... or Freud developed that theory during a time when it was normal for middle class children to be raised by nannies. Unlike today, children back then were not raised by their parents and therefore had difficulties forming an incest barrier which comes natural to children growing up in normal families today.
It also doesn't help that, allegedly, his sister had touched him inappropriately which when he attempted to have similar interactions with his nanny prompted her to deride him. Freud had a wild life and outlook on the world.
It’s also worth noting that asides a general decline in support for psychoanalysis in the anglosphere and long standing debate to the validity of many of Frueds ideas and wether they even constitute scientific work (a popular argument being that Frueds ideas cannot predict behavior or treatment, they merely supposedly explain it- though they do so in observation in such a manner that it isn’t necessarily possible to prove or disprove- an essential element of a scientific theory..) there are many papers on these topics and sub topics and their intricacies- but most of Frueds theories can be said to be cultural. The exception given for the prevalence of nannies in the home for example- this is only really applicable to a certain class at a certain place and time.
Even in Frueds own time, were one to travel to China, the culture and specific psychology could be said to differ from those of Frueds models. When applying psychoanalysis to China, it is often held that certain key roles must change to reflect the differences in Chinese society and culture for example. The role of the mother or father and the expectations of the child are a bit different traditionally as are the general family dynamics and such.
Of course incest is a global phenomenon through history, but outside of blatantly incestual relationships there are often probalema applying many of Frueds ideas to different cultures when those cultures are viewed from their own perspective and not placed under an anglocentric perspective for analysis.
So wether one believes in psychoanalysis or credits Frueds theories as scientific or functional or even valid- culture is a major part of the equation which cannot be ignored. Culture doesn’t just change across ethnicities or geography, the culture of a singular place and people changes over time. There are certain fundamental truths of the psychological or neurological models to behavior and cognition- but even in pharmacology there are drugs which do not effect all people the same based on genetics or even arguably culture. It’s fair to say that children of a certain age don’t generally have good concept of sexual vs. non sexual self- many adults don’t really either. We often confuse non sexual intimacy with sexuality, confuse admiration or trust or friendship for romantic love, or even sexualize inanimate objects, scents, etc.
Of course incest is a global phenomenon through history, but outside of blatantly incestual relationships there are often probalema applying many of Frueds ideas to different cultures when those cultures are viewed from their own perspective and not placed under an anglocentric perspective for analysis.