inconsistencies in jones' analysis

Jones attempts to illustrate how the character of Hamlet is motivated throughout the work by an unresolved Oedipal complex, residual of his youth. However, examining Jones' efforts to show how the actions of the play correspond to Freudian theory, several inconsistencies become clear- illustrating that Jones is perhaps trying too hard to make the two fit together.
Firstly, Jones discusses the mysogynistic attitude Hamlet takes towards the female characters in the play. His anger towards Ophelia is a manifestation of his Oedipal complex, resulting from his associating her with his mother in his mind. While this all seems to make sense, it also seems to be unecessary commentary. Why can't Hamlet's anger at Ophelia be simply the result of his affections being one sided? Ophelia has enticed him and then dropped him. Furthermore, she has betrayed him by spying on him. That alone is reason enough for him to be angry, even without associating Ophelia with Gertrude. Hamlet is he Prince of Denmark, probably accustomed to getting exactly what he wants, perhaps a bit spoiled. No doubt he would be angry at failing to secure the object of his affections! It seems superfluous and unnecessary for his anger at Ophelia to have anything to do with his repressed desires for Gertrude. The story itself provides enough reason for him to be upset without the Freudian analysis tacked on.
Another inconsistency is Jones assertion that Hamlet took so long to kill Claudius because since Claudius has fulfilled the all the Oedipal desires that Hamlet has had to repress, "he cannot kill him (Claudius) without killing himself." Jones implies that Hamlet has come to identify with his unclet o such an extent, that he cannot bring himself to kill him. This theory however, does not make sense in light of Freudian principles. According to Freud, children repress their desires as a result of their realization that such desires are socially unacceptable. Hamlet then, seeing that Claudius has been able to fulfill these desires without suffering social ostracism, would surely have thought that he too, was no longer forced to repress these desires, as society would accept him anyway! Accordian to Freudian theory, Hamlet should have acted MORE impulsively, and killed his uncle with further haste, now that he saw that such desires could be fulfilled without the risk of social undesirablity. With all this in mind, it seems that Jones is trying a little too hard to fit the actions of the play to Oedipus complex.