« Previous | Home | Next »

Things That Go Bump In The Nightie

I'm 25, and I recently married an incredible man. He satisfies me in every way imaginable, and our marriage is everything I'd hoped for. Yet, I'm often plagued by illicit dreams about my exes. Sometimes the "star" is a man I haven't thought about in years (although, thankfully, it's sometimes my husband). Is this normal? I wake up feeling like a filthy cheater, and like I should confess.

--Dirty Dreaming

Let's say your head takes the night off from naked ex-boyfriends, and you find yourself dreaming about the aliens and their probe. Oh, no...does that mean you aren't truly over the guy with the one big purple eye? Or, could it just be a message about your choice of nightcap: that you might try swapping in a glass of warm milk and "Goodnight Moon" for your regular mug of absinthe and hour of late-night vintage sci-fi?

Thanks to Freud, you're prone to believe your dreams are repressed desires for your exes when they could just as easily be X-rated mental lint. A growing body of evidence suggests Freud's famous book, "The Interpretation of Dreams," might be more correctly titled "The Misinterpretation of Dreams," or "I'll Make A Bunch Of Stuff Up Because I'm Sex Mad, And Get Real Famous, And Make A Fortune."

Even now, nobody can say conclusively why we dream or what dreams mean, but in a 2005 lecture to sleep disorder patients, Stanford's Dr. Scott Leibowitz gave an overview of various theories: Dreams may be "a 'virtual reality' testing ground to simulate threatening scenarios in a safe place." They may integrate stuff we learn while awake, and/or help process negative emotions. They may contain extraneous information we need to dump -- or essential information we need to keep. My favorite theory, however, is by Harvard psychiatry prof J. Allan Hobson, who speculates in "The Dreaming Brain" that dreams "may occur, in part, to amuse us" -- and with none of the pesky legal ramifications of scaling the neighbor's chimney and tapping into his HBO.

Free entertainment? Of course, there's a catch. In Dreamland, there's no such thing as the remote. And since you can't change the channel, maybe it's dumb to feel guilty that you ended up watching "Sex With The Exes" instead of "Killer Klowns From Outer Space" or "How To Decorate With Dried Pasta." But, is it "normal" to fantasize about other men? Boringly so. In a study by Drs. Thomas V. Hicks and Harold Leitenberg, 98 percent of men and 80 percent of women got it on in their heads during their waking hours with people other than their partners. Whaddya wanna bet 100 percent of the rest were lying?

You say you're satisfied "in every way imaginable," and call your marriage "everything I'd hoped for." Excuse me, but what's the problem? Face hurt from smiling too much? It is wise to live an "examined life," just not an examined-to-death life. You can read something into anything -- just as Freud decided patient "Dora" must've overheard her parents having sex (an incident she never recalled), and out of devoted love for her father, reproduced his heavy breathing by giving herself asthma. Why not concentrate on what you can control -- how you conduct yourself when you're awake? Should you feel the need to spice up that nonstop bliss with a little raging jealousy, go ahead and tell your husband Mr. Sandman's been pimping you out to your exes. Do, however, try to wait until he wakes up -- lest you come between him, your sister, and your best friend.

Posted by aalkon at October 10, 2007 12:08 AM


Mental lint.... dust balls swirling in that kid's head is exactly the laugh I needed today. I mean 25 year-old kid, because of the childish notion of saying "he satisfies me in every way imaginable" while imagining getting it on with past-tense penises shows that she still has an imaginary way of thinking how marriage is supposed to be. Like you said, it is normal. I hope the incredible marriage lasts longer than her dreams, because she will probably dream up a way to turn it into a nightmare.
You should assign her some reading homework before she fails her first marriage exam, like your blog about how "A Marriage License Should Be More Like A Driver's License".

Posted by: kbling at October 10, 2007 6:29 AM

I'm getting married in June. Am I horribly unromantic for not expecting my fiance to "satisfy me in every way imaginable?"

Posted by: snakeman99 at October 10, 2007 7:52 AM

Unromantic and unrealistic, too! >_O

Posted by: Flynne [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2007 8:06 AM

She's getting satisfied in every way imaginable?
Maybe that's why she's dreaming --- she needs a little something left to the imagination.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 10, 2007 8:12 AM

Obviously more to this letter than what we read, so I wonder if its just the thought of her exes dancing naked through her head or the thought that *gasp* maybe her husband might have a few hotties in his imagination as well? And he does. So just enjoy the great sex it'll generate if no one is stressing about it and forget the fairytale. Its a lot quicker to say "lived happily ever after" than it is to actually live a lifetime! Starting out your marriage with an expectation that you'd be content hidden away from the rest of the world forever just sets you up for failure.

Posted by: moreta [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 10, 2007 9:28 AM

"I wake up feeling like a filthy cheater, and like I should confess."

Dust balls indeed, kbling. Was this silly bint homeschooled?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 10, 2007 12:32 PM

Aren't you being a little harsh on the poor girl? She sounds like she's asking for help ridding herself of the dreams. kbling - she's clearly not "imagining getting it on with past-tense penises" on purpose, so how can you automatically assume her marriage is flawed? I doubt she's even been married long enough for serious flaws in the marriage, so give her a break, eh?

Posted by: kelly at October 10, 2007 2:24 PM

Aye, Pirate Jo, my kid is homeschooled this year!!!! He ain't no moron, tho!

Posted by: kg at October 10, 2007 4:40 PM

Is she really 25? She sounds like she's 14, possibly wed to one of the church elders. And using the term 'filthy cheater' is a bit extreme, which makes me even more suspicious of religious brainwashing...

Posted by: Chrissy [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2007 5:59 AM

Sorry kg, you know I'm no fan of government schools - hell if I had a kids I'd probably be tempted to homeschool them as well. I don't mean to take a merciless crack at them, but I got the same impression of religious brainwashing that Chrissy did - the pointless, misplaced sense of guilt over the silliest things. And a lot of homeschooled kids (although obviously not yours) ARE unfortunately victims of that.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 11, 2007 6:23 AM

"14, possibly wed to one of the church elders"

Jeez Chrissy, that's brutal - I'm still laughing over that one, and trying to mop the coffee off my keyboard. But "satisfies me in every way imaginable?" Okay, I was already giggling. I wanna borrow the guy for a weekend, because I just want to know if he can make a good omelette! That would satisfy ME in every way imaginable!

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 11, 2007 6:27 AM

Hate me all you want for what I'm about to say but. I was in exactly the place she's in. I felt bad about dreams of women I never actually nailed. I continued to feel bad about the whole thing until someone explained to me that this was totally normal. I was not home schooled, I'm not a cult member, I was way past 14. It's not something that ever came up in discussion how would it? "Hey dad do you think about the stewardess you met in Nam while your married to mom?" I was the first of my friends to get married, at least of the sane ones. The few I knew (not really friends with) were a religious couple and a classic shotgun wedding in the mid west.

Give the girl a break. We all do it, yes it is completely normal and nothing to feel guilty about. You can actually control your dreams but the effort it takes to do it isn't really worth it. Enjoy the dreams as long as they don't go all Disney on you and come true.

Posted by: vlad at October 11, 2007 6:48 AM

It's possible I am just jealous because I don't have those fun dreams! Maybe you only have them if they inspire guilt? Murphy's Law ...

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 11, 2007 7:18 AM

It's all good, Pirate Jo! I do recognize that many homeschooled kids don't get the best edumacation! Ever since I have started, I have had several parents contact me, so we have a group of six now and all of the parents teach something different. It's a lot of fun, but also a lot of work. I actually have them read this blog. Some, I think, have made a comment or two.

I agree with Vlad. I mean, look at the way movies manipulate the young, especially about issues with love.

Posted by: kg at October 11, 2007 7:48 AM

"makes me even more suspicious of religious brainwashing" as opposed to secular brain washing in the movies? They both paint an extremely skewed version of reality.

Posted by: vlad at October 11, 2007 8:13 AM

Sorry, what do you mean by "secular" brainwashing?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 11, 2007 8:29 AM

All the brainwashing not associated with a religion or sect, take your pick. The advice women get from fashion magazines about men would be a good start. Having gotten real bored at a doctors office I read the advice column in Cosmo written by a man (they claimed this but I have my doubts) about men. As far as the movies some of the crap that shows this happy couple living with no quarrels or arguments under one roof.

Posted by: vlad at October 11, 2007 8:49 AM

"The advice women get from fashion magazines about men would be a good start."

Well it might be banal, tasteless pap, but no one is forcing people to read it. (Maybe it's even sadder that so many people choose to.) But no one isolates children from the rest of society and forces them to read Cosmo's "How Sexy Are You?" quizzes to the exclusion of everything else. I think a lot of people homeschool their kids in order to shelter them from "evil" or "worldly" secular ideas.

It's such nonsense. If the only way a religion's beliefs can be upheld is if the adherent simply doesn't know of any other options (or has been made to fear exploring other options) then it's not really belief but default thinking. If their ideas can't stand on their own merit, and you have to hide something from people to get them to believe in it, then it's not worth anything.

And KG, the networking sounds cool. Your kids won't be forced to slow down to the pace of the biggest dullards in class, and they won't be isolated from other kids their own age, either. (Some homeschooled kids seem very weird, socially. But those are probably the fundie ones.) Yours can sit and read Tolstoy to their hearts' content instead of waiting for Donny Dumbass to spend ten minutes getting through "The cat sat on a mat."

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 11, 2007 12:28 PM

Likewise, I wouldn't be stupid enough to read "my" horoscope.

Porn shows unrealistic pictures of women, romance novels depict men and romance unrealistically. Nobody is chaining you to the magazine, video, or newspaper. Thoughts are still free in this country, and you can go out and experience life and apply reason to your observations.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 11, 2007 1:17 PM

"Thoughts are still free in this country, and you can go out and experience life and apply reason to your observations." Unless you are explicitly trained not to. Brain washing and the rise of cults only requires a willingness to listen and believe. If you were raised in a family who had a certain belief structure you are more susceptible to brainwashing. Lets use one of my favorite efnic (intentional misspelling)concept of "A women must be married and making (insert efnic specific here) babies". I have seen this in non-religious families. So her whole goal in life is to get married and become an ethnocentric baby gattling gun.
She's no longer in her home country (in this case she was born in the US to begin with) she goes through all the get married quick schemes she can find. She even tried the "code" I'm fuzzy on the details but really cult type stuff. So fast forward a bit and after multiple failed attempts and a Dow-Corning headlight up grade she decided to become an Orthodox Jew, after deciding not to become a nun, stripper, Sunday school teacher etc.

If a person has a built in vulnerability does it change the definition of brainwashing and/or coercion? Having thought about it a bit I'm not sure myself anymore.

Posted by: vlad at October 11, 2007 1:42 PM

No, I do not have any issues with orthodoxy but her reaction to everything was extreme. She would either be a nun or a harlot not middle ground. This made her susceptible to all sorts of crap.

In fact I was ecstatics for her until she started talking about nothing but the guys at temple.

Posted by: vlad at October 11, 2007 1:46 PM

Yeesh, vlad, that sounds nutty. I'd say she was pretty brainwashed by her family - maybe the kind of vulnerability you describe is the RESULT of brainwashing, not the cause. But since she grew up in this country and not someplace like Iran, at least she doesn't have to adhere to those kinds of life-limiting constraints. She can choose something better any time she wants.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 11, 2007 3:01 PM

Regarding the homeschooling issue: I've homeschooled my kids before. I can't speak for all parents who choose this route, but I'm a liberal (proud of it) who doesn't believe in organized religion (money and politics describes my take on religion). Currently our kids are in public schools and the second I can support myself working at home, I'm pulling them out. Nothing to do with religion. My kids are smart, and not that's my baby and he's the smartest in his class smart, but actually intelligent, and they're freaking bored in school. Teachers are forced to teach to the lowest common denominator so a kid of even average intelligence gets bored. Law suits have made it so schools now outlaw running on the playground, for fuck's sake! And people wonder why kids are getting fat? My daughter is not allowed to talk to her friends while she eats lunch at her school! In short, the public school system, at least where I live, sucks, and I can teach my kids a lot more than what they learn there. We do art projects, watch plays, learn music, and those are the first things cut from any public school at the first sign of budget problems. We also do science experiments, discuss history, and visit museums - things not covered in elementary school where we live. And yes, I can exercise control over what my kids are exposed to - like homophobes and racists - and teach them tolerance and respect while they're young enough for it to take hold so the constant deluge of crap from bigots and religous zealots doesn't wear them down.

Posted by: Angela at October 11, 2007 3:39 PM

I'll have y'all know some of us homeschooled kids turned out to have pretty filthy minds. ;)

I'll go back to lurking now.

Posted by: Elle at October 11, 2007 6:12 PM

My dad was an elementary public school principal (thankfully not mine) and I used to remember him complaining about parents who pulled their kids out of school for a week or two to go on some trip. After all, they get two months off in the summer, why can't they go then?? Well, now that he's a grandfather and seen the results on my son of the time spent in another country, he's finally come to recognize that there's more to learning than book lurnin'! A combination of public and home/real life learning seems to be working here. (Oh, and I guess we COULD go during the summer, but then there's all those OTHER kids.....uggg!)

Posted by: moreta [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 12, 2007 7:22 AM

My kids are smart, and not that's my baby and he's the smartest in his class smart, but actually intelligent, and they're freaking bored in school. Teachers are forced to teach to the lowest common denominator so a kid of even average intelligence gets bored.

Absolutely. My mother had to go to the teacher when I was in second grade to say that I read extremely fast, and that when I said I was done, I was done, and I should be allowed to move on to other books (from what the class was supposed to be reading) instead of sitting there pretending I was as slow a reader as some.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 12, 2007 7:33 AM

Amy, why did your mother have to go to bat for you? Hadn't you already given that teacher what for?

Did Teach tell you or your mother that allowing you to be independent would disrupt the class and ('60s version of "threaten the self-esteem of the slower readers") when what he/she probably meant was she couldn't be bothered managing outliers?

In kindergarten I refused to do anything illogical. In first grade I skipped the homework I found to be non-value-added. My reward was a foot-high stack of backlog that HAD to be completed by the end of the school year. I don't remember why the teacher waited until the stack was bigger than my head to tell my parents... but I know why I loathe mediocracies.

Posted by: DaveG [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 12, 2007 8:46 AM

The teacher refused to believe I'd finished reading the material when I said I'd finished reading. In second grade, everything was at a second-grade reading level, and I was already reading Nancy Drew and other "real books."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 12, 2007 9:44 AM

I love you for your reference to Killer Klowns.

Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2007 10:24 AM

what he/she probably meant was she couldn't be bothered managing outliers?

That was certainly my experience in public schools --- get a little ahead of or behind the curve (I've done both) and you're culled from the herd like a limping gazelle in lion country.

Also, I'm stealing the term "mediocracies."

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 12, 2007 2:14 PM

"I'll Make A Bunch Of Stuff Up Because I'm Sex Mad, And Get Real Famous, And Make A Fortune"

That's a totally wrong interpretation of Freud or any of his books (all of which I have read several times).

Freud's fundamental premise about dreams is that each one represents the fulfillment of a wish (the wish is usually not obvious or straightforward as intially judged from the content of the dream).

Also there is absolutely NO WAY that one dream of a person can be analyzed in isolation. It is crucial to instead analyze it within the context of other of the patient's dreams, his free associations, and all sorts of other information that may be gathered over the course of a long psychoanalysis.

Finally, the I.O.D. sold very few copies initially, and Freud certainly never became rich from it.

I don't by any means agree with all that Freud wrote; in fact to me his theories are not even scientific, as he claimed they were (he placed himself on par with Darwin, a contemporary).

It could also be argued that maybe his whole system was a house of cards. And certainly any "expert" can come forward and give us another theory of dreams. My recommendation for each person is to read the book himself, and develope his own opinion.

Posted by: Norman L at October 13, 2007 12:59 AM

See the Dora example above, just for starters. Freud made this shit up. It's quackery and malpractice, and there's no evidence that dreams mean anything in particular, let alone what this coke-addicted fraud said they did.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 13, 2007 1:10 AM

I take it you don't have a great deal of respect for Freud... I have analysed my dreams and have gained a great deal of insight into myself. Dreams are like a letter I write to myself... For instance I once had a very sensual, fantasy-like incredible dream that I had the opportunity to live out and it opened up a new way of living for myself and my wife. The first question we asked each other is what did dream last night!

The problem isn't dreams it is the guilt people feel about themselves...

Posted by: peter at October 13, 2007 8:04 AM

Well, it's wonderful your dreams have led to some benefit for you, but the idea that anybody knows conclusively what they mean or why we dream is bullshit.

People who have problems are better served by Albert Ellis than Sigmund Freud, and they might even be able to buy one of his books for about $11, and fix their problems themselves. See caveats (from Seligman) at the link (bipolar, etc.):


Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 13, 2007 8:33 AM

I think some people don't like Freud, because he was a "misogynist" (another misinterpretation of him)..??

Posted by: Norman L at October 13, 2007 11:13 AM

I don't judge people's work that way. It's childish and silly. HL Mencken was reported to have disliked Jews. I still think he said a number of wise things.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 13, 2007 11:16 AM

I checked out your "fraud" link. Here's some info on penis envy:

Freud initially said that the male has a "castration complex" (a notion which I've noticed a lot of women, are still fond of. I think it's called "pick and choose":)
Later, he determined that females also have their own "version" of the castration complex, which he came to call penis envy.

Posted by: Norman L at October 13, 2007 11:30 AM

There's no evidence either is the case. Norman L, Freud made a bunch of stuff up. Deal with it. (As he should have dealt with his addiction, which surely influenced the nutbaggery he passed off on patients as treatment.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 13, 2007 11:34 AM

Amy, I'm not sure what you consider "evidence". It is a fact that lot's of guys have had at least one dream, or waking fear, related to castration. Like I said, I don't think Freud's theories are scientific. So I guess I can't offer scientific evidence (at least not in good faith).
By the way, what is the evidence for the other theories of dreams you give in your original column (like the one about dreams being a "test field")? Is there a reason(s) to believe these are any better than Freud's theories on dreams? And what is the evidence that Ellis' theories are any better than Freud's? I believe that many theories in psychology are largely dependent on the times we live in. For example, we currently live in a touchy-feely age, so it is considered better to express one's emotions openly instead of occasionally hiding them from others. Whereas at times in the past this was not true. Of course, some people wrongly see the idea of openly expressing feelings, as necessarily an "advance" in psychology theory, just because we live in a later age. That is one problem with associating psychology, with true science (in which advances are in fact made over time).

Posted by: Norman L at October 13, 2007 1:01 PM

Proof that these things mean what Freud said they do. Solid scientific methodology, not mere invention.

Norman L, you don't read well. Scroll up and read my answer again. I noted that these examples I gave, which I put in merely to show range of the speculation, are ALL speculation...merely theories (unproven guesses). I used the word "speculates," and made sure I made it clear that nobody's proven anything with this:

nobody can say conclusively why we dream or what dreams mean,

Ellis' work, on the other hand, has been proven to work. Cognitive behavioral therapy is the most easily researched and the most evidence-based form of therapy out there.

You're wasting my time with your lazy thinking and writing.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 13, 2007 1:32 PM


"merely theories (unproven guesses)"

For your readers' benefit: colloquially, a theory is a guess. Scientifically, a theory is an accepted explanation, although it may always be improved or replaced; by contrast, a hypothesis is a guess - a good hypothesis is worthy of the resources used to test it. Theories (except for mathematical theorems) are not proven in a rigorous sense, but proven is a reasonable adjective.

Posted by: DaveG [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 13, 2007 2:42 PM

Thanks, DaveG. I know that. I was sloppy. Should have left off "merely theories." Or just said that much of Freud's work is made-up hogwash from the mind of an addict.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 13, 2007 2:45 PM

"nobody can say conclusively why we dream or what dreams mean"

Yes, I did read and undertand that. I was merely asking if you knew of any evidence for the theories you mention, scientific, anecdotal or otherwise, as I am unfamiliar with them..

As far as cognitive therapy, yes it has been proven to help some patients in some cases. The impression I get of this particular type of therapy, is that it is more designed to address short-run problems or crises, not treatment of chronic mental illnesses (although I am sure that it can offer some benefit with these too).

As far as self-help books or trying to treat oneself to any great extent, that's pretty much bogus. In fact the only books that I've ever seen of any value, in the self-help section, invariably start out with wording similar to the following in the book's preface: "Dear reader, this is really not a self-help book, but your local bookstore probably has no other place to shelve it.." (like for example some of Warren Farrell's books).

In my opinion, along the lines of Karl Popper, a theory is only scientific if it "falsifiable", that is it could conceivably be proven incorrect or not fully correct, at some later point. That's why psychoanalytic theory is not scientific..it can never be proven to be wrong.

Posted by: Norman L. at October 13, 2007 5:19 PM

As far as Freud's drug use, it was very common for people in those days to use laudenum, which was legal. Cigars ended up being more of a problem for him..he died a slow painful death from mouth cancer (while continuing to write).

Posted by: Norman L. at October 13, 2007 5:27 PM

Thanks Amy for the link:

"In short, his thinking, influenced by the Stoic philosopher Epictetus' notion that it's not events that disturb us but the views we take of them, goes like this:

Change the way you think and you change the way you feel. You're disturbed because you're thinking irrationally."

That was what I meant when I added "The problem isn't dreams (or the events) it is the guilt people feel about themselves (or the view that somehow they are responsible for the event)...

If we can remove the guilt we take the first step towards really evaluating the experience...

I have never had a "Therapist", but I am thankful for "mentors" who have taught me to examine my life...

When people write to you Amy, I think they are looking for an opportunity to connect with a mentor to evaluate that experience... and to live in an age when we can dialogue about the response in this fashion. What a great opportunity!

I love your column and especially your insightful research and humorous responses and will continue to dialogue.

Posted by: Peter at October 14, 2007 7:21 AM

Thanks so much Peter -- that's really nice to wake up to.

And Norman L, I realize you're a fan along the lines of all those little girls screaming for Paris Hilton, but to say "cigars ended up being more of a problem for him" is, uh, an understatement:



More than fifteen years later, at the age of fifty-five, Freud was still smoking twenty cigars a day––– and still struggling against his addiction. In a letter to Dr. Jones be remarked on "the sudden intolerance of [my heart] for tobacco." 5

Four years later he wrote to Dr. Karl Abraham that his passion for smoking hindered his psychoanalytic studies. Yet he kept on smoking.

In February 1923, at the age of sixty-seven, Freud noted sores on his right palate, and jaw that failed to heal. They were cancers. An operation was performed––– the first of thirty-three operations for cancer of the jaw and oral cavity which he endured during the sixteen remaining years of his life. I am still out of work and cannot swallow," he wrote shortly after this first operation. "Smoking is accused as the etiology of this tissue rebellion." 6 Yet he continued to smoke.

In addition to his series of cancers and cancer operations, all in the oral area, Freud now suffered attacks of "tobacco angina" whenever he smoked. He tried partially denicotinized cigars, but even these produced anginal pains and other heart symptoms. Yet he continued to smoke.

At seventy-three, Freud was ordered to retire to a sanitarium for his heart condition. He made an immediate recovery––– "not through any therapeutic miracle," he wrote, "but through an act of autonomy." 7 This act of autonomy was, of course, a firm decision to stop smoking. And Freud did stop––– for twenty-three days. Then he started smoking one cigar a day. Then two. Then three or four....

In 1936, at the age of seventy-nine, and in the midst of his endless series of mouth and jaw operations for cancer, Freud had more heart trouble. "It was evidently exacerbated by nicotine," Dr. Jones writes, "since it was relieved as soon as he stopped smoking." 8 His jaw had by then been entirely removed and an artificial jaw substituted; he was in almost constant pain; often he could not speak and sometimes he could not chew or swallow. Yet at the age of eighty-one, Freud was still smoking what Dr. Jones, his close friend at this period, calls "an endless series of cigars." 9

Freud died of cancer in 1939, at the age of eighty-three. His efforts over a forty-five-year period to stop smoking, his repeated inability to stop, his suffering when he tried to stop, and the persistence of his craving and suffering even after fourteen continuous months of abstinence––– a "torture . . . beyond human power to bear"––– make him the tragic prototype of tobacco addiction.

Again, I realize he makes your panties wet, and you just can't help defending him (addicted to Freud?), but the guy was an addict, and...well, would you want your mental health to be in the hands of an addict?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 14, 2007 7:41 AM

I fail to see what all of this (obviously) tangential talk about homeschooling, the education system, and the personal habits of Freud has to do with the obviously "edited for entertainment" problem (or natural non-problem)of the original poster.

"mental lint"? I think I've seen more mental lint (read: crap) out of the comments section than from out of the original post. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for bashing someone who thought she had a problem.

Posted by: Midnight Skulker at October 15, 2007 5:02 PM

would you want your mental health to be in the hands of an addict?

Amy - would you consult a doctor who had ever been ill? Or who even was ill during the consultation?

Whether I want my mental health in the hands of an addict depends on the addict, not on the fact of addiction. In fact, being an addict might be a benefit, in some circumstances.

Posted by: Norman at October 16, 2007 2:28 AM

Midnight Skulker,

It's called conversating...or must we apply rigid rules to this blog for it to be pleasing in the eyes of the midnight sulker..uh.. I mean skulker?


Thanks for the heads-up, bud, but chill the fuck out or move the fuck on.

Posted by: kg at October 16, 2007 12:07 PM

kg - I believe the word is "conversing."

From your post, it seems that comments may be on any topic other than how off-topic the comments are. Lovely.

Posted by: tini at October 16, 2007 6:34 PM

I was being colloquial on purpose, shit bag. The point is that this is a blog. Anything goes. If you want to get back on the original post, get back to it. Don't bitch about the way people want to CONVERSE. The last time I was drinking a margarita with friends and we were CONVERSING, no one bitched about how the conversation ebbed and flowed. But then again, maybe my friends are cooler than yours. Nanny nanny boo boo!

Posted by: kg at October 17, 2007 12:51 PM

Ah, the words of a truly wise and mature person. Why can't everyone be more like kg? Her words (real or made up), as well as her attitude, should be a template for all to follow. The world would truly be a better place if we were more like her.

Posted by: Philip Enos at October 17, 2007 2:37 PM

I know, right!

Posted by: kg at October 17, 2007 5:15 PM

my mother is still in our house

Posted by: nancy Paahana at January 31, 2008 7:42 PM

I like cats better than dogs.

Posted by: Pussnboots [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 1, 2008 7:26 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)