When You Love More Than One

I may have differences with Naqshbandi, but, NB I must join him in clobbering 'fraud baba' Freud.

for in depth anaylsis read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Freud-Was-Wrong-Psychoanalysis/dp/0465091288/ ref=sip_rech_dp_3

rainbow -- first learn to write English properly, then address me!

You don't have to be a psychologist to read psychology literature you know. Some of us actually try to read widely outside our own scientific disciplines too...

On Freud's fraud:

An excerpt:
Freud on the couch
Sigmund Freud, born 150 years ago tomorrow, is now discredited as a scientist and vilified for intellectual dishonesty. But our correspondent argues that, despite his flaws, Freud was a genius whose influence on human self-awareness is still being felt today
Dr Anthony Daniels
Sigmund Freud was born 150 years old this week, and his stock has never been lower. Almost no intellectual or character fault has not been ascribed to him. It is now as fashionable to revile him as it once was to revere him; he is regarded as little better than a charlatan who would have been more accurately named Fraud than Freud.
His theories have been thoroughly exploded and his life’s work undermined to the point of complete destruction by conclusive historical and biographical research. And yet almost everyone suspects that, despite all that has been written against him, despite the myriad books debunking him, he remains a greater man than any of his critics. For if he were quite as negligible a figure as he is now accounted, why would it be necessary to throw so many stones at him for so long?

Of course, historical importance and intellectual merit are not quite the same thing. A man’s ideas may be utterly worthless yet highly influential, or brilliant but without significant echo. With Freud, it is not easy to say precisely what his achievement was; but a man who created, in Auden’s phrase, a climate of opinion the world over must have been out of the ordinary.

The charges against him are many and serious. Far from having been the lone pioneer of the unconscious mind that he claimed to have been, he was a continuer and follower of the ideas of other men, whose influence he dishonestly failed to acknowledge. In short, Freud was a mythomaniac of gigantic proportions who had no hesitation in rewriting the past.

He was intellectually dishonest. He was well aware that his patients were not cured in the way that his published case histories claimed that they were (he fell out with his much more scrupulous colleague and coauthor, Josef Breuer, over this), and that therefore the claims he made for his method were false; hence all his theorising about the structure of the mind was based on no scientific evidence whatsoever.

He claimed to be a natural scientist but in fact had little appreciation of scientific method and acted more as the leader of a cult or new religion than as a disinterested searcher after truth.

Whenever a disciple, such as Jung or Adler, disagreed with him, he did not so much refute his ideas as seek to ruin him by excommunication from the “true church” of psychoanalysis, which was a reaction to criticism more appropriate to a theocrat than to a real scientist. Freud wanted uncritical admiration and agreement from his followers, or rather disciples, not honest criticism, which he believed (or pretended to believe ) was the consequence of an unresolved Oedipus complex.

The influence of his ideas, albeit in vulgarised and simplified versions, has been culturally baleful and even catastrophic.
rest can be read here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article713089.ece

#16 Naqsh, you have said this in the past and not answered this question. There are certainly people who don't agree with some of Freud's theories, but how do you get that he has been discredited?

You can run but you can't hide. Have you no energy?
See my post #5.

Re: # 16Naqshbandi...r u psychologists???if not then shut up.

Sex is a beautiful thing.All this terrorism etc is because of lack of sex,send blonds to taliban and they will forget about religion,make love as much u can.

Freud has been completely discredited by psychologists. He even falsified his data!
As for human sexuality--the more the merrier if you ask me!

"I think time has come for all of us to have a new look at the mysteries of love and try to understand the minority of homo-sexual, bi-sexual and poly-philous people rather than judging them as they experience and express their love differently than the majority of traditional people. Let us celebrate the magic of love as it has different forms and colors like the colors and forms of a rainbow."


sohail sb Psychologist Can say whatevr they imagine theorise .They never can prove it is REAL .Just observing behaviour and assigning some DSM diagnosis by a bunch of PhDs do not hold much in court of Law . In The usa atleast and specially more in some staes than others .Lest some fool gets divorced down his throat for infedility polygamy or get shot by 'extra' lovers spouse :)

Dr. Sahib, I think there is a simpler, much simpler reason why SOME people have more than one lovers.

They don't really love any of those lovers -- they only love their own self.

There is another, even simpler reason why only SOME people actually indulge in such behavior (as distinct from mere fantasizing).

That's because such people can get away with it because of their particular circumstances in life (usually attributes that empower them more than the average joker -- for example, like the high profile individuals you list).

Dear Sohail sahib what would you say about social morality in the context of alternate value systems?

Consider

http://www.lovemore.com/

Please comment

...SR

WAKEY SHAKEY! SPEAKY SQUEAKY!

Re: # 8

Regards, I just wanted to add : I could hardly consider a loving father of two Girls, to not be biased. And oh! Let us not digress from the main focus of the argument : that females are more promiscous than men ( a fact that Androphobic psychologists like Sohail cannot even swallow yet! )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3685314/Young-women- have-more-sexual-partners-than-men.html


The reasons for more promiscuity among females than males ( 9 sexual partners for the 21 year old female, as compared to a paltry 7 ) in this study, is probably the result of mutiple factors :

Firstly, males, due to STEREOTYPING, are expected to be more promiscous and hence NOT encouraged by their parents and peers, to have sex, unlike females who are stereotyped/presumed as being 'passive', and hence in need of encouragement to engage in sex.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3796120.cms

Secondly, males are probably becoming more aware of legal and financial consequences in case their relationship goes wrong!

Hopefully, these latest findings will spare males from the onslaught of feminist inspired advertising, from domestic cleaning agents, to car insurance, to food, which all portray the male as the stupid ape, and the female as the one who provides a solution to his stupidity by using the product being advertised. This creates gender roles where women are the smart, cool, sophisticated and innocent gender, and men are the complacent, retarded, pathetic gender.

Lastly, the western females integrity needs appreciation, and is in keeping with the higher female-initiated divorce rates there too.

'In the age of promiscuity, women have more sexual partners than men. By the age of 21 they have had sex with an average of nine lovers - two more than their male partner.

And a quarter have slept with more than ten partners in the five years since losing their virginity - compared with a fifth of young men. Young women are also twice as likely to be unfaithful, with 50 per cent admitting they have cheated on a partner - half at least twice.'

Also read : Womensinfidelity.com


WAKE UP MALES! SPEAK UP!

Re: # 8

Regards, Thanks for giving me your CV! No doubt it is impressive to many, but does not intimidate some like myself.

I do not think that there is any change in your views. Nor is there an iota of change in mine ( which, incidently, is NOT against feminism, in case your angry mind dint notice ). Except, maybe, that older men MAY have a more pronounced bias towards Androphobia.

#7parthaab

I can hardly afford to be androphobic. As I said in my last post, I had a very very difficult divorce, could'nt see my children for several years, taken to court easily some 40-50 times over 15 years and even to jail by my ex-wife, a PhD in physics and well placed in society. It may surprise you but I still got custody of my daughters of 4 and 2 years then, because despite all set backs I continued to offer her a balanced deal. My sweet revenge is that today I got all the love my daughters can give to a father and they are leading professionals and mothers in life. My ex_wife admits herself that after all it was good for the children that I raised them.

This is why I suggest that to survive and come on top of stereotypes, slogans, don't do a jihad against everything feminin. Just imagine, slight hormonal change at the time of your conception and you were a woman. Would you have fought men with the same zeal as you're fighting women today?