A correction: Sorry, I made a slip in my last message (no excuses, but it *is* difficult keeping track of Freud�s contradictory assertions). I wrote:
�Odder still, although in 1925 he was still asserting that �in both cases [boys and girls] the mother is the original [libidinal] object� (1925, SE 19, p. 251), in �New Introductory Lectures�, written a few years later, he told his readers: �We knew, *of course*, that there had been a preliminary stage of attachment of [infant girls] to the mother�� (1933, SE 22, p. 199, my emphasis).� In place of the first quotation here I should have selected another statement, from 1926, in which he wrote the opposite: �The first object of a boy�s love is his mother, and of a girl her father� (1926, SE 20, p. 212). So the (amended) paragraph should read: Incidentally, Freud�s analytic researches also led him to �discover� that the first �libidinal attachment� of an infant girl is to her father. He retained this view until 1925-1926, and then for some strange reason he made an abrupt turn-around and declared that the first libidinal attachment of infant girls is to the mother. Odder still, although in 1926 he was still asserting �The first object of a boy�s love is his mother, and of a girl her father� (1926, SE 20, p. 212), in �New Introductory Lectures�, written a few years later, he told his readers: �We knew, *of course*, that there had been a preliminary stage of attachment of [infant girls] to the mother�� (1933, SE 22, p. 199, my emphasis). Freud made the change in the period 1925-1926, and wrote opposite statements on this issue in those years. Nowhere in his later writings on female sexuality did he explain how he could have been so mistaken for the first thirty years of his psychoanalytic career. (For a discussion of Freud�s ideas on female infantile sexuality, see my *Seductive Mirage*, pp. 140-149.) Allen Esterson --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
