Sigmund Fraud on "The Sandman"...Whoops, I meant Freud.

I remember discussing the short story entitled "The Sandman" in relation to the interpretation of the infamous Sigmund Freud. I felt the need to revisit the issue, since the preposterousness of his evaluation still lingers. Essentially, the main element of the story was the idea that "The Sandman" would come to a child's house, steal his eyes, and then feed those eyes to his own children. That's an absolutely terrifying idea. One, because the thought of anyone tearing your eyes out and the pain that would be associated is terrifying in and of itself. Two, because the thought of any being eating the eyes of another (especially a human) is disgusting. At least these are my first thoughts.
Luckily, however, Freud was there to correct me. His interpretation was that men are fearful of this story because of deep, suppressed fear inside of them of losing their testicles. In the story, the eyes were symbolizing the male genitalia. Wow. I completely misinterpreted that one I guess.
I would be extremely interested in going back and talking to the author of this story and discussing this theory. Seeing the look on his face when asked "Were the eyes a symbol of testicles in your story?" would make the trip completely worth it. Essentially, what I'm getting at is I think Sigmund Freud is an absolute joke. I understand that the man is the main contributor to psychological understanding and teachings today. In my mind, however, theories such as this one should call to question every single thing the man ever claimed. I agree with him that most of a person's psychological intricacies have been a development over time, and that an emense number of occurences in childhood have played a part in creating the person. However, I don't see the need of someone claiming that idea. To me, it seems incredibly obvious that, like in so many other things, the present is a product of the past.
I sometimes wonder what authors would think if they could hear some of the contemporary interpretations of their works. For instance, what if Jonathan Swift wrote Gulliver's Travels without any intention of making political statements? What if the entire novel was supposed to be a fun, light-hearted work of fiction? It would be fun to watch his expression as people suggested all of the many political satires throughout the novel if he had honestly no intention of creating them. However, he wouldn't be as renowned an author if that was the case.
In summation, I think Freud was completely wrong in his anaylsis as to why The Sandman was a frightening story.