Your Annoying Little Brother: Caring, Penis Envy, Implants and Luxuries: TidePodcast Episode 101

17 minutes

If the Second Amendment (2A) doesn’t protect our right to certain arms, by name or nomenclature, then how does the First Amendment (1A) protect Journalism? Journalism is never named specifically in the First Amendment (1A).


22 thoughts on “Your Annoying Little Brother: Caring, Penis Envy, Implants and Luxuries: TidePodcast Episode 101

  1. You’re assuming one big thing: that the implants would still contain any liquid following the passage of time – it’s far more likely that they be discovered deflated…an even more confusing discovery.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Hahahah, oh man Heather, that’s why I depend on you and the other listeners. You’re right, they might be all dried up, which leads to another question, do these people getting implants think about the environmental impact of plastics?!?!?!

  2. Marleen

    I don’t think I’ve heard the term “penis envy” in the context of men undergoing surgery in the pursuit of added inches before; it makes sense, though, in a goofy kinda of way. The term originated with Freud in his later years. Early in his life, he had done meaningful work. Then he figured out he would have more status and money (or, conversely, not be an outcast) if he twisted and misrepresented his findings. Men controlled the world and didn’t want to hear what he really had to offer in terms of learning, in terms of his research and what he had observed and so on. Perhaps he projected what he most thought powerful men and their followers would believe. I don’t know if he convinced himself or simply contrived what would work.

    Anyway, here is a good book in recorded form.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Dang Marleen, thanks for the listen! Everyone out here envying other peoples’ penises and boobs and butts and lips! If we aren’t happy with who we are, then, that’s a personal problem.

      1. Marleen

        When double-checking just now for a quick assurance that the term totally started with him, I found this:

        Intending to write a joint biography of Sigmund and Anna Freud [his daughter], I found that the very papers of Anna’s that I wanted to examine are kept under lock and key by The Freud Archives. […] Apparently, Freud was an “interesting” father in more ways than one. From my notes: Even Freud had penis envy. When he was an old man and very ill from the mouth cancer that would soon kill him, he had a surgery on his testicles in hopes of curing his impotence. Freud believed that “shorter is better.” But that belief wasn’t about male genitalia or cigars. It was about jokes. Freud so loved humor that he wrote “Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious,” which has real merit as psychoanalytic theory, as an ethnography of humor, and as a joke book.

          1. Marleen

            There is good or better psychology and bad psychology. I think psychology grows out of philosophy and questions too.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Perhaps, but psychology is also used to subjugate and incarcerate, philosophy is not. The funny thing about psychology is that it never seems to end, like a constant cash flow. Philosophy is free, psychology is not. Anyone who freely gives into psychology will be forever scarred.

              1. Marleen

                Psychology is like religion (which I don’t mean in the sense of psychology replacing region — wo, wo). I mean it in that if you’re in the wrong place or context or are too willing too submit yourself, harm is at hand.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Exactly, and what do all psychologists demand is paramount to rehabilitation? Trust, all psychologists demand trust, when they are not granted trust, they label that “trust issues”. Philosophy doesn’t require anything but questions, no trust and no contract required.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      In my opinion, religion is the perversion of faith. Faith is for the individual, religion is for the masses. Religion, again in my opinion, is the same as politics, a tool used by the human rulers to subjugate and control the masses. Religion, like politics uses psychology to label those fit and those unfit to be a full fledged citizen in every society.

                      Faith frees, philosophy emboldens one’s ability to look within and be true with themselves. Faith and philosophy threaten the crown, since the crown, like the pulpit only require strict adherence to the man made rules. Questioning the crown, just like questioning the pope will see you excommunicated or exiled or put to death.

                    2. Marleen

                      You put Religion in a positive light at your link for the topic of psychology: Religion and politics are philosophy. They are hard to discuss with humility and humanity. Politics is not policy, politics is the idea of fairness and equality, attempting to find a way to get there. Religion is the succumbing to truth, to God. Politics and religion are avoided, because they are philosophical questions and discussions.

                    3. bottomlesscoffee007

                      You got me there.

                      I was saying that many avoid the topics of religion and politics because religion and politics are usually disagreeable and often lead to devastation for all involved.

                      To discuss politics and religion, philosophy is a must (in my opinion) to simply discuss either without philosophy, is quite disingenuous.

                    4. Marleen

                      Yeah, I don’t think religion is necessarily bad. I’ve heard it described as faith plus tradition. You just have to be careful about it. Also, there are places or organizations that say they are not religious or doctrinal or judgmental, but that they are about faith, that turn out they really are what you wanted to avoid with religion or hypocrisy or whatever… and harm… so… you really have to be careful. It’s not always obvious.

                      Back to Freud. I saw, after posting, that some presentations of his history say he came up with the “penis envy” idea early in life. While early and later are relative, and it wasn’t when he had the surgery (which was very late) that he came up with the term, I think those who say the term came early are mistaken or misleading. Here is a bit of summary that doesn’t say it was his early concept. At least, it wasn’t his early observation:



                      A large number of psychologists spoke out against Freud [on the topic/theory of penis envy], but the concept of penis envy had been created and the damage done. But beyond a slightly silly theory with some symbolic use if not taken too literally, was there a more insidious impact? Was penis envy an escape route for abusers that affects us even today?

                      Salvaging his career?
                      Hysteria, defined as ungovernable emotional excess, originated from the Greek word for uterus, hystera. It was a disease attributed only to women. Symptoms included nervousness, hallucinations and most of all, emotional outbursts. Freud treated hysterical women by talking to them, and concluded that psychological trauma and hereditary predisposition caused hysteria. During his 1900 study of a patient, Dora, she alleged that she had been molested as a child by a family friend, only to have Freud dismiss her claims and suggest she imagined the advances.

                      Freud had actually started off as a supporter of the oppressed, initially working on the effects of trauma and bringing to light the sexual abuse that went on in families. He believed that sexual abuse in childhood was responsible for many of his patients’ neuroses and other mental health problems, and Freud was the first psychiatrist to believe his patients were telling the truth. His early papers in the 1890s embraced the mechanism of dissociation, and he gave a speech called ‘The Etiology of Hysteria’, in April of 1896. Freud strongly believed his ‘Seduction theory’, and wrote in letters to close friends about the autopsies where he’d seen something ‘of which medical science preferred to take no notice’ – bodies of children that had been raped and murdered.

                      Unfortunately, his colleagues maintained that a child’s report of sexual abuse was a symptom of pseudologica phantastica – a pathological fiction or fantasy. They were appalled at Freud’s ideas, and choosing to save his career and reputation, Freud chose to follow suit in dismissing the victims’ claims. This was what prompted him to introduce the ‘Oedipus complex’ and penis envy as an explanation for patients ‘fantasising’ their rape.

                      There are several theories as to why Freud abandoned his initial claims, ranging from denial of his own personal experiences, attempts to salvage his career after the speech in 1896 or the knowledge that in a society where so many influential people were abusers, his claims would go unheard. His decision was later called a ‘failure of courage rather than a clinical or theoretical insight’ by psychoanalyst Jeffrey M. Masson.

                      Close to home
                      In 1897 Sigmund Freud had carried out a self-analysis, making himself his 19th patient. He reached the conclusion that he and his siblings all showed the same symptoms of hysteria – which implied that [he, himself, and his siblings] too, had experienced sexual abuse as a child. The idea was unthinkable, and it is speculated that Freud declared his patients’ stories as fantasies to protect his own family.

                      Florence Rush, in her 1980 book The Best Kept Secret, wrote that Freud clearly avoided blaming fathers at all costs. In his cases the abusers were sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and even governesses, but never fathers, even going as far as to incorrectly publish an article blaming a 14-year-old’s uncle as the one who molested her, but revealing decades later that it was in fact her father. Masson also believed that Freud’s decision was influenced by abusers he knew personally. One of his closest friends, Fliess, was suspected of having molested his own son. Freud would often confide in Fliess, sending him letters discussing how he believed that hysteria, or psychological disturbances were a result of sexual abuse. Upon realising that Fliess himself was guilty of such abuse, Freud felt forced to give up his theories and evidence.

                      In her book, Rush wrote ‘the world listened to Freud and paid little heed to the sexual abuse of the young’ (p.96). Masson backed her up, arguing in 1985’s Assault on Truth that ‘Freud knew about child abuse and its destructive consequences but suppressed the information and attributed memories of rape to fantasy’.

                      In his desperate attempts to salvage his career and gain popularity, Freud had normalised the despicable practice of adults ‘initiating’ children into sex, and paved the way for not only a major setback to the feminist movement of that time, but also the field of psychology for years to come. His dismissal of females and their ‘hysteria’ (a cover-up for the PTSD they suffered) led to gaps in research of PTSD and other traumas, which would go on to affect the soldiers of WW1. As a book reviewer in New Scientist said, ‘[Freud] excommunicated anyone who…wanted to criticise parents… He set back our understanding of child abuse by a hundred years’ (27 April 1996, p.49).

                      Others joined the criticism of what they called ‘the Freudian cover-up’. Florence Rush, a social worker in the 1970s, exposed Freud’s reluctance to reveal the offenders, as they were not only seen as respectable men in society but also his own friends. Victorian men were thus able to hide their …


                    5. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Ok, so I used the term “penis envy” in the colloquial sense, not the original sense. Thanks for the clarification Marleen.

                      I think that your comment clearly exhibits why and how psychology is continually changing to fit the current narrative and how it is used to punish and persecute throughout history. That is what I was getting at. A respected person who was considered the authority on a certain psychological aspect was held up as the standard bearer, when upon further inspection, it is discovered that he simply wished to remain in power, rather be honest. That is the method of psychology, not to discover what is true and real, but rather to empower society through lies and falsehoods. A psychologist doesn’t set out to free someone of their demons, rather they groom their patients to fit into society to continue the lie “that today we are doing it right compared to yesterday, today we know better”.

                      A look through the DSM-5 will exemplify that, it continually changes to fit the current narrative.

                    6. Marleen

                      There are good and bad. There were even then; there were people asking real questions and embracing real answers (philosophy and science and so forth), while there were people who wanted and expected to get their way as always (and Freud himself largely put his seal of approval on those in what they wanted). As a free citizen, there are selections to be made; that, of course, involves using the good judgment aspect of oneself to seek help in a certain area.

                      Now, certainly, one has to use good judgment to find a way through people of faith as well. In either situation — psychology or faith communities or simply people who claim faith — there are those who don’t care what’s going on with other people except to get what they want for themselves.

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.