>>24793207
Everything he said was projection ironically enough.

>>24793208
If humans didn't desire incest, there would be no need to prohibit it.

>>24793227
We get it you want to fuck your mom. Chill.

sounds like backwards logic only a PhD could come up with
>when crime rates are lower there are lest arrests, fewer arrest therefore would lead to lower crime!
>the desire to do an immoral dirty but not doing it because morals is what the morals are made out of
I think these pioneers of psychology just went unchallenged. When a modern Diogenes was needed most they priced his barrel out away from the learning center.

>1. Human beings have sexual instincts
>2. All evidence shows that sexual instincts begin before puberty
>3. Family are the most consistently emotionally and physically available people in childhood
>4. There is no incest prohibition coded into our genetics
Therefore incestuous wishes are universal and inevitable and have to be undone with morality.
Find the error, faggots.

>>24793227
I raise you: your offspring being deformed

>>24793227
>>24793342
Partially this. If your labor force is sickly and deformed you can’t effectively manage your empire and are suspect to hostile forces overthrowing you.

However now the UK has legalized cousin marriages for paki Muslims since there is no real threat of revolution or hostile forces to global usury

>>24793207
The basis of civilization and morality is actually the channeling of violence. You can have a civilization that allows incest, it's not gonna be very good, or prosperous, and it will probably not last too long, but it would be a civilization nonetheless.

File: 12-Gigantopithecus-1100x600.jpg (820 KB, 1100x600)

820 KB JPG

>>24793361
I wish every human a quick death. As in we all need to die as soon as possible. Preferably vaporized. How terrible.

>>24793337
westermarck effect

>>24793379
That entirely confirms all of the points made, though.

>>24793337
The error is that you want to fuck your mom dude.

>>24793556
You're projecting

>>24793690
No way my mom is nasty. You're projecting that I'm projecting. You're double projecting. And you want to fuck your mom, which you never denied.

>>24793207
No. I can’t recall the name of the person that wrote about it, but a close reading of his full body of work makes it really clear that Freud’s career was:
>start psychoanalysis practice
>patients are mostly the general population or people in asylums
>find out that they pretty much all got abused and molested, and experienced things like tactile hallucinations caused by abuse and what would now be called PTSD or CPTSD
>write about this, get a little famous
>rich friends start sending their kids to him
>he finds out all his rich friends are raping their kids
>he publishes this
>extreme backlash
>he recants and makes up things like the Oedipal complex and generally the idea that children want to be raped by their parents, to not lose all that sweet rich people money and his academic reputation
>he begins abusing drugs and comes up with increasingly delusional shit to cope with being an evil piece of shit
>dies

>>24793207
Considering the genetic bottlenecks humanity has gone through (modern humans descend from only a few thousand individuals, which is why we're so genetically homogeneous and ironically, also why incest is so harmful in humans), and the fact that almost all modern cultures have an incest taboo, it is obvious that at some stage of human history incest was common and even necessary for survival, but afterwards had to be culturally, rather than biologically, suppressed. It is not very far fetched to me that this might have left humanity with some weird psychological complexes resulting from a tension between biological drives and cultural taboos.

>>24793227
The taboo arises from the fact that people averse incest by default.

>>24794212
most animals have biological mechanisms to avoid inbreeding.

>>24793227
If humans weren't averse to incest then it wouldn't be prohibited

>>24793337
The error is that you're a retard who thinks because sexual behavior doesn't have to be learned it must also be applied to immediate family.
That is the same logic as saying because hunger exists wishing to cook and eat one's family is universal, to use your own language.
You are genuinely a complete idiot and the worst part is how smug you are without realizing it. Go fuck your mother, nigger.

>>24793227
If humans didn't desire pedonecrophilia (sex with dead children), there would be no need to prohibit it

>>24793337
That just suggests that it's highly likely, but not a part of the human condition like Foid says.

>>24793207
I would argue humans have an innate revulsion toward incest, since that's what all animals have

>>24794523
>That is the same logic as saying because hunger exists wishing to cook and eat one's family is universal

What good is Freud against such intellectual powerhouses?

>>24794523
You seem very upset. Struck a nerve? How's your relationship with your mom?

>>24794650
nta but to me it read like a very level-headed response with the usual
bit of (not unwarranted in this case) 4chan rhetoric at the end.

>>24793342
This is only modern knowledge. Do you think the royal families knew this? It's still part of your instincts, and you still repress it, even if le science has given you a reason.

>>24794523
Your example violates the logic point number 4. Our genetics avoid us from eating human meat, specially of those loved ones to us.

>>24794667
Any functioning adult should be able to discuss this topic without resorting to insults. Why was anon so desperate to demean their opponent? It's not far-fetched to say it might be related to the topic at hand, maybe combined with a general need to appear nonchalant, which always backfires here.

>>24794552
For what reason would it only be likely and not universal?

>>24794523
>>24794649
>>24794674
Small children, as we can all observe, attempt to eat everything. They bite people. Their first food, which we are instinctually primed for, is the milk that comes from the mother's body and breast. It is by habitatuation and socialization that we learn the taboo against cannibalism, like that of incest. And history is replete with human cannibalism, obviously. So the logic holds up entirely.

>>24794678
isn’t
>any functional adult
the same sort of ‘demeaning their opponent.’ in any case his argument takes into account the point you made and yours doesn’t his. we must take everything on its own merit.

>>24794707
Lots of adult people have a breastfeed kink

>>24794707
and that’s why animals, who don’t share our cultural taboos, engage in incest as a matter of course.
oh wait

>>24794729
Some animals have evolved behavioral taboos against incest, like humans have with culture, but not all. Engaging in incest and incestuous wishes are not the same thing, furthermore.

>>24794736
>but not all
no, just the vast majority of long-lived social animals.
and i hate to invoke hard science but isn’t it proven that severe inbreeding is harmful? also schopenhauer said
>Each seeks a mate that will neutralise his defects, lest they be inherited

>>24794741
>just the vast majority of long-lived social animals.
>and i hate to invoke hard science but isn’t it proven that severe inbreeding is harmful?
Yeah? And? No one, including Freud, is saying incest is not harmful and is enacted everywhere. The point is that the desire in humans universally exists and is managed by a taboo.
You're also not accounting for the large differences in sexual development and maturity between humans and most other animals which are highly relevant.
We've now moved far past addressing any of the points in the original argument, clearly.
>chopenhauer said
Don't care

>>24793207
No, it goes more like this:
>there is no natural proclivity of humans to have sex with family members
>the opposite is closer to the truth - humans tend to seek out relationships with those outside the immediate social body
>this outside-facing tendency threatens the integrity of the social body
>the monarch/authority/whatever prohibits incest, not to prevent something that was actually happening, but to mark out the family as a sacred unit to be preserved

>>24794745
what is the object of love, from the lowest to the highest forms of being, if not the perpetuation of the species?
i'm sure we're moving away from freud's very limited comfort zone, but that's where the argument must take us i'm afraid!
>Don't care
convenient! suppose anyone could say the same about sigmund, couldn't they?

>>24793207
>Humans have an innate desire for incest
Only thing he got right.

>>24794760
>what is the object of love, from the lowest to the highest forms of being, if not the perpetuation of the species
Grasping and diverting. And if you can present a complete and relevant argument from Schopenhauer, rather than a random quote, go ahead.

>>24793783
You forgot living that he got old enough to be forced to flee from the Third Reich, and then died from old age in exile.

He also remained controversial trough out the entire early modern period, because it was a period where temperance and other strong regressive Lutheran values held sway as a counteract to the massive early urban decay caused by early industrialization.
Like Marx he most likely remained relevant because if you tone down the controversial elements, then your scripture might be entirely useless.

So it comes down to:
If Freud is a pseud? Well, what about the mountain of forgotten people who shares his occupation, but dared not touch the social taboo?

>>24794674
Our genetics prevent us from having healthy offspring with family, especially direct. Your logic is retarded
>>24794678
>make a retarded claim
>call everyone faggots at the end of it
>wtf why would someone insult me?!
The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you
>>24794649
He's not, he's a psued

>>24794786
>Grasping and diverting
does this refute anything, chat?
>if you can
humans unconsciously select mates who complement their own deficiencies, maximising the chance of fitter offspring. this isn’t a relevant argument?
there’s an old platitude that i’m sure you’ll conveniently disregard without refuting about opposites attracting.

>>24794795
>Our genetics prevent us from having healthy offspring with family, especially direct.
No. Explain the endless cases of actually occurring incest if our genetics (for some reason) prevent it. All your shrieking is based on something that is obviously untrue? Lol.
>>24794797
>humans unconsciously select mates who complement their own deficiencies, maximising the chance of fitter offspring. this isn’t a relevant argument?
No, because it is a spurious observation that does not follow from any relevant premises.

>>24794812
Our genetics don't prevent it and I never said they did. What our genetics prevent is healthy offspring from incest therefore discouraging it by cause and effect.
This is the same logical framework as your example whereby people are discouraged from eating family members from some effects they may feel afterwards but are not made physically incapable of doing so.

>>24794812
guys natural selection is a spurious observation.

>>24793227
it's not that exactly, it's more of a thing of trying not to have a billion retard citizens to be taken care of and not able to work

>>24793207
Did he ever play with his toys as a kid or did he just sit there and wonder how many penises would fit in his teddy bear?

>>24793783
this is some gay zoomer fanfiction by someone who's never actually read any of freud's work

freud is in the same tier as marx or adam smith of authors who people construct criticisms not of their actual thoughts or writings, but of memes of their ideas transmitted via twitter or reddit

>>24793207
He is right, but in a very abstract and round-about way. Many human desires, from avarice to drug abuse, are types of incest, but not "i wanna fuck my mom" type of incest, but "I want to be re-united to where I came from" incest.

>>24794980
isn't that just religion

>>24795081
I don't know

>>24794507
Is it prohibited to intentionally starve to death? No. Because you wouldn't do that.

>>24795178
roman catholics preach that the latin religio represents re-ligio, ‘the sense of being bound back.’

File: charles-ii-of-spain-by-ju(...).jpg (127 KB, 1300x1943)

127 KB JPG

morality be damned. if it's good for the king, it's good for me

>>24795214
This guy was far less inbred than the average Pakistani today btw.

I don't think people are especially prone toward incest, that is, especially attracted to blood relatives. Long familiarity can breed contempt, but it can also foster desire for another person. It depends on what this extended intimate knowledge reveals about a person. Such intimacy can reveal hidden flaws that make a person repulsive, or hidden vulnerabilities and surprising beauty that make a person more attractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there is no accounting for taste, and so on.

Given this, it seems equally likely that family intimacy would either smother any sexual desire for these closest people in your life, or else inflame it, depending on the revealed character of family members and the nature of the beholder and what they found attractive. If all of the necessary reagents are present for a reaction to take place, then it is only natural that it occurs. The only obstacle to its formation would be the social taboo against incest, which is seemingly as old as human civilization.

This has an apparently rational explanation, however. While couched in moral terms more often than not, its origins are hygienic. Ancient people would not need knowledge of genealogical inheritance to comprehend the dangers of inbreeding in a human population. Animal husbandry is older than civilization, and its practice necessitates familiarity with inbreeding and its attendant benefits and harms. It does not take a great deal of imagination to apply the observations with domesticated animals to a human population. To wit: consanguinity is harmful over several generations. Tracking consanguinity in a human population, across several generations, without any written records, would be essentially impossible. So the simplest thing would be to proscribe any incest at all, instead of tracking who is related to who by what degree and occasionally permitting it. A simple universal taboo removes the problem.

>>24794825
>>24794795
Read this:
>>24794669

>>24795230
The Habsburgs were acutely inbred, with a great deal of consanguinity taking place between closely related people in back to back generations, while inbreeding in Asia and Africa is more chronic and a resulting of large kin groups continually intermarrying over a long period of time. Cousin marriage is the norm in places like Pakistan. The genetic reinforcement from inbreeding occurs periodically so that kin groups grow very distantly related, but there is just enough genetic diversity at play that it prevents a rapid deterioration like with the Habsburgs.

Essentially, the people living in Pakistan, India, the mideast etc have found a way to survive while practicing inbreeding on an essentially institutional level. They've controlled the genetic deterioration so that the decline is so slow it's not noticeable generation to generation. They were probably a much more attractive and vital people, once.

>>24794669
>>This is only modern knowledge
People have been tending to goats and sheep for millennia and they know that if you continually breed the same stock together over and over you get three legged and two headed babies or worse monstrosities. Even with efforts taken to freshen up the bloodlines you still get deformed livestock being born due to how inbred most domesticated populations are.

Understanding that inbreeding causes deformity and illness is not a modern thing, only the knowledge of the underlying biological mechanism is modern. Ancient people would have simply understood it as an observable fact and made up any justification for it.

>>24795301
Let's completelly ignore royal bloodlines. Let's also ignore the bottleneck.

>>24795301
>they know that if you continually breed the same stock together over and over you get three legged and two headed babies or worse monstrosities
Did anyone ancient write about that? It's not as easy to deduce as you seem to think and different species respond differently to low genetic diversity, some have adaptions specifically to counter the problems, some just clone themselves.
Speciation doesn't happen without a reduction in genetic diversity within the population speciating from the main body.

>>24795335
nta but the royal argument makes itself.
the bottleneck argument is just wrong from an anthropological standpoint.

>>24795472
>nta but the royal argument makes itself
How? I'm not arguing that inbreeding is good. I'm simply arguing that humans didn't know about the consequences back then. Do you understand the difference?
>the bottleneck argument is just wrong from an anthropological standpoint.
guess le science is wrong and this anon is right

>>24794724
::raises hand::

>>24795258
If you go on literotica.com the most popular category is incest

>>24793207
Really just one of the biggest frauds in human history. It is astounding how constantly wrong he was and whatever he got right was taken from far greater thinkers and writers like Nietzsche and Dostoevsky.

>>24793207
Well, if I can break it down. Incest being an innate desire has more logic to it, despite being entirely speculative, than claiming there is no or a minimal innate component to incest. If he had claimed the latter, he would have had to back up his claim in any way. The way he did it, people can just agree with him or not, and that has as much to do with their willingness to believe in Freud and his method than it does with the truth of what Freud is saying.

Likewise, he might elaborate on it in the chapter you're quoting from, but given as it is there's no logic in his statement that can make "repressed incestual urges form the basis of morality" follow from "incest is an innate human desire".

>>24795864
they didn’t know about recessive traits and genes but the wisdom itself is primal. even before DNA testing people knew close-kin pairings led to weaker offspring, birth defects, or maybe just bad luck. why almost every society developed taboos against incest, completely independently of one another. not scientific just observational.
preserving bloodline was sacred, not sensual. it was above them. apparently many royals resented the arranged cousin marriages. they were aware of the pattern.
>le science
what, like natural selection?
the ‘bottleneck’ was so short-lived it’s almost negligible. and either way it’s reductionist. there was genetic overlap but not direct family incest.

>>24793227
This is some profound level shit

>>24797064
i’m 15 and this is deep

Has anyone in this thread actually read any Freud? I read The Uncanny recently and I thought it was great.

>>24793207
No he's just Jewish. Freud didn't describe the human psychology he described Jewish psychology. He basically made the case that I would use to call for the extermination of Jews, and he somehow trickedp eople into instead believing that everyone is a Jew.

It's been a fucking disaster btw. Every single development since Freud has just made us less sane and more neurotic. Freudian Psychoanalysis should be outlawed and systematically burned out of the entire canon of human literature. If you need therapy talk to a priest.

>>24793207
> You love pussy right?
> Well, your mom has a pussy.
Another 1000 IQ megamind moment for the Sigmund "I wanna fuck my momy"Freudster

>>24797194
You think it might have to do with technologies that carve civilization apart and systems that only incentivize sociopathy for a few and submission for the rest as opposed to one jewish blokes books and lectures that if anything havent reared clinicians since the 80s?

>>24797079
25 and yes it is.

>>24793207
I have a sister, she's conventionally attractive and i don't feel any attraction towards her, so he was bullshitting

>>24795190
Look deeper anon, through the freudian lens of truth

>>24793207
>certain ethnic group is so inbred they have an innate desire to fuck their own mother, other races understand that this desire is for the ideal women (woman of your own race) and date within their own race
fraud debunked, only thing he did right was teach c. jung

>>24797095
Why would anyone put this poison into their mind on purpose?

>>24798692
then why do white rednecks inbreed so much?

>>24793207
Animals don't molest their own children but humans do. Why? Humans have souls and sometimes serve the devil.
>Humans have an innate desire to sin
Wrong.

>>24798710
location and the fact that small towns are already linked to some kind of cousinhood, they don't want to move away because they have ties to community, city gals don't want to come there because "small minded hicks" and they end up fucking a once removed cousin or something
certain ethnic groups have the same problem, for freud to say everyone wants to fuck their own mother is pure projection which carl jung kind of low key shoved to his face with his work on unconscious

>>24798710
They don't. That's a false and harmful racial stereotype. You are a racist.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/amg-acta-geneticae-medicae-et-gemellologiae-twin-research/article/inbreeding-load-in-whites-and-negroes-a-reappraisal/C44179A6604641BA5A1041F506A24993

>>24794787
>If Freud is a pseud? Well, what about the mountain of forgotten people who shares his occupation, but dared not touch the social taboo?

Same as Kinsey, they aren't noble researchers breaking taboos. They are rockefellers, rothschilds and similar types.

They're like fauci, the figurehead pushed forward that has the credentials and is willing to sell lies to the public.

>>24794978
I admit I don't know too much about Freud, but what I know seems in line with what he said. What part of Freud'a history demonstrates that the greentext is inaccurate?

>>24798715
>Animals don't molest their own children

Rabbits sometimes breed with their children. I'm sure there are more.

>>24799962
what kind of rich entity pushes forward Freud these days? mainstream modern psychology doesn't care for him.

>>24793207
He's 100% correct. Look at porn trends to see how spot-on he was

>>24793337
>There is no incest prohibition coded into our genetics
There is actually. You're less likely to fuck your sister if you've been brought up together

>>24798715
>Social pairings between youth and adult bonobos happen across sex combinations: "Both adult males and females interact sexually with adolescents and juveniles (three-to-nine-year-olds). In fact, young females go through a five-to-six-year period sometimes referred to as adolescent sterility (although no pathology is involved) during which they actively participate in heterosexual mating (often with adults) but never get pregnant. Sexual behavior between adults and infants of both sexes is common - about a third of the time it is initiated by the infant and may involve genital rubbing and full copulatory postures (including penetration of an adult female by a male infant)."

>>24793207
Sounds about as correct as the "oedipal complex" bullshit that he dreamed up to cover his findings that pedophilia was the most destructive thing that could happen to a child.