts or had been analyzed. TSH was under the strong influence of The Menninger Foundation which was also home to the Topeka Psychoanalytic Society. The "brand" of psychoanalysis was ego psychology, a development of Anna Freud, Hartmann, Erickson, etc., which emphasizes ego functions far more than the libidinal (Id) or conscience (Super-ego) forces.

I went through a 5 1/2 year analysis, 5 days/week on the couch, 11 months/year. On my $7k/year salary, I paid $25/50 min. session, so I took part-time evening and week-end jobs to survive. My analyst was excellent.

I wouldn't recommend psychoanalysis to many people but I have no regrets and am very grateful for the experience. Many of my Topeka friends are analysts or have been analyzed. I found it useful in understanding transference and especially in avoiding counter-transference. My professional life went largely in the direction of family therapy although I continued to treat psychotics and neurotics throughout my career. My patients' medicinal needs were handled by referrals for that purpose to local psychiatrists who were former colleagues. FWIW, we were short of experienced psychiatrists during my last 2 years @ TSH so I was appointed Treatment Director of a 60 patient ward (and given a part-time MD to write the prescriptions needed).

Not all "shrinks" are MDs. The term is a general street term for therapists doing psychotherapy. It's also sadly true that recently the majority of psychiatrists are dispensing medicines to relieve symptoms rather than using psychotherapy but certainly not all are and I hope the field swings back.

There are many social workers and psychologists doing excellent psychotherapy work as well as some of our psychiatrist colleagues. (There are also some in all 3 of those professions who are doing lousy work and should be stopped.) I am fairly well acquainted with the field of mental health since I served some years in Kansas overseeing clinical work in state institutions and mental health centers; I also supervised the clinical work of 25 of these professionals for 4 years as clinical director in a community mental health center serving 7 counties shortly before I retired.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (6241938) 12 years ago

That was a useless response.
Actually... no. It has shown that you have NO counterarguments and you admit that you were wrong.

reply

[–] undermilkwood 12 years ago

I don't think it's covered by Obamacare.

Oh, and the only country to be taken into account is your country? I live in Argentina and plenty of health insurance companies cover both psycotherapy AND psychoanalysis. Granted, it is a VERY popular thing here, so I guess covering it delivers some kind of profit.

Plus, I think questioning psychoanalysis by saying "it's not science" is terribly narrowminded. Whether it's science or not, it has helped tons of people with their neurosis or less acute issues. Science doesn't necessarily have all the answers, nor achieves any kind of definitive truth.

Granted, maybe Freud was trying to bring attention to his theories by proclaiming he was employing "the scientific method" ... it was a necessary step towards the validation of the "discipline" he had founded, considering the context and society's perception of science.

Furthermore, the fact that Jung worked non-scientific disciplines into his studies is actually quite impressive and not at all weird. I don't think it disqualifies his work, although thats MY opinion. Need I remind you Kepler believed the Universe made music? Hell, it's said Newton practised black magic in secret and was greatly interested in alchemy (which was considered a scientific discipline for quite some time. Of course, science historians tend to leave all that stuff out textbooks.

What we call science is a result of complex historical processes, not an univocal thing that has always been in existance.

Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy
KEIRAHOLIC Nº4

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] undermilkwood 12 years ago

He does... I think he lived here when he was a kid or something of the sort. A friend of mine met him not so long ago, when "Todos tenemos un plan" was filmed. He also writes poetry in Spanish.

Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy
KEIRAHOLIC Nº4

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mmcashan-1 12 years ago

Let's not forget that most therapists, with the exception of strict CBT and behaviorist practitioners, incorporate aspects of psychoanalysis into their practices. As part of my training, I received extensive education on psychodynamic therapy, and I have found some of its concepts to be invaluable in my work treating patients with eat disorders. That said, I do not practice psychoanalysis. I see patients once or twice a week (or in daily group, depending on the level of care) and all of the services are covered by insurance. I think it is important to note that Freud and Jung made valuable contributions to field of modern counseling, despite the flaws that existed within their respective models. Scientists can make awful choices, be awful people, and still contribute. After all, Konrad Lorenz was a Nazi. Data from horrific experiments performed on POWs by the Japanese in WWII were utilized by the U.S. government regarding conditions such as infection and frostbite. Does it make it right? No. Is it valuable? Yes.

reply

[–] maximusveritas 12 years ago

Yeah, I was going to post a response to that guy, but it would just be a waste of time because he's clearly just an insecure troll talking way over his head.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JDHOPPER66 12 years ago

It's one thing to lack knowlege, but to get snotty and insulting when corrected shows that you can't even be housetrained.
Only idiots think their opinions are equal to proven facts. You'd argue with Einstein.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

I got the impression that your analysis was by an ego psychologist. Why do you admire those cats? Freud couldn't stand them, but they accepted his core principles so he couldn't kick them out. What's more, Freud's *Ego and the Id* essentially gave psychoanalysis an excuse to get superficial if they wanted to. All the potential Jungians now had a chance to practice a polite, neutered, Dear Abby form of psychoanalysis so the lambs wouldn't get upset anymore. I don't know. If it were up to me I would kick Karen Horney out into the street. Maybe Freud wasn't as big a jerk as his enemies make him out to be.

reply

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

Do you think the ego psychologists are superior because they focus on the superficial? Have there been outcome studies that indicate speedier recoveries? Faith healing is instant by golly.

reply

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

This post wins the moron of the month award. Hysteria doesn't exist anymore??? What do you think eye tics are? What do you think the "shell shock" of combat veterans is? Have you ever heard of "hysterical blindness?" The only reason hysteria no long exists is purely a matter of perception of simpletons. Also, it's a politically-charged term. Women hate it. Nowadays physicians use such euphemisms as "idiopathic" or "functional" or "conversion disorder." If you ever see those terms applied to the description of such things as fibromyalgia, migraines, non-epileptic seizures, false heart attacks, bell's palsy, tourettes syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome, just substitute the word "hysteria" and it will finally dawn on you that you have been bamboozled by neurotics like you who have Ph.D's in Thinkology or Pimpology or whatever they may choose to conceal their repulsive defenses.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kuato_and_George 12 years ago

It's kind of funny that him and Kinsey are both credit with so many big advancements in their respective fields, because both cleary crossed a line. THey were like that mad scientist in comic books that tests his experiments himself. A lot of people are messed up, even really smart ones. Jung seemed to have more self control/a sense of composure than Otta Gross though. That guy was totally self-destructive.

My movie review site: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] larryd552002 12 years ago

Kinsey was an embicile. Freud was one of the most intelligent and bravest humans in history. Compared to him, Kinsey was a chimpanzee. Don't believe the lies. You sound like a fool, because you obviously have never read Freud. That in itself is shameful, because all his books are still in current publication in paperback. If you are a starving student, that is still no excuse. Just go to a public library. There are free treasures in there that will miraculously transform you from a dud into a hero.

reply

[–] sageonelove 12 years ago

They all seemed nuts to me.

This movie confirmed my worst fears about mental health workers - They are crazier than the patients, they take advantage of a person's weakness, and they don't have any idea what they are talking about, they are making up a bunch of theories that don't stand up to common sense.

I think it would be safer and healthier pouring out your troubles to a stuffed animal than to one of them.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 12 years ago

I agree, but you know what I found funny? Freud has a rep and is something of a pop culture joke for making everything about sex. While I agree, he did do that a little too often, he seemed pretty tame compared to Jung. He kept his work separate from his play.

I don't agree with all of your post though. I don't think every shrink is nuts and I don't think everything Jung and and Freud said is wrong. There's some really important stuff they discovered. You can be "crazy" and still have a point sometimes.

My movie review site: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

reply

[–] sageonelove 12 years ago

"I don't think every shrink is nuts and I don't think everything Jung and and Freud said is wrong. There's some really important stuff they discovered. You can be "crazy" and still have a point sometimes."

Actually, Kuato_and_George, I have to agree. I had a friend that was very depressed and she had a therapist that was kind and patient. He didn't take advantage of her either even though she became obsessed with him for a while and he probably could have taken advantage.

The therapist didn't actually help her, but he didn't mess her up any worse than she already was.

It's good to have someone to talk to when you're troubled, maybe that's the main healing aspect of therapy. You can count on the therapist not to spread your business all over town and they are getting paid so they can't turn on you and accuse you of being self centered.

My depressed friend did get a little better. What seemed to help her more than therapy and more than medicine was getting a dog from the pound. Go figure.

reply

[–] streakyfuzzer 12 years ago

sageonelove, thank you:

"It's good to have someone to talk to when you're troubled, maybe that's the main healing aspect of therapy. You can count on the therapist not to spread your business all over town and they are getting paid so they can't turn on you and accuse you of being self centered."

I come from a very dysfunctional, abusive and neglectful family. I have lost 3 siblings to suicide. I began therapy about a year and a half ago and I have yet to have my therapist help me by guiding me or teaching me anything I didn't already know. The reason it is slightly beneficial is because I have NO ONE ELSE in my life to discuss my unique problems with. Friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, lovers do not cut it. They don't understand and don't want to understand and sometimes can be profoundly harmful. I've learned to keep silent. Only my psychologist will listen for an hour straight and not (outwardly) judge me. It is so rare in this world. But I have to pay for it. I've already told her that I am ending my treatment with her. I honestly get 10x more help by reading Eckhart Tolle (a cure for the cause) and playing with the dog (unconditional love).

The movie A DANGEROUS METHOD amused me, mostly because of what you said before: "They all seemed nuts to me..."

Most of the trained experts with their higher educations (a few are on this very board) barely seem to make a dent in the problems of the world. They're just full of (expensive) opinions and I don't completely believe in the "help" provided by someone that wouldn't help without being paid first. Years ago, I called around to numerous esteemed doctors claiming to be "dedicated to helping others" and expressed my strong and genuinely suicidal frame of mind and no one would see me unless I paid at minimum $100/hour. Gee, thanks, humanitarians. I realize now that you have nothing I need anyway.

Get a dog. Treat the dog you would want to be treated. The dog will reciprocate. Be grateful for the dog. Breathe. Be here now. Nurture your self and create your own inner peace. (It's free and easy. Someday, try it on a person.) That is a secret that trained professionals don't know or don't want you to know.

reply

[–] sageonelove 12 years ago

"Get a dog. Treat the dog you would want to be treated. The dog will reciprocate. Be grateful for the dog. Breathe. Be here now. Nurture your self and create your own inner peace. (It's free and easy. Someday, try it on a person.) That is a secret that trained professionals don't know or don't want you to know".

I agree, streakyfuzzer, the only caveat to that great advice would be for a person that is abusive or so moody, erratic or depressed they would be unable to properly care for a critter, in which case they could maybe start with a stuffed animal or an imaginary friend.

I knew a woman that had been in theerapy for 25 years and she still wasn't done with it. Charging someone for all those years seems to be rather troubling to my way of thinking.

reply

[–] streakyfuzzer 12 years ago

"...unable to properly care for a critter..." Agree. One of the most therapeutic things I've ever done for myself is writing fiction. Create a story that's completely removed from your own life, characters nothing like yourself doing things you would likely never do. Manipulate all the pieces and parts, play God. Say what you need to say. Figure out the inner workings of all the characters and subtle intricacies of story development. If you don't already know from the beginning, you eventually realize that, beneath the surface, your story is EXACTLY like your real life and your characters are your just various parts of yourself (kind of like "imaginary friends"). This is a great way for anyone to "step outside of themselves" to see things from a different perspective and grasp the big picture to gain understanding of their life. I'm sure there are plenty of screenwriting people here on imdb that would agree.

"I knew a woman..." Agree. The therapist is likely being dependant, and not just financially. They may be addicted to the false sense of superiority they get from "treating" an "inferior" person or a false sense of good samaritan aggrandizement from "caretaking" the "less fortunate." Or worse, an opportunist using the patient for material for a book or study. It's all unconscious behavior and it takes two to tango, not much different than many marriages. Just 2 "compatible" egos that give each other what they want, trapped in a comfort zone and as long as nobody breaks the cycle, it can go on for...25 blurry years. Woody Allen quit therapy after 36 years, saying "People expect a really dramatic result, but legitimate growth is not that dramatic" and said that he probably didn't need therapy in the first place.

Take care

reply

[–] sageonelove 12 years ago

"One of the most therapeutic things I've ever done for myself is writing fiction. Create a story that's completely removed from your own life, characters nothing like yourself doing things you would likely never do. Manipulate all the pieces and parts, play God."

streakyfuzzer - By golly you're right on track there! I began writing fan fiction a few years back and it has seen me through thick and thin! I begand simply because I didn't like the way the author was writing her main characters but in the process of "fixing" the storyline I was able to vent my own fears, hopes, dreams and joys in the guise of the characters. It has been so helpful and I think of it like my "mental crocheting" ... planning out where the story will go next in my mind while I wait in line or fall asleep at night.

The internet is a wonderful resource to meet people that can give you anonymous feedback and form a mutual support ... just like we seem to be doing here!

"Woody Allen quit therapy after 36 years" - wow, that must be some kind of record! I honestly don't believe I could talk about myself for 36 years without losing interest in my own life!

reply

[–] streakyfuzzer 12 years ago

Sage, I have found writing to be far more beneficial than "professional" therapy. I liked my therapist, a lot in fact, but the sessions were nothing more than 60 minutes of me me me going on about what irks me me me and what I think about the human race. The therapy had no structure, program or direction. The doctor, as good as she was at listening without judgment, never once said anything I didn't already know, in fact, I would say that she often offered simplistic catch-all answers that added up to little more than what any kid with their head screwed on straight would offer. There was never anything I would consider "therapeutic" or any kind of "homework" or "technique" or whatever for me to apply to my life. She would just listen and agree with me. That was it. I ended it after a year and a half of seeing her 2x/month. Lesson learned. I've wondered how many years of school and money spent she wasted to get the piece of paper required to sit and listen to people that way.

Get a dog. Or write. Avoid religion (they only prey on your fears and add to them). I love to read Eckhart Tolle.

reply

[–] sageonelove 12 years ago

I agree, though I do think short term specific goal oriented therapy is helpful. I had a therapist help me get through my empty feelings when my daughter went off to college and the visualizations she had me do about the future really helped. I was able to feel positive about my daughter's flight from the nest and now, years later, we are close and she is a happy functioning adult.

It takes what it takes to learn what works for each of us. The money you spent was for your education, at least that's how I look at things like that.

reply

[–] Rabbit-Reviews 12 years ago

Falling in love is something so obscure with so many elements to analyze, and some of them we might never know (in this case), that we cannot come to a rational conclusion why this happened. It is almost the same thing with why women love jerks, or people who considered by other men are jerks...

As far as the things she sad:
1. Beating by her father - This is childsplay compared to some of the modern S & M practices, and again being aroused by pain is perfectly normal for some people, and totally weird for others (me included). Since this is done by her father it adds to a weird vibe, but this could easily be anyone else...
2. Defecating - I think that you misunderstood this part, she was trying to defecate herself and at the same time prevent herself from doing that, thus arousing some sensitive areas. This can be compared to anal sex. As someone pointed out this is again very innocent compared to some of the things that are being done out there.
3. Perversion - Well, this all depends on your understanding of the word perverted. We could discuss this issue for years and years because it has so many angles, but bottom line is that some people find normal, others find perverted it all depends on your point of view.

Only movies that are worth watching: http://www.rabbit-reviews.com

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 12 years ago

Child's play? Lol. Being turned on by your father spanking you is pretty disgusting.

Mixing poop and pleasure is gross. There's nothing sexy about waste. I understand what you're saying about the feeling she got, but it all comes back to the fact that she got that feeling from the act of pooping. How sick is that? Anyone who mixes death and sex or defication and sex has some issues. I wouldn't calle it tame.

My movie review site: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

reply

[–] GethinVanH 12 years ago

It is tame and there's millions of people in the world who get off on this stuff. Millions more profit off these people getting off on it with fetish/scat porn sites.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 12 years ago

It is tame and there's millions of people in the world who get off on this stuff. Millions more profit off these people getting off on it with fetish/scat porn sites.

It was her FATHER, hello!?! She got off on her father spanking her. That's pretty sick.

My movie review site: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

reply

[–] eYeDEF 12 years ago

"It was her FATHER, hello!?! She got off on her father spanking her. That's pretty sick."

So WHAT if it was her father? Why do you think the S&M subculture even exists? It always strikes me as odd that people like you seem to lack the slightest bit of curiosity as to how people become the way they are.

There are many people afflicted with what you consider "sick". This is because they endured strong corporal punishment growing up and were particularly susceptible as they went through adolescence and puberty. Because they were highly sexually repressed and felt humiliation over sexuality they never masturbated in early adolescence as they came to think of it improper and wrong. Their only exposure to sexual stimulation was getting beaten and spanked, such that it's the only way they can get turned on as they mature into adults. This is achieved by something very well known in psychology called "classical conditioning". You should look it up. Lots of what's considered deviant sexual behavior and practices come from an abnormal adolescence during the crucial period when they come of age sexually.

So with someone as highly sexually repressed as Sabina had to have been early in life with her father's abusive and humiliating practices it's no wonder she only experienced sexual arousal by getting spanked and while sh!tting. That doesn't mean she enjoyed playing with sh!t and it's weird that you would even conclude something so gross. Maybe it's you that has problems.

Plus, none of this changes the fact that these people are victims that did not choose their life of abuse. I find you more disgusting that you would find such people so disgusting that they're incapable of being loved.

There are many people who you would consider sick and disgusting by virtue that they were forced to go to strict Catholic schools growing up. The highly repressed sexuality in the Catholic faith where kids are made to feel shame over sexual desires, combined with strict whippings by nuns when they disobeyed was their only exposure to sexual stimulus and would spur many of them become disobedient on purpose, much like Sabina alluded she did.

You need to get out more. You sound highly sheltered.

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard

reply

[–] streakyfuzzer 12 years ago

Frederick M, what is your point, exactly? That because millions of people do it makes it _______?

reply

[–] streakyfuzzer 12 years ago

Kuato and George, your comments on this board show how backwards you are. You criticize the abused when it is their abuser who should be criticized.

The REASON she behaved the way she did was because she was horribly wronged by the one man in her life that should have been her protector, her best friend, her positive male role model. When one's parent is the opposite, their enemy, the result is enduring pain and trauma, mental illness. Right now you are probably rolling your eyes, thinking that these points I make are obvious and therefore need not be pointed out. Your comments prove they do need to be pointed out. Did you come on this board to point out how the victimizer, the abusive father, had "some issues"? No. You came on this board to further victimize his victim. That makes you no better. The victim in this situation is a movie character based on a long dead person, but it indicates how you might treat a real person in real life.

Is "mixing poop and pleasure" gross. Perhaps. I don't like it either, but it is only my feeling. Others don't feel the same. Oh well. And her father didn't "spank" her. He severely beat her. Neither is okay. But one is worse.

My problem with you is that you demonize the victim of abuse, not the abuse or the abuser. Being "spanked" (beaten) by your father is disgusting. Her being turned on by it is only what happened as a result (probably because it was the only physical contact she ever received from him, therefore it was stimulating. A starving person would be nourished by eating dog poop). The cause is disgusting, not the effect.

With your schoolyard finger-pointing ways, you strike me as having "some issues" of your own. Why are YOU the way you are? Who wronged you? Was what they did okay? What effect did it have on you? Do you have any issues because of it? Do you have any plans to stop being such a hypocritical a--hole? I think your bad attitude is a form of human waste. There's nothing sexy about waste.

reply