Comments:Dr. Joseph Merlino on sexuality, insanity, Freud, fetishes and apathy

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

I do have a rather strong opinion of this piece. I think it is one of the greatest interviews to ever appear in Wikinews. First, it testifies to the very value of an interview in the context of news media: it informs with recent, relevant information from a reputable source. Next, it reveals excellent judgment on David Shankbone's part, in his selection of the person to interview for this topic. Better yet, Shankbone was well informed and well prepared, asking intelligent and right-to-the-point questions, getting answers that could go a long way to inform, even guide the general public in a world where most media shoot for sensationalism, not to inform but merely to sell eyeballs to advertisers. David Shankbone's professionalism and successful execution of this interview can be proudly offered as the perfect retort to the media mandarins and other naysayers of citizen journalism. And the guy even takes the pictures! (I dunno, is he a team?)

And then there's Dr. Merlino, a man of considerable stature and accomplishment, heroically agreeing to this interview. With his resume, if he said you were crazy, you'd be in some trouble because you would be hard pressed to find someone with the credentials to say you were ok. I have a passing familiarity with psychology and modern life, so nothing really stood out or shocked me. I learned a few new things about Freud and when the psychiatric establishment gave up on homosexuality as a disease and such. The Doctor responded to David's questions with balanced and reasonable answers, interesting and professional as one would expect of such a person. Then towards the end of the interview he was talking about public apathy in the face of government transgressions and he made the statement, "I long for the play Hair to come back. It's forty years old now. I don't understand why it's not back on Broadway." In that moment as I was reading it, unbeknownst to the good Doctor, he became my friend.

I just want to thank absolutely everybody down to the last 10 yen contributor for that. - Zaz 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Shankbone[edit]

David Shankbone is a poopie head and narcissistic asshole who uses wikimedia projects opportunistically to archive maximum poopie-headedness. Joseph Merlino seems cool, though. -- Prophetofthewikis 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transgender woman[edit]

Yes that's me i like being a woman the heck being a man i've had it  i'm comfortable living a life as a female that's what i wanted to be since i was 10 years old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

Transgender woman[edit]

Yes that's me i like being a woman the heck being a man i've had it  i'm comfortable living a life as a female that's what i wanted to be since i was 10 years old, i have been putting on dresses high heels, and panyhose so that i be able to look more like a girl.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

Very nice site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Joseph Merlino on sexuality, insanity, Freud, fetishes and apathy[edit]

Having read all the reviews posted on this matter, my toughts turn to people living in loneliness, segregation, misunderstood and probably deeply depressed. We are all born with all that we need to what goes wrong?........dealing with socilaising as well as a world that is becoming even further removed from reality through the media. I blame directly the influence the media has on people's minds.........whether it is films, programs on TV or music, we are all bombarded with the latest hype. Is it time we started to ask questions again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from feedback form - "Decent article in general. Int..."[edit]

Decent article in general. Interesting points. — (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from feedback form - "The questions were relevant an..."[edit]

The questions were relevant and the subject was informative and thought-provoking. — (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from feedback form - "I liked the article, I am into..."[edit]

I liked the article, I am into psychology and psychosis, and this is what I have been looking for, the Jokes might of been a little off topic and annoying, but other than that, well done. Keep them coming please. — (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from feedback form - "A insightful and straightforwa..."[edit]

A insightful and straightforward look at involvement, intellectual honesty, with an inside view of a considerate practitioner of Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis. Dr Merlino represents the growth and direction of the practice of solving mental problems and illnesses in an informed and well thought out process that benefits his patients. A good and informative article for all to read. Thank you. — (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spirituality, Carl Jung and Global Deleria.[edit]

What's considered our social norm, is far away from the universal norm which is much more centered and abstract.

Spiritually the norm is all about love, forgiveness and acceptance of each and every individual. Fetishes wise, Fetishes are nothing more than alternative sexual tastes. It's very much like the spectrum of music, you might like to listen to music others may find extremely unnapealing and maybe even taboo. Same goes with sexuality.

I for one have an alternate sexual taste which happens to be popular in the furry/scalie subculture. I find the human body unnatractive, so do I find the normal bioligical way of having sex. I have voraphillia and am attracted to anything serpentine.

Spiritualy I've been in love with a serpentine dragon, and even practice astral projection to induce 'hallucinations' and 'dreams' in which I turn into my true self. Ofcourse bieng aware that I'm in such state with 'reality checks' and common sense.

Yes, I believe I am a dragon in heart, soul, mind and spirit. Which is the only reasonable explanation to it. Many spiritualist have written about these concepts, and hypothesize quite valid scientific and filosophical concepts about higher levels of existences as proven in string and quanta. As the possiblity of such 'serpentine' or other forms having incarnated into a lower form of existence. In which you all limit your views to.

Calling the most enlightened insane, and prescribing serotanine uptake inhibitors to people going through a spiritual awakening, only making it more difficult for them.

Let's take a look at someone I am personally a huge fan of. Carl Jung, and his theories about sexuality and fetishism. Sexual repression is a social norm, but as many social norms, these are unhealthy for individuals and humanity alike. So I fixed myself, I am polyamorous, as I believe love on all levels should be shared as with many people you can, unconditionally. As such is our modern slavery, binding ourself to currency, going through education with a group of people forcing us to give up our individual beauties and creativity. If you don't adapt, you will get beaten up in the schoolyard, it's either that or adapt. Many of the worlds problems are caused by human imbalance, and incompetence to realize that social norms aren't neccesarily yours and neither need to adapt to them. Even if this would result to certain death or prosecution, neither did the world most popular prophet Jeshua! There will be always people who have lost control in the frontal cortex and go ahead. Also the fact that instinctually we are connected to our reality, and we can clearly but 'inexplainably' feel for example something really obnoxious happening, or have prophetic dreams about events *BEFORE* they actually took place. This been proven but rejected as vodoo by mainstream science and sigmund freud himself when carl jung talked about this.

The higgs boson will never be found, reality is a collective projection. And thus illusive. Infact the constant state each and every human is constantly in, is delerium, because we still take on negative energy and thought, making ourselves believe we don't know the awnser to the ultimate question. We are constantly afraid of our own reality. Using less than 3% of the possible neuronic connections we can make.

To make a long and incoherent story short, if you find this rather low-existentional and obvious subject intresting. READ CARL JUNG! Combine Religion, Spirituality and Science if you ever want to come closer to an awnser.

Never been diagnosed, as I avoid psychologist and visit shamans for my problems instead. To Shamans, I am indeed a dragon (some of them have seen so before they could even know) To psychiatrist, I'd probably be severely autistic, with high IQ. (142)

_87.212.230.138 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I enjoyed reading this, but it wasn't great. The topic is brilliant and had room for a lot of interesting discussion but I don't think that Merlino's intellect or expertise was tapped in to all and some of the questions seemed almost juvenile and under researched. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:30, 2 February 2014


Alice Miller exposed Freud and his Oedipus complex Lie.


Sigmund Freud in his 1905 work Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, outlined a theory of psychosexual development with five distinct phases: - The oral stage (0 - 1.5 years) - The anal stage (1.5 - 3.5 years) - The phallic stage (3.5 – 6 years) culminating in the resolution of the Oedipus conflict - The Latency Phase (6–12 years of age) - The genital, or adult stage

__________________________ TALMUD ON SEX WITH 3YR OLDS Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 54b "Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one.23 What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that" __________________________

FREUD ON SUPERIOR JEWS "Joseph Wortis based on an interview with Freud in 1935: Freud commented that he viewed gentiles as prone to “ruthless egoism,” whereas Jews had a superior family and intellectual life. Wortis then asked Freud if he viewed Jews as a superior people. Freud replied:

“I think nowadays they are… When one thinks that 10 or 12 of the Nobel winners are Jews, and when one thinks of their other great achievements in the sciences and in the arts, one has every reason to think them superior” Page 108 The Culture of Critique

Freud thought Gentiles were prone to "ruthless egoism" but simultaneously declared that the self-described "Chosen Ones" are "superior"? It seems he must have been projecting his own tribe's worst characteristics onto the Gentiles, and extrapolating from there. Also, many of Freud's own patients were Jewish, so most of his "scientific" conclusions were not scientific at all, but rather based on the psycho-analysis of a rather, ahem, psychologically skewed sampling -- although his conclusions are no doubt valid for the majority population that dwells in Israel (and probably Manhattan and Hollywood).


The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the JEWISH Bible in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):

   "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (JEWISH Bible)."

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

   "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

The Talmud (and not the JEWISH Scriptures) is the legal/canonical text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.

In the late 19th century, most European Jews were a people of the book. But their book wasn’t the JEWISH Bible. It was the BABYLONIAN TALMUD. To this day, the Talmud remains Judaism’s highest moral, ethical and legal authority.


Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,

“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1

Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2

Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.


The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hair-splitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:

“How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4


It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.

As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.

But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to European lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.

Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.


What exactly did these sages say?

The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man”. Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)

One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,

“All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” 5

Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

Presumably, the majority of little Jewish boys get raped before they are nine by Rabbis. They get caught doing this constantly.

And so do the Zionist Roman Catholic priests

A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised:

“…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” 7

The JEWISH Talmud also says,

“A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” 8

Clearly, the JEWISH Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.


In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.

   R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 55b)
   A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)
   A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)
   It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)
   [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)

The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”

The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9

But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage.

“At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”


The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age.

“As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest anymore.” 10

The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,

“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” 11

In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.


Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:

   There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.

The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,

“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12

These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but

“must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:

“… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.


Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honoured by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.


1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402. 2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403. 3 Sanhedrin 76a. 4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah. 5 Sanhedrin 69b. 6 Sanhedrin 55a. 7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b. 8 Sanhedrin 55b. 9 Sanhedrin 55a. 10 Kethuboth 11a. 11 Kethuboth 11b. 12 Yebamoth 60b. 13 Sanhedrin 76b.