This is how Freud described his conversation with his bisexual friend, his sugar daddy at the time, Josef Breuer.
At the time, between1882-1885, as he explained, Freud was a young hospital doctor. (1) (Not so young, 29 years old. It took him eight years to graduate first in 1881!)
Commenting on the cause of the nervous illness of one of his female patients, Breuer remarked, “those are always secrets of the alcove.”
Freud, the fake virgin, feigned that had no idea what Breuer was intimating.
This was his reaction: Astonished I asked his meaning and he explained the expression to me ("secrets of the conjugal bed’), without realizing how preposterous the matter appeared to me. (2)
As a matter of course, Freud was shamefully dissimulating. Most certainly, Freud was familiar with the genital massage commonly given by doctors to their female patients as a means of alleviating hysteria.
Also, Freud provided this kind of intimate service to his, mostly female, female patients.

Recounting the time when he started his medical career in Vienna as a lecturer in nervous diseases [in 1885], Freud revealed that Professor Rudolf Chrobak, allegedly, explained to him that the female patient’s anxiety was caused by the fact that she was still a virgin after 18 years of marriage.
Rudolf Chrobak, who died in 1910, thus four years before Freud’s revelation, couldn't publicly contradict Freud's suspicious claim.
As Freud claimed, Chrobak gave him a sexual explanation of how to cure the patient. The only recipe for such suffering, he added, is well known to us, but we cannot prescribe it. It is, Chrobak allegedly said: "Penis normalis dosim repetatur". (3) (Normal penis, repeated dosage.)
(Just one look at the esteemed professor suffices to realise that Freud's claim is unlikely. Unlike Freud, he doesn't appear to be a fan of sexual jokes.)
This, as Freud claimed, was his shocked reaction:
I hadn't heard of such a recipe and wanted to shake my head at my patron's cynicism. (3)
This is a bizarre statement. Freud was already 29, and, as a matter of course, since his youth, knew a lot about sexual urges.
Freud’s ingenuity is obvious from his deceitful clarification:
I certainly didn't reveal the illustrious origins of the wicked idea because I wanted to shift responsibility for it onto others. (3)
But, of course, this is why he disclosed it. Freud was very keen to claim that the illustrious, in his mind, idea, that sexuality was the cause of all human ills, wasn't his own only.
Notably, Chrobak's alleged statement about penis normalis didn't appear in the first translation of Freud's essay of 1917. It appears it was too risky for the English reader.
I found it only in the German edition of 1924. The translations of the quotes are my own.

On several occasions, Freud explained how his recipe for healing hysteria, and any other disease, came about.
As he claimed -- most probably he was lying - the French psychiatrist, and professor, Jean-Martin Charcot, during Freud’s stay in Paris, between October 20, 1885 and February 28, 1886, told him that when it comes to neurosis, Mais, dans des cas pareils c’est toujours la chose génital, toujours - toujours- toujours. (It’s always a question of the genitals, always, always, always). (2)
What confirms the idea that Freud lied about Charcot's statement, is Freud’s bizarre claim that, while talking about the issue, Charcot crossed his hands in his lap and jumped up and down several times. (2)
So, according to Freud, Charcot was holding his genitals of sexual excitement while jumping? This is typical of Freud, denigrating the dead. (Charcot died, twenty years earlier, in 1893, and he couldn't contradict his accuser).
It’s more likely that it was Freud, the great masturbator, that was doing the genital exercises.
Further, as if he was a virgin - far from it - just as in the previous cases, Freud claimed that he was shocked by the revelation. for a moment I was almost paralyzed with astonishment (2),  Freud claimed.
This is yet another Freudian blatant lie. Having frequented brothels regularly, since his teenage years, Freud was neither astonished nor paralysed.
Possibly he mistook own erection, the result of his excitement - assuming the event at all happened - for paralysis.

Ten years later, in the Studies on Hysteria (1895), writing about his treatment of his female patient, “Anna O.", this is how Freud explained how he delivered his cure:
I used to visit her in the evening, when … I should find her in her hypnosis, and I then relieved her of the whole stock of imaginative products. (4)
So, the woman was in self-induced hypnotic sleep, thus passive, and Freud was actively relieving her of her products.
Freud considerately didn't reveal how he did that, which indicates that his method of relieving her products - whatever they were - couldn't see the light of day, not in print, in any case.
But he revealed that, When this was done, she became perfectly calm. (4) When, what was done?
As he claimed, the relief did work, but only for a couple of days, and then had to be repeated. So, what was the procedure that brought her relief? As Freud unashamedly clarified:
She aptly described this procedure ... as a talking cure, while she referred to it jokingly as chimney-sweping.(4)
For anyone who knows anything about Freudian symbolism, what the procedure was about is obvious. For Freud, talking meant oral sex while chimney sweeping referred to intercourse.
So, this was how Freud relieved her of her imaginative products!
In Freud’s letter to Jung of November 21, 1909, there's proof that, in the Freudian vernacular, chimney sweeping signifies intercourse. As Freud wrote:
It has also been explained to me why a chimney sweep is regarded as a good omen: chimney sweeping is an action symbolic of coitus. (5)
And, in case he wasn't obvious enough, he added:
All watch charms - pig, ladder, shoe, chimney-sweep, etc. - are sexual consolations.  (5)
(Notably, moreover, in Freudian symbolism, a chimney is a symbol of both the penis and vagina.)
So this is what Freud's treatment of Anna was about. Cleaning her chimney with his chimney, possibly,  also Dr Breuer participated in the procedure, the two partners in crime acting as two eager chimney sweepers.

In the letter to Jung on December 6, 1906, Freud openly explained that their treatment of females had nothing to do with analysing the patient (i.e.listening to their confessions) but all with the chimney sweeping.
This is how Freud explained to Jung the procedure:
our cures are brought about through the fixation of the libido prevailing in the unconscious (transference) ... most readily obtained in hysteria. … The cure is effected by love. (6)
In Freud's interpretation, libido refers to one's, more or less uncontrollable, sexual urges.
Freud’s biographer, Jones, provided a somewhat different translation stating that writing to Jung Freud explained to him, that the cure, is in essence a cure through love.  (7) (No need for listening to the patient's confession. Instead, the couch was the cure.)
Jones' translation of the phrase is more explicit than the one in the published Jung letters.
There's a difference between the statement, the cure is effected by love, and that it is a cure through [sexual] love.
It is not about the analyst romantically loving the patient, but about satisfying her/him sexually.
In other words, as Freud informed his partner in crime - they were both into the sexual exploitation of their patients - the most susceptible to their sexual advances were hysterical women starved for sex.
Of course, when Freud was talking about love, he didn't mean romantic love only physical.
This is how Freud explained the sexual treatment of the patient in his essay about Gradiva (1907):
The doctor has been a stranger, and must endeavour to become a stranger once more after the cure; he is often at a loss what advice to give the patients he has cured as to how in real life they can use their recovered capacity to love. (8)

In the letter to Pfister on February. 9, 1909, Freud explained to him that, success ... comes about in your [religious] case … as it does with us, by way of erotic transference. (16)
And what was erotic transference if not the patient's willingness to submit to sexual treatment? As Freud further explained, our treatment generally results in the seeking out of satisfaction. (16) What kind of satisfaction?
As Freud revealed, we are unable to see anything forbidden or sinful in sexual satisfaction, but regard it as a valuable part of human experience. (16)
This is true, of course, unless the sexual satisfaction is being delivered for a payment by a doctor to his patient under false pretenses, which, then, at once sounds less appealing. 
Freud claimed that, for us the term sex includes ... love, and is certainly not restricted to the crude pleasure of the senses. (16) He was lying. Emotional love was not included in the fee for his treatment. p. 16
Three months later, on May 10, 1909, Freud clarified that {sexual] transference, is the condition of lasting success. (12)
And he added a hint that it wasn’t always smooth sailing. One type of woman, he wrote, refuses any abstract substitute and demands some kind of tangible happiness in life or clings to the transference. (12)
In other words, some women wanted real sex and didn’t want to end their sexual relationship with their doctor once the paid-for treatment hour was over. This is, no doubt, what Freud meant when warning Jung about little laboratory explosions.
Writing to Pfister on March 17, 1910, Freud added.  I have, as you admit, done a great deal for love, but experience does not confirm that it lies at the base of everything, unless, as is psychologically correct, hate is included with it. (13)
This is the true Freud, both love and hatred played an important role in his relationships, especially with men, but not only. As it follows that Freud hated the very women he pretended to love,  And the gullible pastor didn't realise what kind of monster he was dealing with.