Gaia Community

Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

Whitewave said Dec 24, 2006, 3:17 PM:

Does this resonate with anyone else?

oral (0-18 months)
anal (18 months - 3 1/2 years)
phallic (3 1/2 years - 6 years)
latency (6 years -puberty)
genital (puberty -adulthood)

This is from this page.

This morning I'm starting to open up a little bit to the possibility that Freud was right about these things in some ways. I'm not sure if there was a problem in translation which makes the German meaning incomprehensible to us, but I still don't see the infant's openness to exploring the world of sensation as “sexual”. I see it more as “sensual”. The difference in meaning to me is that “sexual” is about orgasm which is physically located in the genital area of the body, and sensual is about all the human senses attaining their height of arousal and satisfaction with various ambrosial stimulations - including sound, sight, taste, touch, smell and all the others which are less concrete and have no corresponding “organ” of sense such as connection, feelings and emotions, purpose, beauty, truth and goodness and other such things.

The reason I'm looking at this now is because over this past year, I've started having anal sex -and because of this, some inneresting things are going on in my interior. My more primitive impulses are being awakened and I'm entertaining them in my consciousness more. But more importantly, now, I'm starting to desire to explore oral sensation more - and I just realized that this is descending in Freud's developmental order!

Because I have spent most of my life relating in very Hyper-Personal ways, I have disliked oral sex -either way - due to the intense consciousness present in the face interacting with pre-consciousness present in the genitals. Oral sex felt like an avoidance of personal interaction, and rejection - yes, both ways! My early history of extreme emotional neglect, combined with my experiences of sexualization as exploitation had really traumatized me to the point where I didn't “feel” loved unless I knew alot about my partner and empathically connected with his story and he reciprocated in kind - these being a function of consciousness and identity. The mingling of genitalia was the magic carpet ride where these two identities, minds and hearts would meet and travel together towards a glorious future with purpose and love. If my partner took his consciousness away from “me” and gave it to the “carpet”, I felt abandoned and alone. These poor guys probably thought they were impressing me with whatever abilities and I felt so rejected! And there was no way to solve the problem - even though more than a few swore that I would grow to love it if I let them do it because they did it right! I couldn't figure out what was wrong. I knew it wasn't because I was repressing sexuality, because I've always loved sex and never feared it or felt bad or immoral about it. It was something else entirely.

So, as I descend here, in Freud's order, I'm wondering how my consciousness is altering and/or expanding. It isn't necessarily expanding into the heights, I see that. But I think there's room to expand into the depths and turn all that implicit pre-conscious stuff into explicit stuff. I believe that as I had more and more good experiences anally, something very deep and primal was waking up. A sub-persona or two. They were concerned with survival and power and their consciousness was limited to that like an animal - vague, not quite personal, nameless, unclothed. Scary. Unless, of course, they revealed themselves to me and let me know their secrets. And for about a year now, I've been struggling with how to find a way to record and express their secrets. Because they are no longer unfamiliar to me and no longer frightening, though I do still have discomfort when they act out without letting me help them or give them permission. So far, the only time I feel free to express their secret ways is during sex itself. And since I don't get this often enough, they feel quite bottled up.

I'm anticipating the next awakening to the oral to be a little different. I don't think this is going to have quite as much power involved with it. I believe this will be more passive or, perhaps, just more trusting. And this is probably going to be a source of frustration because I am preparing to be permanently relieved of my current b/f's problems by the most drastic measures available - surgery. In 8 days, he will be gone and I will have to find someone else to play with. But because this is about expressing Trust, I will have to take some very uncomfortable and possibly disastrous risks. However! Because I will be bringing this into a more awakened place, the very primitive impulse to Trust will be less bound to my sub-conscious and more available to my conscious mind. This will have many benefits to me.

Oh, how I wish the perfect partner would just fall out of the sky! But that won't happen. So I'll have to figure out how to create the perfect interface with the various imperfect people out there.

Does this sound familiar or intriguing to anyone else? Want to discuss?

~Ww

Show Replies

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

firemusic said Feb 5, 2007, 8:45 PM:

my first impression is that instinct and reason battles to conquer pleasure, and surely trust is the main dish. so, as i see it, trust gives a sense to pleasure. a permission, ok now you can let it go… but there's fear , kind of uncertain pleasure and a possibility to get hurt. again conflict between pleasure and pain. but you do it before you act. then you choose to do what reason, in the circonstances, shows what is the safest act which will balance the pleasure of sexuality with the fear/pleasure of pain.
what do you think of this?

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

Whitewave said Feb 8, 2007, 12:34 AM:

Ah, yes. This reminds me of another inquiry I have toyed with. Fetishism.

I see Freud's idea about this is pretty limited, tho he did make a big deal out of it. Did you know that he didn't even use it until after Marx did? It started out being the power-object of “primative religions”, then Marx noticed the usefulness of the term to express his economic ideas. Metaphor. Then Freud got ahold of it and really did a number on it! Fetishism is a sub-section of sublimation.

When you say,

“trust gives a sense to pleasure. a permission, ok now you can let it go… but there's fear , kind of uncertain pleasure and a possibility to get hurt.”

I'm wondering if you are thinking that's how everyone experiences fear or lack of trust. I don't think I experience it that way, and I'm beginning to see how this can become a big misunderstanding.

During the early developmental stages, the process of sublimation or displacement dictates that when a strong need is felt, and the object of that need, or an adult controller says, “No!”, then the need gets displaced to a different object. The need doesn't go away. It detours. And the drama of “I want but can't have…” is rehearsed over and over and over in a context that is easyer for the subject to control and to eventually achieve acquisition of the object. The subject will immerse all of their senses in the alternate object as a way of capturing the attention and holding it away from the original object which causes so much frustration. In early childhood, this becomes a comfort object such as a pacifyer, blanket or stuffed animal. In older children, this can develop into a fetish, fixation or mania. And children do not have a monopoly on sublimation. It is considered to be one of the better coping mechanisms, so adults do it too.

Another way the need gets displaced is projection of this drama onto others: believing that “They want but think they can't have…”. I've seen men make this assumption about me many times. They believe that I really do want them, but think I can't have them. So, when I express disinterest, they take that as their cue that they need to let me know that I can, actually have them. It's okay. I can let go and take them. This is a common mistake.

I think you're mostly right about the battle over pleasure, but I don't think it's really a battle. I think it's more of an evolving relationship between instinct and reason. They may seem to be opponents with conflicting needs in the beginning, but really, reason can be trusted to acquire that which instinct wants, only on more civilized terms. It's not okay to simply take what one wants. One must learn to negotiate. And as we grow, we learn that that's okay. It takes a while.

I tend to avoid the term “balance”. When I think about things more comprehensively, I usually end up not needing to use it. There is a season for everything under heaven.

Some people insist that humans will always have to deal with the predation aspect of sexuality. I go back and forth about this. As someone who is committed to Shadow Work, I must accept the logic of this. I am also in the midst of integrating my own predatory Persona. However, I still want her to submit to the leadership of negotiation. She and I haven't finished our process, and I don't know how it's going to turn out. Regardless of the outcome, I believe that we all need more awareness and consciousness in our own predatory impulses and an attempt at management and integration with higher forms of acquisition.

—oOo—

I guess when I speak about “trust” in this aspect, I am refering to my partner's ability to negotiate openly with me and not prey on me. I don't want any more doubt, I don't want to remain vigilant, I want to lay down my guns and rest. The oral stage is the earliest, when we are the most helpless. I want to be able to regress safely. I want to know that he will not simply harvest what he wants from me and leave the rest. I do not want to merely be or posess an object for him to consume. I want him to reverse the sublimation and take the Risk of negotiating with me for the security, affection and acceptance that he deeply wants. I take so many Risks when relating to men, and I get tired of sticking my neck out all the time.

Security is an infantile need that loving sex can potentially fulfill, but not at the Personal level. As we progress to the Transpersonal, I believe security becomes a much deeper and more conscious thing because it is grounded in timelessness and the infinite. I think Ken Wilber said that emptiness should be a component of certainty. I have a long way to go, but I want to get there.

~Ww

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

jackii said Apr 5, 2007, 6:37 AM:

the first thing that comes to mind is that you are, (or were three months ago) very head centered during sex. and that you are slowly becoming a whole bodymind, so that you can feel communion from any contact in any way. does that ring true?

the security issues would seem to be that you rush into sexual intimacy before you are really knowing and trusting person. you are getting better at it, but you still rush in before you really want to. shadow behavior, which is not necessarily bad, because you do it, and you get payoff for it.

of course, i'm talking about myself. it's hard to believe that of myself, as i usually have years of solitary between lovers. but that is because i'm a hermit and i just don't meet all that many potential partners. so when the universe opens a door for me i'm right there pushing. i do push with my whole bodymind. i have to go deep mentally and emotionally, otherwise sex is not as awesome.

my path got to oral before anal. and now the two have integrated. : ) as always i refuse to allow myself and anyone else to fit into a category. i don't mind people using these structures, for self-examination, if they feel so drawn, but i've always found that life is not adequately described in them. i'd rather talk about and feel for potential compatibilities, synergies, and support in achieving mutual goals both inside and out of the sex.

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

Whitewave said Jun 3, 2007, 12:31 AM:

Wow. Yeah. I guess I'm really behind on all your posts. 58 days ago, you posted that. Ugh. Sorry for my inconsistency.

“the first thing that comes to mind is that you are, (or were three months ago) very head centered during sex. and that you are slowly becoming a whole bodymind, so that you can feel communion from any contact in any way. does that ring true?”

I don't know what those words really mean to you. “Head centered” or “bodymind”. It's no use explaining them here, I won't be able to grok it in time to answer confidently. I would need to see them used over and over within differing contexts but with consistent meaning, and I'm afraid I just haven't.

With the limited understanding that I have, I don't think that rings quite right. I'm very emotionally and physically connective, not intellectually, during sex. However, it has all been largely subconscious until recently. Now it is more conscious. So, in a way that could be even more “head-centered”! All that lingo is very confusing to me.

“the security issues would seem to be that you rush into sexual intimacy before you are really knowing and trusting person. you are getting better at it, but you still rush in before you really want to. shadow behavior, which is not necessarily bad, because you do it, and you get payoff for it.”

I'm in the process of dropping alot of those old catagories about gender and sex and whatnot. The concept of “rushing in” is a big trap. It means that if women want to act like reptiles and just fuck anonymously - the way men openly want to - then they are labled something specific. Men don't ever seem to be accused of rushing in before really knowing and trusting someone. Like the term “promiscuous man” could be simply redundant, but a “promiscuous woman” actually means something.

What could be happening here is that men seem to be very physically connective with little emotional connectivity unless there is some sort of trauma or deep, subconscious triggering. Could it be that they tend to project their own lack of connectivity onto me? Maybe not. Just a possibility.

But not you, tho. You're very emotionally connective.

I've been thinking more about these catagories. They are important to me. They help me understand. I'm starting to think that the “anal” stage is connected to our reptile level of consciousness and the others coincide with other levels as well:

Oral: Fish
Anal: Reptile
Phalic: Mammal
Latent: Primate
Genital: Human

We have all these layers of consciousness in us, as well as the exterior brain structures that corespond to those layers. Is the Oral stage our fish memory of exploring the world with our mouths - before we had other apendages? Does the Anal stage remind us of when we females only had a cloaca instead of separate orifices with their various functions? Mammals were the first to have clearly visible genetalia and a separate orifice for a womb - is that when we first became conscious of our gender? Were the primates the first to realize that sex created offspring or that females shouldn't be penetrated against their will or before they were ready? Isn't the human being the first to be fully conscious of how Genetailia work and create special language about sex? Because that would explain alot.

Lots to think about. Much need for sleep.

~Ww

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

Meg said Jun 3, 2007, 8:57 AM:

Hi everyone (or the few of us in this pod) I am so glad I found you guys! After having studied years of psychoanalysis both Freudian and Lacanian (Jaques Lacan) I am so very interested in integrating the past knowledge to the pos modern influence of Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen!

But hey…I am just a baby in here and have so much to leran regarding integral psychology and evolutionary enlightenmend!

What made me attracted to this pod though is my human need to bond sexually/sensually with another who thinks similarly and who connects spiritually to who I am!

So are we going to discuss theories or go into deep personal inquiry? I am so looking for answers as well and am open to whatever suggestions you have on how to date beyond ego or how will we evolve consicousness being in romantic relationships?

According to Anrew this is a brand new territory in which we have yet to develope a model!

If we take into consideration that romance is ego-centric how are we going to love beyond attachtments and fear of loosing the subject of our love and sexual attraction! Working our shadow?

Anyway I am just happy I found this pod! Thank you for the beautiful initiative Whitewave!
See you around!

All the very best to all of you,

Meg

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

Whitewave said Jun 3, 2007, 10:26 AM:

Yay-Yay! These are the kinds of questions I want to see! I would love to see a huge flurry of various questions like these:

“So are we going to discuss theories or go into deep personal inquiry?”
“how to date beyond ego or how will we evolve consicousness being in romantic relationships?”
“If we take into consideration that romance is ego-centric how are we going to love beyond attachtments and fear of loosing the subject of our love and sexual attraction! Working our shadow?”

Yay! Exactly! All that and more!

When I brought up Freud, that's the kind of thing I was looking for. This isn't about me. Nor is it about Freud. This is about all of our questions and trying to understand how this is all going to work now since things are changing.

Is deep triggering still justified for Integral or enlightened persons? Or are we going to create some evolved sounding version of taboo about it?
Are we going to try and transcend and exclude?
If we transcend and include, how do we do that without losing our altitude?
How do we negotiate a relationship with another when our altitudes differ in general and differ over different aspects within that general sexuality?
I like being deeply triggered to trust, as do we all, but being deeply triggered to fear comes with the same territory. What now? Do we abandon that joyful subjectivity so that we can leave behind the painful one? Is there a third way?

YES! YES! YES! MORE MORE MORE!!!

~Ww

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

jackii said Jun 5, 2007, 11:47 PM:

everytime i get back to this thread i'm really excited to respond, but energy is too low to put the effort in to get out the proper word/thoughts. perhaps freud has a theory about that. : )

i'll make a note to myself to get here sooner, tomorrow. it's 3am for (fill in the blank) sake.

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

jackii said Jun 6, 2007, 10:09 AM:

let's see, first welcome meg, your input is eagerly anticipated by me, too.

and whether you are a baby (which i don't buy) or not, your input is critical to the synergy. irl, even babies have a wisdom, power, knowledge, etc that to me is undeniably equal to adults. and the only thing that is stopping them from being a powerful force for such in any adult's life is the adult allowing it. i'm not saying that they are more critical, but potentially immediately equally critical as any adult. in other words, i hope you find a home here.

Ww,

my shadow tells me you ignored me on purpose!!!!! therefore it must be true. : )

since writing the part about head-centered and bodymind, i've been seeing the ignorance of what i wrote. i see there is no difference or separation of the head and the whole body. it is seamlessly fused as one. just like the 4 quadrants, conscious and subconscious, and all the rest.

so i'm glad that it didn't ring true for you.

I'm in the process of dropping alot of those old catagories about gender and sex and whatnot. The concept of “rushing in” is a big trap. It means that if women want to act like reptiles and just fuck anonymously - the way men openly want to - then they are labled something specific. Men don't ever seem to be accused of rushing in before really knowing and trusting someone. Like the term “promiscuous man” could be simply redundant, but a “promiscuous woman” actually means something.

looks to me like you still have some shedding of labels to drop. tho, this is the stereotype, i'm pretty sure that some studies have shown that women are just as promiscuous as men. there is a new book out too, and i can't think of the name of it (sorry). it is by a lesbian that dressed as a man and acted like one in order to infiltrate many a men's group, to learn about men from the inside. she ended up being surprised at how much men actual don't fit into the stereotypes.

anyway, i'm still guilty of falling into this trap, much more than i want to admit.

i don't resonate with the cross identifying of these stages with brain clusters, prolly for the same reason as i stated above, all is fused as one for me. that doesn't mean your connections are not true and valid. it only means i don't have anything to add to it today.

i also don't buy into any human-centered propaganda that says, according to human knowledge, humans are the only conscious and deepest loving about this or that. again, it doesn't mean it's not true, it only means that i think it's a bunch of crap.

Meg,

we are going to do whatever feels right. sometime discussing theories, sometimes exposing bits and pieces of ourselves, sometimes… and like in children of dune, irulan asks of the reverend mother if she's getting answers, she says, answers only create more questions. to which they agreed navigating between the two is the art and science of life. (boy did i bastardize that dialog, lol)

the evolution of the romantic relationship is hopefully catching up with the ritual of the christian (and perhaps buddhist and others) marriage, where the priest reminds the couple that the church and the sacrament of marriage is about using the synergy (blessings) of the marriage to help others in need by sharing the Love that is tapped. unfortunately (maybe), the word/thought Love has been totally fucked (raped) over to mean something that blesses selfishness. is this a mirror for me? LOL

If we take into consideration that romance is ego-centric how are we going to love beyond attachtments and fear of loosing the subject of our love and sexual attraction! Working our shadow?

for me, working on my shadow has provided a long-desired movement in getting past jealousy and other fears about holding onto 'love'. but it's not the only way or necessarily the best way for any one, that is up to each individual to decide for his or her self. and an integral approach, or cross-training, is probably (but again, not necessarily) the best way to pursue movement towards the transpersonal.

wow, Ww,

your questions are worth a whole new post. but i'm going to take a break, now, and let Meg offer some input. : )

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

Whitewave said Jun 6, 2007, 10:36 AM:

SO MUCH WONDERFUL EXCELLENTNESS - SO LITTLE TIME!!

AAAAAAAAAAGH!

~Ww

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

jackii said Jun 7, 2007, 7:47 AM:

meg,

this is much more personal inquiry at one of Ww's other pods.

http://pods.zaadz.com/shadow

tho wherever/however you want to participate is welcome

jack

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

Symbolist Artist [no longer around] said Jul 9, 2007, 8:53 AM:

I'm very interested in the theme of this pod, but I see in myself a multitude of mixed feelings. I'll try and put some thoughts down although I feel as if I don't have much to contribute with. Since we are talking of Shadows, I think it's best to start with the most obvious of my feelings, which is that pleasure has eluded me all my life. I feel very sad and bitter when I think about that. I have done a lot of work on my own so I have become pretty open sexually but have not encountered anyone who would have synchronised with me. They all had fantasies regarding their potency and capacity for making me happy, which was more than lacking. The last one promised the earth and the sky and thunderbolting inbetween, but never showed up in the physical realm (we only dated virtually for a few months) so I was left to wonder if that would ever have been a possibility or not. When I started dating the only one that I've been with a bit longer than a couple of months I was soon debilitated by vulvodynia, which is an excruciating nerve pain in the genital area. That and problems with the intestines plus fibromyalgic problems has caused me a lot of physical pain and (dis)stress. I can imagine great sex but it just doesn't come into my life. I have tried to look at every conceivable aspect of my own attitudes. So I am trying to accept pleasure into my life, believe that I am deserving of it and that I can have it and that I should accept abundance and so forth and so forth. Nothing seems to work.

So at this point I am thinking that maybe I am not meant to connect emotionally on that level with anyone. Maybe I'm supposed to be so disgusted by this realm that I will be more than happy to leave it for good once I have the opportunity of leaving graciously… I don't want to leave with a feeling of having been deprived though - it's part of my beliefsystem that any unfulfilled desires would draw me back to Earth to reincarnate. So this is a bit of a dilemma! I just can't figure out what I'm supposed to do. I think the last guys in line were not suitable for me and would have ended up draining me, so saying stop to the experience was probably a good thing in and of itself. But the flavour of liberty doesn't last long until I start to fret again! Does anyone get any ideas regarding all this?

I've tried very hard to bond with the physical and emotional realms so I don't really see myself as all that airy fairy. But my experiences with life have left me with a blunt sort of realism that leaves no space for dreams or illusions of any kind. I feel trapped in a world that I basically see as illusory and full of egotraps. I think that I have nonetheless been able to use every bad experience to my own benefit, i.e I have slowly grown into greater equanimity and discernement. I'm proud of all that and feel that it is my purpose. I don't fool around and I don't take anything for granted. But must the experience of growth always be so dull and so lonely? For a while I though symbiosis with a man might be possible if both of us had strong and healthy egos. At this point I do think I have a rather strong ego but I have never encountered a man that doesn't stumble on some shadow or another that I activate in him, lol. Thanks for reading all this heavy stuff….

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

BluuBlox said Nov 30, 2007, 6:44 AM:

Freud was a crackpot just like [Wilhelm] Reich…
They both got some things right; but none of it had to do with sex…

Re: Freud's Psychosexual Stage Theory

jackii said Nov 30, 2007, 9:35 AM:

i think freud and reich were important factors of their times, stimulating dialog among the other researchers. and like with all sources of authority, i pick and choose from the whole by what works for me in the moment.

i do think that that the more radical things freud was saying about sex are important to put to a thorough self-examination. much of it is still in the collective shadow, repressed and denied.