Psychobabble from NastyGoon and Michael Monkey

[George Dance]

from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> >
> Trauma occurs in many forms.

That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

> Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

> > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
> > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
> >
> An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
>

A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

> As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

> > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.

> > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> >
> You're right about Oedipus (the play),

I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

> however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.

But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

> > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> >
> Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

> Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

> > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
> > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
> >
> No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
> > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>
> "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.

As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

> To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

> > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
>
> You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en

> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
>> > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
>> >
>> Trauma occurs in many forms.

> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

>> Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

>> > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over.. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.

>> > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
>> >
>> An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
>>

> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

>> As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

>> > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.

>> > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>> >
>> You're right about Oedipus (the play),

> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over.. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

>> however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.

> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

>> > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
>> >
>> Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

>> Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

>> > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
>> > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
>> >
>> No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>> > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>>
>> "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.

> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>> To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

>> > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
>> > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
>>
>> You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

Good afternoon, George, well put.


🙂

[NancyGene]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> > >
> > Trauma occurs in many forms.
>
> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

The Red-Haired Prince claims that he is suffering from PTSD caused by his mother's dying 25 years ago. Look at the news (hint: it won't say "George Dance"). Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children. There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain

>
> > Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.
>
> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.

>
> > > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
> > > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.

There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.

> > >
> > An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
> >
>
> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.
>
> > As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.
>
> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.

>
> > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
>
> > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > >
> > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
>
> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

We do and we have.

>
> > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
>
> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.

George Dance, you have missed the point. A boy has to metaphorically/symbolically "kill" his father in order to become a man. This is a well-established tenet in psychology. That you are arguing against it shows your ignorance. Please do some research (that doesn't involve searching for "George Dance").

>
> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

We are not even talking about the child's attraction to the mother. The boy has to become a man by relegating the father ("killing" him) to being just another man and not a god figure/authority figure. Those who do not do that are doomed to be man-children and stunted in their emotional maturity. We saw that your father was in the military (career military?) We assume that you never were able to put him into his proper place in your life.

>
> > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > >
> > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
>
> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.

>
> > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
>
> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

Maybe imaginary friends? How can he have friends if he isn't allowed to play with anyone? Your poem breaks down in logic. A boy raised in strict isolation would experience cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which pretty much describes Boy George in "My Father's House."

>
> > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
> > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
> > >
> > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
>
> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.

You cannot diagnose yourself--you are too close to the situation to be objective. Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.

> > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> >
> > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
>
> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts. Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings. Did you pay it forward to your daughter?

>
> > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.
>
> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."

>
> > > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> > > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
> >
> > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
>
> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.

>
> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings. Please get help.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> > >
> > Trauma occurs in many forms.
>
> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

Yes, George, I do.

Here is but one of many sources:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10450264/

Its title is "Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up," by C.S. Wisdom.

> > Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.
>
> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
>

Here's a quote from PTSD UK: "The relationship between childhood abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder is clear and indisputable. Even one deeply traumatic incident in your early years can have serious mental health repercussions."

https://www.ptsduk.org/causes-of-ptsd-childhood-abuse/

> > > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
> > > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
> > >
> > An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
> >
>
> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

The sound of the fireworks triggered his memory, thus causing an engrammatic reaction. However, you certainly have not established that he is not suffering from PSTD throughout the year -- regardless of external stimuli.

Someone suffering from PTSD might have a reaction triggered by fireworks, but he might also experience symptoms of paranoia, and contentiousness, when interacting with others without having experienced such a trigger.

> > As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.
>
> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

No one said any such thing, George.

You are either 1) lying, 2) delusional, or 3) unable to comprehend basic English.

> > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
>
> > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > >
> > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
>
> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"

I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play. She was, after all, referring to it in passing in a Usenet post -- not composing a term paper on it.

> > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
>
> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
>

Very good.

> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.
>

Do you really have the temerity to challenge Sigmund Freud?

Dr. NancyGene and I are in excellent company.

> > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > >
> > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
>
> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.
>

You are taking her words far too literally.

Symbolically killing one's father can take many forms: challenging his absolute authority, breaking free of financial dependence on him, cracking the moral pedestal one has placed him on, etc.

And, yes, it is essential that the boy achieve ascendancy over the father in some tangible way, in order for the maturation to be complete. A boy who simply represses the desire while suffer from various neuroses throughout his life as a result.

> > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
>
> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends.

Not having friends and not being allowed to have friends are, in Boy George's case, the same thing. Boy George didn't have friends because his daily chores (and family restrictions?) denied the opportunity to make friends with the other children.

> Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

No one even so much as implied that this was the case.

> > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
> > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
> > >
> > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
>
> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>

You say that you're trauma free, but Grownup George's desire to burn down his father's house, speaks otherwise. (As does Grownup George's calling his childhood home "my Father's house.") That house would be seen as the private property of his father, and not as a family home speaks volumes as to Grownup George's barely concealed resentment.

As to the second part of your objection, no one has intimated that you still see your mother as a sex object. You're mistakenly attempting to apply all of the possible symptoms of an Oedipal complex to Dr. NancyGene's and my diagnosis of your case.

In your case, the sexual element was severely repressed. Your particular Oedipus complex manifests itself in symptoms of paranoia, combativeness, and repressed anger toward your father.

> > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> >
> > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
>
> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

What boys have been doing that? I don't know any who have. My own sons certainly would not have submitted to any such form of punishment.

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim?

>
> > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.
>
> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
>

That is not what anyone has been saying, George. Please pay attention, and I'll repeat our argument nice and slow:

No one is denying that corporal punishment was uncommon. I was subjected to corporal punishment as well. The issue is *not* with regard to the punishment, but in your resigned, obedient *acceptance* of it.

Getting a spanking, to someone of our generation, is brushed aside as commonplace.

Lying in bed with one's pajama pants pulled down *awaiting* a spanking is not.

IOW: No one is taking issue with your father's abusiveness (which is how whipping a boy with a belt is viewed today). We are taking issue with Boy George's willingness to subject himself to such a beating.

I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little harder the next time.

There was something broken in Boy George as he lay in bed with his pants down. And *that* image... that *brokenness*... is what is so disturbing about Boy George's tale.

> > > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> > > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
> >
> > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
>
> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself.

I have always objected to your use of "teams," George.

Again, I stress that obvious fact that NancyGene, Ash, Jim, Robert, Corey, ME, Alex, and I are all individuals -- and act as individuals.

Stink is the Donkey's dog, and exists only to please his master. Isaac is only here to help the Donkey troll. And you, at least of late, have been fulfilling a similar role.

> And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
>

Puh-lease!

Stink *chooses* to live under a piece of tarp. He is by the Donkey's own testimony a "maniac" who attacked Will and his retarded brother with a metal pipe in a state of being "blackout drunk." Will is an illiterate (witness his inability to use words like "fantasy" and "forgery" correctly) moron, who dropped out of high school after having been left back at least twice. He has been unemployed for over 20 years, living off of his mentally disabled brother's disability check. And Isaac is a middle-aged child who lives off of his parents and can only hold down part time jobs.

As to poetry writing skills, Will Donkey is the single worst poet I have ever read -- and as the editor of several poetry magazines I've read a shipload of bad poetry submissions. Stink runs him a close second.

Whether one likes my poetry, or NancyGene's, or Jim's, or yours is a matter of taste. Will's and Stink's poetry is incompetently written. That's not a matter of taste. That's a matter of recognizing that they're incapable of composing grammatically correct, and, ultimately intelligible, sentences.

> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

You're wrong, George.

Your poem's narrator (Grownup George) is obviously suffering from trauma. And repressed trauma would go a long way toward explaining your unprovoked distrust and hostility for the rest of us -- as well as your need to protect the (mentally) helpless and infirm.

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> >
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> > > >
> > > Trauma occurs in many forms.
> >
> > That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?
> Yes, George, I do.
>
> Here is but one of many sources:
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10450264/

I read the article. Your 'source' contains no data on either one. The study doesn't even look at PTSD caused by a parent's death; and while it doeslook at PTSD caused by "physical abuse," the "physical abuse" it's studying is not simple spanking:
"The abused and/or neglected group was composed of victims of substantiated childhood physical and sexual abuse and/or neglect whose cases were processed during the years 1967 through 1971 in the county juvenile or adult criminal court (situated in a metropolitan area in the Midwest)..... Physical abuse cases included *injuries such as bruises, welts, burns, abrasions, lacerations, wounds, cuts, bone and skull fractures, and other evidence of physical injury.* [*stress added*]
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.156.8.1223
(That's a link to the full article, BTW; you linked the NIH summary.)

> Its title is "Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up," by C.S. Wisdom.

Let's quote one more thing from it (this time from the summary);
"Victims of child abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect are at increased risk for developing PTSD, but childhood victimization is not a sufficient condition."

> > > Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.
> >
> > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> >
> Here's a quote from PTSD UK: "The relationship between childhood abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder is clear and indisputable. Even one deeply traumatic incident in your early years can have serious mental health repercussions."
> https://www.ptsduk.org/causes-of-ptsd-childhood-abuse/

Now you're begging two questions: whether a spanking with a belt is "deeply traumatic, and whether these "serious mental health repercussions" are the same thing as PTSD.

> > > > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
> > > > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
> > > >
> > > An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
> > A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.
> The sound of the fireworks triggered his memory, thus causing an engrammatic reaction. However, you certainly have not established that he is not suffering from PSTD throughout the year -- regardless of external stimuli.

I never claimed to; that was "Dr." NastyGoon's example, not mine; I just pointed out that it was triggered by external stimuli. I'm glad you agree with that.

> Someone suffering from PTSD might have a reaction triggered by fireworks, but he might also experience symptoms of paranoia, and contentiousness, when interacting with others without having experienced such a trigger.

So you're saying that a veteran showing distrust of, or arguing with, anyone else may be displaying PTSD? Or just of you and your fellow "perceived authority figures"?

> > > As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.
> >
> > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

> No one said any such thing, George.
>
> You are either 1) lying, 2) delusional, or 3) unable to comprehend basic English.

I'd expect someone actually interested in a discussion tp say something more like, "No, that's not what I meant" and try to explain what he meant instead." But you do you.

<snip>

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> >
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> >
> > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > > >
> > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> >

> > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.

> It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
>
> I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.

Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.

> She was, after all, referring to it in passing in a Usenet post -- not composing a term paper on it.

> > > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
> >
> > i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
> >
> Very good.

> > But once again, Freud's 'Oedipus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

> >
> Do you really have the temerity to challenge Sigmund Freud?

I'm certainly skeptical of this theory, and I see I'm not the only one.

"Sigmund Freud has always been a controversial figure. The Oedipus complex, a theory that suggests that every single person has deeply repressed incestuous instincts for their parents since childhood, is no less so. Critics of Freud have noted that, despite the case of Little Hans, there is very little empirical evidence to prove the theory’s validity."
https://www.britannica.com/science/Oedipus-complex

"As more has been learned about child development since Freud's theories were first launched, there has been an increasing lack of support for some of his assumptions about the human personality. Perhaps none of his ideas have met with as much criticism as his psychosexual stages of development. While many modern-day clinicians still find aspects of his stages helpful, most do not adhere to the presupposition of sexual conflict being the central task of developmental maturity. Thus, concepts like Oedipal and Electra complexes are held by a very small minority of professionals overall."
https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/other-criticisms-of-freud-and-psychoanalysis.html

"It’s important to note that there’s very little evidence that the Oedipus (or Electra) complex is real. It is not listed as a psychological condition in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians to diagnose psychological conditions and disorders."
https://flo.health/being-a-mom/your-baby/growth-and-development/oedipus-complex#:~:text=It's%20important%20to%20note%20that,diagnose%20psychological%20conditions%20and%20disorders.

> Dr. NancyGene and I are in excellent company.

In that respect, perhaps. I'm not sure about in others. For example, AFAIK Freud only psychoanalyzed people who came to him for help. He may have gone about psychoanalyzing his critics, but if he did I never read of it.

> > > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > > >
> > > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
> >

> > While I think there's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

> >
> You are taking her words far too literally.
>
> Symbolically killing one's father can take many forms: challenging his absolute authority, breaking free of financial dependence on him, cracking the moral pedestal one has placed him on, etc.

I did all that, though long after the "latency phase", so maybe it doesn't count to a Freudian.

> And, yes, it is essential that the boy achieve ascendancy over the father in some tangible way, in order for the maturation to be complete. A boy who simply represses the desire while suffer from various neuroses throughout his life as a result.

> > > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
> >
> > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends.
> Not having friends and not being allowed to have friends are, in Boy George's case, the same thing.

But not being allowed to play with one's friends (because one has to do chores) is not the same thing as either. It sucked, sometimes, but it is not the same thing as having no friends at all.

> Boy George didn't have friends because his daily chores (and family restrictions?) denied the opportunity to make friends with the other children.

The poem doesn't mention him ever playing (except in his room), so you can conclude he never did. It doesn't mention him going to school either, but I'm not sure you'd conclude he never did that, either.

> > Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

> No one even so much as implied that this was the case.

"Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age.... Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, *never* been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father." (*stress added*)

Being still in the phallic stage means still desiring one's mother, does it not?

> > > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.

> > > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of a person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.

> > > >

> > > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
> >
> > So I did.

Correction. I didn't tell you that. You went looking through old posts, cherry-picked a few quotes, and told us that.

>> What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.

> You say that you're trauma free, but Grownup George's desire to burn down his father's house, speaks otherwise.

As I think I told you, it's a dramatic ending; necessary because it's the only place (aside from some normal childhood wishing, that even the speaker downplays) where he expresses his own feelings; the rest is merely a recital of events. Up to then, it could have gone the other way -- he could have wanted to buy the house to raise his own children the same way.

> (As does Grownup George's calling his childhood home "my Father's house.") That house would be seen as the private property of his father, and not as a family home speaks volumes as to Grownup George's barely concealed resentment.

I'm happy with the title. It's literally true -- the house was his creation and his property. it sums up the theme the poem's theme -- the house as symbol for the speaker's memory of his father. And there's a couple of allusions in it.

> As to the second part of your objection, no one has intimated that you still see your mother as a sex object. You're mistakenly attempting to apply all of the possible symptoms of an Oedipal complex to Dr. NancyGene's and my diagnosis of your case.

Once again, you were the one who brought all that up. I have no idea if cherry-picking "symptoms" is orthodox Freudianism, or if it's your own idea. But I do think that postulating a partial Oedipus complex weakens your case.

<snip>

[Will Dockery]

Yes, typical denial and deflection from Michael Pendragon.

And so it goes.

(Typo corrected)

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:47:08 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > > > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> > > > >
> > > > Trauma occurs in many forms.
> > >
> > > That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?
> > Yes, George, I do.
> >
> > Here is but one of many sources:
> >
> > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10450264/
> I read the article. Your 'source' contains no data on either one. The study doesn't even look at PTSD caused by a parent's death;

Why should it? I don't recall having suggested that your mother's death had any role in your PTSD

> and while it doeslook at PTSD caused by "physical abuse," the "physical abuse" it's studying is not simple spanking:
> "The abused and/or neglected group was composed of victims of substantiated childhood physical and sexual abuse and/or neglect whose cases were processed during the years 1967 through 1971 in the county juvenile or adult criminal court (situated in a metropolitan area in the Midwest)..... Physical abuse cases included *injuries such as bruises, welts, burns, abrasions, lacerations, wounds, cuts, bone and skull fractures, and other evidence of physical injury.* [*stress added*]
> https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.156.8.1223

It lists three different types of abuse, the first being physical. "The physical abuse cases *included* injuries such as... bruises, welts... abrasions..." all of which could be the result of a whipping.

> (That's a link to the full article, BTW; you linked the NIH summary.)
> > Its title is "Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up," by C.S. Wisdom.
> Let's quote one more thing from it (this time from the summary);
> "Victims of child abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect are at increased risk for developing PTSD, but childhood victimization is not a sufficient condition."

The article says that you would have an "increased risk (of) developing PTSD" provided that some other (unspecified) trauma occurs. I don't know enough about your personal life to venture a guess as to what adult trauma/s you've undergone that have brought your childhood trauma to the fore. For the present, that will have to remain an X factor in your diagnostic files.

> > > > Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.
> > >
> > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > >
> > Here's a quote from PTSD UK: "The relationship between childhood abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder is clear and indisputable. Even one deeply traumatic incident in your early years can have serious mental health repercussions."
> > https://www.ptsduk.org/causes-of-ptsd-childhood-abuse/
> Now you're begging two questions: whether a spanking with a belt is "deeply traumatic, and whether these "serious mental health repercussions" are the same thing as PTSD.

As noted several times in the past, it is *not* the whipping that was traumatic. The trauma was whatever occurred to make Boy George complacently assume the position for these whippings. No six-year old boy would lie in bed with his pajama pants pulled down, quietly awaiting the belt. Something extremely traumatic must have happened at an earlier time to break his spirit to such an extent that he would quietly submit himself to these abuse sessions.

> > > > > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
> > > > > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
> > > > >
> > > > An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
> > > A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.
> > The sound of the fireworks triggered his memory, thus causing an engrammatic reaction. However, you certainly have not established that he is not suffering from PSTD throughout the year -- regardless of external stimuli.
> I never claimed to; that was "Dr." NastyGoon's example, not mine; I just pointed out that it was triggered by external stimuli. I'm glad you agree with that.

I'm agreeing with that point. I'm not agreeing with your attempt to use engrammatic reactions as a counter to Dr. NancyGene.

Dr. NancyGene said: "Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve."

I'm saying that, yes, that could be an engrammatic reaction -- or it could be one symptom of an underlying condition of PTSD. You haven't established that the soldier was not suffering from PTSD; only that the fireworks triggered an engrammatic reaction in him.

IOW: your argument doesn't hold.

> > Someone suffering from PTSD might have a reaction triggered by fireworks, but he might also experience symptoms of paranoia, and contentiousness, when interacting with others without having experienced such a trigger.
> So you're saying that a veteran showing distrust of, or arguing with, anyone else may be displaying PTSD? Or just of you and your fellow "perceived authority figures"?

I wasn't saying that a veteran showing distrust of, or arguing with, anyone may be showing signs of PSTD -- although, that well may be the case. I was specifically discussing the "symptoms of paranoia and contentiousness" that are experienced by those suffering from PTSD.

Back in college, one of my roommates brought a homeless Vietnam veteran to live with us. He was a nice guy and a great roommate -- except when he was undergoing PTSD-related episodes. In one of these episodes he went ballistic on another of my roommates who was of mixed ethnicity (Black and Hispanic), apparently under the delusion that he was Vietnamese. Based on his rants at the time, he was most definitely experiencing feelings of paranoia and contentiousness. AFAIK nothing specifically triggered any of his episodes.

> > > > As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.
> > >
> > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
>
> > No one said any such thing, George.
> >
> > You are either 1) lying, 2) delusional, or 3) unable to comprehend basic English.
> I'd expect someone actually interested in a discussion tp say something more like, "No, that's not what I meant" and try to explain what he meant instead." But you do you.

No, George, I do not.

I've had too many discussions with you wherein you deliberately rephrase what I have said in an apparent attempt to set up a straw man argument that you can readily refute.

I expect someone interested in having a discussion to take the time to understand what is being said to him *before* attempting to respond, and to address what has actually been said -- not his reinterpretation of the same.

[Zod]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>

Quite cogent....!

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> > >
> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > > > >
> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> > >
> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
> >
> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.

NancyGene is extremely well read, George. I assume that she is familiar with the classics.

I have read a collection of plays by Sophocles, which included the Oedipus trilogy, about 35-40 years ago -- during which period I read the majority of surviving works from Antiquity.

> > She was, after all, referring to it in passing in a Usenet post -- not composing a term paper on it.
>
> > > > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
> > >
> > > i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
> > >
> > Very good.
> > > But once again, Freud's 'Oedipus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.
> > >
> > Do you really have the temerity to challenge Sigmund Freud?
> I'm certainly skeptical of this theory, and I see I'm not the only one.
>
> "Sigmund Freud has always been a controversial figure. The Oedipus complex, a theory that suggests that every single person has deeply repressed incestuous instincts for their parents since childhood, is no less so. Critics of Freud have noted that, despite the case of Little Hans, there is very little empirical evidence to prove the theory’s validity."
> https://www.britannica.com/science/Oedipus-complex
>

Sigmund Freud was the father of modern psychiatry, and one of the greatest minds in the history of the human race.

It may also be noted that his theory corresponds to the Word of God: "[Regarding his brother William Henry Leonard]...there can be no tie more strong than that of brother for brother — it is not so much that they love one another as that they both love the same parent."

> "As more has been learned about child development since Freud's theories were first launched, there has been an increasing lack of support for some of his assumptions about the human personality. Perhaps none of his ideas have met with as much criticism as his psychosexual stages of development. While many modern-day clinicians still find aspects of his stages helpful, most do not adhere to the presupposition of sexual conflict being the central task of developmental maturity. Thus, concepts like Oedipal and Electra complexes are held by a very small minority of professionals overall."
> https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/other-criticisms-of-freud-and-psychoanalysis.html

Modern psychologists prefer a Nurture over Nature approach to psychology, which is... lamentable. These social scientists are following what is increasingly being recognized as a "dead end discipline," and have done far more harm than good. People don't like to see themselves as biological specimens subject to uncontrollable instincts, but that is, essentially, what we are.

A human infant is an example of an unbridled Id -- a mass of voracious, physical needs thinking only of food, comfort and pleasure. It may not know what sex is, but it finds pleasure in touching its genitals; and while it cannot conceive of the sexual act, its attraction to its mother (breast suckling aside) takes on easily identifiable *latent* sexual aspects.

It is also worth noting that in many male-female relationships, the couple often addresses one another as "Mama" and "Baby."

> "It’s important to note that there’s very little evidence that the Oedipus (or Electra) complex is real. It is not listed as a psychological condition in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians to diagnose psychological conditions and disorders."
> https://flo.health/being-a-mom/your-baby/growth-and-development/oedipus-complex#:~:text=It's%20important%20to%20note%20that,diagnose%20psychological%20conditions%20and%20disorders.
> > Dr. NancyGene and I are in excellent company.
> In that respect, perhaps. I'm not sure about in others. For example, AFAIK Freud only psychoanalyzed people who came to him for help. He may have gone about psychoanalyzing his critics, but if he did I never read of it.
>

Freud made a living from psychoanalyzing *paying* patients. Dr. NancyGene and I are armchair psychologists (we make our living in other fields), and are therefore free to analyze others at will.

> > > > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
> > >
> > > While I think there's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.
> > >
> > You are taking her words far too literally.
> >
> > Symbolically killing one's father can take many forms: challenging his absolute authority, breaking free of financial dependence on him, cracking the moral pedestal one has placed him on, etc.
> I did all that, though long after the "latency phase", so maybe it doesn't count to a Freudian.

The question is one of did you initiate it, or was it thrust upon you be circumstance. Saying "Screw you, old man -- I'm outta here!" is far different from going through the expected "motions" of completing school, going to college, getting a job, building a life of one's own.

In the former scenario, the father is directly confronted -- in the latter, one is presumably following through with his father's plans.

> > And, yes, it is essential that the boy achieve ascendancy over the father in some tangible way, in order for the maturation to be complete. A boy who simply represses the desire while suffer from various neuroses throughout his life as a result.
>
> > > > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
> > >
> > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends.
> > Not having friends and not being allowed to have friends are, in Boy George's case, the same thing.
> But not being allowed to play with one's friends (because one has to do chores) is not the same thing as either. It sucked, sometimes, but it is not the same thing as having no friends at all.

The Narrator (Grownup George) is self-contradictory in this regard:

Outside, the garden that he grew
Where I would work the summers through,
While watching my friends run and play
Mysterious games I never knew.

Grownup George says that he *never* knew the games his friends played (meaning that he *never* played games with his friends). My interpretation is that his "friendship" with the local boys was limited solely to the school playground at recess.

> > Boy George didn't have friends because his daily chores (and family restrictions?) denied the opportunity to make friends with the other children.
> The poem doesn't mention him ever playing (except in his room), so you can conclude he never did. It doesn't mention him going to school either, but I'm not sure you'd conclude he never did that, either.
> > > Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
>
> > No one even so much as implied that this was the case.
> "Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age.... Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, *never* been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father." (*stress added*)
>
> Being still in the phallic stage means still desiring one's mother, does it not?

Not necessarily.

It means that one has not fully advanced to the subsequent psychosexual stages during his adolescent and teenage years. This failure to advance is responsible for "fixations" that remain with the subject into his adult years:

"A fixation is a persistent focus on an earlier psychosexual stage. Until this conflict is resolved, the individual will remain "stuck" in this stage. A person who is fixated at the oral stage, for example, may be over-dependent on others and may seek oral stimulation through smoking, drinking, or eating."

https://www.verywellmind.com/freuds-stages-of-psychosexual-development-2795962

Grownup George's fixation is that of burning down his father's house -- symbolizing the "killing"/"usurpation" of his father which he failed to achieve in his childhood.

> > > > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
> > > > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of a person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
> > > > >
>
> > > > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
> > >
> > > So I did.
> Correction. I didn't tell you that. You went looking through old posts, cherry-picked a few quotes, and told us that.

Where I found the quote is irrelevant, George. You made that statement regarding you poem. Whether you made it to Dr. NancyGene and myself, or to an AAPC member or members in the past has no bearing on the validity of said statement.

> >> What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>
> > You say that you're trauma free, but Grownup George's desire to burn down his father's house, speaks otherwise.
> As I think I told you, it's a dramatic ending; necessary because it's the only place (aside from some normal childhood wishing, that even the speaker downplays) where he expresses his own feelings; the rest is merely a recital of events. Up to then, it could have gone the other way -- he could have wanted to buy the house to raise his own children the same way.
>

It could not go the other way, George. Each stanza of the poem serves as a separate entry in a laundry list of grievances. For the narrator to wish to inflict the same miseries on his offspring would be out of character.

> > (As does Grownup George's calling his childhood home "my Father's house.") That house would be seen as the private property of his father, and not as a family home speaks volumes as to Grownup George's barely concealed resentment.
> I'm happy with the title. It's literally true -- the house was his creation and his property. it sums up the theme the poem's theme -- the house as symbol for the speaker's memory of his father. And there's a couple of allusions in it.
>

I agree that it's a good title for the poem. However, what makes it a good title is that (along with the items you've mentioned above) it shows that the speaker never saw the house as being his home -- he never felt attached to it the way that the vast majority of children do. He never thought of it as his home -- only as his father's possession.

> > As to the second part of your objection, no one has intimated that you still see your mother as a sex object. You're mistakenly attempting to apply all of the possible symptoms of an Oedipal complex to Dr. NancyGene's and my diagnosis of your case.
> Once again, you were the one who brought all that up. I have no idea if cherry-picking "symptoms" is orthodox Freudianism, or if it's your own idea. But I do think that postulating a partial Oedipus complex weakens your case.
>

In Freudian psychiatry, each case is going to differ with the individual personality and past experiences of the client. Much as someone in the oral phase *may* fixate on smoking (see above example), but not "going underneath the sheets."



Michael Pendragon
"I'd think so, but never underestimate the stupidity of a troll."
-- Will Dockery, a man who should never be underestimated.

[General-Zod]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>> > >
>> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
>> > >
>> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>> > > > >
>> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
>> > >
>> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
>> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
>> >
>> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
>> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.

> NancyGene is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nancy G. is a malicious stalker troll, Penhead, no wonder you slurp her night and day... ha ha.

[W-Dockery]

You nailed it.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Will Donkey repeats tired lines
Like a jackass with nothing to say,
It's just part of his stock donkeyshines:
Spam post, greet "Jordy," whine, slurp, and bray.

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 1:35:14 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> General-Zod wrote:
>>
>> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:

>> >>> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:

>> >>> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
>> >>> > >

>> >>> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
>> >>> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
>> >>> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.
>>
>> >> NancyGene is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> > Nancy G. is a malicious stalker troll, Penhead, no wonder you slurp her night and day... ha ha.
>> You nailed it.

> repeats tired lines

As if you don't, little monkey?

[Will Dockery]

After all, what would you expect from a shit spewing little monkey like Michael Pendragon?


> <snip>

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en

<snip>

> In your case, the sexual element was severely repressed. Your particular Oedipus complex manifests itself in symptoms of paranoia, combativeness, and repressed anger toward your father.
> > > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> > >
> > > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
> >
> > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

> What boys have been doing that? I don't know any who have. My own sons certainly would not have submitted to any such form of punishment.

I'm sure they wouldn't, given conventional opinion on spanking today. But again I'd warn you not to project conventional opinions into the past.

>
> Do you have any statistics to back up your claim?

I don't know of any historical statistics regarding corporal punishment in the home. For the school, we do have the historical record. In England (and Europe isn't much different) boys were publicly birched; and a boy that refused to comply, or ran away, would be expelled and lose his chance to be educated. So I'd count every school graduate from that time as evidence of compliance.

> >
> > > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

Once again, calling corporal punshment of a child "abuse" is just pandering to conventional opinion. Not that I disagree with the opinion, but it's inapplicable to my father's use of corporal punishment on me. The word he used was "spanking," and I'll stick with that (unless you come up with a more mutually agreeable word).

> > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> >
> That is not what anyone has been saying, George. Please pay attention, and I'll repeat our argument nice and slow:
>
> No one is denying that corporal punishment was uncommon. I was subjected to corporal punishment as well. The issue is *not* with regard to the punishment, but in your resigned, obedient *acceptance* of it.
>
> Getting a spanking, to someone of our generation, is brushed aside as commonplace.
>
> Lying in bed with one's pajama pants pulled down *awaiting* a spanking is not.
>

Hold on now. As I see it, getting in position (including, in this case baring one's bottom), and then waiting for the first blow, can't be separated out from the punishment. You're making an impossible distinction.

> IOW: No one is taking issue with your father's abusiveness (which is how whipping a boy with a belt is viewed today). We are taking issue with Boy George's willingness to subject himself to such a beating.

I simply never challenged my father's right to punish me. That came with the package of having a father.

> I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little harder the next time.

Thanks for sharing that; it's worth noting. You may see your behavior as exemplary, but I'm afraid that isn't obvious to me. Certainly what I endured (less than 5 minutes of pain, and some shame) does not sound so bad compared to being "beaten into submission" instead; and far less likely, I'd think, to produce PTSD.

> There was something broken in Boy George as he lay in bed with his pants down. And *that* image... that *brokenness*... is what is so disturbing about Boy George's tale.

I deliberately went for that; the images of "abuse" (which I admit, the speaker sees as abuse) are carefully scaled to give the reader that idea gradually:
(1) he has to obey rules and restrictions, including the symbolic removing his shoes, to enter. I'd call that "abusive" only if the boy were the only one subject to those restrictions -- notice the poem is silent on that.
(2) he has to do household chores (wash dishes).
(3) he's not allowed to playh with his friends. Again, that's abusive only if excessive; and once again the poem is silent. But this was meant as the first time the reader picks up the "abuse" idea at all.
(4) he's allowed to sit in only one chair, and hears boys referred to as "filthy". Again, this is not necessarily abuse -- key questions are how often it happened, and again the poem is deliberately silent -- but it's meant to get the reader to thinking along those lines.
(5) he's not allowed to go out after dinner. Even more abusive, if it were always the case -- though again the poem is silent. The key word here, I think is "alone"; the boy's shut away.
(6) he has a strict lights-out bedtime. Not "abusive" by itself, but it's meant to be seen as such in context of what preceded it.
(7) he's lying in bed bare-assed waiting for the belt. Given conventional opinion, that's the clearest example of abuse, but (as I said) that's today's opinion, not the opinion of ~60 years agao.

The poem is meant to be disturbing and haunting. But, remember, it's all told from the viewpoint of a somewhat traumatized speaker.

> > > > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> > > > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
> > >
> > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> >

> > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself.

> I have always objected to your use of "teams," George.
>
> Again, I stress that obvious fact that NancyGene, Ash, Jim, Robert, Corey, ME, Alex, and I are all individuals -- and act as individuals.
>

Every person is an "individual" -- including team members.

> Stink is the Donkey's dog, and exists only to please his master. Isaac is only here to help the Donkey troll. And you, at least of late, have been fulfilling a similar role.
> > And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> >
> Puh-lease!
>
> Stink *chooses* to live under a piece of tarp. He is by the Donkey's own testimony a "maniac" who attacked Will and his retarded brother with a metal pipe in a state of being "blackout drunk." Will is an illiterate (witness his inability to use words like "fantasy" and "forgery" correctly) moron, who dropped out of high school after having been left back at least twice. He has been unemployed for over 20 years, living off of his mentally disabled brother's disability check. And Isaac is a middle-aged child who lives off of his parents and can only hold down part time jobs.
>
> As to poetry writing skills, Will Donkey is the single worst poet I have ever read -- and as the editor of several poetry magazines I've read a shipload of bad poetry submissions. Stink runs him a close second.
>
> Whether one likes my poetry, or NancyGene's, or Jim's, or yours is a matter of taste. Will's and Stink's poetry is incompetently written. That's not a matter of taste. That's a matter of recognizing that they're incapable of composing grammatically correct, and, ultimately intelligible, sentences.

I've read all this before. That you choose to attck the opposing "team" says little. I could say a few words about your "team" (Chimp, NastyGoon, the MEatpuppet, and the Ashtroll), but I don't see it as a productive turn in the conversation.

> > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
> You're wrong, George.
>
> Your poem's narrator (Grownup George) is obviously suffering from trauma.

He was written that way. I wasn't.

> And repressed trauma would go a long way toward explaining your unprovoked distrust and hostility for the rest of us -- as well as your need to protect the (mentally) helpless and infirm.

That's a convenient way for you, and your fellow team members, to blank out the thought that they might have something to do with any "distrust and hostility" on the group; so I can't blame you for trying it; but that's all it looks like. There is plenty of "distrust and hostility" on the group, and most of that cannot be explained by them submitting to corporal punishment as children.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:47:29 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> <snip>
> > In your case, the sexual element was severely repressed. Your particular Oedipus complex manifests itself in symptoms of paranoia, combativeness, and repressed anger toward your father.
> > > > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> > > >
> > > > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
> > >
> > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
>
> > What boys have been doing that? I don't know any who have. My own sons certainly would not have submitted to any such form of punishment.
> I'm sure they wouldn't, given conventional opinion on spanking today. But again I'd warn you not to project conventional opinions into the past.

Okay, George. My parents believed in corporal punishment. I would never have submissively waited for a beating with my pants down. That was over half a century ago -- is that far enough in the past for you?

> > Do you have any statistics to back up your claim?
> I don't know of any historical statistics regarding corporal punishment in the home. For the school, we do have the historical record. In England (and Europe isn't much different) boys were publicly birched; and a boy that refused to comply, or ran away, would be expelled and lose his chance to be educated. So I'd count every school graduate from that time as evidence of compliance.
>

Were you publicly birched in school?

My teachers were a little more progressive than that. My fourth grade teacher would grab us by our hair to walk us to the Principal's office, and our Principal would grab us by the ear for a similar purpose. One substitute teacher smacked a boy's hand with a ruler, and judo-flipped another boy during recess... but he was the exception rather than the rule.

If British boys submitted to beatings in school, one factor for their obedience might have been peer pressure -- a boy needs to take his birching like a man.

> > > > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.
> Once again, calling corporal punshment of a child "abuse" is just pandering to conventional opinion. Not that I disagree with the opinion, but it's inapplicable to my father's use of corporal punishment on me. The word he used was "spanking," and I'll stick with that (unless you come up with a more mutually agreeable word).
>

Spanking is done with an open hand. Your father whipped your ass with a leather belt.

But, again, whether we call it "corporal punishment" or "abuse" is irrelevant. Getting beaten by a parent remains a traumatic experience.

> > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> > >
> > That is not what anyone has been saying, George. Please pay attention, and I'll repeat our argument nice and slow:
> >
> > No one is denying that corporal punishment was uncommon. I was subjected to corporal punishment as well. The issue is *not* with regard to the punishment, but in your resigned, obedient *acceptance* of it.
> >
> > Getting a spanking, to someone of our generation, is brushed aside as commonplace.
> >
> > Lying in bed with one's pajama pants pulled down *awaiting* a spanking is not.
> >
> Hold on now. As I see it, getting in position (including, in this case baring one's bottom), and then waiting for the first blow, can't be separated out from the punishment. You're making an impossible distinction.

Again, it isn't about the punishment.

It isn't about what your father did to you.

It's about your *acceptance* of what your father did to you.

> > IOW: No one is taking issue with your father's abusiveness (which is how whipping a boy with a belt is viewed today). We are taking issue with Boy George's willingness to subject himself to such a beating.
> I simply never challenged my father's right to punish me. That came with the package of having a father.

How could you not question his alleged "right"?

No one has to right to beat another person.

> > I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little harder the next time.
> Thanks for sharing that; it's worth noting. You may see your behavior as exemplary, but I'm afraid that isn't obvious to me. Certainly what I endured (less than 5 minutes of pain, and some shame) does not sound so bad compared to being "beaten into submission" instead; and far less likely, I'd think, to produce PTSD.
>

I'm sure I received much worse from my father than you did from yours.

But I *never* willingly submitted to it.

And whenever I caught him in a good mood, I'd challenge him to a round of arm wrestling. When I was 14 and a half, I managed to put up a good fight. I lost, but he had a hard time getting me down. And while we were arm wrestling, I kept thinking that soon I'd be stronger than him, and would be able to take him in a fight as well. I didn't say anything, but an unspoken understanding passed between us. After that, he never arm wrestled, or laid a hand on me, again.

This symbolic usurpation of my father allowed me to place my phallic stage/Oedipal period fully behind me, and to mature as an independent person.

> > There was something broken in Boy George as he lay in bed with his pants down. And *that* image... that *brokenness*... is what is so disturbing about Boy George's tale.
> I deliberately went for that; the images of "abuse" (which I admit, the speaker sees as abuse) are carefully scaled to give the reader that idea gradually:
> (1) he has to obey rules and restrictions, including the symbolic removing his shoes, to enter. I'd call that "abusive" only if the boy were the only one subject to those restrictions -- notice the poem is silent on that.
> (2) he has to do household chores (wash dishes).
> (3) he's not allowed to playh with his friends. Again, that's abusive only if excessive; and once again the poem is silent. But this was meant as the first time the reader picks up the "abuse" idea at all.
> (4) he's allowed to sit in only one chair, and hears boys referred to as "filthy". Again, this is not necessarily abuse -- key questions are how often it happened, and again the poem is deliberately silent -- but it's meant to get the reader to thinking along those lines.
> (5) he's not allowed to go out after dinner. Even more abusive, if it were always the case -- though again the poem is silent. The key word here, I think is "alone"; the boy's shut away.
> (6) he has a strict lights-out bedtime. Not "abusive" by itself, but it's meant to be seen as such in context of what preceded it.
> (7) he's lying in bed bare-assed waiting for the belt. Given conventional opinion, that's the clearest example of abuse, but (as I said) that's today's opinion, not the opinion of ~60 years agao.

Um... I'd call all 7 of the above "abusive." At best, one could say that he led a harsh, lonely, unloved childhood of drudgery, rather like Cinderella.

> The poem is meant to be disturbing and haunting. But, remember, it's all told from the viewpoint of a somewhat traumatized speaker.

And remember that the poem's author had stated that it was "largely" modeled on his own childhood experiences.

> > > > > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> > > > > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
> > > >
> > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > >
> > > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself.
> > I have always objected to your use of "teams," George.
> >
> > Again, I stress that obvious fact that NancyGene, Ash, Jim, Robert, Corey, ME, Alex, and I are all individuals -- and act as individuals.
> >
> Every person is an "individual" -- including team members.

No... that's the point of being part of a team -- for the duration of the game, you act in unison, placing the good of the team above your individual good.

> > Stink is the Donkey's dog, and exists only to please his master. Isaac is only here to help the Donkey troll. And you, at least of late, have been fulfilling a similar role.
> > > And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> > >
> > Puh-lease!
> >
> > Stink *chooses* to live under a piece of tarp. He is by the Donkey's own testimony a "maniac" who attacked Will and his retarded brother with a metal pipe in a state of being "blackout drunk." Will is an illiterate (witness his inability to use words like "fantasy" and "forgery" correctly) moron, who dropped out of high school after having been left back at least twice. He has been unemployed for over 20 years, living off of his mentally disabled brother's disability check. And Isaac is a middle-aged child who lives off of his parents and can only hold down part time jobs.
> >
> > As to poetry writing skills, Will Donkey is the single worst poet I have ever read -- and as the editor of several poetry magazines I've read a shipload of bad poetry submissions. Stink runs him a close second.
> >
> > Whether one likes my poetry, or NancyGene's, or Jim's, or yours is a matter of taste. Will's and Stink's poetry is incompetently written. That's not a matter of taste. That's a matter of recognizing that they're incapable of composing grammatically correct, and, ultimately intelligible, sentences.
> I've read all this before. That you choose to attck the opposing "team" says little. I could say a few words about your "team" (Chimp, NastyGoon, the MEatpuppet, and the Ashtroll), but I don't see it as a productive turn in the conversation.
>

I'm not attacking the opposing "team," George. I'm merely stating the well known facts (and stating them far more delicately than I might).

> > > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
> > You're wrong, George.
> >
> > Your poem's narrator (Grownup George) is obviously suffering from trauma.
> He was written that way. I wasn't.

But he is "largely" based on... you.

> > And repressed trauma would go a long way toward explaining your unprovoked distrust and hostility for the rest of us -- as well as your need to protect the (mentally) helpless and infirm.
> That's a convenient way for you, and your fellow team members, to blank out the thought that they might have something to do with any "distrust and hostility" on the group; so I can't blame you for trying it; but that's all it looks like. There is plenty of "distrust and hostility" on the group, and most of that cannot be explained by them submitting to corporal punishment as children.
>

If I get along with Jim, NancyGene, ME, and Ash, and you seem unable to do so, one might write it off as your having different interests. However, as fellow members of a poetry group, we are all supposed to have poetry as a common interest. Of course, it's only natural that not everyone gets along with everyone else. But when you take the stance that everyone else is out to get you, can't be trusted, are lying malicious trolls with evil agendas... well, you sound a bit paranoid.

I know that you won't admit this, even to yourself, but I bent over backwards to try to get the other members to accept you, and vice versa; but you would never agree to do anything more than refrain from attacking them until they after they attacked you. You never allowed yourself to address them as potential friends -- never held out the proverbial olive branch -- you just waited until one of them got pissed at you, and unleashed your pent-up hostility.

Had you given them a chance, you might have become friends with them by now. You chose to keep the distance between you -- even during truce periods. And now you're lashing out at everyone -- including me (calling me "Michael Monkey" in the title of this thread, for example) -- in spite of the fact that I still address you as George Dance (so much for T4T). There must be reason why you're like this, George -- and it seems to go much deeper than some mutual insult swaps in a Usenet group.

So, yeah... I think it stems from something that happened in your childhood, and your poem gives me a pretty darned good idea of what that something was.

[ME]

Very well said Michael.

[Will Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> <snip>
>> In your case, the sexual element was severely repressed. Your particular Oedipus complex manifests itself in symptoms of paranoia, combativeness, and repressed anger toward your father.

>> > > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>> > >
>> > > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
>> >
>> > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>> What boys have been doing that? I don't know any who have. My own sons certainly would not have submitted to any such form of punishment.

> I'm sure they wouldn't, given conventional opinion on spanking today. But again I'd warn you not to project conventional opinions into the past.
>>

>> Do you have any statistics to back up your claim?

> I don't know of any historical statistics regarding corporal punishment in the home. For the school, we do have the historical record. In England (and Europe isn't much different) boys were publicly birched; and a boy that refused to comply, or ran away, would be expelled and lose his chance to be educated. So I'd count every school graduate from that time as evidence of compliance.
>> >

>> > > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> Once again, calling corporal punshment of a child "abuse" is just pandering to conventional opinion. Not that I disagree with the opinion, but it's inapplicable to my father's use of corporal punishment on me. The word he used was "spanking," and I'll stick with that (unless you come up with a more mutually agreeable word).

>> > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
>> >

>> That is not what anyone has been saying, George. Please pay attention, and I'll repeat our argument nice and slow:
>>
>> No one is denying that corporal punishment was uncommon. I was subjected to corporal punishment as well. The issue is *not* with regard to the punishment, but in your resigned, obedient *acceptance* of it.
>>
>> Getting a spanking, to someone of our generation, is brushed aside as commonplace.
>>
>> Lying in bed with one's pajama pants pulled down *awaiting* a spanking is not.
>>

> Hold on now. As I see it, getting in position (including, in this case baring one's bottom), and then waiting for the first blow, can't be separated out from the punishment. You're making an impossible distinction.

>> IOW: No one is taking issue with your father's abusiveness (which is how whipping a boy with a belt is viewed today). We are taking issue with Boy George's willingness to subject himself to such a beating.

> I simply never challenged my father's right to punish me. That came with the package of having a father.

>> I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little harder the next time..

> Thanks for sharing that; it's worth noting. You may see your behavior as exemplary, but I'm afraid that isn't obvious to me. Certainly what I endured (less than 5 minutes of pain, and some shame) does not sound so bad compared to being "beaten into submission" instead; and far less likely, I'd think, to produce PTSD.

>> There was something broken in Boy George as he lay in bed with his pants down. And *that* image... that *brokenness*... is what is so disturbing about Boy George's tale.

> I deliberately went for that; the images of "abuse" (which I admit, the speaker sees as abuse) are carefully scaled to give the reader that idea gradually:
> (1) he has to obey rules and restrictions, including the symbolic removing his shoes, to enter. I'd call that "abusive" only if the boy were the only one subject to those restrictions -- notice the poem is silent on that.
> (2) he has to do household chores (wash dishes).
> (3) he's not allowed to playh with his friends. Again, that's abusive only if excessive; and once again the poem is silent. But this was meant as the first time the reader picks up the "abuse" idea at all.
> (4) he's allowed to sit in only one chair, and hears boys referred to as "filthy". Again, this is not necessarily abuse -- key questions are how often it happened, and again the poem is deliberately silent -- but it's meant to get the reader to thinking along those lines.
> (5) he's not allowed to go out after dinner. Even more abusive, if it were always the case -- though again the poem is silent. The key word here, I think is "alone"; the boy's shut away.
> (6) he has a strict lights-out bedtime. Not "abusive" by itself, but it's meant to be seen as such in context of what preceded it.
> (7) he's lying in bed bare-assed waiting for the belt. Given conventional opinion, that's the clearest example of abuse, but (as I said) that's today's opinion, not the opinion of ~60 years agao.

> The poem is meant to be disturbing and haunting. But, remember, it's all told from the viewpoint of a somewhat traumatized speaker.

>> > > > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
>> > > > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
>> > >
>> > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
>> >

>> > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself.
>> I have always objected to your use of "teams," George.
>>
>> Again, I stress that obvious fact that NancyGene, Ash, Jim, Robert, Corey, ME, Alex, and I are all individuals -- and act as individuals.
>>

> Every person is an "individual" -- including team members.

>> Stink is the Donkey's dog, and exists only to please his master. Isaac is only here to help the Donkey troll. And you, at least of late, have been fulfilling a similar role.

>> > And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
>> >

>> Puh-lease!
>>
>> Stink *chooses* to live under a piece of tarp. He is by the Donkey's own testimony a "maniac" who attacked Will and his retarded brother with a metal pipe in a state of being "blackout drunk." Will is an illiterate (witness his inability to use words like "fantasy" and "forgery" correctly) moron, who dropped out of high school after having been left back at least twice. He has been unemployed for over 20 years, living off of his mentally disabled brother's disability check. And Isaac is a middle-aged child who lives off of his parents and can only hold down part time jobs.
>>
>> As to poetry writing skills, Will Donkey is the single worst poet I have ever read -- and as the editor of several poetry magazines I've read a shipload of bad poetry submissions. Stink runs him a close second.
>>
>> Whether one likes my poetry, or NancyGene's, or Jim's, or yours is a matter of taste. Will's and Stink's poetry is incompetently written. That's not a matter of taste. That's a matter of recognizing that they're incapable of composing grammatically correct, and, ultimately intelligible, sentences.

> I've read all this before. That you choose to attck the opposing "team" says little. I could say a few words about your "team" (Chimp, NastyGoon, the MEatpuppet, and the Ashtroll), but I don't see it as a productive turn in the conversation.

>> > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

>> You're wrong, George.
>>
>> Your poem's narrator (Grownup George) is obviously suffering from trauma.

> He was written that way. I wasn't.

>> And repressed trauma would go a long way toward explaining your unprovoked distrust and hostility for the rest of us -- as well as your need to protect the (mentally) helpless and infirm.

> That's a convenient way for you, and your fellow team members, to blank out the thought that they might have something to do with any "distrust and hostility" on the group; so I can't blame you for trying it; but that's all it looks like. There is plenty of "distrust and hostility" on the group, and most of that cannot be explained by them submitting to corporal punishment as children.

Well put, George.

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> >
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.

What "welts by belt"? You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime

> There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain

You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."

None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.

> > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.

Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.

> There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.

Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.

> > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
>
> However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.

That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:

The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

> George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.

If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.

> > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

> Maybe imaginary friends? How can he have friends if he isn't allowed to play with anyone?

No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.

> Your poem breaks down in logic. A boy raised in strict isolation would experience cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which pretty much describes Boy George in "My Father's House."

There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.

> > So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.

> You cannot diagnose yourself -- you are too close to the situation to be objective.

I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?

> Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.

As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.

> > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.

Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.

> Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings.

"Submitting" seems to be only a problem in the mind of Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.

> Did you pay it forward to your daughter?

Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:

For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I don't think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.

> > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

> Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."

No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.

> > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> >

> > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.

Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.

> > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

> However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings.

The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?

> Please get help.

For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.

[General-Zod]

George Dance wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>> >
>> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children..

Well put G.D.... nailed the nasty troll to the wall...!!

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> What "welts by belt"?

Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
(Long as George keeps on his clothes).

> You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime

Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?

> > There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain
> You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."
>
> None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.

That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.

> > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
>

Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.

> > There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.
> Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.
> > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> >
> > However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.
> That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
>

That's nonsense, George.

Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."

Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."

Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.

> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
>

That's just your denial talking, George.

Listen to the message of you poem.

> > George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.
> If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
>

That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.

To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.

> > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
>
> > Maybe imaginary friends? How can he have friends if he isn't allowed to play with anyone?
> No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.

Bullshit.

Outside, the garden that he grew
Where I would work the summers through,
While watching my friends run and play
Mysterious games I never knew.

The poem says that he/you *never* knew the games your friends played.

"Never" doesn't mean "just not when one has chores."

> > Your poem breaks down in logic. A boy raised in strict isolation would experience cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which pretty much describes Boy George in "My Father's House."
> There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.
>

The above-quoted passage implies that he was *never* allowed to play with his "friends" at home; therefore they must have been school friends only.

> > > So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
> > You cannot diagnose yourself -- you are too close to the situation to be objective.
>
> I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?

Um... we're armchair psychiatrists... it's what we do.

> > Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.
> As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
>

Good idea. You've already overshared.

> > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.
> Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.
>

And I'm sure it would have, had I not overcome my father and, later, taken the upper hand in our relationship.

> > Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings.
> "Submitting" seems to be only a problem in the mind of Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.
>

The whipping boy mentality is apparently permanent part of your personality. Your father did one helluva good job.

> > Did you pay it forward to your daughter?
> Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:

It's a fair question, George. Abused children (especially those with unresolved trauma) often abuse their own children.

> For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I don't think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.
>

You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.

> > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
>
> > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
> No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.

Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.

> > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > >
> > > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> > All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.
> Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.

OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.

> > > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
>
> > However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings.
> The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
>

Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?

You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.

> > Please get help.
>
> For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.

Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.

[Will Dockery]

General-Zod wrote:

> George Dance wrote:

>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>>> >
>>> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>>> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>>> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children..

>> What "welts by belt"? You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime

>>> There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain

>> You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."

>> None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.

>>> > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

>>> However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.

>> Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.

>>> There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.

>> Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.

>>> > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
>>>

>>> However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.

>> That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:

>> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

>>> George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.

>> If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.

>>> > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

>>> Maybe imaginary friends? How can he have friends if he isn't allowed to play with anyone?

>> No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.

>>> Your poem breaks down in logic. A boy raised in strict isolation would experience cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which pretty much describes Boy George in "My Father's House."

>> There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.

>>> > So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.

>>> You cannot diagnose yourself -- you are too close to the situation to be objective.

>> I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?

>>> Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.

>> As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.

>>> > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>>> We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.

>> Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.

>>> Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings.

>> "Submitting" seems to be only a problem in the mind of Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.

>>> Did you pay it forward to your daughter?

>> Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:

>> For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I don't think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.

>>> > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

>>> Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."

>> No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.

>>> > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
>>> >

>>> > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

>>> All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.

>> Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.

>>> > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

>>> However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings.

>> The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?

>>> Please get help.

>> For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.

> Well put G.D.... nailed the nasty troll to the wall...!!

Again, agreed and seconded.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

Agreed.

[NancyGene]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:48:30 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> > What "welts by belt"?
> Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> (Long as George keeps on his clothes).

George must have suppressed the images. Belts are not fluffy little feathers to tickle Boy George's ass.

> > You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime
> Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?

We wondered about that too. Maybe George Dance's writing put even him to sleep?

> > > There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain
> > You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."
> >
> > None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.
> That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.

Spankings are usual--beatings with a belt are not. Those are the kinds of selected and isolated memories that carry on from childhood to adulthood.

> > > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> > Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
> >
> Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.

George Dance prefers to change the narrative to suit his arguments.

> > > There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.
> > Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.
> > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > >
> > > However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.
> > That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
> >
> That's nonsense, George.

That could be a new nickname for George Dance (if we were using nicknames): "Nonsense George."

>
> Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."
>
> Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."

We absolutely agree. What is the velocity of a belt being aimed by a grown man towards a child's bottom? We would actually call it a flogging.

>
> Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.

George Dance does that a lot.

> > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> >
> That's just your denial talking, George.
>
> Listen to the message of you poem.

There are several things going on in the poem which George Dance seems to not understand. Instead of being a figure of comfort and strength, the Father is physically hurting the child, limiting his social activities, and stunting his emotional growth.

> > > George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.
> > If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
> >
> That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.

George Dance does not understand the concept of becoming a man. He is still the child with the bare bottom, waiting to be flogged.

>
> To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.

We suspect that George Dance has not grown up yet and still acts as a child would.

> > > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
> >
> > > Maybe imaginary friends? How can he have friends if he isn't allowed to play with anyone?
> > No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.
> Bullshit.
> Outside, the garden that he grew
> Where I would work the summers through,
> While watching my friends run and play
> Mysterious games I never knew.
> The poem says that he/you *never* knew the games your friends played.
>
> "Never" doesn't mean "just not when one has chores."

A small, pasty, trembling boy who looks out the window but can never join in "reindeer games."

> > > Your poem breaks down in logic. A boy raised in strict isolation would experience cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which pretty much describes Boy George in "My Father's House."
> > There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.
> >
> The above-quoted passage implies that he was *never* allowed to play with his "friends" at home; therefore they must have been school friends only.

Perhaps Boy George was home-schooled?

> > > > So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
> > > You cannot diagnose yourself -- you are too close to the situation to be objective.
> >
> > I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?
> Um... we're armchair psychiatrists... it's what we do.

George Dance cannot see himself as others see him.

> > > Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.
> > As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
> >
> Good idea. You've already overshared.

We were referring to the police psychologist giving the child an opportunity to draw what happened to him rather than have to say it (abuse of varying types). We would bet that George Dance would draw a big house with a Father growing out of it and a belt waving from the chimney.

> > > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> > > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.

> > Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.

Every boy (and some girls) in our family and our friends' families fought back, ran, protested, tried to bargain, and hid the instruments of punishment. George Dance must be an extreme outlier.

> >
> And I'm sure it would have, had I not overcome my father and, later, taken the upper hand in our relationship.

As you should have and were expected to do. That is healthy emotional development.

> > > Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings.
> > "Submitting" seems to be only a problem in the mind of Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.
> >
> The whipping boy mentality is apparently permanent part of your personality. Your father did one helluva good job.

We wonder how many times this beating was repeated? Daily, weekly? Whatever it was, it severely disturbed George Dance.

> > > Did you pay it forward to your daughter?
> > Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:
> It's a fair question, George. Abused children (especially those with unresolved trauma) often abuse their own children.

That's what we have read too. If George Dance had had a son instead of a daughter, would the pants-down ceremony have been recreated for another generation?

> > For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I don't think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.
> >
> You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.

George Dance may not be sure of what "dispense with" means. Maybe he actually wanted to say just "dispense?"

> > > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> >
> > > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
> > No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.
> Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.

Bingo!

> > > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > > >
> > > > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> > > All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.
> > Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.
> OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.

Having the pissbums on one's side doesn't add to one's reputation. They are a negative influence on the audience.

> > > > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
> >
> > > However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings.
> > The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
> >
> Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?

We call him "George Dance" also. We don't care what he calls us, other than it makes him look more childish.

>
> You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.

We suspect that a few words to the pissbums and the juvenile Uncle to stop their Greek Chorus responses and greetings would solve that problem.

> > > Please get help.
> >
> > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
> Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.

George Dance has displayed strong symptoms of paranoia, trauma and loser-itis. He needs more than a few sessions on the couch.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:21:56 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:48:30 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> > > What "welts by belt"?
> > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> George must have suppressed the images. Belts are not fluffy little feathers to tickle Boy George's ass.

George was probably warned not to talk about his beatings, or to expose any of his welts, cuts, or bruises in school. He grew up acting like it wasn't happening (a form of denial), and carried that pattern into adulthood.

> > > You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime
> > Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?
> We wondered about that too. Maybe George Dance's writing put even him to sleep?

The long-term effects of too many childhood concussions?

> > > > There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain
> > > You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."
> > >
> > > None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.
> > That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.
> Spankings are usual--beatings with a belt are not. Those are the kinds of selected and isolated memories that carry on from childhood to adulthood.

Belts are usually reserved for major transgressions -- once or twice over the course of one's childhood. Belt whippings on a more or less nightly basis sounds like he was living with a sadist. Or maybe his Daddy just really, Really, *REALLY* hated him.

> > > > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > > > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> > > Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
> > >
> > Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.
> George Dance prefers to change the narrative to suit his arguments.

He likes to modify (ever so slightly) the words one has used, in order to change the meaning of what was actually said. George can argue that he remembers the beatings, since he wrote a poem about them. He can't argue against the persistent feelings of trauma, because his ("largely") autobiographical narrator is still experiencing them.

> > > > There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.
> > > Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.
> > > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > > >
> > > > However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.
> > > That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
> > >
> > That's nonsense, George.
> That could be a new nickname for George Dance (if we were using nicknames): "Nonsense George."

It certainly is fitting.

> > Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."
> >
> > Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."
> We absolutely agree. What is the velocity of a belt being aimed by a grown man towards a child's bottom? We would actually call it a flogging.

You could... although a belt would be less likely to cut the skin than a cat o' nines.

> > Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.
> George Dance does that a lot.

I think that George was either on a debating team in school, or else studied Debating For Dummies as an adult. He regularly uses all the stereotypical tricks.

> > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > >
> > That's just your denial talking, George.
> >
> > Listen to the message of you poem.
> There are several things going on in the poem which George Dance seems to not understand. Instead of being a figure of comfort and strength, the Father is physically hurting the child, limiting his social activities, and stunting his emotional growth.
>

"Father punished me for having been bad" is an easier thought to accept than "Father was a sadistic asshole who never loved me." "Father wouldn't let me play with my school friends until after I finished my chores (which I never finished because I was too slow)" is easier to accept than "Father stunted my social and emotional growth, leaving me paranoid of others and unable to interact with others."

> > > > George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.
> > > If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
> > >
> > That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.
> George Dance does not understand the concept of becoming a man. He is still the child with the bare bottom, waiting to be flogged.

Careful... he'll start calling us monkeys and Nazis again.

> > To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.
> We suspect that George Dance has not grown up yet and still acts as a child would.

Calling names, throwing tantrums, shouting IKYABWAI... that's our George.

> > > > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
> > >
> > > > Maybe imaginary friends? How can he have friends if he isn't allowed to play with anyone?
> > > No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.
> > Bullshit.
> > Outside, the garden that he grew
> > Where I would work the summers through,
> > While watching my friends run and play
> > Mysterious games I never knew.
> > The poem says that he/you *never* knew the games your friends played.
> >
> > "Never" doesn't mean "just not when one has chores."
> A small, pasty, trembling boy who looks out the window but can never join in "reindeer games."

Unfortunately his foggy Christmas Eve never came.

> > > > Your poem breaks down in logic. A boy raised in strict isolation would experience cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which pretty much describes Boy George in "My Father's House."
> > > There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.
> > >
> > The above-quoted passage implies that he was *never* allowed to play with his "friends" at home; therefore they must have been school friends only.
> Perhaps Boy George was home-schooled?

No... his father would have had to spend too much time with him. Daddy wanted him out of sight/out of mind.

> > > > > So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
> > > > You cannot diagnose yourself -- you are too close to the situation to be objective.
> > >
> > > I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?
> > Um... we're armchair psychiatrists... it's what we do.
> George Dance cannot see himself as others see him.

Nor can he see the Donkey and his Stink for what they are.

> > > > Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.
> > > As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
> > >
> > Good idea. You've already overshared.
> We were referring to the police psychologist giving the child an opportunity to draw what happened to him rather than have to say it (abuse of varying types). We would bet that George Dance would draw a big house with a Father growing out of it and a belt waving from the chimney.
>

He definitely identifies his father with the house -- and the house with scenes of neglect and abuse.

> > > > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> > > > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.
>
> > > Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.
> Every boy (and some girls) in our family and our friends' families fought back, ran, protested, tried to bargain, and hid the instruments of punishment. George Dance must be an extreme outlier.
> > >

Or just broken.

I'm guessing that farther back... before George became an obedient bare-bottomed boy of six (perhaps as far back as infancy), his father beat him within an inch of his life.

For a boy to be that broken in spirit, something almost inconceivably bad must have happened to him.

> > And I'm sure it would have, had I not overcome my father and, later, taken the upper hand in our relationship.
> As you should have and were expected to do. That is healthy emotional development.

Thank you.

And just so no one thinks that I was torturing the old man, I took care of him in his final years after he'd been disabled by a series of strokes.

> > > > Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings.
> > > "Submitting" seems to be only a problem in the mind of Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.
> > >
> > The whipping boy mentality is apparently permanent part of your personality. Your father did one helluva good job.
> We wonder how many times this beating was repeated? Daily, weekly? Whatever it was, it severely disturbed George Dance.

The poem doesn't specify, but my impression was that it was a nightly ritual. The narrator treats it that way -- not as an isolated incident.

> > > > Did you pay it forward to your daughter?
> > > Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:
> > It's a fair question, George. Abused children (especially those with unresolved trauma) often abuse their own children.
> That's what we have read too. If George Dance had had a son instead of a daughter, would the pants-down ceremony have been recreated for another generation?

It's a strong possibility.

> > > For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I don't think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.
> > >
> > You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.
> George Dance may not be sure of what "dispense with" means. Maybe he actually wanted to say just "dispense?"

Ouch! LOL!

> > > > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> > >
> > > > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
> > > No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.
> > Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.
> Bingo!
> > > > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > > > >
> > > > > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> > > > All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.
> > > Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.
> > OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.
> Having the pissbums on one's side doesn't add to one's reputation. They are a negative influence on the audience.
> > > > > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
> > >
> > > > However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings.
> > > The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
> > >
> > Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?
> We call him "George Dance" also. We don't care what he calls us, other than it makes him look more childish.

Funny how George always insists that he's acting in accordance with his celebrated system of ethics -- Tit for Tat -- yet he constantly "retaliates" against those who haven't attacked him.

> > You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.
> We suspect that a few words to the pissbums and the juvenile Uncle to stop their Greek Chorus responses and greetings would solve that problem.

I've tried to explain that to George on several occasions.

But George doesn't really want peace here. He responds negatively to constructive criticism, and prefers the insincere slurpage of the Donkey and his Stink.

> > > > Please get help.
> > >
> > > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
> > Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.
> George Dance has displayed strong symptoms of paranoia, trauma and loser-itis. He needs more than a few sessions on the couch.

I think he requires years of therapy. He still isn't able to admit that he has a problem -- even when his poem (a product of his subconscious) is shouting it in his face.

[Ash Wurthing]

*Ash BURSTS in*
*presents George Dance*
BEHOLD!! A PLUCKED CANKOOK!
It looks human, but listening to the moral monstrosities that he spews, is he?
He clucks inanely, hen pecks incessantly-- a plucked chicken, could he be?
He twists truths to cowardly misrepresent an atrocious narrative that HE feels fit for everyone else to believe-- a conspirabid Cankook, he definitely be!

Oh? Wrong thread?

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> <snip>
>> In your case, the sexual element was severely repressed. Your particular Oedipus complex manifests itself in symptoms of paranoia, combativeness, and repressed anger toward your father.
>> > > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>> > >
>> > > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
>> >
>> > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>> What boys have been doing that? I don't know any who have. My own sons certainly would not have submitted to any such form of punishment.

> I'm sure they wouldn't, given conventional opinion on spanking today. But again I'd warn you not to project conventional opinions into the past.

Times change.

Even Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"Spare the rod and spoil the child."

>> Do you have any statistics to back up your claim?

> I don't know of any historical statistics regarding corporal punishment in the home. For the school, we do have the historical record. In England (and Europe isn't much different) boys were publicly birched; and a boy that refused to comply, or ran away, would be expelled and lose his chance to be educated. So I'd count every school graduate from that time as evidence of compliance.
>> >
>> > > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> Once again, calling corporal punshment of a child "abuse" is just pandering to conventional opinion. Not that I disagree with the opinion, but it's inapplicable to my father's use of corporal punishment on me. The word he used was "spanking," and I'll stick with that (unless you come up with a more mutually agreeable word).

>> > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
>> >
>> That is not what anyone has been saying, George. Please pay attention, and I'll repeat our argument nice and slow:
>>
>> No one is denying that corporal punishment was uncommon. I was subjected to corporal punishment as well. The issue is *not* with regard to the punishment, but in your resigned, obedient *acceptance* of it.
>>
>> Getting a spanking, to someone of our generation, is brushed aside as commonplace.
>>
>> Lying in bed with one's pajama pants pulled down *awaiting* a spanking is not.
>>

> Hold on now. As I see it, getting in position (including, in this case baring one's bottom), and then waiting for the first blow, can't be separated out from the punishment. You're making an impossible distinction.

>> IOW: No one is taking issue with your father's abusiveness (which is how whipping a boy with a belt is viewed today). We are taking issue with Boy George's willingness to subject himself to such a beating.

> I simply never challenged my father's right to punish me. That came with the package of having a father.

>> I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little harder the next time..

..

[Ash Wurthing]

*jerks puppet strings*
Willy, are you slurping George again?

[Will Dockery]

Like I said, agreed.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 9:05:15 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > <snip>
> >> In your case, the sexual element was severely repressed. Your particular Oedipus complex manifests itself in symptoms of paranoia, combativeness, and repressed anger toward your father.
> >> > > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> >> > >
> >> > > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
> >> >
> >> > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
>
> >> What boys have been doing that? I don't know any who have. My own sons certainly would not have submitted to any such form of punishment.
>
> > I'm sure they wouldn't, given conventional opinion on spanking today. But again I'd warn you not to project conventional opinions into the past.
> Times change.
>
> Even Benjamin Franklin wrote:
>
> "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

I love it when you feign literacy, Donkey!

Proverbs, 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

[Will Dockery]

Thanks for the heads up, I had thought Benjamin Franklin wrote it.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 9:45:44 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:

Why yes, sWilly is slurping again! You should seek help with that obsession-- just sayin'.

[Ash Wurthing]

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 9:05:15 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > <snip>
> >> In your case, the sexual element was severely repressed. Your particular Oedipus complex manifests itself in symptoms of paranoia, combativeness, and repressed anger toward your father.
> >> > > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> >> > >
> >> > > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
> >> >
> >> > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
>
> >> What boys have been doing that? I don't know any who have. My own sons certainly would not have submitted to any such form of punishment.
>
> > I'm sure they wouldn't, given conventional opinion on spanking today. But again I'd warn you not to project conventional opinions into the past.
> Times change.
>
> Even Benjamin Franklin wrote:
>
> "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

Actually modern science is coming to the conclusion that the negative repercussions of using physical force against children usually outweighs the positive...

[W.Dockery]

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 9:45:44 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 11:02:57 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-5, Zod wrote:
>> > > George Dance wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > >> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > >> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail..com wrote:
>> > > >> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > >> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:

Like I said.

🙂

[NancyGene]

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:25:10 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:21:56 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:48:30 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> > > > What "welts by belt"?
> > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> > George must have suppressed the images. Belts are not fluffy little feathers to tickle Boy George's ass.
> George was probably warned not to talk about his beatings, or to expose any of his welts, cuts, or bruises in school. He grew up acting like it wasn't happening (a form of denial), and carried that pattern into adulthood.

That is true--the beatings stayed in the family. Social Services didn't investigate homes back in Boy George's day the way they do now. There probably weren't even cameras.

> > > > You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime
> > > Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?
> > We wondered about that too. Maybe George Dance's writing put even him to sleep?
> The long-term effects of too many childhood concussions?
> > > > > There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain
> > > > You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."
> > > >
> > > > None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.
> > > That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.
> > Spankings are usual--beatings with a belt are not. Those are the kinds of selected and isolated memories that carry on from childhood to adulthood.
> Belts are usually reserved for major transgressions -- once or twice over the course of one's childhood. Belt whippings on a more or less nightly basis sounds like he was living with a sadist. Or maybe his Daddy just really, Really, *REALLY* hated him.

The Father was taking out his helplessness and lack of control in the Real World on Little Boy George in the mail-order home. Rules ruled in that house, military precision, pants pressed to the knees, thank you sir, may I have another.

> > > > > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > > > > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> > > > Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
> > > >
> > > Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.
> > George Dance prefers to change the narrative to suit his arguments.
> He likes to modify (ever so slightly) the words one has used, in order to change the meaning of what was actually said. George can argue that he remembers the beatings, since he wrote a poem about them. He can't argue against the persistent feelings of trauma, because his ("largely") autobiographical narrator is still experiencing them.

Yes, why does he do that when the original words are right there in the previous replies? Does he think that no one will notice, that other people are not as "smart" as he is, so therefore he can create his own parameters? He is not succeeding in convincing anyone (except for pissbums) that he even knows left from right.

> > > > > There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.
> > > > Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.
> > > > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.
> > > > That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
> > > >
> > > That's nonsense, George.
> > That could be a new nickname for George Dance (if we were using nicknames): "Nonsense George."
> It certainly is fitting.

Or, WFTiWWY, George Dance.

> > > Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."
> > >
> > > Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."
> > We absolutely agree. What is the velocity of a belt being aimed by a grown man towards a child's bottom? We would actually call it a flogging.
> You could... although a belt would be less likely to cut the skin than a cat o' nines.

It was a belt with metal studs down the length of it. It may have had a cat o' nine tails as decoration or functioned as a Swiss Army Knife does.

> > > Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.
> > George Dance does that a lot.
> I think that George was either on a debating team in school, or else studied Debating For Dummies as an adult. He regularly uses all the stereotypical tricks.

We were in Debate in college and won through words and strategy. George Dance has no skill and loses the debate on every topic. He cannot think on his feet or on his stomach with his pants down.

> > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > > >
> > > That's just your denial talking, George.
> > >
> > > Listen to the message of you poem.
> > There are several things going on in the poem which George Dance seems to not understand. Instead of being a figure of comfort and strength, the Father is physically hurting the child, limiting his social activities, and stunting his emotional growth.
> >
> "Father punished me for having been bad" is an easier thought to accept than "Father was a sadistic asshole who never loved me." "Father wouldn't let me play with my school friends until after I finished my chores (which I never finished because I was too slow)" is easier to accept than "Father stunted my social and emotional growth, leaving me paranoid of others and unable to interact with others."

Yes, correct, and therefore Little Boy George, even though he didn't always know what he was repeatedly being punished for, accepted the punishment. Did he make the bed with military corners? Did he dust the top of the doorway? There are always deficiencies in the inspection, so Little Boy George never wins, will always get his beating, is never perfect or allowed to play.

> > > > > George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.
> > > > If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
> > > >
> > > That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.
> > George Dance does not understand the concept of becoming a man. He is still the child with the bare bottom, waiting to be flogged.
> Careful... he'll start calling us monkeys and Nazis again.

Didn't Pickles take the Nazis with him to the Great Rest Stop?

> > > To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.
> > We suspect that George Dance has not grown up yet and still acts as a child would.
> Calling names, throwing tantrums, shouting IKYABWAI... that's our George.

Why does he do that? It is not a good look for George Dance the Statesman.

> > > > > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe imaginary friends? How can he have friends if he isn't allowed to play with anyone?
> > > > No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.
> > > Bullshit.
> > > Outside, the garden that he grew
> > > Where I would work the summers through,
> > > While watching my friends run and play
> > > Mysterious games I never knew.
> > > The poem says that he/you *never* knew the games your friends played.
> > >
> > > "Never" doesn't mean "just not when one has chores."
> > A small, pasty, trembling boy who looks out the window but can never join in "reindeer games."
> Unfortunately his foggy Christmas Eve never came.
> > > > > Your poem breaks down in logic. A boy raised in strict isolation would experience cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which pretty much describes Boy George in "My Father's House."
> > > > There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.
> > > >
> > > The above-quoted passage implies that he was *never* allowed to play with his "friends" at home; therefore they must have been school friends only.
> > Perhaps Boy George was home-schooled?
> No... his father would have had to spend too much time with him. Daddy wanted him out of sight/out of mind.

We don't think that there was homeschooling 80 years ago anyway when George Dance was young.

> > > > > > So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
> > > > > You cannot diagnose yourself -- you are too close to the situation to be objective.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?
> > > Um... we're armchair psychiatrists... it's what we do.
> > George Dance cannot see himself as others see him.
> Nor can he see the Donkey and his Stink for what they are.

A deficiency in his emotional development.

> > > > > Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.
> > > > As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
> > > >
> > > Good idea. You've already overshared.
> > We were referring to the police psychologist giving the child an opportunity to draw what happened to him rather than have to say it (abuse of varying types). We would bet that George Dance would draw a big house with a Father growing out of it and a belt waving from the chimney.
> >
> He definitely identifies his father with the house -- and the house with scenes of neglect and abuse.

He grew up a house-hater, which is an offshoot of woman-hater and man-hater. We believe that George Dance lives in an apartment on the outskirts of Toronto, so he has been afraid of houses ever since he was beaten as a child. The house came alive in his imagination and is a symbol like Michael Meyers. He would certainly never enter an attic or basement, nor go under sheets of any kind.

> > > > > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> > > > > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.
> >
> > > > Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.
> > Every boy (and some girls) in our family and our friends' families fought back, ran, protested, tried to bargain, and hid the instruments of punishment. George Dance must be an extreme outlier.
> > > >
> Or just broken.

That's sad to be broken at the age of 6. Decades and decades later he still carries the shame and fear.

>
> I'm guessing that farther back... before George became an obedient bare-bottomed boy of six (perhaps as far back as infancy), his father beat him within an inch of his life.

And no one knew, no one came to his rescue. He lay there staring at the sheets under his little eyes and swore, as God was his Witness, he would never be in this position again.

>
> For a boy to be that broken in spirit, something almost inconceivably bad must have happened to him.
> > > And I'm sure it would have, had I not overcome my father and, later, taken the upper hand in our relationship.
> > As you should have and were expected to do. That is healthy emotional development.
> Thank you.

Boys have to practice being men.

>
> And just so no one thinks that I was torturing the old man, I took care of him in his final years after he'd been disabled by a series of strokes.

The Good Son.

> > > > > Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings.
> > > > "Submitting" seems to be only a problem in the mind of Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.
> > > >
> > > The whipping boy mentality is apparently permanent part of your personality. Your father did one helluva good job.
> > We wonder how many times this beating was repeated? Daily, weekly? Whatever it was, it severely disturbed George Dance.
> The poem doesn't specify, but my impression was that it was a nightly ritual. The narrator treats it that way -- not as an isolated incident.

It's 9 pm, do you know where your son had better be?

> > > > > Did you pay it forward to your daughter?
> > > > Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:
> > > It's a fair question, George. Abused children (especially those with unresolved trauma) often abuse their own children.
> > That's what we have read too. If George Dance had had a son instead of a daughter, would the pants-down ceremony have been recreated for another generation?
> It's a strong possibility.

George Dance may have blocked this from his conscious memory.

> > > > For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I don't think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.
> > > >
> > > You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.
> > George Dance may not be sure of what "dispense with" means. Maybe he actually wanted to say just "dispense?"
> Ouch! LOL!

Or, "Let the Beatings Commence."

> > > > > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> > > >
> > > > > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
> > > > No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.
> > > Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.
> > Bingo!
> > > > > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> > > > > All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.
> > > > Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.
> > > OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.
> > Having the pissbums on one's side doesn't add to one's reputation. They are a negative influence on the audience.
> > > > > > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
> > > >
> > > > > However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings.
> > > > The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
> > > >
> > > Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?
> > We call him "George Dance" also. We don't care what he calls us, other than it makes him look more childish.
> Funny how George always insists that he's acting in accordance with his celebrated system of ethics -- Tit for Tat -- yet he constantly "retaliates" against those who haven't attacked him.

Maybe George Dance cannot tell us apart?

> > > You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.
> > We suspect that a few words to the pissbums and the juvenile Uncle to stop their Greek Chorus responses and greetings would solve that problem.
> I've tried to explain that to George on several occasions.

Is Jordy's Uncle going to stop the daily greetings and replies? We hope so.

>
> But George doesn't really want peace here. He responds negatively to constructive criticism, and prefers the insincere slurpage of the Donkey and his Stink.

We doubt that he responded positively to any constructive criticism at any point in his life.

> > > > > Please get help.
> > > >
> > > > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
> > > Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.
> > George Dance has displayed strong symptoms of paranoia, trauma and loser-itis. He needs more than a few sessions on the couch.
> I think he requires years of therapy. He still isn't able to admit that he has a problem -- even when his poem (a product of his subconscious) is shouting it in his face.

Or that he "stole" the essence of WCW's poem for his "Shower" poem. If challenged, George Dance will tell you that he never read "The Red Wheelbarrow" and that you are mentally ill/biased against him

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:26:02 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:25:10 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:21:56 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:48:30 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> > > > > What "welts by belt"?
> > > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> > > George must have suppressed the images. Belts are not fluffy little feathers to tickle Boy George's ass.
> > George was probably warned not to talk about his beatings, or to expose any of his welts, cuts, or bruises in school. He grew up acting like it wasn't happening (a form of denial), and carried that pattern into adulthood.
> That is true--the beatings stayed in the family. Social Services didn't investigate homes back in Boy George's day the way they do now. There probably weren't even
> cameras.

Probably not. If they were still rare in Georgia in the mid-to-late 1970s, they were most likely non-existent in Ontario twenty-odd years earlier.

> > > > > You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime
> > > > Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?
> > > We wondered about that too. Maybe George Dance's writing put even him to sleep?
> > The long-term effects of too many childhood concussions?
> > > > > > There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain
> > > > > You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."
> > > > >
> > > > > None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.
> > > > That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.
> > > Spankings are usual--beatings with a belt are not. Those are the kinds of selected and isolated memories that carry on from childhood to adulthood.
> > Belts are usually reserved for major transgressions -- once or twice over the course of one's childhood. Belt whippings on a more or less nightly basis sounds like he was living with a sadist. Or maybe his Daddy just really, Really, *REALLY* hated him.
> The Father was taking out his helplessness and lack of control in the Real World on Little Boy George in the mail-order home. Rules ruled in that house, military precision, pants pressed to the knees, thank you sir, may I have another.
>

That's the impression I get from the poem as well. The mail order house becomes a symbolic where Father Dance reigns as Lord and Master. Denial appears to run in the Dance family as well.

> > > > > > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > > > > > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> > > > > Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
> > > > >
> > > > Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.
> > > George Dance prefers to change the narrative to suit his arguments.
> > He likes to modify (ever so slightly) the words one has used, in order to change the meaning of what was actually said. George can argue that he remembers the beatings, since he wrote a poem about them. He can't argue against the persistent feelings of trauma, because his ("largely") autobiographical narrator is still experiencing them.
> Yes, why does he do that when the original words are right there in the previous replies? Does he think that no one will notice, that other people are not as "smart" as he is, so therefore he can create his own parameters? He is not succeeding in convincing anyone (except for pissbums) that he even knows left from right.
>

It's done as a trap. He thinks that if he alters our words, just enough, he can trick us into arguing an untenable position. In a debate, where the opponents are responding to spoken words and expected to give an immediate response, one can easily trick them up with such tactics. And as debates are part of the world of politics, one can assume that George is thoroughly familiar with all the tricks of trade. What George fails to understand is that AAPC gives us the benefit of responding to *written* statements -- along with the ability to scroll up and see what it was that we'd actually said.

> > > > > > There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.
> > > > > Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.
> > > > > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.
> > > > > That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
> > > > >
> > > > That's nonsense, George.
> > > That could be a new nickname for George Dance (if we were using nicknames): "Nonsense George."
> > It certainly is fitting.
> Or, WFTiWWY, George Dance.

I suspect that's going to become an AAPC catchphrase where George Dance is concerned.

> > > > Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."
> > > >
> > > > Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."
> > > We absolutely agree. What is the velocity of a belt being aimed by a grown man towards a child's bottom? We would actually call it a flogging.
> > You could... although a belt would be less likely to cut the skin than a cat o' nines.
> It was a belt with metal studs down the length of it. It may have had a cat o' nine tails as decoration or functioned as a Swiss Army Knife does.

Daddy Dance was part of the Ontario S&M scene?

That's not outside the range of possibility.

However, if the beatings were anything more than a leather belt across a naked butt, I would be more inclined to suspect sodomy -- especially as Mr. Dance has been so vehement in protesting against it (before it was even raised).

However, that's just a hypothetical speculation at this point.

> > > > Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.
> > > George Dance does that a lot.
> > I think that George was either on a debating team in school, or else studied Debating For Dummies as an adult. He regularly uses all the stereotypical tricks.
> We were in Debate in college and won through words and strategy. George Dance has no skill and loses the debate on every topic. He cannot think on his feet or on his stomach with his pants down.
>

The problem with George (one of many) is that he overestimates his own intelligence, and underestimates that of his opponents.

Getting into Mensa was probably the worst thing that could have happened to him. He now believes that he's more intelligent than 99% of the world's population -- and, having repeatedly proven unable to compete with even the top 10%, he gravitates toward the double-digit Dockerys of this world who treat him like the genius he wishes to be.

> > > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > > > >
> > > > That's just your denial talking, George.
> > > >
> > > > Listen to the message of you poem.
> > > There are several things going on in the poem which George Dance seems to not understand. Instead of being a figure of comfort and strength, the Father is physically hurting the child, limiting his social activities, and stunting his emotional growth.
> > >
> > "Father punished me for having been bad" is an easier thought to accept than "Father was a sadistic asshole who never loved me." "Father wouldn't let me play with my school friends until after I finished my chores (which I never finished because I was too slow)" is easier to accept than "Father stunted my social and emotional growth, leaving me paranoid of others and unable to interact with others."
> Yes, correct, and therefore Little Boy George, even though he didn't always know what he was repeatedly being punished for, accepted the punishment. Did he make the bed with military corners? Did he dust the top of the doorway? There are always deficiencies in the inspection, so Little Boy George never wins, will always get his beating, is never perfect or allowed to play.
>

I'm surprised that you know about dust on the top of doorways. Do you have a military background as well?

> > > > > > George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.
> > > > > If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
> > > > >
> > > > That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.
> > > George Dance does not understand the concept of becoming a man. He is still the child with the bare bottom, waiting to be flogged.
> > Careful... he'll start calling us monkeys and Nazis again.
> Didn't Pickles take the Nazis with him to the Great Rest Stop?

You're right. I was getting him and George confused, as both were prone to making childish puns on their names of their "enemies."

> > > > To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.
> > > We suspect that George Dance has not grown up yet and still acts as a child would.
> > Calling names, throwing tantrums, shouting IKYABWAI... that's our George.
> Why does he do that? It is not a good look for George Dance the Statesman.

From what I can gather about his political career, "Statesman" would barely apply.

They sustain his ego, so they must therefore be good, intelligent people.

> > > > > > Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.
> > > > > As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
> > > > >
> > > > Good idea. You've already overshared.
> > > We were referring to the police psychologist giving the child an opportunity to draw what happened to him rather than have to say it (abuse of varying types). We would bet that George Dance would draw a big house with a Father growing out of it and a belt waving from the chimney.
> > >
> > He definitely identifies his father with the house -- and the house with scenes of neglect and abuse.
> He grew up a house-hater, which is an offshoot of woman-hater and man-hater. We believe that George Dance lives in an apartment on the outskirts of Toronto, so he has been afraid of houses ever since he was beaten as a child. The house came alive in his imagination and is a symbol like Michael Meyers. He would certainly never enter an attic or basement, nor go under sheets of any kind.
>

Does he still fall asleep with his bare bottom pointing to the ceiling?

> > > > > > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> > > > > > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.
> > >
> > > > > Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.
> > > Every boy (and some girls) in our family and our friends' families fought back, ran, protested, tried to bargain, and hid the instruments of punishment. George Dance must be an extreme outlier.
> > > > >
> > Or just broken.
> That's sad to be broken at the age of 6. Decades and decades later he still carries the shame and fear.

I honestly do feel sorry for him.

> > I'm guessing that farther back... before George became an obedient bare-bottomed boy of six (perhaps as far back as infancy), his father beat him within an inch of his life.
> And no one knew, no one came to his rescue. He lay there staring at the sheets under his little eyes and swore, as God was his Witness, he would never be in this position again.
> >

Too bad that he lacked Scarlet's resolve.

> > For a boy to be that broken in spirit, something almost inconceivably bad must have happened to him.
> > > > And I'm sure it would have, had I not overcome my father and, later, taken the upper hand in our relationship.
> > > As you should have and were expected to do. That is healthy emotional development.
> > Thank you.
> Boys have to practice being men.
> >
> > And just so no one thinks that I was torturing the old man, I took care of him in his final years after he'd been disabled by a series of strokes.
> The Good Son.
> > > > > > Those who did not are doomed to repeat the experience psychologically and be stuck in the memory of submitting to the beatings.
> > > > > "Submitting" seems to be only a problem in the mind of Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.
> > > > >
> > > > The whipping boy mentality is apparently permanent part of your personality. Your father did one helluva good job.
> > > We wonder how many times this beating was repeated? Daily, weekly? Whatever it was, it severely disturbed George Dance.
> > The poem doesn't specify, but my impression was that it was a nightly ritual. The narrator treats it that way -- not as an isolated incident.
> It's 9 pm, do you know where your son had better be?
> > > > > > Did you pay it forward to your daughter?
> > > > > Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:
> > > > It's a fair question, George. Abused children (especially those with unresolved trauma) often abuse their own children.
> > > That's what we have read too. If George Dance had had a son instead of a daughter, would the pants-down ceremony have been recreated for another generation?
> > It's a strong possibility.
> George Dance may have blocked this from his conscious memory.
> > > > > For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I don't think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.
> > > > >
> > > > You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.
> > > George Dance may not be sure of what "dispense with" means. Maybe he actually wanted to say just "dispense?"
> > Ouch! LOL!
> Or, "Let the Beatings Commence."

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Mens-Graphic-Tee-Beatings-Funny-Pirate-T-shirt/198600130

> > > > > > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
> > > > > No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.
> > > > Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.
> > > Bingo!
> > > > > > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> > > > > > All anyone has to do is read a few of the pissbum posts to see that the writers lack just about everything that they could lack in a thoughtful, educated, emotionally mature person.
> > > > > Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.
> > > > OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.
> > > Having the pissbums on one's side doesn't add to one's reputation. They are a negative influence on the audience.
> > > > > > > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > However, your readers see it very clearly in your writings.
> > > > > The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
> > > > >
> > > > Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?
> > > We call him "George Dance" also. We don't care what he calls us, other than it makes him look more childish.
> > Funny how George always insists that he's acting in accordance with his celebrated system of ethics -- Tit for Tat -- yet he constantly "retaliates" against those who haven't attacked him.
> Maybe George Dance cannot tell us apart?

My guess is that his paranoia causes him to see attacks where none occur.

> > > > You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.
> > > We suspect that a few words to the pissbums and the juvenile Uncle to stop their Greek Chorus responses and greetings would solve that problem.
> > I've tried to explain that to George on several occasions.
> Is Jordy's Uncle going to stop the daily greetings and replies? We hope so.

I hope so, too.

> > But George doesn't really want peace here. He responds negatively to constructive criticism, and prefers the insincere slurpage of the Donkey and his Stink.
> We doubt that he responded positively to any constructive criticism at any point in his life.

Agreed. Mensa George cannot accept criticism from anyone not officially in the top 1%. Unfortunately, he quickly decided that he was more intelligent, and interesting, than the other members of Mensa and bowed out ASAP.

> > > > > > Please get help.
> > > > >
> > > > > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
> > > > Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.
> > > George Dance has displayed strong symptoms of paranoia, trauma and loser-itis. He needs more than a few sessions on the couch.
> > I think he requires years of therapy. He still isn't able to admit that he has a problem -- even when his poem (a product of his subconscious) is shouting it in his face.
> Or that he "stole" the essence of WCW's poem for his "Shower" poem. If challenged, George Dance will tell you that he never read "The Red Wheelbarrow" and that you are mentally ill/biased against him
>

Good guesses, but he's actually claiming that you're taking revenge on him for having accused Jim of borrowing from the poem that he (George Dance) cribbed from Shelley.

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en

> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
>> > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
>> >
>> Trauma occurs in many forms.

> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

>> Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

>> > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over.. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.

>> > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
>> >
>> An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
>>

> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

>> As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

>> > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.

>> > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>> >
>> You're right about Oedipus (the play),

> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over.. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

>> however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.

> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

>> > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
>> >
>> Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

>> Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

>> > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
>> > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
>> >
>> No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.

>> > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>>
>> "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.

> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>> To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

>> > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
>> > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
>>

>> You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

Back to the topic, deflection attempts skipped.

🙂

[Ash Wurthing]

The only topic I see your pushing is your obsessive need to bump your goons' troll threads since you cannot write a damned thing other than bumping canned responses. I only see sWilly deflecting from facing the evidence that he's control freaking me by censoring anything I say. I only see sWilly hiding in this troll thread, hiding from my evidence of his lies and misrepresentations of me...

[W-Dockery]

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:55:14 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>>

You only see what you want to see, obviously.

HTH and HAND.

[George Dance]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> > What "welts by belt"?
> Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> (Long as George keeps on his clothes).

To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.

> > You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime
> Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?

Good catch; let me complete the sentence.
You're arguing that corporal punishment causes lifetime trauma equivalent to PTSD -- unless the child can "symbolically kill" the person administering the punishment, which somehow eliminates the trauma and restores the child to health.

> > None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.
> That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.

I realize by now that you can't grasp the distinction, but since again I'll have to make it:
(1) That the speaker of the poem desired "to burn down the house" is evidence that he suffered what you call "trauma". (As I've said, that's how he was written that way.)
(2) By the same token, that I've never desired "to burn down the house" is not evidence that I've suffered what you call "trauma".

> > > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> > Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
> >
> Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.

I remember feeling very "traumatized" at the time. That's no reason to think I'm just as "traumatized" thinking about it now.

> > That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
> >
> That's nonsense, George.
>
> Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."

That's what it was called in my family; but, for your sake, I've agreed to use the term "corporal punishment".

> Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."

<quote>
No, corporal punishment is 'not' the same as "beating".
beating
1 : an act of striking with repeated blows so as to injure or damage
also : the injury or damage thus inflicted
</q>
The point of corporal punishment is *not* to injure or damage the child.

Nor do "corporal punshment" and "abuse" mean the same thing.

> Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.

If you'd stop trying to redefine them, and we'd have no problems. As is, when either of you writes "abuse," I'm simply going to ignore it and use the applcable term.

> > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> >
> That's just your denial talking, George.

> Listen to the message of you poem.

You mean "your poem." That has nothing to do with my thoughts about you and "Dr." NastyGoon". Those come from reading your own posts.

> > If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
> >
> That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.
>
> To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.

Once again, you (and your flunkie, who seems to be parroting your views) are the only ones insisting my childhood was an "abusive situation" I needed to escape from. But, never mind: let's get back to the psychobabble: your claim that I have to "symbolically kill" my father in some way, as the only cure for my alleged PTSD. You've written over and over about what "symbolically kiling" one's father is not. Care to take a stab at explaining what it is, for a change?

> > No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.
> Bullshit.

> Outside, the garden that he grew
> Where I would work the summers through,
> While watching my friends run and play
> Mysterious games I never knew.
> The poem says that he/you *never* knew the games your friends played.

Wrong It says that my friends played "games I never knew". Which is true; I missed out on some games because I had to do chores. What it does not say is that I never got to play with my friends (which, as I pointed out, is contradictory: how would I make friends with other children if I never got to play with them?)

> "Never" doesn't mean "just not when one has chores."

Children make up games all the time. (Perhaps you never played with many children yourself?) The fact that I missed out on some of them, because I had to do chores, does in fact mean that I missed out when I had chores.

> > There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.
> >
> The above-quoted passage implies that he was *never* allowed to play with his "friends" at home; therefore they must have been school friends only.

No, it does not. Once again, you're being irrational -- confusing logical implication with your own imagination. If you were serious, which I doubt. It's more likely that you realize the weakness of your "physical abuse" claim against my father, so you're trying to accuse him, on no evidence, of "neglect abuse" as well (just as you previously also tried to accuse him, again on no evidence, of "sexual abuse".)

> > I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?
> Um... we're armchair psychiatrists... it's what we do.

What' we've all seen the two of you do, repeatedly, is call those who disagree with you mentally ill (not to mention a host of other insults), Hardly evidence of "objectivity."

> > As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
> >
> Good idea. You've already overshared.

> > > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.
> > Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.
> >
> And I'm sure it would have, had I not overcome my father and, later, taken the upper hand in our relationship.

That is the strangest part of your theory: that PTSD can be cured by some "revenge" ritual". Children who's "beaten into submission" by his parents, then grows up and beats his parents into submission instead, is not one I'd consider psychologically healthy, and I don't even expect you to find a competent psychologist who would.

> > "Submitting" seems to be only a problem Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.

> >
> The whipping boy mentality is apparently permanent part of your personality. Your father did one helluva good job.

Seriously, I think my father did fine. Not to say I agree with everything he did.

> > > Did you pay it forward to your daughter?
> > Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:
> It's a fair question, George. Abused children (especially those with unresolved trauma) often abuse their own children.

It may be true that children subjected to corporal punishyment use corporal punishment more on their own children, on the aggregate. That's not what NastyGoon was doing, and you know it; they were trying to make up another "fact" the way you've been doing throughout this discussion.

> > For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I [...] think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.

> >
> You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.

Yes, I see that. I tried editing, and failed to eliminate the negative. I've eliminated the "don't", for clarity.

> > > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> > > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
> > No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.

> Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.

No, as I said, it was simply sloppy editing. But I understand your viewpoint: anything for the win, right?

> > Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.
> OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.

Keep lashing out.

> > The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
> >
> Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?

I'm not the first to call you "the monkey". That was Karen:
Round this newsgroup's sorry remains
> > > the monkey mocked the donkey.
And, of course, the person you call "the donkey" picked it up, for understandable reasons.
Finally, when you decided to assigne me to "Team Donkey," I assigned you to "Team Monkey."

There's no need to imagine any "traumas" or "PTSD" on my part to explain any of that.

> You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.

If I were Will, I'd probably call that a "lie." But I'm afraid the problem is more serious than mere lying. I think that, right now at least, you really are convinced that you have "spent the past five years trying to establish peace" -- despite the archived evidence that you (and NastyGoon, and a few who don't deserve mention here) have been attacking other people here, and calling them the same sort of things -- plagiarists, pedophiles, and mentally ill -- that you're simply repeating on me now. And the fact that you're repeating those tactics on me is sufficient reason to see you as a hostile force, Again, there's no need to imagine stories of "abuse" and "trauma" to explain any of that.

> > > Please get help.
> >
> > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
> Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.

But what is not 'obvious', Mr. never-got-into-Mensa (though he knows he's SMATR than them, so there!), is that either you or Dr. NastyGoon are "doctors" of any kind. The fact that NastyGoon is advising me to "get help" (contracting their pretense or delusion that they were doctors trying to help me), and the fact that you're again parrotting the generic troll's "WTF is wrong with you?" (contradicting your own pretense or delusion that you knew what was "wrong" with me), illustrates well enough that you aren't: you're either pretending or deluded.

[Will Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>> > > >
>> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I [....] think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.

>> >
>> You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.

> Yes, I see that. I tried editing, and failed to eliminate the negative. I've eliminated the "don't", for clarity.

>> > > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
>> > > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
>> > No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.

>> Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.

> No, as I said, it was simply sloppy editing. But I understand your viewpoint: anything for the win, right?

>> > Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.
>> OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.

> Keep lashing out.

>> > The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
>> >
>> Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?

> I'm not the first to call you "the monkey". That was Karen:
> Round this newsgroup's sorry remains
>> > > the monkey mocked the donkey.
> And, of course, the person you call "the donkey" picked it up, for understandable reasons.
> Finally, when you decided to assigne me to "Team Donkey," I assigned you to "Team Monkey."

> There's no need to imagine any "traumas" or "PTSD" on my part to explain any of that.
>> You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.

> If I were Will, I'd probably call that a "lie." But I'm afraid the problem is more serious than mere lying. I think that, right now at least, you really are convinced that you have "spent the past five years trying to establish peace" -- despite the archived evidence that you (and NastyGoon, and a few who don't deserve mention here) have been attacking other people here, and calling them the same sort of things -- plagiarists, pedophiles, and mentally ill -- that you're simply repeating on me now. And the fact that you're repeating those tactics on me is sufficient reason to see you as a hostile force, Again, there's no need to imagine stories of "abuse" and "trauma" to explain any of that.

Pendragon is obviously lying about wanting peace in the group, as any casual reader can see.

>> > > Please get help.
>> >
>> > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
>> Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.

> But what is not 'obvious', Mr. never-got-into-Mensa (though he knows he's SMATR than them, so there!), is that either you or Dr. NastyGoon are "doctors" of any kind. The fact that NastyGoon is advising me to "get help" (contracting their pretense or delusion that they were doctors trying to help me), and the fact that you're again parrotting the generic troll's "WTF is wrong with you?" (contradicting your own pretense or delusion that you knew what was "wrong" with me), illustrates well enough that you aren't: you're either pretending or deluded.

...

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> > > What "welts by belt"?
> > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
>

You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?

We are discussing your poetry.

If your readers interpret your poem to be strongly implying things like "welts" and "buggering," that's something you should be interested in -- and something that you might wish to address.

I've read your poem several times, and have read your own interpretation of it, and *still* see it as dealing with unresolved childhood trauma, physical abuse, and possible sexual abuse. That is my interpretation of your poem. Had Jim, or Ash, or anyone else written the poem, it would still be my interpretation.

For many readers, the idea of whipping a bare-assed boy with a belt is extremely harsh and abusive punishment; and the image of a boy lying in bed, on his stomach, with his pajama pants pulled down as he awaits the arrival of his father strongly implies that there may have been sexual abuse as well.

If you don't wish to have these associations arise from a reading of your poem, you should rewrite it using less suggestive words and images. Keep the boy's pants up and have the father spank him with his hand. That's normal corporeal punishment for the time period in which the narrative is set.

If you're unable to handle constructive criticism of this nature, you might wish to reconsider posting to AAPC.

> > > You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime
> > Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?
> Good catch; let me complete the sentence.
> You're arguing that corporal punishment causes lifetime trauma equivalent to PTSD -- unless the child can "symbolically kill" the person administering the punishment, which somehow eliminates the trauma and restores the child to health.
>

Wrong again, George.

I did not say that it was equivalent to PTSD -- although it *could* be, depending on the severity of the punishment.

And, no, I did not say that the child had to symbolically "kill" the person administering the punishment. You are confusing childhood trauma with the Oedipus Complex (which was also being discussed)>

An Oedipus complex occurs when a boy fails to mature beyond the Phallic Stage of psychosexual development. To pass from the Phallic Stage, the boy needs to symbolically kill/usurp his *father* (not his mother, nor his uncle, nor his brother, nor his babysitter, nor his grandfather, nor anyone else administering punishment to him).

This has nothing to do with the trauma from corporal punishment, nor does it eliminate the trauma. It merely allows the boy to pass to the next stage of psychosexual development.

Now, ignoring the Oedipal overtones of the poem, and focusing on overcoming childhood trauma, one has to gain a sense of *closure.* In the case of your poem, the "largely" non-fictional narrator is harboring revenge fantasies -- years after the individual he seeks avenge himself on has died. In order for the narrator to let go of his revenge fantasies, he needs to achieve a symbolic victory over his late father -- preferably one that is less violent (and less destructive) than burning down his father's former house.

There are other means for getting over childhood trauma, however, in the narrator's case, only a symbolic victory would achieve the closure that he needs. This is because the boy was never able to fight back against, or even to question the punitive authority of, his father.

A common technique for achieving this would be for the narrator to construct a symbolic representation of his father (a scarecrow, a pillow with his father's face drawn on it, etc.). He would then vent his anger on the image -- telling it how much it hurt him as a person... punching it in the process (if required). Of course he really has to re-experience all the pent-up feelings of anger that he's been harboring over the years, in order to release them with the necessary level of emotion required to achieve his cure.

If he's unable to obtain the required state on his own, a hypnotherapist might be required.

> > > None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.
> > That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.
> I realize by now that you can't grasp the distinction, but since again I'll have to make it:
> (1) That the speaker of the poem desired "to burn down the house" is evidence that he suffered what you call "trauma". (As I've said, that's how he was written that way.)
> (2) By the same token, that I've never desired "to burn down the house" is not evidence that I've suffered what you call "trauma".

But you've also said that the speaker is "largely" based on yourself. And we both know that creative writing stems, at least in part, from the subconscious. The fact that you may not *consciously* be aware of the desired vengeance on your father, does not mean that your subconscious is also free of such desires.

> > > > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> > > Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
> > >
> > Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.
> I remember feeling very "traumatized" at the time. That's no reason to think I'm just as "traumatized" thinking about it now.

Well, let's agree that the narrator of the poem is still very traumatized by his childhood beatings. And let's agree that the narrator is "largely" based on George Dance.

I would say that's a very good reason for think that George Dance is still suffering from his childhood trauma.

> > > That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
> > >
> > That's nonsense, George.
> >
> > Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."
> That's what it was called in my family; but, for your sake, I've agreed to use the term "corporal punishment".

Are we going to rewrite the dictionary to suit our own misunderstanding of the words, a la Will Donkey?

You are *not* amending your statement for my sake, George. You are amending it to comply with the actual definition of the words involved.


Here is the actual definition as per Merriam-Webster:

spanked; spanking; spanks
transitive verb

: to strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand
spank

2 of 3
noun
pluralspanks
: an act of spanking : a sharp slap or blow to the buttocks usually with the palm of the hand

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spank

Wikipedia refers to the use of a belt in corporeal punishment as a "belting," "beating," or "strapping."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belting_(beating)

> > Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."
> <quote>
> No, corporal punishment is 'not' the same as "beating".
> beating
> 1 : an act of striking with repeated blows so as to injure or damage
> also : the injury or damage thus inflicted
> </q>
> The point of corporal punishment is *not* to injure or damage the child.
>
> Nor do "corporal punshment" and "abuse" mean the same thing.

Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about corporal punishment:

"The adjective corporal today usually appears in the phrase corporal punishment, which means "bodily punishment". This used to include such acts as mutilation, branding, imprisonment, and even death. But today execution comes under the separate heading of "capital punishment", which originally involved losing your head (capit- meaning "head"). Milder forms of corporal punishment are used by American parents, and were once common in schools as well."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporal#:~:text=The%20adjective%20corporal%20today%20usually,%2C%20imprisonment%2C%20and%20even%20death.

And here is Wikipedia's take:

"Physical or corporal punishment by a parent or other legal guardian is any act causing deliberate physical pain or discomfort to a minor child in response to some undesired behavior. It typically takes the form of spanking or slapping the child with an open hand or striking with an implement such as a belt, slipper, cane, hairbrush or paddle, whip, hanger, and can also include shaking, pinching, forced ingestion of substances, or forcing children to stay in uncomfortable positions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#:~:text=Severe%20forms%20of%20corporal%20punishment,can%20also%20constitute%20child%20abuse.

As you can see, corporal punishment is very much a form of beating. In fact, Britannica specifically defines it as such:

"corporal punishment, the infliction of physical pain upon a person’s body as punishment for a crime or infraction. Corporal punishments include flogging, beating, branding, mutilation, blinding, and the use of the stock and pillory."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporal-punishment

> > Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.
> If you'd stop trying to redefine them, and we'd have no problems. As is, when either of you writes "abuse," I'm simply going to ignore it and use the applcable term.

I'm using the words as per Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia, and Britannica.

You, otoh, have only taken Wikipedia's description of a "beating" and proffered your own (mistaken) opinion that a beating is not corporal punishment.

> > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > >
> > That's just your denial talking, George.
>
> > Listen to the message of you poem.
> You mean "your poem." That has nothing to do with my thoughts about you and "Dr." NastyGoon". Those come from reading your own posts.

Those are our interpretations of your poem, George.

Again, as a writer, you should be well aware that one's readers can often interpret their writings with a more perceptive degree of insight, as they are farther removed from the subject.

> > > If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
> > >
> > That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.
> >
> > To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.
> Once again, you (and your flunkie, who seems to be parroting your views) are the only ones insisting my childhood was an "abusive situation" I needed to escape from. But, never mind: let's get back to the psychobabble: your claim that I have to "symbolically kill" my father in some way, as the only cure for my alleged PTSD. You've written over and over about what "symbolically kiling" one's father is not. Care to take a stab at explaining what it is, for a change?
>

No, I did not claim that (see above).

> > > No one said he "isn't allowed to play with anyone." The poem says he isn't allowed to play when he has work to do, but that isn't the same thing.
> > Bullshit.
>
> > Outside, the garden that he grew
> > Where I would work the summers through,
> > While watching my friends run and play
> > Mysterious games I never knew.
> > The poem says that he/you *never* knew the games your friends played.
> Wrong It says that my friends played "games I never knew". Which is true; I missed out on some games because I had to do chores. What it does not say is that I never got to play with my friends (which, as I pointed out, is contradictory: how would I make friends with other children if I never got to play with them?)
>

Never means never.

> > "Never" doesn't mean "just not when one has chores."
> Children make up games all the time. (Perhaps you never played with many children yourself?) The fact that I missed out on some of them, because I had to do chores, does in fact mean that I missed out when I had chores.
>

No, George. You might have wanted to say that, but it is not what you wrote. Going *solely* on the content of the poem, that narrator *never* had the opportunity to play with his friends.

> > > There's nothing in the poem to suggest the boy was raised in strict isolation from other children -- nothing to suggest he was kept out of school, for instance. And, as I pointed out, L19 contradicts it; that's not a contradiction in the poem, just a contradiction between what the poem says and your own theory.
> > >
> > The above-quoted passage implies that he was *never* allowed to play with his "friends" at home; therefore they must have been school friends only.
> No, it does not. Once again, you're being irrational -- confusing logical implication with your own imagination. If you were serious, which I doubt. It's more likely that you realize the weakness of your "physical abuse" claim against my father, so you're trying to accuse him, on no evidence, of "neglect abuse" as well (just as you previously also tried to accuse him, again on no evidence, of "sexual abuse".)
>

I did not accuse your father of sexual abuse. I said that the imagery in your poem suggests it as a possibility.

As to the other claims, your father was physically abusive (beating your bare bottom with a belt), and emotionally abusive (treating you as a "filthy" thing).

> > > I don't see any reason to think that either you or Dr. Monkey are or can be any more "objective" about me. Can you come up with a single one?
> > Um... we're armchair psychiatrists... it's what we do.
> What' we've all seen the two of you do, repeatedly, is call those who disagree with you mentally ill (not to mention a host of other insults), Hardly evidence of "objectivity."

I am not calling you mentally ill, George. I'm saying that the narrator of your poem is still experiencing trauma from his childhood beatings. I believe that you are still experiencing similar trauma. That's a far cry from calling you mentally ill.

OTOH, You and your friends claim that everyone who disagrees with them is "senile" or "confused."

> > > As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
> > >
> > Good idea. You've already overshared.
> > > > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.
> > > Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.
> > >
> > And I'm sure it would have, had I not overcome my father and, later, taken the upper hand in our relationship.
> That is the strangest part of your theory: that PTSD can be cured by some "revenge" ritual". Children who's "beaten into submission" by his parents, then grows up and beats his parents into submission instead, is not one I'd consider psychologically healthy, and I don't even expect you to find a competent psychologist who would.
>

It is not about beating one's parents, George. It is about freeing oneself from their power. It is about taking your life into your own hands and saying, "No. You aren't going to hit me any more."

> > > "Submitting" seems to be only a problem Dr. Monkey's mind (whom I think you're only parrotting). I can honestly say that, whenever I've remembered the corporal punishment I received as a child, I've never given a second's thought to the fact that I didn't fight back or run away.
> > >
> > The whipping boy mentality is apparently permanent part of your personality. Your father did one helluva good job.
> Seriously, I think my father did fine. Not to say I agree with everything he did.

The father in the poem was abusive. If you think he did fine, you're either in denial, or have some extremely disturbing ideas about how to raise a child.

> > > > Did you pay it forward to your daughter?
> > > Now, that's the kind of innuendo that got you the "Nasty" part of your nickname. I was expecting it, though, so I did prepare a statement for when it came up:
> > It's a fair question, George. Abused children (especially those with unresolved trauma) often abuse their own children.
> It may be true that children subjected to corporal punishyment use corporal punishment more on their own children, on the aggregate. That's not what NastyGoon was doing, and you know it; they were trying to make up another "fact" the way you've been doing throughout this discussion.
>

NancyGene did not ask if you abused your daughter (although abusive parents don't always limit their violence to one sex). She merely raised a valid, hypothetical question.

Nor have I been attempting to make anything up. Your father called you "filthy," refused to let you sit on the good furniture, kept you doing chores at a very young age, and beat you with a belt on a regular basis. I think that scenario is disturbing enough -- I certainly don't have to make anything up to add to it.

> > > For the record, I have never used corporal punishment on my child; I [...] think it's better to dispense with that when raising a child. And I'd like to thank my father for teaching me that.
> > >
> > You're contradicting yourself, George. If you don't think it's better to dispense with corporal punishment, you're advocating it.
> Yes, I see that. I tried editing, and failed to eliminate the negative. I've eliminated the "don't", for clarity.
> > > > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> > > > Does that make it right? It used to be that men had the right to beat their wives. Slave owners had the right to whip their "property."
> > > No one said corporal punishment was "right." What we''re discussing here is your claim that it causes lifelong trauma.
>
> > Actually, you did. But I'm thinking it was another Freudian slip on your part.
> No, as I said, it was simply sloppy editing. But I understand your viewpoint: anything for the win, right?

It was sloppy editing that produced an error (or an erroneous statement). But according to Freud, there are no such mistakes. Any mistakes make are actually done for a subconscious reason. That is one of the ways by which our subconscious speaks to us. I have repeatedly stated over the years, that I am a student of Freud and Jung, and that I strongly adhere to the majority of their teachings. If you understood my viewpoint (that of a Freudo-Jungian), you would understand that it has nothing whatsoever to do with winning.

> > > Sounds to me like you're the one "lashing out" again; IOW, sound like more projection.
> > OMFG! They're a pair of illiterate, sub-moronic pissbums. Stink has "retired" from the working world to live under a piece of discarded tarp, and the Donkey hasn't held a job in over 25 years, preferring to live off of his family's SSI and Disability checks.
> Keep lashing out.

It is not lashing out, George. That's what they are.

Calling a pissbum a pissbum is merely an honest statement of fact.

> > > The only people who "see" my so-called "lashing out" at "Team Monkey" as evidence of a "trauma" I've been suffering from have been, coincidentally, the members of "Team Monkey" complaining about it. Maybe they're too biased to be objective?
> > >
> > Why do you call me names like "Monkey," when I tried to get the other AAPC members to accept you? Or when I still address you as "George Dance"?
> I'm not the first to call you "the monkey". That was Karen:

Are you arguing that you're a CopyKat?

> Round this newsgroup's sorry remains
> > > > the monkey mocked the donkey.
> And, of course, the person you call "the donkey" picked it up, for understandable reasons.
> Finally, when you decided to assigne me to "Team Donkey," I assigned you to "Team Monkey."

And who came up with "Chimp," and "Piggy," and "MEat Puppet, and "NastyGoon," etc.?

> There's no need to imagine any "traumas" or "PTSD" on my part to explain any of that.

No, there isn't. You're confusing your two conditions again. Your failure to completely advance beyond the Phallic Stage of psychosexual development is responsible for your propensity for childish name-calling.

> > You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.
> If I were Will, I'd probably call that a "lie." But I'm afraid the problem is more serious than mere lying. I think that, right now at least, you really are convinced that you have "spent the past five years trying to establish peace" -- despite the archived evidence that you (and NastyGoon, and a few who don't deserve mention here) have been attacking other people here, and calling them the same sort of things -- plagiarists, pedophiles, and mentally ill -- that you're simply repeating on me now. And the fact that you're repeating those tactics on me is sufficient reason to see you as a hostile force, Again, there's no need to imagine stories of "abuse" and "trauma" to explain any of that.
>

I have spent the past 5 years (give or take) trying to establish peace between *you* and those you currently assign to "Team Monkey." I have made sporadic attempts to broker peace treaties with the Donkey and his Stink, but gave up on those some time ago.

I no longer have any desire to establish peace with the Donkey and his Stink. I would, ideally, like to no longer have you at odds with the rest of the group, but no longer believe it will happen.

> > > > Please get help.
> > >
> > > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
> > Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.
> But what is not 'obvious', Mr. never-got-into-Mensa (though he knows he's SMATR than them, so there!),

I took Mensa's test (from an IQ test book) and scored well above their requirement. I didn't join because they wanted a yearly fee, and I didn't see why I should pay a group of people I don't know to be my pen pals.

> is that either you or Dr. NastyGoon are "doctors" of any kind. The fact that NastyGoon is advising me to "get help" (contracting their pretense or delusion that they were doctors trying to help me), and the fact that you're again parrotting the generic troll's "WTF is wrong with you?" (contradicting your own pretense or delusion that you knew what was "wrong" with me), illustrates well enough that you aren't: you're either pretending or deluded.
>

My colleague and I are *armchair* variety specialists. You do understand that "armchair" psychiatrists have no legitimate credentials, don't you?

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

Learn to read, Donkey.

I didn't say that I wanted to establish peace in the group. I said that I have spent the past 5 years (give or take) trying to establish peace between *George* and the rest of the group.

[Will Dockery]

Lear to stop whining, you shit eating little monkey.

:)

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Lear indeed, fat pants.

[NancyGene]

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:54:42 PM UTC, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:26:02 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:25:10 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 12:21:56 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:48:30 AM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:17:18 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:06:49 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:45:12 PM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Beatings as a child (as the welts by belt were) causes trauma in children.
> > > > > > What "welts by belt"?
> > > > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > > > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > > > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> > > > George must have suppressed the images. Belts are not fluffy little feathers to tickle Boy George's ass.
> > > George was probably warned not to talk about his beatings, or to expose any of his welts, cuts, or bruises in school. He grew up acting like it wasn't happening (a form of denial), and carried that pattern into adulthood.
> > That is true--the beatings stayed in the family. Social Services didn't investigate homes back in Boy George's day the way they do now. There probably weren't even
> > cameras.
> Probably not. If they were still rare in Georgia in the mid-to-late 1970s, they were most likely non-existent in Ontario twenty-odd years earlier.

We wonder if George Dance still has scars on his backside from the whippings/floggings. Dockery would know.

> > > > > > You're arguing that "corporal punishment" causes lifetime
> > > > > Thoughts dropping off in mid-sentence, George?
> > > > We wondered about that too. Maybe George Dance's writing put even him to sleep?
> > > The long-term effects of too many childhood concussions?
> > > > > > > There are many scholarly articles which prove that. Here's one: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/21/04/effect-spanking-brain
> > > > > > You're misinterpreting the study results. Here's the key finding: "By using MRI assessment, researchers observed changes in brain response while the children viewed a series of images featuring facial expressions that indicate emotional response, such as frowns and smiles. They found that children who had been spanked had a higher activity response in the areas of their brain that regulate these emotional responses and detect threats — even to facial expressions that most would consider non-threatening."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > None of that is evidence of trauma, much less of the lifetime trauma you claim c.p. gave me.
> > > > > That the trauma has carried over into your dotage, is evidenced by your "largely-based-on"-your-own-experiences narrator's desire to burn the house that used to belong to his father down.
> > > > Spankings are usual--beatings with a belt are not. Those are the kinds of selected and isolated memories that carry on from childhood to adulthood.
> > > Belts are usually reserved for major transgressions -- once or twice over the course of one's childhood. Belt whippings on a more or less nightly basis sounds like he was living with a sadist. Or maybe his Daddy just really, Really, *REALLY* hated him.
> > The Father was taking out his helplessness and lack of control in the Real World on Little Boy George in the mail-order home. Rules ruled in that house, military precision, pants pressed to the knees, thank you sir, may I have another.
> >
> That's the impression I get from the poem as well. The mail order house becomes a symbolic where Father Dance reigns as Lord and Master. Denial appears to run in the Dance family as well.

However, George Dance denies just about everything, despite words on the Internet proving that he did/said something.

> > > > > > > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > > > > > > However, it does "persist into adulthood." The very fact that you (and the speaker in the poem, Boy George) remember the beatings, proves that.
> > > > > > Wrong. If either I or "Boy George" were repressing the memory of corporal punishment, we would not be able to remember it; so the fact both can proves that there's no "repression" going on at this end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Dr. NancyGene just said that you were not repressing your memory of the beatings, George. What you're repressing is the memory of the feelings of trauma that accompanied those beatings.
> > > > George Dance prefers to change the narrative to suit his arguments.
> > > He likes to modify (ever so slightly) the words one has used, in order to change the meaning of what was actually said. George can argue that he remembers the beatings, since he wrote a poem about them. He can't argue against the persistent feelings of trauma, because his ("largely") autobiographical narrator is still experiencing them.
> > Yes, why does he do that when the original words are right there in the previous replies? Does he think that no one will notice, that other people are not as "smart" as he is, so therefore he can create his own parameters? He is not succeeding in convincing anyone (except for pissbums) that he even knows left from right.
> >
> It's done as a trap. He thinks that if he alters our words, just enough, he can trick us into arguing an untenable position. In a debate, where the opponents are responding to spoken words and expected to give an immediate response, one can easily trick them up with such tactics. And as debates are part of the world of politics, one can assume that George is thoroughly familiar with all the tricks of trade. What George fails to understand is that AAPC gives us the benefit of responding to *written* statements -- along with the ability to scroll up and see what it was that we'd actually said.

If he doesn't like what is written by others, he just changes it and argues to that. Slippery.

> > > > > > > There are many instances of former soldiers who sleep with guns under their pillows and act out in their sleep.
> > > > > > Oh, I'm sure they are. They're as irrelevant as Prince Harry in this case.
> > > > > > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, you were beaten, not spanked. A smack on the butt with an open hand is very different from a beating on one's bare buttocks with a belt.
> > > > > > That's a deflection, but I'll humor you. Since both you and Dr. Monkey have complained about my using the term "spanked," I've been using the term "corporal punishment." In turn, I'll expect you to stop using terms like "abuse" and "beatings." Now, if you're done with that deflection, let's get back to the point:
> > > > > >
> > > > > That's nonsense, George.
> > > > That could be a new nickname for George Dance (if we were using nicknames): "Nonsense George."
> > > It certainly is fitting.
> > Or, WFTiWWY, George Dance.
> I suspect that's going to become an AAPC catchphrase where George Dance is concerned.
> > > > > Whipping a bare butt with a leather belt is not a "spanking."
> > > > >
> > > > > Whipping a six-year old boy's bare butt with a leather belt is both a form of child "abuse" and a "beating."
> > > > We absolutely agree. What is the velocity of a belt being aimed by a grown man towards a child's bottom? We would actually call it a flogging.
> > > You could... although a belt would be less likely to cut the skin than a cat o' nines.
> > It was a belt with metal studs down the length of it. It may have had a cat o' nine tails as decoration or functioned as a Swiss Army Knife does.
> Daddy Dance was part of the Ontario S&M scene?

Possibly. Who else could he whip? Moose?

>
> That's not outside the range of possibility.
>
> However, if the beatings were anything more than a leather belt across a naked butt, I would be more inclined to suspect sodomy -- especially as Mr. Dance has been so vehement in protesting against it (before it was even raised).

We wonder if there were babysitters involved too.

>
> However, that's just a hypothetical speculation at this point.
> > > > > Words matter. Don't even try to barter them.
> > > > George Dance does that a lot.
> > > I think that George was either on a debating team in school, or else studied Debating For Dummies as an adult. He regularly uses all the stereotypical tricks.
> > We were in Debate in college and won through words and strategy. George Dance has no skill and loses the debate on every topic. He cannot think on his feet or on his stomach with his pants down.
> >
> The problem with George (one of many) is that he overestimates his own intelligence, and underestimates that of his opponents.

We have seen that from him many times. No one could possibly be as smart as George Dance, George Dance thinks. Wrong.

>
> Getting into Mensa was probably the worst thing that could have happened to him. He now believes that he's more intelligent than 99% of the world's population -- and, having repeatedly proven unable to compete with even the top 10%, he gravitates toward the double-digit Dockerys of this world who treat him like the genius he wishes to be.

He certainly can't walk the walk.

> > > > > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > > > > >
> > > > > That's just your denial talking, George.
> > > > >
> > > > > Listen to the message of you poem.
> > > > There are several things going on in the poem which George Dance seems to not understand. Instead of being a figure of comfort and strength, the Father is physically hurting the child, limiting his social activities, and stunting his emotional growth.
> > > >
> > > "Father punished me for having been bad" is an easier thought to accept than "Father was a sadistic asshole who never loved me." "Father wouldn't let me play with my school friends until after I finished my chores (which I never finished because I was too slow)" is easier to accept than "Father stunted my social and emotional growth, leaving me paranoid of others and unable to interact with others."
> > Yes, correct, and therefore Little Boy George, even though he didn't always know what he was repeatedly being punished for, accepted the punishment. Did he make the bed with military corners? Did he dust the top of the doorway? There are always deficiencies in the inspection, so Little Boy George never wins, will always get his beating, is never perfect or allowed to play.
> >
> I'm surprised that you know about dust on the top of doorways. Do you have a military background as well?

Admiral NancyGene has made the acquaintance of a few members of the armed forces. Also, General NancyGene reads a lot.

> > > > > > > George Dance, read again what we wrote. The boy has to "kill" his father--not actually murder him but put him in his place in the natural order of maturity so that the boy can become his own man and not be under the thumb/belt of the authority figure that he has always seen his father as being. If you are not familiar with the concept, you are vastly under educated.
> > > > > > If all you're talking about, under all the psychobabble about father-killing is simply leaving one's father's home and his rules, and replacing them with one's own, everyone's familiar with the concept; it's called "growing up." That's something I did half a decade ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > That is not *all* that we're talking about, George.
> > > > George Dance does not understand the concept of becoming a man. He is still the child with the bare bottom, waiting to be flogged.
> > > Careful... he'll start calling us monkeys and Nazis again.
> > Didn't Pickles take the Nazis with him to the Great Rest Stop?
> You're right. I was getting him and George confused, as both were prone to making childish puns on their names of their "enemies."

We were NaziGene! You were pedo (something).

> > > > > To advance from the phallic stage, the boy must symbolically kill/usurp the authority of his father. To escape from an abusive situation is a whole different can of worms.
> > > > We suspect that George Dance has not grown up yet and still acts as a child would.
> > > Calling names, throwing tantrums, shouting IKYABWAI... that's our George.
> > Why does he do that? It is not a good look for George Dance the Statesman.
> From what I can gather about his political career, "Statesman" would barely apply.

Loser who can't admit it.

They group together for warmth.

> > > > > > > Please draw some pictures of the family dynamics of your youth.
> > > > > > As I told Dr. Monkey over a month ago, I am not giving you any information about my "youth" except what I feel like sharing. If that's not enough for you, you can always search through my 20+ years of usenet posts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Good idea. You've already overshared.
> > > > We were referring to the police psychologist giving the child an opportunity to draw what happened to him rather than have to say it (abuse of varying types). We would bet that George Dance would draw a big house with a Father growing out of it and a belt waving from the chimney.
> > > >
> > > He definitely identifies his father with the house -- and the house with scenes of neglect and abuse.
> > He grew up a house-hater, which is an offshoot of woman-hater and man-hater. We believe that George Dance lives in an apartment on the outskirts of Toronto, so he has been afraid of houses ever since he was beaten as a child. The house came alive in his imagination and is a symbol like Michael Meyers. He would certainly never enter an attic or basement, nor go under sheets of any kind.
> >
> Does he still fall asleep with his bare bottom pointing to the ceiling?

We will ask Dockery.

> > > > > > > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> > > > > > > We say bullshit. The boys who became men of "power" and had "self-worth" did not lie on the bed passively, pants down, waiting for the regular beating. They fought back, they ran, they protested, they told someone, they hid the belts.
> > > >
> > > > > > Bullshit right back atcha. The only "boy" you've produced who "fought back" as a pre-teen is Dr. Monkey himself, who tells us that he was regularly "beaten into submission" because of it. I think being "beaten into submission" would be much more likely to cause PTSD than submitting to normal corporal punishment.
> > > > Every boy (and some girls) in our family and our friends' families fought back, ran, protested, tried to bargain, and hid the instruments of punishment. George Dance must be an extreme outlier.
> > > > > >
> > > Or just broken.
> > That's sad to be broken at the age of 6. Decades and decades later he still carries the shame and fear.
> I honestly do feel sorry for him.

He needs to face what happened to him and move on with his life.

> > > I'm guessing that farther back... before George became an obedient bare-bottomed boy of six (perhaps as far back as infancy), his father beat him within an inch of his life.
> > And no one knew, no one came to his rescue. He lay there staring at the sheets under his little eyes and swore, as God was his Witness, he would never be in this position again.
> > >
> Too bad that he lacked Scarlet's resolve.

Ah, we are glad that you recognized the reference. Ashley wasn't what she thought he was. Weak. She would have divorced him in a year.

George Dance is always ready to fight and his suspicions overwhelm his writing.

> > > > > You obviously see me as the "enemy" in spite of the fact that I have spent the past five years trying to establish peace, and ultimately mutual acceptance, between you and your supposed "enemies" here.
> > > > We suspect that a few words to the pissbums and the juvenile Uncle to stop their Greek Chorus responses and greetings would solve that problem.
> > > I've tried to explain that to George on several occasions.
> > Is Jordy's Uncle going to stop the daily greetings and replies? We hope so.
> I hope so, too.

Alas, Jordy's Uncle continues to make a fool of himself and do Dockery's bidding.

> > > But George doesn't really want peace here. He responds negatively to constructive criticism, and prefers the insincere slurpage of the Donkey and his Stink.
> > We doubt that he responded positively to any constructive criticism at any point in his life.
> Agreed. Mensa George cannot accept criticism from anyone not officially in the top 1%. Unfortunately, he quickly decided that he was more intelligent, and interesting, than the other members of Mensa and bowed out ASAP.

Mensa George isn't very interesting. His writing isn't fun to read, and he needs to fight his way out of the book box.

> > > > > > > Please get help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For what? If you're the one with a problem (and you clearly do have a problem, with my posts), then you're the one who needs to get help for it.
> > > > > Need I ask WTF is wrong with you, again, George? I think we all know that when a patient IKYABWAIs his doctor, he's in a state of denial. That should be obvious even to a former Mensa member.
> > > > George Dance has displayed strong symptoms of paranoia, trauma and loser-itis. He needs more than a few sessions on the couch.
> > > I think he requires years of therapy. He still isn't able to admit that he has a problem -- even when his poem (a product of his subconscious) is shouting it in his face.
> > Or that he "stole" the essence of WCW's poem for his "Shower" poem. If challenged, George Dance will tell you that he never read "The Red Wheelbarrow" and that you are mentally ill/biased against him
> >
> Good guesses, but he's actually claiming that you're taking revenge on him for having accused Jim of borrowing from the poem that he (George Dance) cribbed from Shelley.

Our revenge is served not only cold but unexpectedly. Jim is totally capable of fighting his own battles (as are you and we).

[W-Dockery]

NancyGene wrote:

> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:54:42 PM UTC, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The problem with George (one of many) is that he overestimates his own intelligence, and underestimates that of his opponents.

> We have seen that from him many times. No one could possibly be as smart as

You actually seem to be talking about yourself, NancyGene.

Perhaps less so now that you didn't even seem to know who "John Dunne" and "Robert F. Stillings" were, and even funnier, thought these guys live in London... Ireland.

:)

[Will Dockery]

George Dance wrote:
>
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en

> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
>> > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
>> >
>> Trauma occurs in many forms.

> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

>> Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

>> > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over.. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
>> > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
>> >
>> An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
>>

> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

>> As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

>> > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.

>> > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>> >
>> You're right about Oedipus (the play),

> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over.. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

>> however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.

> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

>> > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
>> >
>> Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

>> Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

>> > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
>> > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
>> >
>> No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.

>> > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>>
>> "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.

> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>> To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

>> > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
>> > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
>>

>> You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

Again, well put, George.

[George Dance]

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-5, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
> >
> You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
> We are discussing your poetry.

If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.

> If your readers interpret your poem to be strongly implying things like "welts" and "buggering," that's something you should be interested in -- and something that you might wish to address.

There's nothing to address. A reader who's experienced welts from a belt would be likely to think of welts when he reads the word "belt", and a reader who's been buggered is free to imagine buggery from the line "Face and pyjama bottoms down". But for either one to claim that either image is "strongly implying" or even implying either thought would simply be irrational, confusing the thoughts they're getting from the poem with thoughts they're getting from their own subconscious memories.

> I've read your poem several times, and have read your own interpretation of it, and *still* see it as dealing with unresolved childhood trauma, physical abuse, and possible sexual abuse. That is my interpretation of your poem. Had Jim, or Ash, or anyone else written the poem, it would still be my interpretation.

Case in point. Try to take in what I just explained to you.

> For many readers, the idea of whipping a bare-assed boy with a belt is extremely harsh and abusive punishment; and the image of a boy lying in bed, on his stomach, with his pajama pants pulled down as he awaits the arrival of his father strongly implies that there may have been sexual abuse as well.
>
> If you don't wish to have these associations arise from a reading of your poem, you should rewrite it using less suggestive words and images. Keep the boy's pants up and have the father spank him with his hand. That's normal corporeal punishment for the time period in which the narrative is set.

It would be easy enough to change "my father's belt" to "my father's hand". But of course that wouldn't prevent a person wanting to see "buggery" from finding it in the boy being in bed; so he can't be sent there either. As for the person looking for "abuse," that word change wouldn't be enough; I'd have to spell out, in detail, what the father was doing with that "hand," which would spoil the stanza; one reason for the stanxa's effectiveness, IMO, is that the details are not spelled out, but left to the reader's imagination.

Unlike some, I think it is important to leave some things to the reader's imagination; having the reader actively thinking, contributing rather than merely passively absorbing, bonds or identifies him with the poem. The problem with that is that the part of the process is out of the poet's control. Whatever fantasies the reader has, from sexual ones of buggery and incest to dramatic ones of escaped prisoners and revenge, are going to be part of that reader's experience of the poem. That's one reason to emphasize the distinction between a reader's experience and the poem's reality.

> If you're unable to handle constructive criticism of this nature, you might wish to reconsider posting to AAPC.

Oh, don't get huffy. If you comment on a poem, a writer should at least listen to what you have to say about it, but he doesn't owe you anything more than that. If he finds your criticism unhelpful, or even questions whether you understand the poem, it's easy enough to take that as a challenge to your ego; but remember that your ego is not what the group her for, or what it is about.
<snip>

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:20:20 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-5, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> > > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
> > >
> > You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
> > We are discussing your poetry.
> If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.
>

That's exactly what my colleague and I have been doing, George.

Your poem depicts emotional and physical child abuse, implies the probability of sexual abuse, and reveals feelings of unresolved anger, frustration, and vengeance on the part of the narrator.

> > If your readers interpret your poem to be strongly implying things like "welts" and "buggering," that's something you should be interested in -- and something that you might wish to address.
> There's nothing to address. A reader who's experienced welts from a belt would be likely to think of welts when he reads the word "belt", and a reader who's been buggered is free to imagine buggery from the line "Face and pyjama bottoms down". But for either one to claim that either image is "strongly implying" or even implying either thought would simply be irrational, confusing the thoughts they're getting from the poem with thoughts they're getting from their own subconscious memories.
>

One doesn't need to have been beaten or buggered to pick up on the imagery and implications in your poem. You wrote them into it (most likely, intentionally).

According to your own explanation, your narrator opens the poem by alluding to his being under some unspecified form of psychological care (most likely an institution, as he refers to his doctors as "they" (as opposed to simply seeing a psychiatrist). You close the poem by having him express his desire to burn down his father's (former) house. You have also stated that you've implied that he's broken into the house, and is walking through the rooms as he describes them.

Your narrator is one seriously messed up individual. And one doesn't get that messed up from a few childhood spankings.

Something very bad must have happened to pushed the narrator that far over the edge.

You meant for your narrator to have been subjected to an extremely torturous childhood existence. What you didn't intend was for your readers to associate the narrator with George J. Dance.

But "truth will out," as they say. And in one of your earlier posts about the poem, you let it slip out that it had been "largely" based on your own childhood experiences.

Now you're stuck blowing smoke out of your ass in a transparent attempt to escape from the truth.

> > I've read your poem several times, and have read your own interpretation of it, and *still* see it as dealing with unresolved childhood trauma, physical abuse, and possible sexual abuse. That is my interpretation of your poem. Had Jim, or Ash, or anyone else written the poem, it would still be my interpretation.
> Case in point. Try to take in what I just explained to you.

What you "explained" was a feeble attempt at IKYABWAI (which is pretty much the basis of all of your arguments).

What I've explained is that the implications of your poem exist independently of both its author and its readers. They exist in the words and imagery of your poem. Consequently, were, Jim, or Ash, or anyone else to read your poem, they would immediately pick up on those same implications. (Illiterate, semi-retarded Donkeys excepted, of course.)

> > For many readers, the idea of whipping a bare-assed boy with a belt is extremely harsh and abusive punishment; and the image of a boy lying in bed, on his stomach, with his pajama pants pulled down as he awaits the arrival of his father strongly implies that there may have been sexual abuse as well.
> >
> > If you don't wish to have these associations arise from a reading of your poem, you should rewrite it using less suggestive words and images. Keep the boy's pants up and have the father spank him with his hand. >That's normal corporeal punishment for the time period in which the narrative is set.

Beltings were reserved for only the most severe transgressions... and the idea of a child obediently lying in bed with his pants down (apparently as part of a nightly ritual) is anything but normal.

> It would be easy enough to change "my father's belt" to "my father's hand". But of course that wouldn't prevent a person wanting to see "buggery" from finding it in the boy being in bed; so he can't be sent there either.

It would not be implied if his pants stayed up.

> As for the person looking for "abuse," that word change wouldn't be enough; I'd have to spell out, in detail, what the father was doing with that "hand," which would spoil the stanza; one reason for the stanxa's effectiveness, IMO, is that the details are not spelled out, but left to the reader's imagination.
>

NEWSFLASH: Your poem isn't very good.

It's just not. You've done better, and are capable of doing better.

Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.

The reason why you *can't* change the narrator's childhood to more normal forms of corporal punishment (spanking with pants on) is because normal corporal punishment would not have sent the narrator to the loony bin.

> Unlike some, I think it is important to leave some things to the reader's imagination; having the reader actively thinking, contributing rather than merely passively absorbing, bonds or identifies him with the poem. The problem with that is that the part of the process is out of the poet's control. Whatever fantasies the reader has, from sexual ones of buggery and incest to dramatic ones of escaped prisoners and revenge, are going to be part of that reader's experience of the poem. That's one reason to emphasize the distinction between a reader's experience and the poem's reality.
>

But you haven't left them to the reader's imagination. You've made the implications loud and clear. Your narrator has been granted leave from a mental institution in order to drive to his childhood home. The house is now someone else's home, and the narrator breaks into it and gives himself the grand tour. He then expresses his desire to burn the house (and the memories it represents) to the ground.

Keeping the above framework in mind, what events depicted through his memories could have combined to bring him to this emotionally disturbed state?

1) His parents' lack of affection for him,
2) His having been treated as a chore boy,
3) His having been kept in a state of near isolation,
4) His having been beaten with a belt on a more-or-less nightly basis,
5) His having been so broken in spirit that he would lie in bed with his pants down awaiting his punishment,
6) His (possibly) having been sodomized as part of the punishment routine.

I maintain that *any* reader (Donkeys excepted) would necessarily draw the same conclusions from your poem -- since there is no other way to read what you have written.

And, again, I stress that the real point of contention is not one of whether the father was a monster; but whether the narrator accurately represents the childhood (and adult psychological status) of his author. And, again, we have your previous admission that the poem was based "largely" on our own childhood experiences.

> > If you're unable to handle constructive criticism of this nature, you might wish to reconsider posting to AAPC.
> Oh, don't get huffy. If you comment on a poem, a writer should at least listen to what you have to say about it, but he doesn't owe you anything more than that. If he finds your criticism unhelpful, or even questions whether you understand the poem, it's easy enough to take that as a challenge to your ego; but remember that your ego is not what the group her for, or what it is about.
> <snip>

You're simply doing another variation on IKYABWAI, George.

You seem unable to handle comments that your poem has received. When one comments on a poem, the writer should listen to what is said and thank the reader for having commented. He can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own.

You, however, have engaged in lengthy arguments crossing over several threads, in which you've referred to your readers as Nasty Goons and Monkeys. One or two lengthy explanations are understandable, as the author is often discovering the meanings as he writes... but your posts have been too many and too extreme. This tells us that you're obviously disturbed by implications others have noticed in your poem, and especially in their having applied it to your childhood experiences (on which it is, by your own testimony, "largely" based).

Unfortunately, your present state of denial will only condemn a continuation our argument to a series of endless repetitions.

I do, however, urge you to rewrite your poem in a more serious, less sing-song, style better suited to its disturbing subject matter. I suggest free verse, written in a direct, unadorned style. Try thinking of it as more of a dramatic monologue than a set of verses, and develop it from there.

[Zod]

Exactly right, Penhead is such a whining little control freak on an ego trip... ha ha.

[W-Dockery]

Not surprising delusions from Michael Pendragon, with his absurd fantasy of being a better poet that T.S. Eliot.

And so it goes.

[George Dance]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:12:07 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:20:20 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-5, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > > > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > > > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> > > > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
> > > >
> > > You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
> > > We are discussing your poetry.
> > If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.
> >
> That's exactly what my colleague and I have been doing, George.

No, that is not what either you nor NancyGoon have been doing. You've constantly been embellishing the poem with stories of your own that are not in it, from "child abuse" to a "psychobiography" of my father," to a tale of an escaped lunatic, to a "revenge" fantasy, none of which appear anywhere in the poem. As I've said, that's what you do as a fiction writer: you start with a true account of some kind, and spice it up to make it more entertaining. But criticism is not fiction, and when doing it you should confine yourself to true accounts.

>
> Your poem depicts emotional and physical child abuse, implies the probability of sexual abuse, and reveals feelings of unresolved anger, frustration, and vengeance on the part of the narrator.

That's not true. The poem depicts a narrator who was raised strictly -- had to do chores, obey rules, and even take punishment -- and who experiences some anger over it. The idea he suffered "abuse" and wants to take "vengeance", as we've seen came from your and NastyGoon's interpretation or story about it.

> > > If your readers interpret your poem to be strongly implying things like "welts" and "buggering," that's something you should be interested in -- and something that you might wish to address.
> > There's nothing to address. A reader who's experienced welts from a belt would be likely to think of welts when he reads the word "belt", and a reader who's been buggered is free to imagine buggery from the line "Face and pyjama bottoms down". But for either one to claim that either image is "strongly implying" or even implying either thought would simply be irrational, confusing the thoughts they're getting from the poem with thoughts they're getting from their own subconscious memories.
> >
> One doesn't need to have been beaten or buggered to pick up on the imagery and implications in your poem. You wrote them into it (most likely, intentionally).
>

Sure, a malicious troll might make the same interpretation as you two. However, once again that would be an interpretation, not something written into the poem.

> According to your own explanation, your narrator opens the poem by alluding to his being under some unspecified form of psychological care (most likely an institution, as he refers to his doctors as "they" (as opposed to simply seeing a psychiatrist). You close the poem by having him express his desire to burn down his father's (former) house. You have also stated that you've implied that he's broken into the house, and is walking through the rooms as he describes them.

Here's what I actually said: "As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
was under psychiatric care, and "they" were the ones looking after him,
but I wanted to keep that hidden."

The poem's ambiguous -- the house may or may not be abandoned, and the speaker may or may not have broken in; he may or may not be under psychiatric care, and may or may not have escaped from a psychiatric institution. As I've said, the ambiguity allows more readers to identify or at least empathize more with the narrator, and as a byproduct it allows them to imagine their own entertaining add-ons. But, as I've said, that's what a reader brings to the poem, not something in the poem itself.

> Your narrator is one seriously messed up individual. And one doesn't get that messed up from a few childhood spankings.

He definitely has issues, but he's not that messed up in the poem as you "interpret"; there's no sign of him being in a mental institution, or of breaking in, or of trying or even intending to burn down the house.

> Something very bad must have happened to pushed the narrator that far over the edge.
>
> You meant for your narrator to have been subjected to an extremely torturous childhood existence.

No, I meant for him to have been raised the way I was raised, under strict discipline. Whether that adds up to "abuse" and "torture" -- where the line is between strictness and abuse, or punishment and torture -- are questions I'd welcome a reader thinking about after reading it.

> What you didn't intend was for your readers to associate the narrator with George J. Dance.

The narrator is not me. Obviously putting it into first person will confuse some people, and again they'll have their own interpretation" -- but I think it makes for a far more interesting poem -- as in confessional literature, it's the speaker sharing private confidences with the reader. I'm not worried enough about that to publish it under a fake name or as "Anonymous" (as so many similar poems get bylined). As I once wanted to tell Corey (but didn't, because I was responding to what he offered as constructive criticism), those are the types who'd read "My Last Duchess" and think Robert Browning was married to a duchess whom he'd had eliminated.

> But "truth will out," as they say. And in one of your earlier posts about the poem, you let it slip out that it had been "largely" based on your own childhood experiences.

Indeed I did tell someone that, and indeed it is. The speaker had some childhood experiences that were somewhat the same as mine. His memory is more selective than mine -- he omits facts I remember, and adds a couple I don't remember at all -- and his emotional reaction to those memories isn't the one I'm experiencing thinking about them today.

> Now you're stuck blowing smoke out of your ass in a transparent attempt to escape from the truth.

Wow!

> > > I've read your poem several times, and have read your own interpretation of it, and *still* see it as dealing with unresolved childhood trauma, physical abuse, and possible sexual abuse. That is my interpretation of your poem. Had Jim, or Ash, or anyone else written the poem, it would still be my interpretation.
> > Case in point. Try to take in what I just explained to you.
> What you "explained" was a feeble attempt at IKYABWAI (which is pretty much the basis of all of your arguments).

You obviously were unable to take it in. You really can't tell the difference the facts -- what the poem actually says -- and your 'interpretation' or story about them.

> What I've explained is that the implications of your poem exist independently of both its author and its readers. They exist in the words and imagery of your poem. Consequently, were, Jim, or Ash, or anyone else to read your poem, they would immediately pick up on those same implications. (Illiterate, semi-retarded Donkeys excepted, of course.)

One would expect Chimp and the Ashtroll to "pick up" on your interpretation whether they'd read the poem or not, just from reading your many posts about it. They're your Flunkies, after all.

> > > For many readers, the idea of whipping a bare-assed boy with a belt is extremely harsh and abusive punishment; and the image of a boy lying in bed, on his stomach, with his pajama pants pulled down as he awaits the arrival of his father strongly implies that there may have been sexual abuse as well.
> > >
> > > If you don't wish to have these associations arise from a reading of your poem, you should rewrite it using less suggestive words and images. Keep the boy's pants up and have the father spank him with his hand. >That's normal corporeal punishment for the time period in which the narrative is set.
> Beltings were reserved for only the most severe transgressions... and the idea of a child obediently lying in bed with his pants down (apparently as part of a nightly ritual) is anything but normal.
> > It would be easy enough to change "my father's belt" to "my father's hand". But of course that wouldn't prevent a person wanting to see "buggery" from finding it in the boy being in bed; so he can't be sent there either.
> It would not be implied if his pants stayed up.
> > As for the person looking for "abuse," that word change wouldn't be enough; I'd have to spell out, in detail, what the father was doing with that "hand," which would spoil the stanza; one reason for the stanxa's effectiveness, IMO, is that the details are not spelled out, but left to the reader's imagination.
> >
> NEWSFLASH: Your poem isn't very good.

I've reopened the thread on the poem, in case you'd actually like to discuss it there.

> It's just not. You've done better, and are capable of doing better.

OMG! Could you be any more passive-aggressive!

> Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.

Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".

> The reason why you *can't* change the narrator's childhood to more normal forms of corporal punishment (spanking with pants on) is because normal corporal punishment would not have sent the narrator to the loony bin.

Hold on. You've claimed it's "the truth" that the poem's speaker was in a "loony bin" and also that it's "the truth" that I'm the speaker (with an actually logical implication that I've been in a loony bin). But, once again, neither of those "truths" corresponds to facts of the poem (ie, what the poem actually says).

> > Unlike some, I think it is important to leave some things to the reader's imagination; having the reader actively thinking, contributing rather than merely passively absorbing, bonds or identifies him with the poem. The problem with that is that the part of the process is out of the poet's control. Whatever fantasies the reader has, from sexual ones of buggery and incest to dramatic ones of escaped prisoners and revenge, are going to be part of that reader's experience of the poem. That's one reason to emphasize the distinction between a reader's experience and the poem's reality.
> >
> But you haven't left them to the reader's imagination. You've made the implications loud and clear. Your narrator has been granted leave from a mental institution in order to drive to his childhood home. The house is now someone else's home, and the narrator breaks into it and gives himself the grand tour. He then expresses his desire to burn the house (and the memories it represents) to the ground.

No mental institution, and no break-in, are mentioned in or implied by the poem. Nor do we know if anyone is living there or not. The rest sounds accurate enough to me.

> Keeping the above framework in mind, what events depicted through his memories could have combined to bring him to this emotionally disturbed state?
>
> 1) His parents' lack of affection for him,
> 2) His having been treated as a chore boy,
> 3) His having been kept in a state of near isolation,
> 4) His having been beaten with a belt on a more-or-less nightly basis,
> 5) His having been so broken in spirit that he would lie in bed with his pants down awaiting his punishment,
> 6) His (possibly) having been sodomized as part of the punishment routine.
>
> I maintain that *any* reader (Donkeys excepted) would necessarily draw the same conclusions from your poem -- since there is no other way to read what you have written.
>

Yet, in the 15 or so years the poem's been around, it's only Michael Monkey and NastyGoon who've drawn any of those conclusions; so I strongly suspect

> And, again, I stress that the real point of contention is not one of whether the father was a monster; but whether the narrator accurately represents the childhood (and adult psychological status) of his author. And, again, we have your previous admission that the poem was based "largely" on our own childhood experiences.





> > > If you're unable to handle constructive criticism of this nature, you might wish to reconsider posting to AAPC.
> > Oh, don't get huffy. If you comment on a poem, a writer should at least listen to what you have to say about it, but he doesn't owe you anything more than that. If he finds your criticism unhelpful, or even questions whether you understand the poem, it's easy enough to take that as a challenge to your ego; but remember that your ego is not what the group her for, or what it is about.
> > <snip>
> You're simply doing another variation on IKYABWAI, George.
>
> You seem unable to handle comments that your poem has received. When one comments on a poem, the writer should listen to what is said and thank the reader for having commented. He can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own.

I don't think so. Interpretations can be more or less true (ie, more or less correct given what the poem says), and incorrect ones are not "every bit as valid" as correct ones. Nor do you think so, since you obviously don't think the writer's interpretation (no loony bin, no break-in, no neglect, no strict isolation, no nightly whippings, no sexual abuse, no father-hatred or revenge fantasies) is "every bit as valid" as yours. Rather, you've been claiming that your interpretation is "the truth", and the fact that I interpret my own poem differently is evidence that I'm mentally ill. A reader who started talking like that, and kept it up for two months, would strike me as at least a crank or a kook.

> You, however, have engaged in lengthy arguments crossing over several threads, in which you've referred to your readers as Nasty Goons and Monkeys. One or two lengthy explanations are understandable, as the author is often discovering the meanings as he writes... but your posts have been too many and too extreme. This tells us that you're obviously disturbed by implications others have noticed in your poem, and especially in their having applied it to your childhood experiences (on which it is, by your own testimony, "largely" based).

Yes, I've engaged in "lengthy arguments crossing over several threads" -- all of which have been arguments with Michael Monkey and NastyGoon, and in which you two have actually outposted me. In this thread, eg, this is my eighth post in this thread, eg, while you two already have 16. So there's no reason for you to complain about thate; your posts have been just as "many and ... extreme."

While your idea that I'm disturbed by "implications" that only you two apparently can see, and not by your crazy talk about your so-called "implications" revealing hidden "truths" about me and my father indicates to me that if anything, I've been too polite with you both. You're both acting like cranks, if not outright kooks.

> Unfortunately, your present state of denial will only condemn a continuation our argument to a series of endless repetitions.

> I do, however, urge you to rewrite your poem in a more serious, less sing-song, style better suited to its disturbing subject matter. I suggest free verse, written in a direct, unadorned style. Try thinking of it as more of a dramatic monologue than a set of verses, and develop it from there.

IOW, you're suggesting something like this:

"Though the pants-up spankings
belong in the past and your house
still holds a son's anguish, I do understand
punishment is meant to teach a lesson
but perhaps your hand didn't do the job --
you see I'm still a fuck-up."

With all due respect, even if I wished to rewrite my poem after so many years, I really don't think that's the sort of thing to aim for.

[Zod]

That's a ringa ding, you nailed it. GD....!

[Michael Pendragon]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:12:07 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:20:20 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-5, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> > > > > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> > > > > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> > > > > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
> > > > >
> > > > You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
> > > > We are discussing your poetry.
> > > If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.
> > >
> > That's exactly what my colleague and I have been doing, George.
> No, that is not what either you nor NancyGoon have been doing. You've constantly been embellishing the poem with stories of your own that are not in it, from "child abuse" to a "psychobiography" of my father," to a tale of an escaped lunatic, to a "revenge" fantasy, none of which appear anywhere in the poem.
>

1) Telling your son that boys are "filthy" things, and forbidding him to sit on most of the living room furniture is child abuse.
2) Whipping your son's bare bottom with a leather belt is child abuse.
3) Forcing him to do chores all day long (essentially keeping him as a slave) is child abuse.

If the narrator of the poem did not feel that it was child abuse, he would not want to burn down his childhood home.

>
As I've said, that's what you do as a fiction writer: you start with a true account of some kind, and spice it up to make it more entertaining. But criticism is not fiction, and when doing it you should confine yourself to true accounts.
> >

Criticism is a reader's attempt to dissect, analyze, and report on a poem, in terms of it's perceived meaning (if any), structure, tone, mood, literary devices employed, symbolism, place in the poet's canon, etc.

Your poem is about the lingering effects of an abused childhood.

1) Your narrator has received permission from an unspecified group (presumably the doctors at an asylum) to visit his childhood home.
2) He describes a negative memory associated with each of the rooms.
3) His memories depict a childhood of drudgery, repression, confinement, emotional and physical abuse.
4) He expresses his wish to burn down the house (presumably as an attempt to purge his childhood memories.

You can deny that any/all of the above were your *intent,* but that is what you wrote, and that is what I have interpreted your poem to mean.

> > Your poem depicts emotional and physical child abuse, implies the probability of sexual abuse, and reveals feelings of unresolved anger, frustration, and vengeance on the part of the narrator.
> That's not true. The poem depicts a narrator who was raised strictly -- had to do chores, obey rules, and even take punishment -- and who experiences some anger over it. The idea he suffered "abuse" and wants to take "vengeance", as we've seen came from your and NastyGoon's interpretation or story about it.
>

Earth to George: He wants to burn down the house 60+ years later.

There is a world of difference between having some residual anger over how one was raised, and being under psychiatric care/wishing to burn down one's former home.

> > > > If your readers interpret your poem to be strongly implying things like "welts" and "buggering," that's something you should be interested in -- and something that you might wish to address.
> > > There's nothing to address. A reader who's experienced welts from a belt would be likely to think of welts when he reads the word "belt", and a reader who's been buggered is free to imagine buggery from the line "Face and pyjama bottoms down". But for either one to claim that either image is "strongly implying" or even implying either thought would simply be irrational, confusing the thoughts they're getting from the poem with thoughts they're getting from their own subconscious memories.
> > >
> > One doesn't need to have been beaten or buggered to pick up on the imagery and implications in your poem. You wrote them into it (most likely, intentionally).
> >
> Sure, a malicious troll might make the same interpretation as you two. However, once again that would be an interpretation, not something written into the poem.

Most readers will arrive at the same conclusion -- without being malicious or trolls.

You have a boy (a 6-year old according to one of your explanatory posts) lying bare-assed in bed waiting for a whipping. I don't see how *anyone* could fail to think of that as an extreme example of child abuse.

And the fact that he is lying on his stomach with his bare bottom exposed, waiting for a man to abuse it, smacks (p.i.) of homosexual/pedophilic overtones.

> > According to your own explanation, your narrator opens the poem by alluding to his being under some unspecified form of psychological care (most likely an institution, as he refers to his doctors as "they" (as opposed to simply seeing a psychiatrist). You close the poem by having him express his desire to burn down his father's (former) house. You have also stated that you've implied that he's broken into the house, and is walking through the rooms as he describes them.
> Here's what I actually said: "As well, it makes certain things more ambiguous, and I think that's a
> plus as well. By taking out the old L2, it's no longer clear whether the
> house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.
> It's also unclear who "they" are; my hidden idea was that the speaker
> was under psychiatric care, and "they" were the ones looking after him,
> but I wanted to keep that hidden."
>
> The poem's ambiguous -- the house may or may not be abandoned, and the speaker may or may not have broken in; he may or may not be under psychiatric care, and may or may not have escaped from a psychiatric institution. As I've said, the ambiguity allows more readers to identify or at least empathize more with the narrator, and as a byproduct it allows them to imagine their own entertaining add-ons. But, as I've said, that's what a reader brings to the poem, not something in the poem itself.
>

How does that differ from what I said above?

And even if we use your more detailed explanation, how does it not *imply* that he is under psychiatric care due to the abuse he suffered in his childhood? And how does his desire to burn down the house not constitute a desire for revenge?

> > Your narrator is one seriously messed up individual. And one doesn't get that messed up from a few childhood spankings.
> He definitely has issues, but he's not that messed up in the poem as you "interpret"; there's no sign of him being in a mental institution, or of breaking in, or of trying or even intending to burn down the house.

Bullshit.

George Dance: my hidden idea was that the speaker was under psychiatric care,

George Dance: it's no longer clear whether the house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.

George Dance: Oh, if I were a millionaire/I'd buy my father's house, and there/I'd build a bonfire, oh so high\Its flames would light up all the air.

> > Something very bad must have happened to pushed the narrator that far over the edge.
> >
> > You meant for your narrator to have been subjected to an extremely torturous childhood existence.
> No, I meant for him to have been raised the way I was raised, under strict discipline. Whether that adds up to "abuse" and "torture" -- where the line is between strictness and abuse, or punishment and torture -- are questions I'd welcome a reader thinking about after reading it.
>

Which is exactly what my colleague and I have been doing.

The line between strictness and abuse is crossed the minute one strikes a child with their hand, their foot, with a belt, a yardstick, a wire hanger, or any other instrument.

Striking a child is abuse. Plain and simple.

The line between punishment and torture is crossed the moment when the parent strikes their child, or subjects them to unduly severe restrictions. Restricting a child from watching tv for half an hour is punishment; whipping their bare bottom with a belt is torture.

Yes, people had different beliefs about what was considered harsh or abusive sixty years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that these abuses occurred.

The parents in your poem (and leave us not forget that the narrator in your poem had been "raised the way that I was raised") were extremely abusive -- even by 1950s standards. You may not think of it as abuse, because it was your norm. But that doesn't change the fact that it was.

> > What you didn't intend was for your readers to associate the narrator with George J. Dance.
> The narrator is not me.

True.

Except that:

1) you have stated that the poem is "largely" base on your own childhood experiences,
2) you have stated that the narrator had been "raised the way that I was raised," and
3) each of a writer's works is, at least partially, autobiographical.

So while the narrator may not be George J. Dance, he is someone very much like George J. Dance -- at least insofar as his childhood memories are concerned.

> Obviously putting it into first person will confuse some people, and again they'll have their own interpretation" -- but I think it makes for a far more interesting poem -- as in confessional literature, it's the speaker sharing private confidences with the reader. I'm not worried enough about that to publish it under a fake name or as "Anonymous" (as so many similar poems get bylined). As I once wanted to tell Corey (but didn't, because I was responding to what he offered as constructive criticism), those are the types who'd read "My Last Duchess" and think Robert Browning was married to a duchess whom he'd had eliminated.
>

You don't give your readers enough credit, George.

Had I read your poem without your explanations, I would have suspected that you'd had a strict upbringing, but I would not have called the poem (largely) autobiographical.

It is from your accompanying statements (see my response immediately above) that I have come to such a conclusion.

FYI: If you don't wish your readers to think that your poem is (largely) autobiographical, you shouldn't go out of your way to tell them that it is largely based on your own childhood experiences.

> > But "truth will out," as they say. And in one of your earlier posts about the poem, you let it slip out that it had been "largely" based on your own childhood experiences.
> Indeed I did tell someone that, and indeed it is. The speaker had some childhood experiences that were somewhat the same as mine. His memory is more selective than mine -- he omits facts I remember, and adds a couple I don't remember at all -- and his emotional reaction to those memories isn't the one I'm experiencing thinking about them today.
>

You've enumerated which experiences were yours and which were not (all but two were yours).

As to the narrator's "selective" memory, most of us have more childhood memories than we can fit into a one-page poem.

If you say that you aren't experiencing residual anger over these memories today, I am not in a position to prove otherwise -- however, based on my interactions with you in this group, I strongly suspect that you are still suffering from their effects.

> > Now you're stuck blowing smoke out of your ass in a transparent attempt to escape from the truth.
> Wow!

I apologize for speaking in the vernacular. You are desperately attempting to sidestep an obvious truth.

> > > > I've read your poem several times, and have read your own interpretation of it, and *still* see it as dealing with unresolved childhood trauma, physical abuse, and possible sexual abuse. That is my interpretation of your poem. Had Jim, or Ash, or anyone else written the poem, it would still be my interpretation.
> > > Case in point. Try to take in what I just explained to you.
> > What you "explained" was a feeble attempt at IKYABWAI (which is pretty much the basis of all of your arguments).
> You obviously were unable to take it in. You really can't tell the difference the facts -- what the poem actually says -- and your 'interpretation' or story about them.

I have pointed out what the poems specifically states, numerous times. This is not a matter of interpretation. My interpretation is drawn from what your poem states.

Your poem depicts a specific punishment that the narrator received in/associates with each room of his father's house. Your narrator may also have happy childhood memories, but there is no hint of any such memories in your poem. The only memories mentioned in your poem are unhappy/abusive ones.

The punishments depicted in your poem run the gamut from "strict" to unduly harsh to physically abusive (whipping a bare bottom with a belt).

Your narrator associates the house with his father. He refers to it in both the title and text as "my father's house." This shows that he has emotionally separated himself from both his childhood home and his father.

Your narrator *implies* that he is receiving some sort of psychiatric care. Your narrator is therefore still suffering the effects of the traumatic events of his childhood.

My interpretation (that the narrator is still suffering from the negative effects of his abusive childhood) is supported by the text of your poem.

There is no other logical way of interpreting it.

> > What I've explained is that the implications of your poem exist independently of both its author and its readers. They exist in the words and imagery of your poem. Consequently, were, Jim, or Ash, or anyone else to read your poem, they would immediately pick up on those same implications. (Illiterate, semi-retarded Donkeys excepted, of course.)
> One would expect Chimp and the Ashtroll to "pick up" on your interpretation whether they'd read the poem or not, just from reading your many posts about it. They're your Flunkies, after all.

They most certainly are not my flunkies, George.

You assign different imaginary leaders to my imaginary team at will.

But you're really just falling back on your standard IKYABWAI variation (as I'd noted how anyone except for your flunkies -- The Donkey and his Stink) would share my interpretation of your poem.

> > > > For many readers, the idea of whipping a bare-assed boy with a belt is extremely harsh and abusive punishment; and the image of a boy lying in bed, on his stomach, with his pajama pants pulled down as he awaits the arrival of his father strongly implies that there may have been sexual abuse as well.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't wish to have these associations arise from a reading of your poem, you should rewrite it using less suggestive words and images. Keep the boy's pants up and have the father spank him with his hand. >That's normal corporeal punishment for the time period in which the narrative is set.
> > Beltings were reserved for only the most severe transgressions... and the idea of a child obediently lying in bed with his pants down (apparently as part of a nightly ritual) is anything but normal.
> > > It would be easy enough to change "my father's belt" to "my father's hand". But of course that wouldn't prevent a person wanting to see "buggery" from finding it in the boy being in bed; so he can't be sent there either.
> > It would not be implied if his pants stayed up.
> > > As for the person looking for "abuse," that word change wouldn't be enough; I'd have to spell out, in detail, what the father was doing with that "hand," which would spoil the stanza; one reason for the stanxa's effectiveness, IMO, is that the details are not spelled out, but left to the reader's imagination.
> > >
> > NEWSFLASH: Your poem isn't very good.
> I've reopened the thread on the poem, in case you'd actually like to discuss it there.

I'm not going to play musical threads with you, George. I found your post in this thread, and I've been discussing it in this thread for the passed half hour. Take it or leave it.

> > It's just not. You've done better, and are capable of doing better.
> OMG! Could you be any more passive-aggressive!

I'm being honest with you, George.

It's a laughably bad poem.

You've written several good poems, and you've written several bad poems.

I don't believe that you possess any poetic *talent* -- but I do believe you possess the skill to create well-crafted poetry.

> > Your poem isn't effective, because (as previously explained) you've written about a serious, and disturbing, subject in a style suited to light verse.
> Considering the responses that my poem has received, I'd say that it's been highly "effective".

You're sounding disturbingly like our resident Donkey.

Your poem hasn't been receiving the responses -- you have. The discussion has been over whether you are still suffering the effects of childhood trauma -- not about how well-crafted, memorable, etc., your poem is.

> > The reason why you *can't* change the narrator's childhood to more normal forms of corporal punishment (spanking with pants on) is because normal corporal punishment would not have sent the narrator to the loony bin.
> Hold on. You've claimed it's "the truth" that the poem's speaker was in a "loony bin" and also that it's "the truth" that I'm the speaker (with an actually logical implication that I've been in a loony bin). But, once again, neither of those "truths" corresponds to facts of the poem (ie, what the poem actually says).
>

I have not *claimed* any such thing, George.

I'm setting forth a literary theorem to you: One cannot imply that his narrator is under psychiatric care without having said narrator's story imply the need for psychiatric care.

Understand?

> > > Unlike some, I think it is important to leave some things to the reader's imagination; having the reader actively thinking, contributing rather than merely passively absorbing, bonds or identifies him with the poem. The problem with that is that the part of the process is out of the poet's control. Whatever fantasies the reader has, from sexual ones of buggery and incest to dramatic ones of escaped prisoners and revenge, are going to be part of that reader's experience of the poem. That's one reason to emphasize the distinction between a reader's experience and the poem's reality.
> > >
> > But you haven't left them to the reader's imagination. You've made the implications loud and clear. Your narrator has been granted leave from a mental institution in order to drive to his childhood home. The house is now someone else's home, and the narrator breaks into it and gives himself the grand tour. He then expresses his desire to burn the house (and the memories it represents) to the ground.
> No mental institution, and no break-in, are mentioned in or implied by the poem. Nor do we know if anyone is living there or not. The rest sounds accurate enough to me.

Bullshit.

George Dance: my hidden idea was that the speaker was under psychiatric care,

George Dance: it's no longer clear whether the house this guy is walking around in is abandoned, or still lived in.

> > Keeping the above framework in mind, what events depicted through his memories could have combined to bring him to this emotionally disturbed state?
> >
> > 1) His parents' lack of affection for him,
> > 2) His having been treated as a chore boy,
> > 3) His having been kept in a state of near isolation,
> > 4) His having been beaten with a belt on a more-or-less nightly basis,
> > 5) His having been so broken in spirit that he would lie in bed with his pants down awaiting his punishment,
> > 6) His (possibly) having been sodomized as part of the punishment routine.
> >
> > I maintain that *any* reader (Donkeys excepted) would necessarily draw the same conclusions from your poem -- since there is no other way to read what you have written.
> >
> Yet, in the 15 or so years the poem's been around, it's only Michael Monkey and NastyGoon who've drawn any of those conclusions; so I strongly suspect

Perhaps not one else has read it, or thought enough about it/you to comment?

> > And, again, I stress that the real point of contention is not one of whether the father was a monster; but whether the narrator accurately represents the childhood (and adult psychological status) of his author. And, again, we have your previous admission that the poem was based "largely" on our own childhood experiences.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > If you're unable to handle constructive criticism of this nature, you might wish to reconsider posting to AAPC.
> > > Oh, don't get huffy. If you comment on a poem, a writer should at least listen to what you have to say about it, but he doesn't owe you anything more than that. If he finds your criticism unhelpful, or even questions whether you understand the poem, it's easy enough to take that as a challenge to your ego; but remember that your ego is not what the group her for, or what it is about.
> > > <snip>
> > You're simply doing another variation on IKYABWAI, George.
> >
> > You seem unable to handle comments that your poem has received. When one comments on a poem, the writer should listen to what is said and thank the reader for having commented. He can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own.
> I don't think so. Interpretations can be more or less true (ie, more or less correct given what the poem says), and incorrect ones are not "every bit as valid" as correct ones.

Look at what you're writing, George. That's yet another of your "strawman" arguments.

No one has said that "incorrect (interpretations) are 'every bit as valid' as correct ones."

That's a Donkey-worthy oxymoronic piece gibberish.

I said that a reader's interpretation can be just as valid as, if not more valid than, the author's.

There have been times when I was unsure what some of my poems were trying to express, until a reader pointed it out to me. There have been other times when I'd missed another level of interpretation that was suggested by my poem until a reader pointed it out to me. Once those readers pointed out their interpretations, I *realized* how valid their interpretations were -- and how clearly they were expressed. I hadn't been able to see them because I was too close to the poem to view it with a critical eye. They were.

The same holds true with your poem.

>
Nor do you think so, since you obviously don't think the writer's interpretation (no loony bin, no break-in, no neglect, no strict isolation, no nightly whippings, no sexual abuse, no father-hatred or revenge fantasies) is "every bit as valid" as yours.
>

Not when the writer has stated that all of the above were either directly expressed in the poem or implied.

> Rather, you've been claiming that your interpretation is "the truth", and the fact that I interpret my own poem differently is evidence that I'm mentally ill. A reader who started talking like that, and kept it up for two months, would strike me as at least a crank or a kook.
>

The evidence that you're mentally ill is not in your interpretation of your poem. It is in your hostile behavior toward those of us who interpret your poem differently than you do.

> > You, however, have engaged in lengthy arguments crossing over several threads, in which you've referred to your readers as Nasty Goons and Monkeys. One or two lengthy explanations are understandable, as the author is often discovering the meanings as he writes... but your posts have been too many and too extreme. This tells us that you're obviously disturbed by implications others have noticed in your poem, and especially in their having applied it to your childhood experiences (on which it is, by your own testimony, "largely" based).
> Yes, I've engaged in "lengthy arguments crossing over several threads" -- all of which have been arguments with Michael Monkey and NastyGoon, and in which you two have actually outposted me. In this thread, eg, this is my eighth post in this thread, eg, while you two already have 16. So there's no reason for you to complain about thate; your posts have been just as "many and ... extreme."
>

I'm not going to tally out everyone's number of post, George. I think that a bit obsessive, don't you?

Your posts are long and detailed (indicating that you've given a lot of thought to the topic, and taken the time to address the points my colleague and I have raise), so I am giving you the courtesy of addressing your posts in return.

> While your idea that I'm disturbed by "implications" that only you two apparently can see, and not by your crazy talk about your so-called "implications" revealing hidden "truths" about me and my father indicates to me that if anything, I've been too polite with you both. You're both acting like cranks, if not outright kooks.
>

You're babbling, George.

No one has claimed that only they can see the implications expressed within your poem. We've said that you are too emotionally close to the topic (your abused childhood) to see them.

> > Unfortunately, your present state of denial will only condemn a continuation our argument to a series of endless repetitions.
>
> > I do, however, urge you to rewrite your poem in a more serious, less sing-song, style better suited to its disturbing subject matter. I suggest free verse, written in a direct, unadorned style. Try thinking of it as more of a dramatic monologue than a set of verses, and develop it from there.
> IOW, you're suggesting something like this:
>
> "Though the pants-up spankings
> belong in the past and your house
> still holds a son's anguish, I do understand
> punishment is meant to teach a lesson
> but perhaps your hand didn't do the job --
> you see I'm still a fuck-up."
>
> With all due respect, even if I wished to rewrite my poem after so many years, I really don't think that's the sort of thing to aim for.

That's a spoof of your poem, George.

The style, however, is better suited to the subject than the one that you have chosen.

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-5, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

>> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>
> > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
>> > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
>> > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
>> > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
>> >
>> You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
>> We are discussing your poetry.

> If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.

Interpreting a poem is one thing, trying to insist your interpretation is actually what the poem means.

>> If your readers interpret your poem to be strongly implying things like "welts" and "buggering," that's something you should be interested in -- and something that you might wish to address.

> There's nothing to address. A reader who's experienced welts from a belt would be likely to think of welts when he reads the word "belt", and a reader who's been buggered is free to imagine buggery from the line "Face and pyjama bottoms down". But for either one to claim that either image is "strongly implying" or even implying either thought would simply be irrational, confusing the thoughts they're getting from the poem with thoughts they're getting from their own subconscious memories.

>> I've read your poem several times, and have read your own interpretation of it, and *still* see it as dealing with unresolved childhood trauma, physical abuse, and possible sexual abuse. That is my interpretation of your poem. Had Jim, or Ash, or anyone else written the poem, it would still be my interpretation.

> Case in point. Try to take in what I just explained to you.

>> For many readers, the idea of whipping a bare-assed boy with a belt is extremely harsh and abusive punishment; and the image of a boy lying in bed, on his stomach, with his pajama pants pulled down as he awaits the arrival of his father strongly implies that there may have been sexual abuse as well.
>>
>> If you don't wish to have these associations arise from a reading of your poem, you should rewrite it using less suggestive words and images. Keep the boy's pants up and have the father spank him with his hand. That's normal corporeal punishment for the time period in which the narrative is set.

> It would be easy enough to change "my father's belt" to "my father's hand". But of course that wouldn't prevent a person wanting to see "buggery" from finding it in the boy being in bed; so he can't be sent there either. As for the person looking for "abuse," that word change wouldn't be enough; I'd have to spell out, in detail, what the father was doing with that "hand," which would spoil the stanza; one reason for the stanxa's effectiveness, IMO, is that the details are not spelled out, but left to the reader's imagination.

> Unlike some, I think it is important to leave some things to the reader's imagination; having the reader actively thinking, contributing rather than merely passively absorbing, bonds or identifies him with the poem. The problem with that is that the part of the process is out of the poet's control. Whatever fantasies the reader has, from sexual ones of buggery and incest to dramatic ones of escaped prisoners and revenge, are going to be part of that reader's experience of the poem. That's one reason to emphasize the distinction between a reader's experience and the poem's reality.

>> If you're unable to handle constructive criticism of this nature, you might wish to reconsider posting to AAPC.

> Oh, don't get huffy. If you comment on a poem, a writer should at least listen to what you have to say about it, but he doesn't owe you anything more than that. If he finds your criticism unhelpful, or even questions whether you understand the poem, it's easy enough to take that as a challenge to your ego; but remember that your ego is not what the group her for, or what it is about.
> <snip>

..

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:00:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-5, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> >
> > > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
> >> > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
> >> > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
> >> > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
> >> >
> >> You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
> >> We are discussing your poetry.
>
> > If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.
> Interpreting a poem is one thing, trying to insist your interpretation is actually what the poem means.

You seem to have lost yourself mid-thought, Donkey. No wonder your "poems" are so fragmented.

What you meant to have said was: Interpreting a poem is one thing; trying to insist your interpretation is actually what the poem means is another.

[W-Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:00:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-5, cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
>> >> > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
>> >> > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
>> >> > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
>> >> >
>> >> You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
>> >> We are discussing your poetry.
>>
>> > If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.
>> Interpreting a poem is one thing, trying to insist your interpretation is actually what the poem means.

> You seem to have lost yourself mid-thought

> What you meant to have said was: Interpreting a poem is one thing; trying to insist your interpretation is actually what the poem means is another.

Yes, my sentence was clipped for some reason.

Thanks for the heads up, Pendragon.

[W-Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> cocodeso...@gmail.com wrote:

>> george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>>
>> > > Belts leave welts as boy George knows,
>>> > > Belts leave welts, but nothing shows
>>> > > (Long as George keeps on his clothes).
>>> > To repeat, you're free to imagine things like "welts" and "buggering," as long as you make clear that it's your own imagination. Putting your imagination into your own poetry, rather than trying to twist mine out of shape, is at least a start.
>>> >
>>> You are aware that AAPC is a poetry *discussion* group?
>>> We are discussing your poetry.

>> If you want to discuss a poem, a good thing to remember is to discuss the poem. The poem says something; let it speak for itself, try to understand what it is saying, and learn the difference between what it actually says and the thoughts you have when you read it.

Interpreting a poem is one thing, trying to insist your interpretation is actually what the poem means is another matter.

>>> If your readers interpret your poem to be strongly implying things like "welts" and "buggering," that's something you should be interested in -- and something that you might wish to address.

>> There's nothing to address. A reader who's experienced welts from a belt would be likely to think of welts when he reads the word "belt", and a reader who's been buggered is free to imagine buggery from the line "Face and pyjama bottoms down". But for either one to claim that either image is "strongly implying" or even implying either thought would simply be irrational, confusing the thoughts they're getting from the poem with thoughts they're getting from their own subconscious memories.

>>> I've read your poem several times, and have read your own interpretation of it, and *still* see it as dealing with unresolved childhood trauma, physical abuse, and possible sexual abuse. That is my interpretation of your poem. Had Jim, or Ash, or anyone else written the poem, it would still be my interpretation.

>> Case in point. Try to take in what I just explained to you.

>>> For many readers, the idea of whipping a bare-assed boy with a belt is extremely harsh and abusive punishment; and the image of a boy lying in bed, on his stomach, with his pajama pants pulled down as he awaits the arrival of his father strongly implies that there may have been sexual abuse as well.
>>>
>>> If you don't wish to have these associations arise from a reading of your poem, you should rewrite it using less suggestive words and images. Keep the boy's pants up and have the father spank him with his hand. That's normal corporeal punishment for the time period in which the narrative is set.

>> It would be easy enough to change "my father's belt" to "my father's hand". But of course that wouldn't prevent a person wanting to see "buggery" from finding it in the boy being in bed; so he can't be sent there either. As for the person looking for "abuse," that word change wouldn't be enough; I'd have to spell out, in detail, what the father was doing with that "hand," which would spoil the stanza; one reason for the stanxa's effectiveness, IMO, is that the details are not spelled out, but left to the reader's imagination.

>> Unlike some, I think it is important to leave some things to the reader's imagination; having the reader actively thinking, contributing rather than merely passively absorbing, bonds or identifies him with the poem. The problem with that is that the part of the process is out of the poet's control. Whatever fantasies the reader has, from sexual ones of buggery and incest to dramatic ones of escaped prisoners and revenge, are going to be part of that reader's experience of the poem. That's one reason to emphasize the distinction between a reader's experience and the poem's reality.

>>> If you're unable to handle constructive criticism of this nature, you might wish to reconsider posting to AAPC.

>> Oh, don't get huffy. If you comment on a poem, a writer should at least listen to what you have to say about it, but he doesn't owe you anything more than that. If he finds your criticism unhelpful, or even questions whether you understand the poem, it's easy enough to take that as a challenge to your ego; but remember that your ego is not what the group her for, or what it is about.
>> <snip>

Corrected, thanks to Michael Pendragon for pointing out the error.

🙂

[General-Zod]

Well put and of course the response to it is... wait for it....


**************Crickets****************

Ha ha.

[General-Zod]

Funny how all the trolls seem to read everything but always miss this one... ha ha.

[W.Dockery]

I noticed that.

🙂

[General-Zod]

Looks as if you struck a nerve, G.D.

Ha ha.

[Ash Wurthing]

And I notice some no life, no acclaim fool doing what he tells us not to do-- obsess with trolling...
and his cowardly ass opinion buddy right there slurping the trolling that his posse does for him, that he's too afraid to do himself...

So you want peace and my struggle simply to cease?
You're a dreamer, ignorant of whom you're treadin' upon
Schemer and deceiver, you'll lose taking on hell spawn
We're the OG of bloody knuckled denouement
adherents of a finale fated and forgone
We didn't sell our souls to our egos-
owe no allegiance to your lecherous liege-
we shall prevail in this scurrilous siege

As for your well-spoken talking head that provides the words that you're too uncouth to come up on your own:
He presents himself as someone with morals but his ethics are only in tatting spitefully, to hen peck so pettifully, for he owns not a single worthy attribute to be regarded highly. A goodly wussy crying bully.
He thinks he knows the half of it and therefor thinks he's a leader-- of the ignorant, that is.
He would only lead his adherents to their inane demises. Sadly, something a minuscule as a virus would make short work of his self-imagined greatness.

[ME]

You are the Warrior Hero, Ash!!!!

You nailed it!!

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, General-Zod wrote:

Obviously.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> > >
> > Trauma occurs in many forms.
>
> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?
>
> > Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.
>
> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
>

> > > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.

> > > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
> > >
> > An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
> >
>
> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.
>
> > As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.
>
> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
>
> > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
>
> > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > >
> > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
>

> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

>
> > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
>
> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
>
> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.
>
> > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > >
> > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
>
> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.
>
> > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
>
> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
>
> > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
> > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
> > >
> > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
>
> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
> > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> >
> > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
>
> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
>
> > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.
>
> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
>
> > > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> > > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
> >
> > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
>
> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
>
> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

Over ten months later and they're still in a tizzy.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

This thread has been dormant for 8 months, Donkey -- and *you're* the one who resuscitated it.

That said, George Dunce is the one stammering ("paragraphy," "you're you're") out a Stop-picking-on-me! whine in final line (quoted above).

Do you really think you can contradict hard, archived evidence, Donkey?


Michael Pendragon
"You're a hypothetical idiot, aren't you, Ash?"
Will Donkey, hypothesizing idiotically
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt

[Will Dockery]

Whine much, Pendragon, you shit eating little monkey troll?

🙂

[George J.]

> > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> >
> > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
> Over ten months later and they're still in a tizzy.

Indeed, only the threads have changed. Nowadays they've stopped cosplaying psychologists -- now they're cosplaying literary critics -- but they're still spewing the same monkeyclatter at their real and imagined "adversaries". The same old whine in new bottles.

> 🙂

[Will Dockery]

Exactly, you nailed it.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

FYI: This is a poetry discussion group, Dunce.

NancyGene and I are discussing poetry.

If you have a problem with members of a poetry discussion group discussing poetry, I suggest that you go back to RAP.



Michael Pendragon
“But thank you for the belated recognition of the difference between
speculation and lying. Now if only you could recognise the difference
between poetry and your unspeakable shit.”
-- Rob Evans to Will Dockery

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> > >
> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > > > >
> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> > >

> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
> >
> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.
> > She was, after all, referring to it in passing in a Usenet post -- not composing a term paper on it.

>
> > > > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
> > >
> > > i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
> > >

> > Very good.
> > > But once again, Freud's 'Oedipus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.
> > >
> > Do you really have the temerity to challenge Sigmund Freud?
> I'm certainly skeptical of this theory, and I see I'm not the only one.
>
> "Sigmund Freud has always been a controversial figure. The Oedipus complex, a theory that suggests that every single person has deeply repressed incestuous instincts for their parents since childhood, is no less so. Critics of Freud have noted that, despite the case of Little Hans, there is very little empirical evidence to prove the theory’s validity."
> https://www.britannica.com/science/Oedipus-complex
>
> "As more has been learned about child development since Freud's theories were first launched, there has been an increasing lack of support for some of his assumptions about the human personality. Perhaps none of his ideas have met with as much criticism as his psychosexual stages of development. While many modern-day clinicians still find aspects of his stages helpful, most do not adhere to the presupposition of sexual conflict being the central task of developmental maturity. Thus, concepts like Oedipal and Electra complexes are held by a very small minority of professionals overall."
> https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/other-criticisms-of-freud-and-psychoanalysis.html
>
> "It’s important to note that there’s very little evidence that the Oedipus (or Electra) complex is real. It is not listed as a psychological condition in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians to diagnose psychological conditions and disorders."
> https://flo.health/being-a-mom/your-baby/growth-and-development/oedipus-complex#:~:text=It's%20important%20to%20note%20that,diagnose%20psychological%20conditions%20and%20disorders.
> > Dr. NancyGene and I are in excellent company.
> In that respect, perhaps. I'm not sure about in others. For example, AFAIK Freud only psychoanalyzed people who came to him for help. He may have gone about psychoanalyzing his critics, but if he did I never read of it.

> > > > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
> > >

> > > While I think there's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.
> > >
> > You are taking her words far too literally.
> >
> > Symbolically killing one's father can take many forms: challenging his absolute authority, breaking free of financial dependence on him, cracking the moral pedestal one has placed him on, etc.
> I did all that, though long after the "latency phase", so maybe it doesn't count to a Freudian.
> > And, yes, it is essential that the boy achieve ascendancy over the father in some tangible way, in order for the maturation to be complete. A boy who simply represses the desire while suffer from various neuroses throughout his life as a result.

>
> > > > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
> > >
> > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends.

> > Not having friends and not being allowed to have friends are, in Boy George's case, the same thing.
> But not being allowed to play with one's friends (because one has to do chores) is not the same thing as either. It sucked, sometimes, but it is not the same thing as having no friends at all.
> > Boy George didn't have friends because his daily chores (and family restrictions?) denied the opportunity to make friends with the other children.
> The poem doesn't mention him ever playing (except in his room), so you can conclude he never did. It doesn't mention him going to school either, but I'm not sure you'd conclude he never did that, either.

> > > Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
>

> > No one even so much as implied that this was the case.
> "Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age.... Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, *never* been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father." (*stress added*)
>
> Being still in the phallic stage means still desiring one's mother, does it not?

> > > > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.

> > > > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of a person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.

> > > > >
>
> > > > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
> > >
> > > So I did.

> Correction. I didn't tell you that. You went looking through old posts, cherry-picked a few quotes, and told us that.

> >> What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>

> > You say that you're trauma free, but Grownup George's desire to burn down his father's house, speaks otherwise.
> As I think I told you, it's a dramatic ending; necessary because it's the only place (aside from some normal childhood wishing, that even the speaker downplays) where he expresses his own feelings; the rest is merely a recital of events. Up to then, it could have gone the other way -- he could have wanted to buy the house to raise his own children the same way.
> > (As does Grownup George's calling his childhood home "my Father's house.") That house would be seen as the private property of his father, and not as a family home speaks volumes as to Grownup George's barely concealed resentment.
> I'm happy with the title. It's literally true -- the house was his creation and his property. it sums up the theme the poem's theme -- the house as symbol for the speaker's memory of his father. And there's a couple of allusions in it.
> > As to the second part of your objection, no one has intimated that you still see your mother as a sex object. You're mistakenly attempting to apply all of the possible symptoms of an Oedipal complex to Dr. NancyGene's and my diagnosis of your case.
> Once again, you were the one who brought all that up. I have no idea if cherry-picking "symptoms" is orthodox Freudianism, or if it's your own idea. But I do think that postulating a partial Oedipus complex weakens your case.
>
> <snip>

Again, good points.

[Faraway Star]

No mater that Nancy G. and Penhead try to pretend to be, they always show their true colors as scum bag mother fucker trolls... ha ha.

[General-Zod]

George Dance wrote:
>
> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en

> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
>> > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
>> >
>> Trauma occurs in many forms.

> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

>> Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

>> > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over.. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.

>> > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
>> >
>> An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
>>

> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

>> As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

>> > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.

>> > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>> >
>> You're right about Oedipus (the play),

> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over.. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

>> however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.

> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

>> > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
>> >
>> Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

>> Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

>> > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
>> > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
>> >
>> No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>> > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>>
>> "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.

> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>> To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

>> > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
>> > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
>>
>> You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

Penhead is a lying mother fucking monkey...

[Faraway Star]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 7:40:44 AM UTC-6, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> > >
> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > > > >
> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> > >

> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
> >
> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.
> > She was, after all, referring to it in passing in a Usenet post -- not composing a term paper on it.
>

> > > > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
> > >
> > > i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
> > >

> > Very good.
> > > But once again, Freud's 'Oedipus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.
> > >
> > Do you really have the temerity to challenge Sigmund Freud?
> I'm certainly skeptical of this theory, and I see I'm not the only one.
>
> "Sigmund Freud has always been a controversial figure. The Oedipus complex, a theory that suggests that every single person has deeply repressed incestuous instincts for their parents since childhood, is no less so. Critics of Freud have noted that, despite the case of Little Hans, there is very little empirical evidence to prove the theory’s validity."
> https://www.britannica.com/science/Oedipus-complex
>
> "As more has been learned about child development since Freud's theories were first launched, there has been an increasing lack of support for some of his assumptions about the human personality. Perhaps none of his ideas have met with as much criticism as his psychosexual stages of development. While many modern-day clinicians still find aspects of his stages helpful, most do not adhere to the presupposition of sexual conflict being the central task of developmental maturity. Thus, concepts like Oedipal and Electra complexes are held by a very small minority of professionals overall."
> https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/other-criticisms-of-freud-and-psychoanalysis.html
>
> "It’s important to note that there’s very little evidence that the Oedipus (or Electra) complex is real. It is not listed as a psychological condition in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians to diagnose psychological conditions and disorders."
> https://flo.health/being-a-mom/your-baby/growth-and-development/oedipus-complex#:~:text=It's%20important%20to%20note%20that,diagnose%20psychological%20conditions%20and%20disorders.
> > Dr. NancyGene and I are in excellent company.
> In that respect, perhaps. I'm not sure about in others. For example, AFAIK Freud only psychoanalyzed people who came to him for help. He may have gone about psychoanalyzing his critics, but if he did I never read of it.

> > > > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
> > >

> > > While I think there's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.
> > >
> > You are taking her words far too literally.
> >
> > Symbolically killing one's father can take many forms: challenging his absolute authority, breaking free of financial dependence on him, cracking the moral pedestal one has placed him on, etc.
> I did all that, though long after the "latency phase", so maybe it doesn't count to a Freudian.
> > And, yes, it is essential that the boy achieve ascendancy over the father in some tangible way, in order for the maturation to be complete. A boy who simply represses the desire while suffer from various neuroses throughout his life as a result.
>

> > > > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
> > >
> > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends.

> > Not having friends and not being allowed to have friends are, in Boy George's case, the same thing.
> But not being allowed to play with one's friends (because one has to do chores) is not the same thing as either. It sucked, sometimes, but it is not the same thing as having no friends at all.
> > Boy George didn't have friends because his daily chores (and family restrictions?) denied the opportunity to make friends with the other children.
> The poem doesn't mention him ever playing (except in his room), so you can conclude he never did. It doesn't mention him going to school either, but I'm not sure you'd conclude he never did that, either.

> > > Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
>

> > No one even so much as implied that this was the case.
> "Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age.... Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, *never* been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father." (*stress added*)
>
> Being still in the phallic stage means still desiring one's mother, does it not?

> > > > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.

> > > > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of a person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.

> > > > >
>
> > > > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
> > >
> > > So I did.

> Correction. I didn't tell you that. You went looking through old posts, cherry-picked a few quotes, and told us that.

> >> What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>

> > You say that you're trauma free, but Grownup George's desire to burn down his father's house, speaks otherwise.
> As I think I told you, it's a dramatic ending; necessary because it's the only place (aside from some normal childhood wishing, that even the speaker downplays) where he expresses his own feelings; the rest is merely a recital of events. Up to then, it could have gone the other way -- he could have wanted to buy the house to raise his own children the same way.
> > (As does Grownup George's calling his childhood home "my Father's house.") That house would be seen as the private property of his father, and not as a family home speaks volumes as to Grownup George's barely concealed resentment.
> I'm happy with the title. It's literally true -- the house was his creation and his property. it sums up the theme the poem's theme -- the house as symbol for the speaker's memory of his father. And there's a couple of allusions in it.
> > As to the second part of your objection, no one has intimated that you still see your mother as a sex object. You're mistakenly attempting to apply all of the possible symptoms of an Oedipal complex to Dr. NancyGene's and my diagnosis of your case.
> Once again, you were the one who brought all that up. I have no idea if cherry-picking "symptoms" is orthodox Freudianism, or if it's your own idea. But I do think that postulating a partial Oedipus complex weakens your case.
>
> <snip>

Again.... Nailed it...!!

[W.Dockery]

Faraway Star wrote:

> George Dance wrote:

>> >> What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr.." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.

>>
>> > You say that you're trauma free, but Grownup George's desire to burn down his father's house, speaks otherwise.
>> As I think I told you, it's a dramatic ending; necessary because it's the only place (aside from some normal childhood wishing, that even the speaker downplays) where he expresses his own feelings; the rest is merely a recital of events. Up to then, it could have gone the other way -- he could have wanted to buy the house to raise his own children the same way.

>> > (As does Grownup George's calling his childhood home "my Father's house..") That house would be seen as the private property of his father, and not as a family home speaks volumes as to Grownup George's barely concealed resentment.

>> I'm happy with the title. It's literally true -- the house was his creation and his property. it sums up the theme the poem's theme -- the house as symbol for the speaker's memory of his father. And there's a couple of allusions in it.
>> > As to the second part of your objection, no one has intimated that you still see your mother as a sex object. You're mistakenly attempting to apply all of the possible symptoms of an Oedipal complex to Dr. NancyGene's and my diagnosis of your case.
>> Once again, you were the one who brought all that up. I have no idea if cherry-picking "symptoms" is orthodox Freudianism, or if it's your own idea. But I do think that postulating a partial Oedipus complex weakens your case.
>>
>> <snip>

> Again.... Nailed it...!!

Agreed and seconded.

🙂

[General-Zod]

Nancy G. and Penhead are straight out sleazebags...!

[General-Zod]

Nancy G. and Penhead as generally scumbag motherfucker trolls...

[W.Dockery]

George Dance wrote:

> from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en

> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
>> > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
>> >
>> Trauma occurs in many forms.

> That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

>> Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

> Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.

>> > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over.. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
>> > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
>> >
>> An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
>>

> A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

>> As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

> The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.

>> > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.

>> > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>> >
>> You're right about Oedipus (the play),

> I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over.. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

>> however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

> i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.

> But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.

>> > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
>> >
>> Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

> While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.

>> Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

> First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.

>> > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.

>> > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.

>> >
>> No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

> So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>> > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
>>
>> "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.

> As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.

>> To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.

>> > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
>> > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
>>
>> You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

> That paragraphy is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

Again, always good to keep the record straight.

🙂

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:47:08 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > > > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> > > > >
> > > > Trauma occurs in many forms.
> > >
> > > That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?

> > Yes, George, I do.
> >
> > Here is but one of many sources:
> >
> > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10450264/
> I read the article. Your 'source' contains no data on either one. The study doesn't even look at PTSD caused by a parent's death; and while it doeslook at PTSD caused by "physical abuse," the "physical abuse" it's studying is not simple spanking:
> "The abused and/or neglected group was composed of victims of substantiated childhood physical and sexual abuse and/or neglect whose cases were processed during the years 1967 through 1971 in the county juvenile or adult criminal court (situated in a metropolitan area in the Midwest)..... Physical abuse cases included *injuries such as bruises, welts, burns, abrasions, lacerations, wounds, cuts, bone and skull fractures, and other evidence of physical injury.* [*stress added*]
> https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.156.8.1223
> (That's a link to the full article, BTW; you linked the NIH summary.)
> > Its title is "Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up," by C.S. Wisdom.
> Let's quote one more thing from it (this time from the summary);
> "Victims of child abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect are at increased risk for developing PTSD, but childhood victimization is not a sufficient condition."

> > > > Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.
> > >
> > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > >

> > Here's a quote from PTSD UK: "The relationship between childhood abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder is clear and indisputable. Even one deeply traumatic incident in your early years can have serious mental health repercussions."
> > https://www.ptsduk.org/causes-of-ptsd-childhood-abuse/
> Now you're begging two questions: whether a spanking with a belt is "deeply traumatic, and whether these "serious mental health repercussions" are the same thing as PTSD.
> > > > > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.

> > > > > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
> > > > >
> > > > An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
> > > A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.

> > The sound of the fireworks triggered his memory, thus causing an engrammatic reaction. However, you certainly have not established that he is not suffering from PSTD throughout the year -- regardless of external stimuli.
> I never claimed to; that was "Dr." NastyGoon's example, not mine; I just pointed out that it was triggered by external stimuli. I'm glad you agree with that.
> > Someone suffering from PTSD might have a reaction triggered by fireworks, but he might also experience symptoms of paranoia, and contentiousness, when interacting with others without having experienced such a trigger.
> So you're saying that a veteran showing distrust of, or arguing with, anyone else may be displaying PTSD? Or just of you and your fellow "perceived authority figures"?

> > > > As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.
> > >
> > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
>

> > No one said any such thing, George.
> >
> > You are either 1) lying, 2) delusional, or 3) unable to comprehend basic English.
> I'd expect someone actually interested in a discussion tp say something more like, "No, that's not what I meant" and try to explain what he meant instead." But you do you.
>
> <snip>

Again, good to see you set the record straight again.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-5, General-Zod wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> >> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> >> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> >> > >
> >> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >

> >> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> >> > >
> >> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> >> > >

> >> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
> >> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
> >> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.

> > NancyGene is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Nancy G. is a malicious stalker troll, Penhead, no wonder you slurp her night and day... ha ha.

Lying scumbags of a feather, after all.

😄

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-5, George Dance wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> > >
> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > > > >
> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> > >
> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
> >
> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.

> > She was, after all, referring to it in passing in a Usenet post -- not composing a term paper on it.
>

> > > > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
> > >
> > > i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
> > >

> > Very good.
> > > But once again, Freud's 'Oedipus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.
> > >
> > Do you really have the temerity to challenge Sigmund Freud?
> I'm certainly skeptical of this theory, and I see I'm not the only one.
>
> "Sigmund Freud has always been a controversial figure. The Oedipus complex, a theory that suggests that every single person has deeply repressed incestuous instincts for their parents since childhood, is no less so. Critics of Freud have noted that, despite the case of Little Hans, there is very little empirical evidence to prove the theory’s validity."
> https://www.britannica.com/science/Oedipus-complex
>
> "As more has been learned about child development since Freud's theories were first launched, there has been an increasing lack of support for some of his assumptions about the human personality. Perhaps none of his ideas have met with as much criticism as his psychosexual stages of development. While many modern-day clinicians still find aspects of his stages helpful, most do not adhere to the presupposition of sexual conflict being the central task of developmental maturity. Thus, concepts like Oedipal and Electra complexes are held by a very small minority of professionals overall."
> https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/other-criticisms-of-freud-and-psychoanalysis.html
>
> "It’s important to note that there’s very little evidence that the Oedipus (or Electra) complex is real. It is not listed as a psychological condition in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, used by clinicians to diagnose psychological conditions and disorders."
> https://flo.health/being-a-mom/your-baby/growth-and-development/oedipus-complex#:~:text=It's%20important%20to%20note%20that,diagnose%20psychological%20conditions%20and%20disorders.
> > Dr. NancyGene and I are in excellent company.
> In that respect, perhaps. I'm not sure about in others. For example, AFAIK Freud only psychoanalyzed people who came to him for help. He may have gone about psychoanalyzing his critics, but if he did I never read of it.

> > > > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
> > >

> > > While I think there's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.
> > >
> > You are taking her words far too literally.
> >
> > Symbolically killing one's father can take many forms: challenging his absolute authority, breaking free of financial dependence on him, cracking the moral pedestal one has placed him on, etc.
> I did all that, though long after the "latency phase", so maybe it doesn't count to a Freudian.
> > And, yes, it is essential that the boy achieve ascendancy over the father in some tangible way, in order for the maturation to be complete. A boy who simply represses the desire while suffer from various neuroses throughout his life as a result.
>

> > > > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
> > >
> > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends.

> > Not having friends and not being allowed to have friends are, in Boy George's case, the same thing.
> But not being allowed to play with one's friends (because one has to do chores) is not the same thing as either. It sucked, sometimes, but it is not the same thing as having no friends at all.
> > Boy George didn't have friends because his daily chores (and family restrictions?) denied the opportunity to make friends with the other children.
> The poem doesn't mention him ever playing (except in his room), so you can conclude he never did. It doesn't mention him going to school either, but I'm not sure you'd conclude he never did that, either.

> > > Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
>

> > No one even so much as implied that this was the case.
> "Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age.... Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, *never* been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father." (*stress added*)
>
> Being still in the phallic stage means still desiring one's mother, does it not?

> > > > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.

> > > > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of a person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.

> > > > >
>
> > > > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
> > >
> > > So I did.

> Correction. I didn't tell you that. You went looking through old posts, cherry-picked a few quotes, and told us that.

> >> What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
>

> > You say that you're trauma free, but Grownup George's desire to burn down his father's house, speaks otherwise.
> As I think I told you, it's a dramatic ending; necessary because it's the only place (aside from some normal childhood wishing, that even the speaker downplays) where he expresses his own feelings; the rest is merely a recital of events. Up to then, it could have gone the other way -- he could have wanted to buy the house to raise his own children the same way.

> > (As does Grownup George's calling his childhood home "my Father's house.") That house would be seen as the private property of his father, and not as a family home speaks volumes as to Grownup George's barely concealed resentment.

> I'm happy with the title. It's literally true -- the house was his creation and his property. it sums up the theme the poem's theme -- the house as symbol for the speaker's memory of his father. And there's a couple of allusions in it.
> > As to the second part of your objection, no one has intimated that you still see your mother as a sex object. You're mistakenly attempting to apply all of the possible symptoms of an Oedipal complex to Dr. NancyGene's and my diagnosis of your case.
> Once again, you were the one who brought all that up. I have no idea if cherry-picking "symptoms" is orthodox Freudianism, or if it's your own idea. But I do think that postulating a partial Oedipus complex weakens your case.
>
> <snip>

Thanks again for clearing up the lies and misrepresentations and for setting the record straight here, George.

😄

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-5, General-Zod wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>

> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> >> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 8:34:46 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> >> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
> >> > >
> >> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> >> > >
> >> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
> >> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
> >> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.

> > NancyGene is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Nancy G. is a malicious stalker troll, Penhead, no wonder you slurp her night and day... ha ha.

Team players.

😄

[Faraway Star]

Pathetic but obviously correct....

"Tears in their eyes."

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 1:31:23 PM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 8:19:17 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-5, General-Zod wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>

> > > >> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first thing about.
> > > >> > It is childish to interrupt in order to point a finger and chant "NancyGene was wro-ong!"
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm sure that NancyGene is familiar with the play.
> > > >> Oh, I'm sure you are, and I'm sure NG will confirm your story.
> > > > NancyGene is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Nancy G. is a malicious stalker troll, Penhead, no wonder you slurp her night and day... ha ha.
> >
> > Lying scumbags of a feather, after all.
> >
>
> Pathetic but obviously correct....
>
> "Tears in their eyes."

Malicious and delusional fuckwits.

:)

[Will Dockery]

Actually, they seem proud of the fact.

[General-Zod]

Yep

[Faraway Star]

> Good afternoon, George, well put.

To say the least....!!

"Tears in their eyes.."

[Faraway Star]

George J. wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > George Dance wrote:
>
> > > from https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/P1ReeaK-WjE/m/mBOuJ-J8CQAJ?hl=en
>

> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > > > I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> > > > >
> > > > Trauma occurs in many forms.
> > >
> > > That's nice. Do you have any data on the claim that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago?
> > >
> > > > Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.
> > >
> > > Granted that a child about to be spanked is undergoing "trauma," there's no real reason to think that the trauma would persist for into adulthood -- especially if the adult doesn't report any present feelings of trauma from it. Your explanation -- that if he doesn't feel any trauma, he must be repressing it -- seems purely question-begging.
> > >

> > > > > > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.

> > > > > That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
> > > > >
> > > > An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A war veteran who reacts to fireworks is not being affected "regardless of external stimuli". The sound of the fireworks is an obvious trigger.
> > >
> > > > As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.
> > >
> > > The idea that my refusal to accept either you or "Dr." NancyGoon as "authority figures" must be due to a trauma caused by a normal event (being spanked as a child) sounds like pure psychobabble.
> > >
> > > > > > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> > >
> > > > > I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
> > > > >
> > > > You're right about Oedipus (the play),
> > >

> > > I'm sorry to interrupt, but this deserves more than to just be glossed over. Once again "Dr." NG has invoked a work they haven't read and don't know the first think about.

> > >
> > > > however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.
> > >
> > > i can see some truth to that. As he develops consciousness, a pre-schooler is going to develop a bond with his mother -- she's the one feeding, clothing, nurturing, and otherwise 'taking care' of him -- and to see his father as a rival for the mother's attention. That can be aggravated if the father's only relationship with the son is to tell him what to do and to punish him, meaning the son sees their relationship as mainly negative. In such a situation, it would be rational for a boy to turn to his mother as an ally and protector against the father, reinforcing such feelings. So I can conceive of a preschooler imagining eliminating the father, and even wishing for it.
> > >
> > > But once again, Freud's 'Oedupus Complex' theory sounds like pure psychobabble. Neither the child's affection for his mother, nor his rivalry and grievances against his father, require the sexual explanation Freud postulates. And the argument that those who don't feel any of the "sexual" subtext that he merely postulates must be repressing it sounds like more question-begging.
> > >
> > > > > As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).
> > >
> > > While I think tere's much more to it than just getting a first crush on a girl, I do agree that involves "getting beyond the desire to remove the father." But that is not what "Dr." NancyGoon was claiming. Their claim was: "Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man." IOW, maturation means actually "killing the father" in some way -- not in getting past the desire, but in giving in to it.
> > >
> > > > Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.
> > >
> > > First of all, I think you're misreading the poem. "Boy George" specifically mentions not being allowed to play with his "friends" - meaning that he did have friends. Second, there's no reason to think that a child raised in strict isolation would be unable to ever have "desires" for other women than his mother.
> > >
> > > > > > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
> > > > > Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
> > > > >
> > > > No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.
> > >
> > > So I did. What I did not tell you was that I'm suffering any trauma as a result of my actual childhood experiences (which were a bit more complex than those presented in my poem), much less that a repressed sexual desire for my mother is the root of it. That's all just "subtext" that you and possibly "Dr." NancyGoon seem to have made up yourselves.
> > > > > I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.
> > > >
> > > > "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth.
> > >
> > > As I've said, boys have been doing just that for centuries if not millennia; and it is not obvious to me that none of the men they later became were unable to experience power or self-worth.
> > >
> > > > To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.
> > >
> > > While spanking boys bare-assed may be seen as abuse today, it is not the case that that's how it's been seen in the past. For a long time, it was a school punishment. To compare it to being raped makes you sound like a drama queen.
> > >
> > > > > > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> > > > > The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."
> > > >
> > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > >

> > > That paragraph is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.

> > >
> > > As well, you're you're trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.

> > Over ten months later and they're still in a tizzy.
> Indeed, only the threads have changed. Nowadays they've stopped cosplaying psychologists -- now they're cosplaying literary critics -- but they're still spewing the same monkeyclatter at their real and imagined "adversaries". The same old whine in new bottles.

"With a tear in their eyes"

Ha ha...!!

[George J.]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 8:15:15 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 7:19:56 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Over ten months later and they're still in a tizzy.

> This thread has been dormant for 8 months, Donkey -- and *you're* the one who resuscitated it.
>
> That said, George Dunce is the one stammering ("paragraphy," "you're you're") out a Stop-picking-on-me! whine in final line (quot ed above).

No, Lying Michael, that is not what I told you in "final line" (sic). Here is what I told you:

<quote>

> > > > You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.
> > >

> > > That paragraph[ ] is full of misrepresentations. You not only began categorizing people into teams on your own, but you assigned me to the one you claim I'm on yourself. And it's purely your claim, not my belief, that those you put on an opposing team are "mentally Ill" or "semi-retarded," while you and your own team are "superior" either in understanding or in poetry writing. You're projecting this "evidence" onto me.
> > >
> > > As well, you're [...] trying the same question-begging trick -- using the fact that I don't feel any of this alleged trauma as proof that I'm "repressing" it.
</q>

I have not asked you to "Stop-picking-on-me!" or (more properly) trying to. On the other hand, I have repeatedly asked you to stop lying and misrepresenting - to no effect, as we can see.

> Do you really think you can contradict hard, archived evidence, Donkey?

If you really believe it's impossible to contradict hard, archived evidence, Michael Monkey, then why do you keep trying to contradict it so often?

[W.Dockery]

Thanks again for correcting the lies and misrepresentations and for setting the record straight again, George.

😃