Sex and hypnosis

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Brown, CHt, CNLP on March 15, 2008 at 3:07pm

Mentat you may want to consider joining my group Safe Sane Erotic Hypnosis and trying out our sites at www.hypnofantasy.com

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brian David Phillips on March 15, 2008 at 5:26pm

Ditto on Bob's suggestion to join the Safe Sane Erotic Hypnosis group for some of your questions. Sex is most definately a basic need. Go take a look at Abraham Maslow's work on the hierarchy of human needs/motives and you will note that sex is usually listed in the basic physiological/survival needs. It is unique in that while it is a basic need, we can sublimate it (other survival needs lead to eventual death if we do not fulfill them). Of course, romance and intimacy are in the higher need sets while still associated with the sexual drive.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mentat on March 16, 2008 at 8:18am

It does appear as though trance is needed in order to really augment the mental aspects and even physical of sexuality. Consciousness alone is good but training the unconscious is ideal. I can have somewhat of an effect working just with consciousness but trance is better. Regardless of how open minded you are consciously you just can't achieve the same degree of suggestability as trance and hypnosis. I for instance cannot get myself to be as attracted to a person as I would in trance. When I get deeper into trance, voila, so many possibilties emerge. And it's always of better content.

So, again, while I'm interested vastly in psychoanalysis, hypnosis is also an interest. I don't think hypnosis helps one learn about themselves or others. I think out of all psychology psychoanalysis is the greatest at getting one to learn about themself and others.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mentat on March 16, 2008 at 11:00am

I don't believe sex is a need but it is a serious want. If it is not fulfilled it can be devestating. Given the fact of priests and rare people that are disgusted by sex I don't think it is a real need. I am not familiar with abraham maslow though.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brian David Phillips on March 16, 2008 at 4:18pm

"sex I don't think it is a real need. I am not familiar with abraham maslow though" Get familiar THEN comment. Go read some of Maslow's studies and at least do a simple google search on his hierarchy of motives/needs . . . sex is most definately a need, it is fundamental to the human organism, however, it is a physiological need that can undergo sublimation and even then, it is often less than positive an effect. However, yes, there are indeed those who have found positive strategies to sublimate their sexual drives - sombunal priests have been succesfful (while others end up repressing their sexual desires which then manifest into shadow behaviors far more counterproductive than the originally repressed desires). Persons who are "disgusted with sex" certainly have negative sublimation strategies that are unhealthy to themselves and to those around them.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brian David Phillips on March 16, 2008 at 4:26pm

"So, again, while I'm interested vastly in psychoanalysis, hypnosis is also an interest. I don't think hypnosis helps one learn about themselves or others. I think out of all psychology psychoanalysis is the greatest at getting one to learn about themself and others."

Be very very careful of too overgeneralizing statements of this type. You are obviously unfamiliar with hypnoanalysis, core transformation, introspective experiential hypnosis, or any number of transformational hypnosis processes that go much further, in much less time, and far more effectively than talk therapy of the psychoanalytical approaches. Even traditional talk therapy processes become far more effective within an appropriate hypnotic context with a competent hypnotic operator. Please understand that the core processes of traditional talk therapy psychoanalysis were developed by Freud after participating in a number of HYPNOSIS SESSIONS where he discovered the power of revealing the ISE and dealing with it. Freud dismissed hypnosis as part of his process in part because he misunderstood the process, was not effective with it, and because there was a general belief of the time that hypnosis was only possible with hysterics. Likewise, Jung had very early success with hypnosis but later abandoned it because he found that the "cures" did not "stick" . . . this was very much less to do with the effectiveness of hypnosis than it had to do with the process that Jung used (simple direct suggestion, rather than a more effective process approach). Effectiveness of any modality has a great deal to do with willingness of the trance partner or client ot engage in the process (a focus state that has emotional-kinesthetic components within the subjective experience has shown to be a very powerful component to change across the board, regardless of modality), competence/experience of operator, and the ability of the process to engage effectively intensify the experiential imaginative involvement of the emotions and subconscious).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bob Brown, CHt, CNLP on March 16, 2008 at 5:02pm

its only a need if you want it more than 4 times a day, right? Please say right... yes definitely read up on Maslov.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mentat on March 17, 2008 at 4:12am

I'm going to look up hypnoanalysis. Thank you. My impression though of hypnosis in general is that it doesn't stick. But I am not an expert.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bob Brown, CHt, CNLP on March 17, 2008 at 4:19am

Stickiness is directly related to the person... A marriage sticks when two people put effort in, show respect and commitment. Hypnosis works in the same way... If you want to prove it won't stick, you can. If you want to give it the freedom to work wonderfully it will.


I took a treatment to help me give up cola's 7 years ago. I have not had one since. My wife took the same treatment to give up coffee and it lasted 6 months. The reality is.. she had stopped.. the addiction was silent.. She chose to go back. So the hypnosis worked... it was her that broke.

bob

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brian David Phillips on March 17, 2008 at 4:47am

"I'm going to look up hypnoanalysis. Thank you. My impression though of hypnosis in general is that it doesn't stick. But I am not an expert" That you are not an expert is very evident which is why I suggested you be wary of making such sweeping statements until you have more experience, training, and education on the subject so that when you make generalizations they are based upon something a bit stronger than misaprehension or guesses - particularly on a board populated by hypnotists. :-) Of course, most folks will be as patient and meet you halfway or try to give you some pointers or correct any misimpressions they notice. Long ago, Alfred Barrios, PhD, did a comparative analysis of published peer-reviewed research papers (by psychologists) on effectiveness and "stickiness." His study was published in the journal Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice as well as in Psychotherapy Magazine. He found that on average, Hypnosis lasts longer and works much more quickly in helping folks in general. When looking at recovery rates, he found that for Psychoanalysis 38% of clients recover after 600 sessions (that's typically around seven years) while for Behavior Therapy 72% of clients would recover after 22 sessions (I believe that was typically six or so months) while for Hypnotherapy had 93% of clients recover after 6 sessions (typically a few weeks to two months). Longitundinal studies typically find that longterm effectiveness tends to based upon utility of the change and whether or not the therapist was effective at getting the client to FOCUS feelings within the body during the process (hypnosis is very very good at that). Sorry, I can't post specific citations as most of my books are still in boxes and I've no way of knowing which box has which books (my library is rather extensive so I won't be tearing into them soon as I've got a lot on my plate).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mentat on March 17, 2008 at 9:06am

Abraham Maslow is interesting. I'll have to give this more thought. I still think sex is a want or desire rather than an actual need. It might be so strong of a desire that it is perceived as a need but I don't think it is. It's natural drug in my opinion. We are all drug addicts but we don't need the drug of sex. But I do think an individual, unless they have successfully sublimated the drive, will be noticably disturbed without it.

It is a very interesting question. Is sex really a need. It is a serious drive but I don't know if it is actually a need. Complications with the sex drive most definitely would result in disturbances though. But there might be therapies that can compensate for its lack.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mentat on March 17, 2008 at 9:09am

I have a question for you...How do you positively sublimate sexuality? According to certain authors the reason great minds make their discoveries later in life is because they have done away with sex and sublimated it towards their career or field. Interesting. How do you positively sublimate the sex drive? I've also heard it can raise IQ from one author if it is sublimated.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3