Why are incest games so popular?
- Thread starter Lyka
- Start date
- Jul 10, 2017
- 6,158
- 6,555
Tbh I think those that involved in such relations in rl, didn't do so because they played games with incest in them or watched fake stepmommy pron etc on pornhub. That more driven by attraction and primal instinct or something. Or just the result of people and the social situation they in.
Have a fetish for something and actual practice it in real life is two different things though. There is a lot of fetish's floating around that people would never act on in rl.
I once heard someone say that incest porn is the most taboo you can get while still being vanilla and I think there's some truth there. It's a massive taboo in society but to an observer watching incest porn it's just two hot people consensually fucking despite the additional 'spice' of them being portrayed as relatives.
- Nov 16, 2019
- 1,817
- 4,418
Freud was a fraud. More of his drivel has been debunked than proven right.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 1,385
- 4,726
He caused a woman to be almost killed by a quack after a botched nose surgery for "compulsory" masturbation that left her disfigured, that wasn't the end of his moronic antics toward her either. Just look up Emma Eckstein. That's as anti-coomer as it gets, I have no idea why coomers commonly simp so hard for Freud.
- Jun 24, 2018
- 1,947
- 3,022
I don't know how much of a fraud Freud was, but I know mental health professionals who think highly of Freud even to this day. No one gets that popular just by "coomers" or commoners.
Besides, a lot of the brightest mind in science have been proven more wrong than right or become completely obsolete over time, yet I don't see as much hate for them as I have seen for Fraud.
- Nov 16, 2019
- 1,817
- 4,418
Probably because Freud would not agree with LGBQ deliriums.
Freud has been a milestone in psychoanalysis.. new "theorists" want him CANCELLED!!
Freud has been a milestone in psychoanalysis.. new "theorists" want him CANCELLED!!
I think it's his daughter's work actually, which still has some relevance today. Freud himself I only really came across in literature studies, where his work about dreams and poets is still of interest.
Because the things he was wrong on did a LOT of damage before he was debunked and basically ostracized.
If he was alive today, he'd be getting sued left, right, and center for his bad science.
As for people still thinking highly of him,,,, there are still people who think the Earth is flat, what's your point. (that's a rhetorical question)
AND, as a gay woman (don't like lesbian, let's find yet another excuse or word to split everyone up into convienent and bite sized disposable categories) myself, my dislike for him has nothing to do with anything other than he was a terribly bad scientist.
- Feb 4, 2018
- 111
- 533
I think you may be one of those deviants they talk about, not only handholding, but headpatting? Each day we stray further from the flying spaghetti monster.
- Jun 24, 2018
- 1,947
- 3,022
Sorry but I have to keep my original "Why is he so hated but not others?" argument, at least based on just your post.
A lot of the people that have been proved wrong over time did a lot of damage to a lot of people, yet I don't see "hate" for them. Back then trial and error was the only way to "prove" things and error usually meant death or huge injuries.
And yeah you can talk about flat Earth and antivaccines as much as you want, but I'm talking about mental health professionals. I'm talking about people who did went to school and graduated on that subject. I'm not talking about a lawyer who knows nothing about medicine or health and still talks bad about vaccines, I'm talking about people who know their shit.
Last edited:
Other than the very few who are actually into incest, it's probably just people enjoying the thrill of breaking taboo.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 1,385
- 4,726
If you read my post again, you'll see it was an argument why it's weird that so many coomers apparently like him, not an argument why he should be hated, not a claim that coomers are the reason he's popular. I'm not committed to the view that Freud was a fraud, but I'm also not going to attack that.
Anyway, I'll bite, how many of those mental health professionals are psychoanalysts? Because they would think that, it would be just like pointing to economists and social scientists who agree Marxism is a science but all happen to be Marxists.
How much did Freud actually contribute to modern psychology and psychiatry? I get the idea that it's mostly critical theorists and literary theorists who still refer to him.
Why he's hated? Now, early psychoanalysis was more like an ethnically exclusive cult-like group with a lot of forced conformity instead of an open scientific program. Of course that is going to draw strong criticism, not saying that's enough reason to hate him.
I don't think I'll be endeared to him if you call my sexuality a delirium.
Just a remark.
- Jun 24, 2018
- 1,947
- 3,022
If you say you're not commiting to that and that you aren't trying to attack him then ok, but after re-reading your post again like you suggested and re-reading the post above yours (the one you liked), then sorry but I think that 1) you're lying, or 2) you don't understand what "not committed" and "not going to attack" mean.
I don't know that much about Freud. I do think that a lot of the things he said are cool or interesting if they are actually true, which at this point is highly questionable. So far so good, I wouldn't even have answered if it was just that. What I do notice is that a lot of people hate him, even to this day. If it was a thing from the past then mostly old people would hate him and younger people wouldn't even know who he is. You probably don't who Jonh Money is and that guy is a much more recent thing than Freud.
If the reason why Freud is so hated because of the cult-like thing you mention, then everyone around those times should be hated because pretty much everything we call "science" today was a cult-like thing back then, and that's not the case.
@Adabelitoo
Freud was without a question a great mind, but he was also a very questionable scientist.
Actually, you may not even call him a real scientist, because not only did he not conduct any experiments, he presented his theories without any real evidence.
He supposedly changed the backgrounds of many of his female patients, so the men in their stories would be their fathers instead of other man, so that he could reinforce his Oedipus theory.
He also feeded patients with words and thoughts in his (regression) therapies which was clearly a manipulation on his part.
In general, he was quite misogynistic, granted, almost everyone was at the time, but he incorporated that mindset into his theories without any experiments or proofs. Penis Envy and Female Hysteria are good examples.
He was addicted to cocaine, which back then wasn't illegal, but most of his work was influenced by that.
After being nominated for 12 years for the Nobel Prize, the Nobel Committee retractet it, because they came to the conclusion that Freud’s work was of no proven scientific value.
And if you consider how he felt about incest and the link between sexuality and women's mental health, the therapy he did on his own daughter takes on a whole new meaning.
There is probably more, but that's all I can think of at the moment.
Oh, and of course, in his opinion incest was an integral part of the human psyche, and how society reacts to incest is well known. That certainly has a part in why people don't like him.
Freud was without a question a great mind, but he was also a very questionable scientist.
Actually, you may not even call him a real scientist, because not only did he not conduct any experiments, he presented his theories without any real evidence.
He supposedly changed the backgrounds of many of his female patients, so the men in their stories would be their fathers instead of other man, so that he could reinforce his Oedipus theory.
He also feeded patients with words and thoughts in his (regression) therapies which was clearly a manipulation on his part.
In general, he was quite misogynistic, granted, almost everyone was at the time, but he incorporated that mindset into his theories without any experiments or proofs. Penis Envy and Female Hysteria are good examples.
He was addicted to cocaine, which back then wasn't illegal, but most of his work was influenced by that.
After being nominated for 12 years for the Nobel Prize, the Nobel Committee retractet it, because they came to the conclusion that Freud’s work was of no proven scientific value.
And if you consider how he felt about incest and the link between sexuality and women's mental health, the therapy he did on his own daughter takes on a whole new meaning.
There is probably more, but that's all I can think of at the moment.
Oh, and of course, in his opinion incest was an integral part of the human psyche, and how society reacts to incest is well known. That certainly has a part in why people don't like him.
- Jun 24, 2018
- 1,947
- 3,022
Definitely the most interesting post I've read about Freud.
The last part is exactly what I feel is the main reason to hate him for most "normal" people. It's kinda as if they were more disgusted at him than actually thinking that he was wrong either because 1)they find incest extremely repulsive, or 2)they are afraid that what he said is true and that applies to them so they emphatically try to deny it and call him a fraud.
The second point is kinda like men who get angry/disgusted/violent against anything gay/homosexual related to prove how "manly" or "straight" they are but deep inside they are already confused and afraid of their own sexuality, if not in simple and plain denial of their homosexuality.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 1,385
- 4,726
It's option 3, you misread me. "That" pointed to "the view that Freud was a fraud": I was "not going to attack" "the view that Freud was a fraud". It would also be nice if you could acknowledge corrections instead of disputing or ignoring them.
Yes, my opinions of Freud vary from neutral or no opinon to negative depending on the details, that doesn't mean I think he was a fraud. I think a negative opinion is allowed in the cases of
You must be registered to see the links
(that took place before he developed psychoanalysis) and ethnocentrism.I didn't know the name John Money, although I knew about David Reimer's case. I agree that Money was a dangerous malpractitioner.
It's not hard to understand why Freud has a larger profile, Freud for some reason become a huge thing in popular culture. You still can find journos using Freud as an authority while they wouldn't do that with Money.
That is not remotely true, even in social science there weren't ethnic barriers to entry in the way as the early psychoanalysts kept up. For natural sciences that claim is just nonsense, anyone who could afford to access a textbook or a journal could learn about it.
If you want to defend Freud of the charge that he's a fraud, you could try to convince people that there's an empirical foundation to his theories and then indulging in mass armchair psychoanalysing people you dislike seems like a pretty ineffective tactic.
If you have a source for that, that would be very strong evidence for the view that Freud was a fraud.
I think this part is a little too complacent. Yes, people were more misogynist back then, but Freud lived in the imperial, later federal capital and had close connections with all kinds of people involved in women's organisations and socialist and liberal groups. He was constantly exposed to more emancipated views than the average person back then, not like he was a sheltered Carinthian hick in a clericalist echo chamber. Surely the bar should be higher for him.