Affair With Therapist?
M. Cauther Prinz
Can o' worms...
The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
stumble into willy-nilly.
She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
You only live once.
Commentary?
--
Do you know how many time
zones there are in the Soviet
Union? Eleven.
Fiona Webster
M. Cauther Prinz writes:
> Can o' worms...
>
> The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
> doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
> for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
> stumble into willy-nilly.
>
> She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
> possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
>
> You only live once.
>
> Commentary?
Assuming this is not a troll... Don't do it. Don't even think about
it. It would be gross malpractice on her part, and self-destructive
on both of your parts.
--sorry to be emphatic, but I feel strongly about this
point of ethics,
Fiona Webster (psychiatrist-psychotherapist)
Mickey
In article <6kug7f$l7r$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
> : Don't do it. Don't even think about
> : it.
>
> How the hell could you avoid _thinking_ about it?
Relax, relax. I think she meant don't consider it as a realistic option.
I would certainly echo that statement.
> : It would be gross malpractice on her part, and self-destructive
> : on both of your parts.
>
> I think that's dogma... true in most cases, but not true as divine
> revelation... Which is no comment on the fact that sleeping with your
> patients/clients _is_ a definite no-no.
So at least there is general (if not unanimous) consensus that sleeping
with patients/clients is a mistake.
But it's not just dogma. We can legally verify that it would be "gross
malpractice." The research (and a whole lot of history) would suggest
that it would also be self-destructive. Destructive to the practitioner's
practice, license, and overall credibility, destructive to the very
important ethics within client/therapist relationships, and (at the very
least) a major hurdle for the patient to deal with in his/her process.
MICKEY
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." -- Frank Zappa
Fiona Webster
I wrote:
> Assuming this is not a troll... Don't do it. Don't even think about it.
Silke:
> How the hell could you avoid _thinking_ about it?
You can't. I wasn't being literal, just using a familiar cliché to
be emphatic.
Me:
> It would be gross malpractice on her part, and self-destructive
> on both of your parts.
Silke:
> I think that's dogma... true in most cases, but not true as divine
> revelation... Which is no comment on the fact that sleeping with your
> patients/clients _is_ a definite no-no.
I agree that it's dogma, but it's not religious dogma. Just dogma
in the sense of an authoritative statement of principles that
I believe (in my role as a shrink) to be absolutely true.
That's an interesting point, that some beliefs therapists have are
dogmatic.
--Fiona
John Clark
Fiona Webster schrieb:
> I agree that it's dogma, but it's not religious dogma. Just dogma
> in the sense of an authoritative statement of principles that
> I believe (in my role as a shrink) to be absolutely true.
>
> That's an interesting point, that some beliefs therapists have are
> dogmatic.
An other form of 'doxa/dogma', is 'orthodox', 'right/correct opinion'
And I would believe that there are 'orthodox' procedures in practices such
as psychotherapy. (I'm not at home so I can't look up in Alice Liddell's
father's book, why 'doxology' would be a religious element...)
And of course for me, I'm anathma... without the theme...
John Clark
Mickey schrieb:
> So at least there is general (if not unanimous) consensus that sleeping
> with patients/clients is a mistake.
>
> But it's not just dogma. We can legally verify that it would be "gross
> malpractice." The research (and a whole lot of history) would suggest
> that it would also be self-destructive. Destructive to the practitioner's
> practice, license, and overall credibility, destructive to the very
> important ethics within client/therapist relationships, and (at the very
> least) a major hurdle for the patient to deal with in his/her process.
I believe this 'distructiveness' stems directly from the socially accepted dogma
that such relationships are necessarily evil, or if not necessarily, so dangerous
as needing control.
It is of course a social dogma that this is so, and the society effects controls to
make it so.
If the two met in a beer hall, there would be no social sanction, although there
still could be the power difference as proposed to be the basis of why the
client therapist sexual relationship must be avoided.
Alan
m...@cortx.com (M. Cauther Prinz) wrote:
> Can o' worms...
>
> The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
> doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may
> be for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
> stumble into willy-nilly.
I'm not an expert--I'm just another client--but I will give you my
opinion for what it's worth.
Fiona has already pointed out that it would be unethical for your
therapist to enter into a romantic/sexual relationship with you. I
can't tell from reading this whether your therapist has attempted to
initiate a romantic relationship with you. If she has, or if you
are not sure whether she has, I suggest you discuss this with her.
> She's been my therapist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
> possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
A romantic relationship is different from a therapeutic relationship.
To put it another way, if you enter into a romantic relationship with
your therapist, therapy stops. If I were in your position, I would
ask myself whether there is anything attractive about the idea of
stopping therapy. I don't know the answer to this question, but I
think it's worth asking. Perhaps after eight months you've covered a
lot of the surface issues and and are starting to encounter material
which is more disturbing and threatening.
> You only live once.
Which is a reason to make the most of your opportunities. So the
question is whether you would gain more from having a romantic or a
therapeutic relationship with your therapist.
Normally, when you are attracted to some one, you have two options:
act on your feelings, or don't act on them. But if you are attracted
to your therapist, you have a third option: talk about your feelings
without acting on them. This last option may not be easy, but sometimes
the easy road isn't the best one. As you say, you only live once.
- Alan
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On 1 Jun 1998, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Fiona Webster (f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com) wrote:
> : M. Cauther Prinz writes:
> [...]
> : > She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
> : > possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
> : >
> : > You only live once.
> : >
> : > Commentary?
>
> : Assuming this is not a troll... Don't do it. Don't even think about
> : it.
>
> How the hell could you avoid _thinking_ about it?
Don't be so literal. It's a figure of speech.
>
>
> : It would be gross malpractice on her part, and self-destructive
> : on both of your parts.
>
> I think that's dogma... true in most cases, but not true as divine
> revelation... Which is no comment on the fact that sleeping with your
> patients/clients _is_ a definite no-no.
>
It is defined as malpractice, illegal in many states, explicitly
prohibited by professional ethics for members of the APA. That makes it
more than dogma. Inviting legal and professional repercussions strikes me
as self-destructive on the part of the therapist. One of the reasons why
this is prohibited by law and ethics is because it is considered to be not
good for clients, harmful to them. A client might be tempted to engage in
a romantic relationship with a therapist, but that action would most
likely be destructive. Self-destructive depends on whether the client
suspects there is danger involved and proceeds anyway. Doesn't the fact
that this person is seeking advice on the matter suggest that he or she is
aware of some potential risk?
Nancy
Gene Douglas
M. Cauther Prinz wrote in message ...
:Can o' worms...
:
:The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
:doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
:for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
:stumble into willy-nilly.
:
:She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
:possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
:
:You only live once.
:
:Commentary?
:
Well, if she ever throws you over for another guy, you can have her license
and she'll be washing dishes for the remainder of her career, so you'll have
her over a barrel, so to speak. She already knows that, so if she's that
stupid and thoughtless of ethics, she deserves what she gets.
It would appear that the relationship has already gone beyond professional,
if you already know that she would respond in kind, she is no longer of any
use to you as a therapist. There are reasons dual relationships are
avoided, and it boils down to the fact that therapy becomes ineffective when
either part has the other relationship in the back of his mind.
I know that judges tell juries to "strike what you heard out of your mind.
Don't even consider it." But that's just a fiction, and an impossibility.
If she has allowed the relationship to so go far that you know that she
would respond to your advances, then she has already unethically shown
disregard for your welfare. You may not know about transference or counter
transference, but she does, and ought to be able (and willing) to cope
appropriately.
Gene Douglas
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kug7f$l7r$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Fiona Webster (f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com) wrote:
:: M. Cauther Prinz writes:
:[...]
:: > She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider
romantic
:: > possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
:: >
:: > You only live once.
:: >
:: > Commentary?
:
:: Assuming this is not a troll... Don't do it. Don't even think about
:: it.
:
:How the hell could you avoid _thinking_ about it?
:
:
:: It would be gross malpractice on her part, and self-destructive
:: on both of your parts.
:
:I think that's dogma... true in most cases, but not true as divine
:revelation... Which is no comment on the fact that sleeping with your
:patients/clients _is_ a definite no-no.
:
:smw
:
:
But necking or holding hands isn't? So today we're doing amateur hour
again.
Gene Douglas
Mickey wrote in message ...
:In article <6kug7f$l7r$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
:(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
:
skip
:So at least there is general (if not unanimous) consensus that sleeping
:with patients/clients is a mistake.
:
:But it's not just dogma. We can legally verify that it would be "gross
:malpractice." The research (and a whole lot of history) wo uld suggest
:that it would also be self-destructive. Destructive to the
practitioner's
:practice, license, and overall credibility, destructive to the very
:important ethics within client/therapist relationships, and (at the very
:least) a major hurdle for the patient to deal with in his/her process.
:
:MICKEY
:
Whether or not it harmed the client (which is very likely) it would be
taking advantage of a relationship. The client reveals a good many intimate
details about himself, his thoughts and feelings. The therapist is
selective about what to reveal about herself. Transference sets in, which
is mistaken for love, when it is more to the relationship itself, and the
image of what one thinks the therapist is. The therapist who takes
advantage of this situation is abusing that relationship, and in the
process, abusing the client.
The client may see other therapists in the future, and will never be very
certain whether something similar will happen with the next one.
Gene Douglas
John Clark
Gene Douglas schrieb:
> M. Cauther Prinz wrote in message ...
> :Can o' worms...
> :
> :The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
> :doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
> :for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
> :stumble into willy-nilly.
> :
> :She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
> :possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
> :
> :You only live once.
> :
> :Commentary?
> :
> Well, if she ever throws you over for another guy, you can have her license
> and she'll be washing dishes for the remainder of her career, so you'll have
> her over a barrel, so to speak. She already knows that, so if she's that
> stupid and thoughtless of ethics, she deserves what she gets.
On the other hand the person, I note that you presume the poster be male,
could learn to share, and so if the therapist goes for another person, there's
no need to worry.
Of course you statement does imply that monogamous relationships are the
only standard worth considering.
And furthermore, the fact that nothing takes place does not preclude a
client making a therapist miserable and perhaps even becoming a dish washer
over charges of sexual impropriety. (What's more, I don't think I've heard
of a therapist suing a client for improper advances... but perhaps Kevin can
offer a hypothetical scenario when Silke puts him in a thigh high head lock.)
Gene Douglas
John Clark wrote in message <3572F102...@ucsd.edu>...
:
skip
:If the two met in a beer hall, there would be no social sanction, although
there
:still could be the power difference as proposed to be the basis of why
the
:client therapist sexual relationship must be avoided.
:
:
If the two met in a beer hall, and the result was a failure to obtain beer,
that would be no great problem. If the result was a lasting distrust of
barmaids, or distrust of people one picks up in a bar, that might be no
major loss.
If a person without money seeks a lawyer, and a lawyer says I'll take your
case for free, if you'll have sex with me, there is already so much distrust
of lawyers, that may not make a lot of difference.
If a gynecologist gives a woman a pelvic exam, and then asks her out, maybe
she would go to a female ob-gyn in the future. (I knew of such a case.
However, she married him. Country club, Cadillac, the whole works, you
know.)
However, trust is central to a psychotherapeutic relationship. I've heard
so many stories from clients, of passes made, therapists communicating with
a father or husband who was paying the bill, etc., that it's a wonder they
would take another chance at all.
Gene Douglas
Gene Douglas
John Clark wrote in message <35731ADE...@ucsd.edu>...
:
skip
but perhaps Kevin can
:offer a hypothetical scenario when Silke puts him in a thigh high head
lock.)
:
:
Facing which way?
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kv4ql$cqa$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kug7f$l7r$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:: :Fiona Webster (f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com) wrote:
skip
: I don't see what's to be said in principle against sleeping with a
:therapist who's tapped your clavicle once -- but please don't take
:that personally, Gene dear.
:
:
:smw
Hmm. I think we're getting something started. At least Michigan will be
closer than Pennsylvania.
As I control my excitement, I can think of some exceptions. I have done
"some" therapy on my ex-wife, but it was always limited. It was mainly
hypnosis and hypnoanalysis. However, where it comes to innermost
discussion, that could never be as effectively therapeutic as with a
strictly professional relationship (she had one of those too.)
On one occasion, I hypnotized her, and she did some invisible writing in
response to my questions. She flipped pages through a steno book, and
afterward asked where the book was. She tore out a lot of the pages, burned
them in the sink, and said, "that's 5 years of my life." I never did know
what that was about.
I think I could (hypothetically) do TFT or EMDR (up to a point) with her
today (I didn't have those skills then) but there would always be a
limitation, caused by the dual relationship. Especially with EMDR.
Sometimes people recall memories, have insights, experience emotions or
physical sensations, or even visualize abstract symbols.
She would be unlikely to report all such memories to me, but I could say,
"whatever it is, just stay with that," with the same effect. However, it
would still be impossible to integrate (totally) that with other therapy,
which is also done with EMDR and TFT.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kv72v$1n8$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:
:Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: John Clark wrote in message <3572F102...@ucsd.edu>...
:: :If the two met in a beer hall, there would be no social sanction,
although
:: there
:: :still could be the power difference as proposed to be the basis of why
:: the
:: :client therapist sexual relationship must be avoided.
:: :
:: If a person without money seeks a lawyer, and a lawyer says I'll take
your case for free, if you'll have sex with me, there is already so much
distrust
:: of lawyers, that may not make a lot of difference.
:
:The analogy is supposed to be what? It's interesting that you throw in
:money. I think they did a questionnaire once, and on the whole,
:therapists thought it was less unethical to sleep with a client than to
:lend him or her money. Might be apokryphal, though. Why not assume that
:the two will terminate the therapeutic relationship and let some water
:run under the bridge?
:
"therapists thought." That's a statement of somebody's feelings.
I've offered to lend money to clients, but always for an emergency reason,
always small amounts, and always with the understanding within myself that
it would be all right if they didn't repay me. I don't recall actually
doing it, because it was generally on this condition of, "if you can't get
it, then..."
:: If a gynecologist gives a woman a pelvic exam, and then asks her out,
maybe
:: she would go to a female ob-gyn in the future. (I knew of such a case.
:: However, she married him. Country club, Cadillac, the whole works, you
:: know.)
:
:So, she married him -- seems it worked out, no? The fact that you suffer
:from social envy doesn't really tell us much about why this was a bad
:thing. On the contrary, it rather seems a case in point for the other
side.
:
Somehow, I just found the image comical. She gets out of the stirrups, puts
her panties back on, and he asks her to go out with him. Well, why not?
He's already checked out the territory, no?
And I have to imagine the woman's thoughts and feelings at the same time.
Generally, she might be embarrassed, but might put her embarrassment on the
shelf considering that this is what you do at the doctor's office, no? So
both she and he maintain the professional distance that communicates that
there is nothing erotic, nothing sexual about this, strictly business.
And then he asks her to go out with him, communicating, oh yes, this was
sexual, and he'd like to see more of the same. Then what does she think?
Maybe, what the hell, forget embarassment, forget the fact that he viewed
this as a sexual encounter after all? I had the hots for him when I walked
in here, and this is my chance. After all, there are big bucks to be made,
if I play my cards right.
Maybe? Or maybe not.
:: However, trust is central to a psychotherapeutic relationship.
:
:And you can't trust someone with whom you're romantically involved? Now
:_that's_ an interesting approach to relationships.
You can't trust somebody who takes advantage of a relationship in which the
original purpose was to help one with a problem.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
This would be absolutely unethical for a therapist of any profession. In
Iowa
and some other states, it would be a felony. It would still be a felony
here,
and it would be unethical anywhere, even if you were to terminate therapy
and wait for a long time.
If your therapist is actually considering this with you, then you have a
crappy therapist. Period. That therapist needs to seek professional
help, immediately.
I make very few statements in newsgroups that are this strong, but
I can't see any equivocation being possible here.
The relationship between therapist and client is not equal, but instead
includes inequalities that are necessary for therapy to be successful.
You, on the other hand, also need help. With a different therapist.
There are many reasons for wanting to be sexually involved, or
involved on some 'level' other than therapy. Almost none of them are
healthy.
M. Cauther Prinz wrote in message ...
>Can o' worms...
>
>The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
>doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
>for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
>stumble into willy-nilly.
>
>She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
>possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
>
>You only live once.
>
>Commentary?
>
Ed Anderson
Gene Douglas wrote:
> M. Cauther Prinz wrote:
> :The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
> :doctor-patient relationship onto another level. [....]
[....]
> It would appear that the relationship has already gone beyond professional,
> if you already know that she would respond in kind, she is no longer of any
> use to you as a therapist.
Whoah, Gene. Re-read what the poster said: "The possibility may
exist..." We really have no idea what the therapist has or hasn't
done.
Ed Anderson
Ed Anderson
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Fiona Webster (f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com) wrote:[...]
> : It would be gross malpractice on her part, and self-destructive
> : on both of your parts.
>
> I think that's dogma... true in most cases, but not true as divine
> revelation... Which is no comment on the fact that sleeping with your
> patients/clients _is_ a definite no-no.
Which doesn't stop 10 to 20% of therapists from doing it anyway. I'm on
the side of dogma here. I'll take a little dogma if it means we save
some clients from being hurt. The risks seem too substantial to me -- to
the therapeutic relationship, to the course of the client's progress, to
the client's mental health if it goes sour -- and the rationalizations
too easy. Let's draw the line far to the right, and let's be dogmatic
about it.
Ed Anderson
Tim McNamara
In article <mcp-ya02408000R...@news.interport.net>,
m...@cortx.com (M. Cauther Prinz) wrote:
>Can o' worms...
>
>The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
>doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
>for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
>stumble into willy-nilly.
>
>She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
>possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
Should *you* even consider romantic possibilities? That's not really
something that I can comment on. Your therapist, on the other hand,
should definitly *NOT* consider it. Period. In the vast majority of
states (U.S.), provinces, countries, etc., such relationships are at best
severe ethical violations and at worst criminal offences. In my state,
such activity constitutes criminal sexual misconduct and is punishable
under a broad range of penalties.
--
Don't you touch hard liquor- just a cup of cold coffee.
Gonna get up in the morning and go.
-Robert Hunter
Tim McNamara
I don't want to be dogmatic... can I be catmatic instead?
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvfkr$6al$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kv72v$1n8$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:: :Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:[...]
:: :: However, trust is central to a psychotherapeutic relationship.
:: :
:: :And you can't trust someone with whom you're romantically involved?
Now
:: :_that's_ an interesting approach to relationships.
:
:: You can't trust somebody who takes advantage of a relationship in which
the
:: original purpose was to help one with a problem.
:
:I'm disturbed by the distrust evinced in this statement. Is it really
:inconceivable that it's not a matter of "taking advantage"? Is any act of
:love (and it might be that, no? not ever?) "taking advantage"? I do see
:the dangers, Gene, and I think it's a good idea that relationships like
:that are strongly discouraged, but I do not think that we all always take
:advantage of each other when we fall in love -- or if you want to argue
:that we always do, then, well, we _always_ do, not just in therapy. Do
:you know what I mean? I can't say it any clearer. I think you are arguing
:from the worst possible case scenario, I want to leave room for the best
: one.
:
:smw
:
You may be fantasizing a therapist who falls madly in counter-transference
with you, and sweeps you up into his arms. But a therapist does have an
advantage over a client, (which I've mentioned earlier) and a dual
relationship, any second relationship, tends to torpedo therapy.
I have a client who shows up at parties where I am also. We say hi, but we
don't hang out after that. Because if we become "pals," that's going to
color what happens in therapy, and how it happens. And she will be the one
who suffers from the reduced effectiveness.
I also know a therapist who married two of his clients. He had to be
willing to cross some boundaries to do that. That's a red flag right there.
Eventually a client videotaped him climbing on her, he got statewide
publicity and lost his license. One could almost have forecast that that
would happen. His willingness for self-indulgence exceeded his willingness
to help his clients.
Gene
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvis8$nv9$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Ed Anderson (ander...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
:
:: > Fiona Webster (f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com) wrote:[...]
:: > : It would be gross malpractice on her part, and self-destructive
:: > : on both of your parts.
:: >
:: > I think that's dogma... true in most cases, but not true as divine
:: > revelation... Which is no comment on the fact that sleeping with your
:: > patients/clients _is_ a definite no-no.
:
:: Which doesn't stop 10 to 20% of therapists from doing it anyway.
:
:So I hear.
:
:: I'm on
:: the side of dogma here. I'll take a little dogma if it means we save
:: some clients from being hurt. The risks seem too substantial to me -- to
:: the therapeutic relationship, to the course of the client's progress, to
:: the client's mental health if it goes sour -- and the rationalizations
:: too easy. Let's draw the line far to the right, and let's be dogmatic
:: about it.
:
:Let's not for a moment, at least not in thought, okay? To repeat, I do
:think it's a good rule. That said, there are a few things that bother me
:in the responses, and in the dogma itself.
:
:1. The insistence that the client is _by definition_ the vulnerable one.
:It seems to be to infantilize clients a bit.
:
As I mentioned earlier, the client reveals much about himself, and the
therapist reveals what he chooses to reveal. This in itself creates an
imbalance of power.
The client may not understand transference. Even if he intellectually
understands it, he may feel that he can handle it, or he doesn't care, or it
feels like love anyway. It is a responsibility of the therapist to care
more for the client's successful therapy, and to avoid such pitfalls.
Some therapists may even tell clients that what they are doing is
therapeutic. The client may now know enough to know that it isn't.
:2. The assumption that the erotic is always more harmful than the
:suppression of the erotic -- people die from love gone bad, but they also
:die from love unrequited.
People can handle transference if they deal with it. If not, then they will
likely attach to various other people as well. In the meantime, that would
be a topic to be dealt with for the sake of therapy.
Love, or eros, most often goes bad. And then it is the mess in the end one
has to deal with.
:
:3. The abdication of nuance -- the risk may be great, but I could think
:of scenarios where it would be no greater than in all serious love
:relationships (all of them are risky).
:
The therapist has no right to flip a coin, and say, well, this may hurt the
client, and then again, it may not. Oh, what the heck, maybe it won't.
Even if will were 10% and won't were 90%, the therapist has no right to take
that gamble.
:4. The assumption, especially manifesting itself in Gene's responses,
:that erotic involvement is a matter of 'taking advantage'
:
:5. The automatic assumption that the power resides with the therapist.
:
:6. The application of standards to the therapeutic relationship that
:apply to no other relationship -- it sometimes smacks a bit of delusions
:of grandeur
:
Only because you don't understand the situation. You might want to discuss
this thread with your therapist.
:7. The fact that the institution makes no allowance for exceptions
:
Who doesn't want to be an exception? I remember a TV commercial about
"Bill." No Parking. Oh, it's you, Bill. Go right ahead. No left turn.
Oh, it's Bill.
:8. The general suspicion of the erotic that strikes me as neurotic, or,
:if you don't like the term, unfortunate. I could think of stronger ones
:as well.
:
:I think what I would like to see is the acknowledgement that not all
:therapist/client love relationships are sordid, unhealthy, doomed. An
:acknowledgement that it is the interdiction itself that may cause many of
That's called wishful thinking.
:the problems inherent in such relationships. And, perhaps, a gremium of
:wise people to which people in love could appeal.
:
:Color me romantic,
:
:silke
Yes, but not realistic.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvpn3$kh9$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvfkr$6al$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:: :Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: :: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message
<6kv72v$1n8$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:: :: :Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: :[...]
:[...]
:
:: I have a client who shows up at parties where I am also. We say hi, but
we
:: don't hang out after that. Because if we become "pals," that's going to
:: color what happens in therapy, and how it happens. And she will be the
one
:: who suffers from the reduced effectiveness.
:
:So do you consider yourself to be in violation of professional ethics?
If I am in church, and I see a client in the same building, am I to leave
the building? The point is to avoid a second relationship, not to avoid
living in the same town.
John Clark
Tim McNamara wrote:
> I don't want to be dogmatic... can I be catmatic instead?
Well, I do tend to cynimatic... and do we now insert the
'My karma just ran over your dogma'...
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> However, trust is central to a psychotherapeutic relationship.
Your right as usually Gene Douglas... Trust is something that should
be totoally absent from an intimate relationship... it would spare the world
of many major disappointments, either in performance or longevity.
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> You can't trust somebody who takes advantage of a relationship in which the
> original purpose was to help one with a problem.
Obviously the only reason that a therapist would enter a relationship with
a client is to take advantage of them... well, given some of the claims about
curative powers of certain unsubstantiated therapies, perhaps it's not so far
fetched that therapists would bilk clients out of their money and emotions...
On the other hand Gene Douglas, in the words of a great therapist...
Why don't you just try it and see if it works out....
John Clark
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Holding hands isn't, no. What makes you think it is? Read any articles
> lately, Gene? My brother-in-law, who is an analyst, had me read something
> with a seriously challenged title, something like "Right and Left Wing
> Analysis," an allusion to Left and Right Hegelians, I suppose -- one
> issue was precisely physical abstinence, and the different approaches to
> this issue within various schools of analysis.
Sort of like trotskyites coming to bury the hatchet, so to speak...
John Clark
Ed Anderson wrote:
> > 8. The general suspicion of the erotic that strikes me as neurotic, or,
> > if you don't like the term, unfortunate. I could think of stronger ones
> > as well.
>
> Well, you know us American men.
Leaders in puritanism...
> Nicely spoken, and color me rigid, but the dangers and drawbacks are too
> serious for me to be waxing poetic about this subject.
Wasn't rigidity used recently to cast suspicion on someone's 'mental state'.
As in 'many personality disorder often have as a characteristic a rigidity or
a tendency to black and white thinking'... of course perhaps the glass is
colored to darkly for one to see... Or, heck when one has the received
truth one need not worry about being rigid.
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> John Clark wrote in message <35731ADE...@ucsd.edu>...
> but perhaps Kevin can
> :offer a hypothetical scenario when Silke puts him in a thigh high head
> lock.)
> :
> :
> Facing which way?
Any which way but loose...
John Clark
Andrew Gray wrote:
> Acting on transferential or counter-transferential feelings of love as if
> they were the real thing can be highly destructive, but I would be very
> surprised if your therapist (or her supervisor) allowed this to happen.
Please explain the difference between 'transference love' towards a
therapist, and 'transference love' towards someone that has been
met at a bar.
I realize that meeting someone in a bar is highly preferable to a
consulation office for the purpose of long term mutually supportive
intimate relationships, but I'd like some clarification on this
transference thing.
Andrew Gray
M. Cauther Prinz wrote in message ...
>Can o' worms...
>
>The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
>doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
>for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
>stumble into willy-nilly.
>
>She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
>possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
>
>You only live once.
>
>Commentary?
People seem to be missing the point about this a bit ....
In therapy patients experience intense emotions directed towards their
therapists - but, if the therapist is doing his/her job properly, and
presenting a "blank screen" to the patient, the patient's feelings will be
those towards figures from the patient's past or present, projected on to
the therapist.
This concept is known as transference, and analysis of transference (and its
equivalent in the therapist, counter-transference) is the very essence of
analytical psychotherapy.
Other styles of therapy do not put so much emphasis on transference, but all
therapists recognise that it happens, in all sorts of professional
relationships.
Acting on transferential or counter-transferential feelings of love as if
they were the real thing can be highly destructive, but I would be very
surprised if your therapist (or her supervisor) allowed this to happen.
Unprincipled therapists (or other health-care workers) can of course exploit
tranference to abuse vulnerable patients, even if they delude themselves
that it's what the patient wants. This is why forming extra-theraputic
relationships with patients is (or should be) universally frowned upon.
So, your feelings for your therapist, and her feelings for you, can usefully
be the subject of therapy, but acting on them would not be a good idea.
I hope this helps.
Dr Andrew Gray MRCPsych
Andrew Gray
Lorne D. Gilsig
Dear M. Cauther Prinz,
Having an affair with one's therapist is a major league bad idea, for a
number of reasons.
First, since you are currently in therapy with her it would be
impossible to tell if your attraction, mutual or not, is a true
attraction between equals or a product of the theraputic process. If it
is a product of the process then it is difficult to understate the
damage that can be done here.
Secondly, it would be a major ethical violation that could result in
your therapist loosing her licence to practice. It also does not say
great things about her that she is willing to violate ethical
restrictions and have a dual relationship with a client.
If you think this is what you want to do, and that you cannot be talked
out of it, have her refer you to another therapist for treatment. Then,
after a cooling-down period, you might try.
I still think it is a very bad idea though.
Lorne D. Gilsig
Ed Anderson
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> Let's not for a moment [be dogmatic], at least not in thought, okay?
> think it's a good rule. That said, there are a few things that bother me
> in the responses, and in the dogma itself.
>
> 1. The insistence that the client is _by definition_ the vulnerable one.
> It seems to be to infantilize clients a bit.
Hm. The client is coming to the therapist for help. The client's
position, by definition, is one of, "I would like your help," and often,
"I need your help." The therapist's position, again by definition, is
one of expert helper. Granted, some don't do so well in the role. But,
the roles are set up such that one is more needful of, vulnerable to,
the other. In addition, the client's role is to make him/herself
vulnerable -- to tell shameful stuff, etc.
> 2. The assumption that the erotic is always more harmful than the
> suppression of the erotic -- people die from love gone bad, but they also
> die from love unrequited.
I don't think anyone is making that assumption.
> 3. The abdication of nuance -- the risk may be great, but I could think
> of scenarios where it would be no greater than in all serious love
> relationships (all of them are risky).
I can imagine those scenarios, too. But first do no harm, right? It's
the therapist's job to minimize risks, especially unnecessary ones like
this (which have nothing to do with the purpose of therapy).
> 4. The assumption, especially manifesting itself in Gene's responses,
> that erotic involvement is a matter of 'taking advantage'
I'll let Gene answer.
> 5. The automatic assumption that the power resides with the therapist.
Anyone who's sat in a therapy room for a few years knows that is not
always true (I feel impotent regularly, with some clients).
Unfortunately, it does tend to be true of the client-therapist pairings
that I've heard of. That is, the therapist abuses his power,
manipulates dishonestly.
> 6. The application of standards to the therapeutic relationship that
> apply to no other relationship -- it sometimes smacks a bit of delusions
> of grandeur
Well, clients kill themselves over this stuff, so to me it's not about
narcissism at all, just protecting people.
> 7. The fact that the institution makes no allowance for exceptions
That's fine with me, to tell you the truth. Like I said, the risks are
too great, and the rationalizations too easy.
> 8. The general suspicion of the erotic that strikes me as neurotic, or,
> if you don't like the term, unfortunate. I could think of stronger ones
> as well.
Well, you know us American men.
> I think what I would like to see is the acknowledgement that not all
> therapist/client love relationships are sordid, unhealthy, doomed.
They've got 2.9 strikes against them from the start, but okay, I'll
grant that some may turn out okay, or even good.
> An
> acknowledgement that it is the interdiction itself that may cause many of
> the problems inherent in such relationships. And, perhaps, a gremium of
> wise people to which people in love could appeal.
Nicely spoken, and color me rigid, but the dangers and drawbacks are too
serious for me to be waxing poetic about this subject.
Ed
> Color me romantic,
Gene Douglas
Andrew Gray wrote in message ...
:
:M. Cauther Prinz wrote in message ...
:>Can o' worms...
:>
:>The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
:>doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may
be
:>for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
:>stumble into willy-nilly.
:>
Firstly, "elevate" is a euphamism. "Reduce" or "Descend" might be closer.
And if you stumbled into it at all, it would certainly be willy-nilly, no
matter how thoroughly discussed.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvqvk$kh9$6...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvis8$nv9$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:: :Ed Anderson (ander...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: :: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
::
skip
:: :1. The insistence that the client is _by definition_ the vulnerable
one.
:: :It seems to be to infantilize clients a bit.
:: :
:: As I mentioned earlier, the client reveals much about himself, and the
:: therapist reveals what he chooses to reveal. This in itself creates an
:: imbalance of power.
:
:So if the therapist reveals an equal amount about herself, the balance
:shifts to equal?
:
That doesn't happen. That's the point. The therapist isn't the one in
therapy. Just saying, "we're screwing now, so I'll tell you my every inner
thought," doesn't mean she will, any more than other lovers do. And by that
time, the 2nd relationship has already begun, which was what the power
imbalance was about (in the past tense by that time.)
:: The client may not understand transference. Even if he intellectually
:: understands it, he may feel that he can handle it, or he doesn't care,
or it
:: feels like love anyway.
:
:"All love is transference love." Are you sure you understand the term? As
:far as I recall, you don't have much respect for analytic vocabulary. Why
:use it now?
:
:: It is a responsibility of the therapist to care
:: more for the client's successful therapy, and to avoid such pitfalls.
:
:I agree. So what?
:
So that's the point. It would be sufficient if it were the only point.
:
:: Some therapists may even tell clients that what they are doing is
:: therapeutic. The client may now know enough to know that it isn't.
:
:Some may, yes. So what?
:
So relative ignorance is a part of the power imbalance, and adds the factor
of deception and charlatainism.
:: :2. The assumption that the erotic is always more harmful than the
:: :suppression of the erotic -- people die from love gone bad, but they
also
:: :die from love unrequited.
:
:
:: People can handle transference if they deal with it.
:
:Does it make you feel in control to call it 'transference'? Doesn't the
:term become meaningless if you apply it to any and all emotion in a
:therapeutic setting?
:
I think that even if "in love" with other people occurs from the same
mechanisms, the therapist should communicate to the client that this is a
different arena. And different vocabulary would help to do that. The
client should be allowed to know that this is normal, and happens with other
clients too.
:[...]
:
:: Love, or eros, most often goes bad. And then it is the mess in the end
one
:: has to deal with.
:
:Well, yes, life and all that.
Except when it screws up therapy, the client is doubly harmed. And when one
can predict that this is most likely, then one can predict that it is most
likely that the client will be harmed.
Somewhat off topic, I once met a woman who had dated a psychiatrist (not his
patient.) When he was ready to dump her, he said it was because of her
problem, and gave her a diagnosis.
She spent years prowling libraries, trying to learn all she could about that
diagnosis, and trying to figure out how she fit into it. I met her after
she had attempted suicide.
He would have been far less a jerk if he had simply said, "I've used you all
I want to, and now I don't want any more. I've found somebody else now."
:
:: :3. The abdication of nuance -- the risk may be great, but I could
think
:: :of scenarios where it would be no greater than in all serious love
:: :relationships (all of them are risky).
:: :
:: The therapist has no right to flip a coin, and say, well, this may hurt
the
:: client, and then again, it may not. Oh, what the heck, maybe it won't.
:: Even if will were 10% and won't were 90%, the therapist has no right to
take
:: that gamble.
:
:Yes, he does. Since that is the gamble I take every time I involve myself
:with a person. What about, "this therapy may help the client or it may
:harm him, odds 95% to 5%" -- no therapy? If that's what you want to
:advocate, you may as well shoot yourself right now.
:
:[...]
You've made my own point. The therapist has to opt in favor of helping. He
has to do what he can to help, and not to harm. The dictum doesn't say,
"first, do little harm," or "first, seldom do harm," but "first, do no
harm." To the degree that s/he can control that, the therapist has to
remain as close to it as possible.
:
:
:: :4. The assumption, especially manifesting itself in Gene's responses,
:: :that erotic involvement is a matter of 'taking advantage'
:: :
:: :5. The automatic assumption that the power resides with the
therapist.
:: :
:: :6. The application of standards to the therapeutic relationship that
:: :apply to no other relationship -- it sometimes smacks a bit of
delusions
:: :of grandeur
:: :
:: Only because you don't understand the situation.
:
:A bit helpless here, hm?
:
:: You might want to discuss
:: this thread with your therapist.
:
:My analyst knows exactly how I feel about him. Your pathetic attempt to
:personalize this is duly noted, though.
:
If how you feel about him is erotic, (I have no knowledge of his gender
[until now] age, marital status, appearance, etc.) I am sure he has taken
the same tack as the rest of us. It's a no-no, and he won't depart from his
goal of helping.
:: :7. The fact that the institution makes no allowance for exceptions
:: :
:: Who doesn't want to be an exception?
:
(there's a bit snipped here.)
:That's besides the point. I don't recommend that the therapist make that
:decision.
:
:
If the client makes that "exception," the therapist should be the one to
obstruct it. I'm sure that every adolescent in the world thinks that his
love is unique in the universe, and that nobody else could understand just
how completely special it is. But this sort of delusion is just that.
:[...]
:
:: :8. The general suspicion of the erotic that strikes me as neurotic,
or,
:: :if you don't like the term, unfortunate. I could think of stronger
ones
:: :as well.
:: :
:: :I think what I would like to see is the acknowledgement that not all
:: :therapist/client love relationships are sordid, unhealthy, doomed. An
:: :acknowledgement that it is the interdiction itself that may cause many
of
:
:: That's called wishful thinking.
:
:To assume that _not all_ therapist/client relationships are sordid is
:"wishful thinking"? Man, you're far, far gone...
:
Yes, you're fantasizing an "exception." It's like somebody who would like
to make a lot of money on surgery, wishing that someone would recognize that
making decisions for surgery based on the money to be made isn't always bad.
Well, what he would like to see is purely a figment of his imagination.
:: :the problems inherent in such relationships. And, perhaps, a gremium
of
:: :wise people to which people in love could appeal.
And what set of rules would these wise people rely upon to make their
decisions?
:: :
:: :Color me romantic,
:: :
:: :silke
:
:: Yes, but not realistic.
:
:It is yo u who thinks that all relationships are alike who misses reality.
:Big time.
:
:smw
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> As I control my excitement, I can think of some exceptions. I have done
> "some" therapy on my ex-wife, but it was always limited. It was mainly
> hypnosis and hypnoanalysis. However, where it comes to innermost
> discussion, that could never be as effectively therapeutic as with a
> strictly professional relationship (she had one of those too.)
What she serviced you in a professional manner... perhaps I'm confused... on
the other hand I thought it was a bozo no-no to treat one's spouse, although
it is perhaps an obligation to service the spouse...
Gene Douglas
It is relatively ineffective to do counseling type therapy with one's
spouse, just as a jury can't actually "strike out of their minds," testimony
they have just heard.
However, people are always buttonholing therapists for some advice, as if he
could do 5 minute therapy at a coffeepot or in a doorway. Sometimes he can
offer some advice or recommend a book, though that falls far short of actual
therapy.
Likewise, I'm sure that doctors give pills to themselves and their families,
when what is needed is obvious. And someone who does hypnotism can easily
hypnotize family members to, say, stop smoking.
I have an aunt, who is a nurse, who has stopped smoking and is
white-knuckling it at the moment. She asked me to send her some printed
matter on TFT, so I did. She can try one or several algorhythms, and will
probably find non-smoking to be easy after that.
The existence of a dual relationship is irrelevant in that case, as no
rapport or total honesty is needed, so much as just a technique.
John Clark wrote in message <357420D6...@ucsd.edu>...
:
:
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l1422$a8o$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvqvk$kh9$6...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:: :Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:[...]
:: :: :
:: :: As I mentioned earlier, the client reveals much about himself, and
the
:: :: therapist reveals what he chooses to reveal. This in itself creates
an
:: :: imbalance of power.
:: :
:: :So if the therapist reveals an equal amount about herself, the balance
:: :shifts to equal?
:: :
:: That doesn't happen. That's the point. The therapist isn't the one in
:: therapy. Just saying, "we're screwing now, so I'll tell you my every
inner
:: thought," doesn't mean she will, any more than other lovers do.
:
:a) you seem to assume that the "screwing" starts in the middle of
:therapy. The relationships I know of proceeded by terminating therapy,
:waited a while, then started elsewhere, and slowly.
:
The minimum period which is often expressed is 2 years. Anybody who
terminates therapy to have an affair, and waits 2 years is likely to either
cool off or fudge on the time factor.
Then when it goes sour and she turns him in, he deserves what he gets for
his stupidity and lack of regard for boundaries.
:b) "no more than any other lover" -- precisely my point...
:
:
:[...]
:: :
:: :: It is a responsibility of the therapist to care
:: :: more for the client's successful therapy, and to avoid such
pitfalls.
:: :
:: :I agree. So what?
:: :
:
:: So that's the point. It would be sufficient if it were the only point.
:
:What if the therapist cannot do successful therapy with this client
:because he loves him too much? Seems to me that the very care you are
:talking about would mean that the therapy ought to be terminated.
:
In that case, yes. But to say, O.K., I wasn't getting anywhere anyway, so
we've terminated, my place or yours, is a little Keystone-Copsish. And the
factor of premeditation is obvious: Let's say I'm not getting anyplace with
this, my place our yours?
She gets another therapist, and the relationship goes sour. Meanwhile, lo
and behold, there's transference with this one too. How many therapists can
she put in her trophy room? And when will she ever get therapy? And who
can she trust, if exposing all of her secrets to a therapist ends with him
in her bed?
:[...]
:: :Some may, yes. So what?
:: :
:: So relative ignorance is a part of the power imbalance, and adds the
factor
:: of deception and charlatainism.
:
:In many cases, I'm sure. The image of the therapist that arises here is
:very disturbing. Do you really think of your colleagues in those terms?
:All of them?
:
Only those who screw their clients. And I've heard of that exact scenario,
more than once.
:
:[...]
skip
:
:[...]
:: :: Love, or eros, most often goes bad. And then it is the mess in the
end : one
:: :: has to deal with.
:: :
:: :Well, yes, life and all that.
:
:: Except when it screws up therapy, the client is doubly harmed.
:
:You know, it depends on the therapy. I don't think all therapy is that
:terribly important, or that bad therapy is always more important than
:good love, or even good therapy.
:
I've met a good many clients who think in those terms, regarding love and
their overall welfare. No matter how many times he beats her up, he's not
all bad, and she keeps going back to him.
skip
:[...]
:
:: He would have been far less a jerk if he had simply said, "I've used you
all
:: I want to, and now I don't want any more. I've found somebody else
now."
:
:Is that what you say whenever you break up with someone? That's coming
:out snide, but do you really think that's what happens whenever a
:relationship breaks up? It's always just the end of usage?
:
I had that impression when he used a diagnosis to brush her off. If he had
been honest (including from the start) then he might have had a more humane
sort of talk, rather than just pulling rank and kicking her out the door.
:[...]
:
:: :Yes, he does. Since that is the gamble I take every time I involve
myself
:: :with a person. What about, "this therapy may help the client or it may
:: :harm him, odds 95% to 5%" -- no therapy? If that's what you want to
:: :advocate, you may as well shoot yourself right now.
:: :
:: :[...]
:
:: You've made my own point. The therapist has to opt in favor of helping.
He
:: has to do what he can to help, and not to harm.
:
:Many therapies are risky. Therapists take risks all the time, risks of
:emotional harm foremost. As we all do.
A risky therapy isn't the same as a non-therapy self-indulgence, which poses
a risk to therapy.
A surgeon always creates a risk when he cuts into a patient, and he has to
balance that risk against the liklihood of benefit. But he doesn't say, "If
I go into her hospital room and have sex with her, it might do harm to her
condition, but it probably won't. So I'll balance the risk against the
benefit (my self-indulgence and hers) and go ahead and pose a risk to her
health."
The difference is between therapy and non-therapy.
skip
:[...]
:
:
:: :: :7. The fact that the institution makes no allowance for exceptions
:: :: :
:: :: Who doesn't want to be an exception?
:: :
:: (there's a bit snipped here.)
:
:: :That's besides the point. I don't recommend that the therapist make
that
:: :decision.
:: :
:: :
:: If the client makes that "exception," the therapist should be the one to
:: obstruct it.
:
:Hell, no -- as I said below, I think the institution that outlaws
:consensual adult relationships should leave some room for exceptions. I
:don't think that every single relationship of that kind ought to be
:sanctioned by loss of license and livelihood.
:
:[...]
:
That's the reason we have those sanctions. It's like Pollard spying for
Isreal. Then all those people with Jewish accents calling radio stations
and saying he shouldn't have got life, because it's not like it was the
Soviet Union or something.
When people decide on their own that their case is the exception, and aren't
willing to listen to one level of reason, then there's another level: They
know he got life in prison without the chance for parole. And they *now*
know that that's what happens.
I used to teach a defensive driving class, where there were always people
who thought they should have been the exception. Or they thought that they
should get three warning tickets before the real thing.
Now they know what happens when you're caught speeding, or passing a stopped
school bus, or driving the wrong way on a one way street, etc. You get a
ticket that's going to cost you $50 or $75 or $150. Now that you know, you
can decide what to do about it.
omitted
Fiona Webster
Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
> I could imagine that if
> you feel deeply in love with a client, your position would be more
> vulnerable than hers (or his, not knowing your orientation) -- in a way,
> your stakes are much higher, seeing the legal situation. [...]
> I think great harm is done when two people fall in love in an honorable
> my and it spells professional devastation for one of them.
Silke, I'm afraid I disagree with the implied notion here that the
therapist has no control over whether they "fall deeply in love."
Falling in love is not a _coup de foudre_: it happens slowly and
has to be encouraged by the person doing the falling in love. The
therapist can, and *should*, choose not to encourage that process.
If they cannot manage their emotions any better than that, they
have no business doing therapy, in my view.
> I get the feeling that this whole area is very touchy for the
> practicing therapists around here -- understandably so. It's a bit odd to
> me that you all seem to assume that therapy is more important than a good
> or even risky relationship. I guess I simply don't have that kind of
> reverence for therapy, as important as my own analysis is to me.
It's not that at all, Silke. It's that you've made a contract with
this person to be their therapist. Whether you're a good therapist or
a mediocre therapist, whether a romantic relationship might turn out
well or badly, that contract binds you in advance not to allow the
development of certain emotions in yourself. It has nothing to do with
the relative value of therapy vs. a relationship. It's a contract,
made as a _sine qua non_ of the therapy.
It's off-topic, perhaps, but I believe the same contract should apply,
in reverse, at the time two people marry each other--that is, if they
sincerely want a lifetime, romantically-in-love commitment.
They should make vows to each other to keep loving no matter what--
which means that they will encourage their loving emotions at all
times, and discourage behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that lead them
into loving the other person less. My husband and I refer to this as
"promising to stay in love."
--Fiona
John Clark
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D. schrieb:
> You, on the other hand, also need help. With a different therapist.
> There are many reasons for wanting to be sexually involved, or
> involved on some 'level' other than therapy. Almost none of them are
> healthy.
While I'm not going to dispute your statements on the legality and the
published ethical code, I think very often from reading descriptions of
'the ideal partner', a therapist as far more than the average available
for partner selection...
I could very well imagine that if someone is surrounded by individuals
who were 'insensitive', 'inconsiderate', 'unconcerned',
'caught-up-in-their-own-problems', etc. that finding someone like the
approximate ideal therapist would be seen as a ideal candidate for
a partner.
And of course you can always send such a disordered person back to
their own social environment on a search for the holy-grail-partner, or
coerse their current partner to be someone that would be worth living
with.
Fiona Webster
Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
> You know, Gene, I can't talk to that perspective. I feel kind of weird
> for having elicited it. Like I shouldn't have pried. I'll leave you to
> your fantasies. I'm sorry.
No kidding! And it's especially disturbing that Gene is writing
all his responses as though the therapist were male and the patient
were female, when the real-life scenario that kicked off this thread
is the opposite.
--Fiona
Andrew Gray
John Clark wrote in message <3573998B...@ucsd.edu>...
>Please explain the difference between 'transference love' towards a
>therapist, and 'transference love' towards someone that has been
>met at a bar.
I guess that it is possible to project an identity into someone you meet in
a bar, and fall in love with it - however it would not be a sustainable
relationship, since the person's real identity would start to break through
very quickly.
What is different in analytic therapy is that the therapist intentionally
conceals his or her personality, in order to foster the development of
transference, so that it can be used as a theraputic tool.
Even in other types of therapy the nature of the therapiutic relationship
tends to encourage the development of transference.
This works for all emotions - an example might help explain.
A patient started acting in a passive-agggressive way with his therapist -
turning up late for appointments, not paying attention, being unreasonable,
etc. He was clearly angry with the therapist - even though the therapist had
never done anything to annoy him.
It turned out that the patient had had a very ambivalent relationship with
his authoritarian father - the anger was directed towards him. By acting as
a "blank screen" and allowing the patient to relate to his therapist as he
would his father, the therapist helped bring these unconscious feelings into
the open where they could be dealt with.
In my experience transferred anger is more common than transferred love - as
can be seen from some of the posts in this newsgroup.
Whether or not counter-transference is also useful theraputically is still
debated. Freud himself thought that it was a barrier to analysis, but most
therapists these days would disagree. What is for sure is that good
supervision is essential if counter-transference is not to get out of hand.
This subject is pretty well covered in most psychotherapy text books - I
would recommend Brown & Pedder's "Introduction to Psychotherapy"
Dr Andrew Gray MRCPsych
Ed Anderson
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
[....]
> I think that power balances can shift, esp.
> when love and desire comes in. It's not always the case that the client
> falls in love and the therapist takes advantage. I could imagine that if
> you feel deeply in love with a client, your position would be more
> vulnerable than hers (or his, not knowing your orientation) -- in a way,
> your stakes are much higher, seeing the legal situation.
I think you'd have two very vulnerable people, then, rather than just
one. But I think you're right, that therapists can certainly feel
vulnerable, too. In fact, the therapists who have sex with clients are
often feeling quite vulnerable (e.g., recently divorced).
> [...] you see the potential for harm in erotic
> contact, but you don't seem to see it in the absence of such contact.
I agree with you that there are (or probably are, since I don't know of
any) client-therapist sexual pairings that are good, all things
considered -- exceptions to the rule. As far as the rule hurts those
pairs, yes, there is harm.
> : Nicely spoken, and color me rigid, but the dangers and drawbacks are too
> : serious for me to be waxing poetic about this subject.
>
> Cheap shot, Ed. There's nothing 'poetic' and nothing 'waxing' in what I'm
> saying.
Sorry, the "color me romantic" triggered a knee-jerk sarcasm. I guess
my sympathy with what you're saying is eroded by the stories I've heard
(clients killing themselves after an affair with a therapist, etc.).
[....]
> It's a bit odd to
> me that you all seem to assume that therapy is more important than a good
> or even risky relationship. I guess I simply don't have that kind of
> reverence for therapy, as important as my own analysis is to me.
Well, I can't really comment on that, because that's not my assumption.
My assumption is that the therapist's job is to help the client
therapeutically, and sleeping with them doesn't help (and usually hurts,
often very badly).
Ed
Sisyphus
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
Gene said:
> : And when one
> : can predict that this is most likely, then one can predict that it is most
> : likely that the client will be harmed.
>
Silke said:
> As I said many times, I agree fully that the potential for harm is very
> great, and that it's by and large a bad idea to have an affair with a
> therapist. Sigh.
Silke,
Gene is correct. The harm that has boen done, is so great as to make
it part of our ethics _and_ our law. It's more than potential.
The "sigh" at the end of your sentence is pregnant with emotion.
I think it's tough for us romantics. But there are many other
losses we must bear. Read Viorst, "Necessary Losses"
Best,
Norm
Sisyphus
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> Cheap shot, Ed. There's nothing 'poetic' and nothing 'waxing' in what I'm
> saying. I get the feeling that this whole area is very touchy for the
> practicing therapists around here -- understandably so. It's a bit odd to
> me that you all seem to assume that therapy is more important than a good
> or even risky relationship. I guess I simply don't have that kind of
> reverence for therapy, as important as my own analysis is to me.
>
Silke,
Ed didn't say more important. It isn't. It's different. I think you know
this from your own analysis. I surely did from mine. They are both
important in different ways and for different reasons. And I can't "do
therapy" when I'm in a love relationship. And you can't finish your
analysis if you and your analyst are in a love relationship. Period.
Norm
> silke
Mark Morin
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l2asb$bsn$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>I was responding to the argument that "involvement is bad because it
>would end the therapy." I think I'd find it easier to find a therapist
>than someone I'd like to be seriously involved with.
Now ain't that the truth!!!!--despite the fact that a preposition ends the
sentence.
Mark
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l1bje$ml2$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Ed Anderson (ander...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
::
skip
It's a bit odd to
:me that you all seem to assume that therapy is more important than a good
:or even risky relationship. I guess I simply don't have that kind of
:reverence for therapy, as important as my own analysis is to me.
:
:silke
I this is the crux of the whole disagreement, right here. You may think of
therapy as entertainment, like reading a good book. But for many people,
they are dealing with problems which even end in suicide. Short of that,
their problems may end in lives of misery, alcoholism, broken families,
unsuccessful social relationships of all kinds.
If you take that lightly, then it's a completely different matter. And if
the client can't rely on the therapist to help, then who is there? If
priests and ministers jump into bed with their flock, other helping persons
do the same, then the person is left holding the bag.
Considering the seriousness of the problems people bring to therapy, the
therapist has to take it very seriously. Even more seriously than reading a
good book.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l1jju$igu$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Fiona Webster (f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com) wrote:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
:: > I could imagine that if
:: > you feel deeply in love with a client, your position would be more
:: > vulnerable than hers (or his, not knowing your orientation) -- in a
way,
:: > your stakes are much higher, seeing the legal situation. [...]
:: > I think great harm is done when two people fall in love in an
honorable
:: > my and it spells professional devastation for one of them.
:
:: Silke, I'm afraid I disagree with the implied notion here that the
:: therapist has no control over whether they "fall deeply in love."
:: Falling in love is not a _coup de foudre_: it happens slowly and
:: has to be encouraged by the person doing the falling in love.
:
:That may be true for you, Fiona. It's not true for a lot of people,
:though, and I do not think that therapists are anything else but people.
:Especially I don't think they have some special talent for emotional
:self-control; I've known too many of them personally. They are people.
:That's not to say they should _act_ as if they were in a private
:setting when they are doing therapy, needless to say.
:
:: The
:: therapist can, and *should*, choose not to encourage that process.
:
:Absolutely.
:
:: If they cannot manage their emotions any better than that, they
:: have no business doing therapy, in my view.
:
:I disagree. You can control your acts, most certainly. But l'amour est un
:oiseau rebelle, and I think that therapists who assume they don't fall
:under the fates that beset all of us are the ones whose practice I
:wouldn't trust -- their hubris might get them sooner or later.
: I must say, this conversation is getting very interesting in that
:it brings out certain facets of therapists' self-image I find deeply
:fascinating.
:
And as F. said, if a therapist happens to be one of those people who is unab
le to resist letting his loins get ahead of his head, then he has no
business being a therapist. That what yanking licenses and lawsuits are
about. Then let him get a job as a masseur or a strip dancer, where he can
act out his fantasies to his heart's content. <sarcasm alert>
John Clark
Sisyphus wrote:
> Gene is correct. The harm that has boen done, is so great as to make
> it part of our ethics _and_ our law. It's more than potential.
And of course putting it to a test across many situations would be
unethical and hence need not be inquired of further.
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> And as F. said, if a therapist happens to be one of those people who is unab
> le to resist letting his loins get ahead of his head, then he has no
> business being a therapist. That what yanking licenses and lawsuits are
> about. Then let him get a job as a masseur or a strip dancer, where he can
> act out his fantasies to his heart's content. <sarcasm alert>
Well, then you get to regulate such out of existence anyway because that would
be an adult entertainment for the stripper, and very often one can have 10
churchs per city block, but not a strip joint in a hundred miles.
As for the masseuse one can limit that option in two ways, regulating that
masseuses be licensed and no one convicted of sex for hire be licensed.
Of course if you're advocating that prostition be legalized in all jurisdictions
I'm all for it...
John Clark
Ed Anderson wrote:
> I agree with you that there are (or probably are, since I don't know of
> any) client-therapist sexual pairings that are good, all things
> considered -- exceptions to the rule. As far as the rule hurts those
> pairs, yes, there is harm.
Given that everyone seems to be zeroing in on the sex side of a
'love' relationship, what's the group therapist consensus on serogate sex
therapy...
John Clark
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> You know, some people actually enjoy sex and derive pleasure and meaning
> from it.
Are you bucking for being burnt at the stake... Parish the thought that sex is
pleasureful and meaningful. Why, sex is the touchstone of superficiality, and only
person whose 'meaning' is only raw instinctual urges engage in such tawdry
acts, and do so only as a exteral act of power and dominance.
John Clark
Andrew Gray wrote:
> John Clark wrote in message <3573998B...@ucsd.edu>...
>
> >Please explain the difference between 'transference love' towards a
> >therapist, and 'transference love' towards someone that has been
> >met at a bar.
>
> I guess that it is possible to project an identity into someone you meet in
> a bar, and fall in love with it - however it would not be a sustainable
> relationship, since the person's real identity would start to break through
> very quickly.
On the other hand long term relationships could then very well be
those that the transfered elements are in fact the person's 'real identity'.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
Therapists are not in the business of providing love in exchange for
money.
Nancy
On 2 Jun 1998, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> 2. The assumption that the erotic is always more harmful than the
> suppression of the erotic -- people die from love gone bad, but they also
> die from love unrequited.
>
> 3. The abdication of nuance -- the risk may be great, but I could think
> of scenarios where it would be no greater than in all serious love
> relationships (all of them are risky).
>
> 4. The assumption, especially manifesting itself in Gene's responses,
> that erotic involvement is a matter of 'taking advantage'
>
> 5. The automatic assumption that the power resides with the therapist.
>
> 6. The application of standards to the therapeutic relationship that
> apply to no other relationship -- it sometimes smacks a bit of delusions
> of grandeur
>
> 7. The fact that the institution makes no allowance for exceptions
>
> 8. The general suspicion of the erotic that strikes me as neurotic, or,
> if you don't like the term, unfortunate. I could think of stronger ones
> as well.
>
> I think what I would like to see is the acknowledgement that not all
> therapist/client love relationships are sordid, unhealthy, doomed. An
> acknowledgement that it is the interdiction itself that may cause many of
> the problems inherent in such relationships. And, perhaps, a gremium of
> wise people to which people in love could appeal.
>
> Color me romantic,
>
> silke
>
>
-
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
A bank teller might fantasize about how nice it would be to actually own
all the money that passes across the counter, but that doesn't mean he or
she will ever be able to keep it. The route to the money is precluded by
the relationship in which the teller first encounters it. If the teller
wants a bunch of money, he or she must change jobs and go out and get it
by other means -- and that will also involve finding other money that is
available to him or her. Just because the teller does some of the things
with that money that an owner might (e.g., count it, handle it, fantasize
about spending it), does not mean that the money is his/hers or ever will
be.
A therapist does some of the things with a client that a loved one might
do. That doesn't mean the therapist will ever be an appropriate or
accessible loved one to that client. The client must go out and find a
loved one of his or her own. Mistaking the accessibility to a limited form
of intimacy for love is common, especially when one is confused or upset
or having a bad life. The therapist is expected to understand and adhere
to the boundaries for both parties.
True, bank tellers sometimes break the rules and steal the money.
Similarly, therapists sometimes break the rules and engage in romantic
relationships with clients. That rules are occasionally broken doesn't
make them wrong or unnecessary.
Nancy
On 2 Jun 1998, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6kvqvk$kh9$6...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> : :Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> [...]
> : :: :
> : :: As I mentioned earlier, the client reveals much about himself, and the
> : :: therapist reveals what he chooses to reveal. This in itself creates an
> : :: imbalance of power.
> : :
> : :So if the therapist reveals an equal amount about herself, the balance
> : :shifts to equal?
> : :
> : That doesn't happen. That's the point. The therapist isn't the one in
> : therapy. Just saying, "we're screwing now, so I'll tell you my every inner
> : thought," doesn't mean she will, any more than other lovers do.
>
> a) you seem to assume that the "screwing" starts in the middle of
> therapy. The relationships I know of proceeded by terminating therapy,
> waited a while, then started elsewhere, and slowly.
>
> b) "no more than any other lover" -- precisely my point...
>
>
> [...]
> : :
> : :: It is a responsibility of the therapist to care
> : :: more for the client's successful therapy, and to avoid such pitfalls.
> : :
> : :I agree. So what?
> : :
>
> : So that's the point. It would be sufficient if it were the only point.
>
> What if the therapist cannot do successful therapy with this client
> because he loves him too much? Seems to me that the very care you are
> talking about would mean that the therapy ought to be terminated.
>
> [...]
> : :Some may, yes. So what?
> : :
> : So relative ignorance is a part of the power imbalance, and adds the factor
> : of deception and charlatainism.
>
> In many cases, I'm sure. The image of the therapist that arises here is
> very disturbing. Do you really think of your colleagues in those terms?
> All of them?
>
>
> [...]
> : :Does it make you feel in control to call it 'transference'? Doesn't the
> : :term become meaningless if you apply it to any and all emotion in a
> : :therapeutic setting?
> : :
> : I think that even if "in love" with other people occurs from the same
> : mechanisms, the therapist should communicate to the client that this is a
> : different arena. And different vocabulary would help to do that. The
> : client should be allowed to know that this is normal, and happens with other
> : clients too.
>
> Yes, I agree. This is how it mostly happens in good therapy. You still
> don't get that I agree with your principles - I din't agree with the
> _universal_ applicability of them to _any and all_ relationship that
> starts in therapy.
>
> [....]
> : :: Love, or eros, most often goes bad. And then it is the mess in the end : one
> : :: has to deal with.
> : :
> : :Well, yes, life and all that.
>
>
> : Except when it screws up therapy, the client is doubly harmed.
>
> You know, it depends on the therapy. I don't think all therapy is that
> terribly important, or that bad therapy is always more important than
> good love, or even good therapy.
>
> : And when one
> : can predict that this is most likely, then one can predict that it is most
> : likely that the client will be harmed.
>
> As I said many times, I agree fully that the potential for harm is very
> great, and that it's by and large a bad idea to have an affair with a
> therapist. Sigh.
>
> [...]
>
> : He would have been far less a jerk if he had simply said, "I've used you all
> : I want to, and now I don't want any more. I've found somebody else now."
>
> Is that what you say whenever you break up with someone? That's coming
> out snide, but do you really think that's what happens whenever a
> relationship breaks up? It's always just the end of usage?
>
> [...]
>
> : :Yes, he does. Since that is the gamble I take every time I involve myself
> : :with a person. What about, "this therapy may help the client or it may
> : :harm him, odds 95% to 5%" -- no therapy? If that's what you want to
> : :advocate, you may as well shoot yourself right now.
> : :
> : :[...]
>
> : You've made my own point. The therapist has to opt in favor of helping. He
> : has to do what he can to help, and not to harm.
>
> Many therapies are risky. Therapists take risks all the time, risks of
> emotional harm foremost. As we all do. I wonder about the urge to control
> the one area of potential harm, eroticism, when we freely take much
> greater risks elswhere all the time. There's something else going on
> here, something apart from the (legitimate) wish to prevent harm. That's
> what I'm really interested in -- the institutionalization of erotics
> that's pervading the country. It's one reason I brought up the teacher
> analogy none of you has picked up on.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> : :: :7. The fact that the institution makes no allowance for exceptions
> : :: :
> : :: Who doesn't want to be an exception?
> : :
> : (there's a bit snipped here.)
>
> : :That's besides the point. I don't recommend that the therapist make that
> : :decision.
> : :
> : :
> : If the client makes that "exception," the therapist should be the one to
> : obstruct it.
>
> Hell, no -- as I said below, I think the institution that outlaws
> consensual adult relationships should leave some room for exceptions. I
> don't think that every single relationship of that kind ought to be
> sanctioned by loss of license and livelihood.
>
> [...]
>
> : :: :I think what I would like to see is the acknowledgement that not all
> : :: :therapist/client love relationships are sordid, unhealthy, doomed. An
> : :: :acknowledgement that it is the interdiction itself that may cause many
>
> : :: That's called wishful thinking.
> : :
> : :To assume that _not all_ therapist/client relationships are sordid is
> : :"wishful thinking"? Man, you're far, far gone...
> : :
> : Yes, you're fantasizing an "exception."
>
> No, Gene, I'm not "fantasizing an exception" - I've seen some good
> stable relationships come out of outlawed situations -- and some pretty
> terrible ones as well. By calling those "an exception," you are
> postulating that all love in those settings is sordid. I am sorry to
> hear that you think that. It must color your attitude towards clients,
> and towards yourself.
>
> [...]
>
>
> smw
>
x
x
>
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On 2 Jun 1998, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> It's implicitly there -- you see the potential for harm in erotic
> contact, but you don't seem to see it in the absence of such contact.
> Again, I'm talking marginal cases; on the whole, I would fully agree that
> abstinence is the safer course.
>
>
> : > 3. The abdication of nuance -- the risk may be great, but I could think
> : > of scenarios where it would be no greater than in all serious love
> : > relationships (all of them are risky).
>
> : I can imagine those scenarios, too. But first do no harm, right?
>
> Right. I'm thinking of the harm done elsewhere, the harm that ensues from
> a strange relation to the erotic that's furthered here. I think great
> harm is done when two people fall in love in an honorable way and it
> spells professional devastation for one of them. Sure, you can avoid that
> by 'just say no' -- but I'm not sure that 'no' is _always_ the best
> possible solution.
Are you seriously arguing that impulse control is harmful?
Remember what Freud says about the balance between id and ego. The key
word is not that id should be indulged in every whim. What makes love or
the erotic so special that it must be indulged when other impulses are
not? Part of becoming an adult and fully functioning member of any society
is learning to balance needs and to seek acceptable means of
gratification, not to gratify needs whenever and however they arise.
Recognizing and accepting that the object of one's affection is
unavailable (for whatever reason) is part of life, not some bizarre
suppression of normal urges.
Nancy
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
I agree with Fiona's points below completely. She raises what I think is a
more general point -- are emotions beyond our control or not? Many people
experience their emotions as something that happen to them, rather than as
something they are responsible for or even involved in producing. I think
this idea that falling in love is like being struck by lightning is
encouraged by the movies and is fundamentally irresponsible (in the sense
of denying ones agency in relation to an outcome).
It might be interesting to discuss which and under what circumstances
emotions can or cannot be controlled. Also, whether love is an emotion (a
discussion we've had in the past).
Nancy
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Fiona Webster wrote:
> Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
> > I could imagine that if
> > you feel deeply in love with a client, your position would be more
> > vulnerable than hers (or his, not knowing your orientation) -- in a way,
> > your stakes are much higher, seeing the legal situation. [...]
> > I think great harm is done when two people fall in love in an honorable
> > my and it spells professional devastation for one of them.
>
> Silke, I'm afraid I disagree with the implied notion here that the
> therapist has no control over whether they "fall deeply in love."
> Falling in love is not a _coup de foudre_: it happens slowly and
> has to be encouraged by the person doing the falling in love. The
> therapist can, and *should*, choose not to encourage that process.
> If they cannot manage their emotions any better than that, they
> have no business doing therapy, in my view.
>
> > I get the feeling that this whole area is very touchy for the
> > practicing therapists around here -- understandably so. It's a bit odd to
> > me that you all seem to assume that therapy is more important than a good
> > or even risky relationship. I guess I simply don't have that kind of
> > reverence for therapy, as important as my own analysis is to me.
>
> It's not that at all, Silke. It's that you've made a contract with
> this person to be their therapist. Whether you're a good therapist or
> a mediocre therapist, whether a romantic relationship might turn out
> well or badly, that contract binds you in advance not to allow the
> development of certain emotions in yourself. It has nothing to do with
> the relative value of therapy vs. a relationship. It's a contract,
> made as a _sine qua non_ of the therapy.
>
> It's off-topic, perhaps, but I believe the same contract should apply,
> in reverse, at the time two people marry each other--that is, if they
> sincerely want a lifetime, romantically-in-love commitment.
> They should make vows to each other to keep loving no matter what--
> which means that they will encourage their loving emotions at all
> times, and discourage behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that lead them
> into loving the other person less. My husband and I refer to this as
> "promising to stay in love."
>
> --Fiona
>
>
>
>
x
Alan
John Clark <j1c...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Mickey schrieb:
>> So at least there is general (if not unanimous) consensus that sleeping
>> with patients/clients is a mistake.
[snip]
> If the two met in a beer hall, there would be no social sanction,
> although there still could be the power difference as proposed to be
> the basis of why the client therapist sexual relationship must be
> avoided.
If I met an individual in a beer hall, I would prevent a large power
differential from developing (withdrawing myself from the relationship
if necessary).
Recently, I told my therapist that, "the defining characteristic of
our relationship is that you have more power than I do." He said he
didn't see things that way, so I asked him how he would characterize
our relationship. He thought for a minute, and then replied, "I see
our relationship as a cooperative one where we work together to
achieve goals set by you." I said, "OK, I can accept that. I was
talking about the part that scares me." If I did not know that
therapists recognize an ethical obligation to refrain from taking
advantage of whatever power differential develops during therapy, I
would never have entered therapy in the first place.
- Alan
Ed Anderson
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> I understand what you're saying, Ed. Really I do. No, I really do. I was
> suggesting that people may kill themselves because of a relationship gone
> wrong, and that they may kill themselves out of love unrequited; or that
> not everybody who kills hirself after an affair with a therapist kills
> hirself because of that affair. And that people kill themselves after
> affairs gone wrong with non-therapists. But I still agree with you that
> it's a bad idea to sleep with clients. Sigh.
You don't need to keep saying that, Silke, that last part. Naturally I
agree with all the qualifications you mention. I guess you're
frustrated that something you feel very strongly is not coming across,
that I'm/we're not getting it? I'm confused, because I feel like I've
agreed with a lot of what you've said.
Maybe what's giving you the feeling of not getting through is that my
agreement is coming from the head whereas you are speaking from the
heart (forgive the cliche). When I agree with you, it's the equivalent
of saying, "Yes, it's possible that rape can actually be good for a
woman" (not that I'm drawing a parallel) -- a discussion of mathematical
possibilities, an abstract exercise, an experiment in thought,
disconnected from how I really feel and see things.
[....]
Ed
Fiona Webster
Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
> Analysis _is_ a love relationship, Norm...
I agree with that! It's just not a romantic love
relationship, which Silke knows, of course.
Apropos of what Alan said, I don't at all think the
defining characteristic of a therapy is that the therapist
has more power than the patient. The therapist has some
kinds of power, the patient has others (such as the power
to act out in the real world in ways that would hurt the
therapist emotionally).
The defining characteristic of therapy is that the
therapist is in the therapist role and the patient is
in the patient role. The therapist role is much more
restrictive, calling upon on the therapist to exercise
a great deal of self-restraint and trained attention,
from the moment the patient first walks through the
door. This is how the therapist is able to manage her
emotions--not because she is not human, fallible, etc.,
but because she attends to certain things from the patient,
processes them in certain ways in her mind, attends to
her own feelings in ways she's been trained to do, etc.
These aren't idealized therapist characteristics: they're
expected, as a result of the training.
A silly comparison: If a pilot looks out the window
of his airplane and sees a large and exotically beautiful
rare bird flying in front of the wing of the plane, his
response to that situation (on mental, emotional, and physical
levels) will be very different from what a person sitting
in the same chair, but not in the role of a pilot, might have.
The pilot may fleetingly observe the bird's beauty and rarity,
but their concern for the bird's potential impact on a plane
full of human beings will be so deeply trained into
them, they will barely be aware of those observations.
But this does not mean the pilot is not capable of
observing that bird with the enthusiasm and relaxed
attention of a naturalist. It could even be that when
the pilot is offduty, his hobby is birdwatching. But when
he's in the pilot's role, that role conveys a whole
host of trained responses in him, which are stronger
(as they should be) than the responses from other,
non-role-defined, parts of his psyche.
--Fiona
Gene Douglas
Masters & Johnson were using surrogates, (hard to distinguish from
prostitutes) and found that the surrogate was damaged in the process, didn't
last long, and had to be replaced by another.
To sacrifice one person (not called a patient) to help another (called a
patient) seems a sort of parasitism. The fact that the patient is paying
money, and the employee is being paid a lesser amount of money, with the
employer pocketing the difference, seems a rather glaring abuse of the idea
of capitalism.
John Clark wrote in message <3574D741...@ucsd.edu>...
:
:
John Clark
Ed Anderson wrote:
> Maybe what's giving you the feeling of not getting through is that my
> agreement is coming from the head whereas you are speaking from the
> heart (forgive the cliche).
And were it so that 'Silke' were a man, the anatomical element posited
to have spoken would be somewhat lower than the heart... Of course
women speak from the heart in such matters.
> When I agree with you, it's the equivalent
> of saying, "Yes, it's possible that rape can actually be good for a
> woman" (not that I'm drawing a parallel) -- a discussion of mathematical
> possibilities, an abstract exercise, an experiment in thought,
> disconnected from how I really feel and see things.
But the fact that the discussion went almost straight from 'love' with a
greater dimensionality to 'sex' and even narrower sexual assault is some
what of the amazing thing.
It seems to me that therapists can only talk about the subject in the
context of rape.
Deirdre
In article <6l2g51$3hg$3...@netnews.upenn.edu> wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>From: wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
>Subject: Re: Affair With Therapist?
>Date: 3 Jun 1998 03:32:49 GMT
>Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l1bje$ml2$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>: :Ed Anderson (ander...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>: :: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>: ::
>: skip
>: It's a bit odd to
>: :me that you all seem to assume that therapy is more important than a good
>: :or even risky relationship. I guess I simply don't have that kind of
>: :reverence for therapy, as important as my own analysis is to me.
>: :
>: :silke
>: I this is the crux of the whole disagreement, right here. You may think of
>: therapy as entertainment, like reading a good book.
>Actually, reading good books is my profession, and analysis has rarely
>been entertaining.
Silke, I hesitated to respond to this thread as it appears to be FULL of
pitfall, but what the hell..
First I understand that you are NOT proposing that everyone leap into bed with
their therapist.. but that you believe that room should be made for a caring
relationship to develop into what could be understood as "love" including
erotic love (by the way when someone can truly define love I don't think this
will be a problem any more but I haven't seen that done well - anywhere!)
Being a client of psychotherapy (long term) I agree with you that the
relationship is a love relationship (as does my therapist!).. and I think that
the reason so many here do not understand is because many do not do long term
therapy. My relationship is built on several years with the same therapist
and I could not imagine the bond being as strong in a relationship that is say
20 - 30 sessions in length.. So individuals such as Gene don't even
understand what you are speaking about IMO. (though why you chose to respond
to him is a myster to me.. he is the last one here I would consider a good
example of even a competent therapist!)
Now for the therapists here that DO do long term work.. I am reminded of how
often during the 60's that affairs would/could lead to a complete loss of an
individuals (usually the male's) life fortune and sometimes even their
professional standing (not to mention ties with their own children!!).
Marriage (here in the states/Canada anyway) institutionalized the notion that
all affairs were wrong and should not be tollerated. Still many individuals
took the risk.. whether they met at bars, or in their office or in their
churches.. it didn't matter.. Many themselves professed the "company stance"
that it was immoral to "indulge" yet they did it anyway under cover so to
speak. What is happening IMO in this thread is the same thing. I think that
many of the therapist here would agree that the relationship (at least the
long term ones) are loving relationships but they must profess the "company
stance". It is dangerous for them not to.. and yet even (for us less
sophisticated readers <g>) Scott Peck acknowledged that an affair with a
client COULD be useful though he himself in thirty years of practice had
never seen a situation where this WOULD not harm.. at least he was brave
enough to leave an open door! He also discusses the "sacred affair" though
again not in congunction with the client - necessarily.
Now I too would NOT leap in bed with my therapist there is just too much that
might be lost once both ego's were allowed more room in the relationship..
but IF I were to consider this I would fully understand that therapy was
over and the relationship had changed.
Philosophy is full of the I and Thou relationship and (like it or not folks!)
a part of psycology is premised on many of those same philosophical
positions.. love has always been in the therapeutic environment and (I cringe
at the responses to this one) MAY actually be the "healing" eliment available
in that room.. Science does have it place in psychology but the human
relationship is the real focus of therapy and science hasn't done too much in
that realm IMO.
Best
Deirdre
Ed Anderson
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Sure, that's me, all heart no brains.
[....]
> It's the easy segue from love to rape that manifests itself in your post.
> That's a symptom of something. There's a fantasy there.
I'm offended by that. That's a low blow, very unfair, hurtful.
Ed
John Clark
Silke-Maria Weineck schrieb:
> I am not so much interested in changing the law or getting
> anybody here to say that the law is too rigid -- I'm interested in what
> appears in the cracks of this discussion.
Seen the movie 'As good as it gets'... I see therapists playing the Jack
Nickelson character in his obsessive avoidance of stepping on the cracks.
And of course in traditional hollywood closure, he has to step on the cracks
to kiss the girl who holds salvation from his loveless life of empty obsessions...
(I'll also note that the character is also a writer that is praised for his
ability
to 'write of love and passion that 'speaks to women''...)
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l3orv$e5e$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Thanks, Deirdre -- I think yours is the first post that addresses what
:I'm actually saying... I agree with most of it, just a few comments:
:
:Deirdre (bar...@azstarnet.com) wrote:
:[...]
: What is happening IMO in this thread is the same thing. I think that
:: many of the therapist here would agree that the relationship (at least
the
:: long term ones) are loving relationships but they must profess the
"company
:: stance".
You are of course, assuming that all therapists are fools, and function as
robots. Though I don't believe so, I wouldn't waste time debating that.
There are different kinds of love. The therapist should have a "caring
love" for his clients, of the sort you might have for a sister, daughter,
mother, son, etc. This means that when the person comes to you about an
important, perhaps even vital concern, you don't torpedo that by indulging
one's erotic interest in the person.
:
skip
:
:"About that affair with therapist debate: Another in an endless stream
:of affirmation that most therapists are present in therapy only in a
:rather disembodied sense. [...] The complete exclusion
:of the possibility of love between therapist and client is a
:manifestation of this rationality. A fear of the visceral in therapy,
:a sense of not being able to cope with a real connection between
:therapist and client, a clinging to a rehearsed code of
:ethics that can be applied like a formula to therapy."
I have met many clients who would be of romantic interest to me under othera
circumstances. Not only were they physically, intellectually and
emotionally desirable, but were also single, age appropriate, etc. However,
if I care at all about helping this person, I have to disregard all of that,
and help the person, exclusively.
This is not difficult. Any time one goes into a restaurant, bank, church,
or other place where the public is to be found, one finds attractive people.
And 99%+ of the time, it is a simple matter to restrain one's self from
grabbing them or approaching them with erotic purposes in mind. It isn't
hard to do.
:
:It's not quite how I perceive it, but it touches upon it. It makes me
:wonder how much room there is for the erotic in therapy -- and I do not
:mean sex, or even touch (though it was interesting to see that GeneDoug
:thought of hands touching as already too much), but the presence of
:danger that the erotic poses, invariably. Most therapists will easily
:admit to sexual feelings towards clients (I think it was Ed who got
:really pissed when one of his supervisors [?] wanted to deny the
:legitimacy of that), but that is not the same as exposure to eroticism
:(which, again, has nothing to do with Gene's mucky fantasies).
:
I was once at a seminar in which a video was shown, in which a therapist
admitted to being sexually attracted to clients. Some of the women got
angry at his even mentioning it, with remarks about his having a hard on for
his clients. I just thought he was being honest about it (and that they
were being dishonest.)
However, the important point is how one handles it. The situation, I mean.
If he is responsible, there is not reason not be honest, at least with
himself.
omitted
Deirdre
In article <6l3orv$e5e$1...@netnews.upenn.edu> wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>From: wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
>Subject: Re: Affair With Therapist?
>Thanks, Deirdre -- I think yours is the first post that addresses what
>I'm actually saying... I agree with most of it, just a few comments:
You're welcome!
>Deirdre (bar...@azstarnet.com) wrote:
>[...]
> What is happening IMO in this thread is the same thing. I think that
>: many of the therapist here would agree that the relationship (at least the
>: long term ones) are loving relationships but they must profess the "company
>: stance".
>I think you may be right; I suspect, however, that it's not driven by
>conscious caution, but that what you call the company stance is actually
>more of a corporate identity -- it's fully internalized and not open to
>question.
But who better than those trained in the ways of the human mind to uncover
their own internalized REACTIONS! It is somewhat ironic actually - not
acknowledging the possibility of a "love" in the relationship may be the
central reason so many affairs DO develop (IMO). To admit would mean to
accept the possibility and therefore lessen it's impact. In other words the
therapist AND the client would not be carried away with the reaction and this
would leave time to think more clearly before any action.
Hence, the endless repetition of the obvious and the
>well-established by some of the most sensitive and open-minded posters
>around -- Norm explaining in gentle tones that the therapeutic
>relationship is _"different"_ from other relationships, Dr. Andrew
>explaining transference 101, Ed speaking of power imbalance -- as if all
>of these things weren't already granted long ago and not at issue.
I do think that Ed tried to leave an open door in his conversation with you
but it was only open a crack and then shut firmly! <s> Pretty brave actually
considering the reactions by his peers. And of course Norm's approach always
appears to me to be "gentle" . I do get pretty tired of the transference
argument myself as I feel strongly that I can differentiate transference with
the love.. transference can be very useful, has certainly been in my therapy,
but the love in the relationship is the key (again in my own experience).
I have to return to work so I will look forward to answering more of this
latter.. by the way it is VERY interesting how strong the reactions to this
thread are!
Deirdre
Adriana L. Flores
M. Cauther Prinz wrote:
> Can o' worms...
>
> The possibility may exist that my therapist and I wish to elevate our
> doctor-patient relationship onto another level. As farfetched as it may be
> for me to write it, this wouldn't be something that either of us would
> stumble into willy-nilly.
>
> She's been my therpaist for eight months. Should I even consider romantic
> possibilities? The notion excites and at the same time frightens me.
>
> You only live once.
>
> Commentary?
>
> --
> Do you know how many time
> zones there are in the Soviet
> Union? Eleven.
Dear M. Cauther Prinz,I am very concerned that you are considering engaging in
a romantic relationship with your therapist. I am, however, as a therapist,
more concerned that your therapist is interested in pursuing this type of
unethical, illegal, malpractice potential, type of relationship with you (if,
indeed, she is). In addition to the unethical nature of such a relationship,
you would lose any therapeutic gains that you may be presently gaining from
your therapeutic relationship. That is, a reason you are likely seeing your
therapist is due to her objectivity, however, if you were to become involved
in a "romantic" relationship with her, she would become "subjective" and thus,
therapeutic efficacy would be destructed.
I also encourage you to ask yourself the following: Is my
therapist INTERESTED in a romantic relationship with me or is that what IIII
think??? For example, has she asked you to have an affair with her? Have YOU
developed a romantic interest in her and have simply assumed that she feels
the same?? If, indeed, this is not a topic that has been openly discussed
between you, then it is likely that YOU have perceived her interest in you.
If this is the case, I encourage you to discuss thos with her as you romantic
interest in her is an important issue to address in therapy.
I sincerely hope that you do NOT engage in a romantic relationship with
your therapist. There would clearly be a power differential in such a
relationship(i.e. she has more power since she knows MUCH more about you than
you do about her), and thus, such a relationship would likely be
dissatisfying/not fulfill your emotional needs. Good luck!!
Nancy Alvarado
John Clark wrote in message <357585A4...@ucsd.edu>...
>
>
>Silke-Maria Weineck schrieb:
>
>> I am not so much interested in changing the law or getting
>> anybody here to say that the law is too rigid -- I'm interested in what
>> appears in the cracks of this discussion.
No, you are playing games.
You are suggesting, fantasizing if you will, about what lurks in the cracks
of this discussion. You are also making some unfair accusations about the
intentions and fantasies of Gene, Ed, and everyone else in the thread
(including all American males, if I recall correctly). Of course, no one
really understands sex like a European or someone of European descent
<sarcasm>, but your preoccupation with the sexual potential of the
therapeutic relationship strikes me as a little warped itself.
I find myself wondering why it is so important to you to reserve the
possibility that a therapist can have a sexual relationship with a client.
Would it be so terrible if your analyst were uninterested in you sexually,
or if he didn't recognize or care about the erotic potential in your
interactions with him? What would that mean to you?
Nancy
Nancy Alvarado
I wouldn't read too much into that. He also writes anecdotally, so all of
his examples will be from his perspective (not that they necessarily involve
him). From his writing, Gene prefers to reason with concrete personal
experiences, not abstracts. It is easier to shift genders or perspectives
if you are thinking in abstracts. Be fair.
I think way too much reading between the lines is going on in this thread
(mostly by Silke) on matters that are highly personal and where the person
being mind-read might not have wished to self-disclose what is attributed to
them. There was an interesting discussion on public radio this afternoon
about the ethics of a third-party disclosing something personal that
violates privacy, in the interests of some other goal (there it was
prosecuting Clinton). Here, what are the ethics about making explicit
something you believe is implicit in someone's post? Silke has no restraint
about speculation because she is not a therapist. For therapists that might
be considered out of bounds interpretation, unrequested head-shrinking. I
consider it a form of attack or verbal aggressiveness (and yes, I know I
have done it before myself). Is this fair in the context of debate on some
topic? I don't think so.
Nancy
Fiona Webster wrote in message ...
>Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
>> You know, Gene, I can't talk to that perspective. I feel kind of weird
>> for having elicited it. Like I shouldn't have pried. I'll leave you to
>> your fantasies. I'm sorry.
>
>No kidding! And it's especially disturbing that Gene is writing
>all his responses as though the therapist were male and the patient
>were female, when the real-life scenario that kicked off this thread
>is the opposite.
>
> --Fiona
Mark Morin
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
snip
> It's not more important to me than the possibility that a therapist can
> love a client. Actually less.
It seems to me that much truth is summarized in this one sentence. That
little four letter word often sends people running whenever it is
meantioned.
It is not an easy subject to talk about. The subject matter in and of
itself transcends words. Any words that I would use here will not do my
thoughts and feelings justice.
I have discovered that the quality that brings life to my
relationshps--relationships with my parents, with my siblings, with
friends and yes even with clients and supervisees--is love. Without it
I am but a noisy gong, spewing words, some of them may be correct some
may be off target and some may find a home. With love there is a
connection, there is a bond, there is a context for healing to take
place.
Should this love in the therapeutic relationshp be examined? Of
course. We all have our own places from which we come and our own needs
that need filling. But, remember, when done properly, even this
examination is done within the context and under the auspices of love.
Love is healing.
Perhaps I'm waxing poetic and perhaps I'm setting myself up to be flamed
and despite not having said it very well, this is something that I
needed to throw into this equation.
Mark
--
=====================================================================
Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back
and discover they were the big things.
Mark Morin
Andrew Gray wrote:
> John Clark wrote in message <3574DAB4...@ucsd.edu>...
> >On the other hand long term relationships could then very well be
> >those that the transfered elements are in fact the person's 'real
> identity'.
> True - I think that all relationships generate transference at some point.
> The point is that an analytical therapist will go out of his or her way to
> maximise the transference and minimise the real side of the relationship.
won't this ruin the chances of anything therapeutic happening in
therapy. There's no way I'd want to be in therapy with someone with
whom I had anything less than a real relationship.
Mark
> This puts a responsibility on the therapist, and his or her supervisor to
> make sure it stays under control.
Gene Douglas
Nancy Alvarado wrote in message <3575c...@206.170.198.12>...
:I wouldn't read too much into that. He also writes anecdotally, so all of
:his examples will be from his perspective (not that they necessarily
involve
:him). From his writing, Gene prefers to reason with concrete personal
:experiences, not abstracts. It is easier to shift genders or perspectives
:if you are thinking in abstracts. Be fair.
:
No, no, I actually believe that all therapists are male, and all clients are
female. Prove otherwise if you disagree.
:I think way too much reading between the lines is going on in this thread
:(mostly by Silke) on matters that are highly personal and where the person
:being mind-read might not have wished to self-disclose what is attributed
to
:them. There was an interesting discussion on public radio this afternoon
:about the ethics of a third-party disclosing something personal that
:violates privacy, in the interests of some other goal (there it was
:prosecuting Clinton). Here, what are the ethics about making explicit
:something you believe is implicit in someone's post? Silke has no
restraint
:about speculation because she is not a therapist. For therapists that
might
:be considered out of bounds interpretation, unrequested head-shrinking. I
:consider it a form of attack or verbal aggressiveness (and yes, I know I
:have done it before myself). Is this fair in the context of debate on
some
:topic? I don't think so.
:
:Nancy
:
Whether or not it is fair to the person, it certainly isn't fair to the
topic itself.
There was an interesting article in Family Therapy Networker last fall I
think, on discussing clients in articles or books. It happens there are
several modes, and all are used. One is to just do it. Another mode is to
request permission from the client, informally or signed, but not
specifically about what is said. Another is to discuss specifically what is
said, to let the client read and accept or reufuse the manuscript.
In closing, he said that many of his clients feel neglected if he doesn't
write about them, as if it is suggesting that they aren't very important. (I
wonder if that would cause them to "perform" in order to get a mention in
his next book? And I wonder if Freud ever got permission?)
:
:Fiona Webster wrote in message ...
:>Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
:>> You know, Gene, I can't talk to that perspective. I feel kind of weird
:>> for having elicited it. Like I shouldn't have pried. I'll leave you to
:>> your fantasies. I'm sorry.
S. mentioned so many, I don't really know what you're talking about.
Anyway, "let's terminate therapy, now we're legal, your place or mine" was
shorthand, leaving out the "by the way I love you" in between.
:>
:>No kidding! And it's especially disturbing that Gene is writing
:
:
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l4lbb$4sd$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Nancy Alvarado (st...@binus.com) wrote:
:
skip
N:: I find myself wondering why it is so important to you to reserve the
:: possibility that a therapist can have a sexual relationship with a
client.
:
S:It's not more important to me than the possibility that a therapist can
:love a client. Actually less.
:
:: Would it be so terrible if your analyst were uninterested in you
sexually,
:
:I don't know what that would be like.
:
:: or if he didn't recognize or care about the erotic potential in your
:: interactions with him? What would that mean to you?
:
:That he'd be a lousy analyst.
:
:Anything else I can help you with today, Nancy?
:
:smw
I missed out on the background of JC's past remark about your flashing
somebody. But possibly that could remind him of your wide open heart.
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l4p13$h9l$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Nancy Alvarado (st...@binus.com) wrote:
:
:[on speculation]
:: I
:: consider it a form of attack or verbal aggressiveness (and yes, I know I
:: have done it before myself).
:
:Let me guess (excuse me, speculate) -- you're catholic, right?
:
:smw
Since she didn't say why she asked, I'd suggest she's laying a verbal trap.
Whether you say yes or no, she'll snap it shut with what she really had in
mind.
Gene
Ed Anderson
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> I'm sorry, Ed, and I think you misunderstood -- I did _not_ mean to
> suggest that you fantasize about raping your clients. Never entered my
> mind. When I say "there's a fantasy here," I mean there's a fantasy that
> _reduces_ eroticism to violence (I do think that violence is part of
> eroticism), in the context of therapy.
I think you're wrong about that. I can't speak for Gene. But what I
want to ask is, please be careful in the future when you link the
concept of "fantasy" to rape. To be called a latent rapist hurts.
> It's much more apparent in Gene's
> posts, obviously. But -- and please try to relax into this question for a
> moment -- if you had a client and you asked him about love and eroticism
> and she gave you an analogy to rape, wouldn't you wonder why it was that
> example that came to her mind?
Yes, I would.
Please recognize that I was not answering a question about love and
eroticism. I was trying to understand why you weren't feeling
understood, and trying to offer an explanation (and then an invitation
to say more, but I left that part out). I'd heard you say a couple of
times, "People aren't getting what I'm trying to say. They aren't
responding to my arguments." I thought I was, so I was puzzled. Since
you seemed frustrated, I thought I'd try to respond to that
frustration. That paragraph was my 12:30 a.m., sleep-deprived attempt
to say why I thought we were having a communication gap. I was trying
to say that I'm not really understanding you, although I guess I thought
I was, because my understanding isn't anything more than a merely
superficial intellectual agreement that a mathematical possibility
exists (that some therapist-client sexual/love relationships might be a
good thing). I was going to end the post with a request for you to try
again, to say again what you wanted to say but wasn't being understood
-- unfortunately, I forgot that part.
Well, to get to the rape thing... I searched for an example -- not to
illustrate client-therapist sex/love, but to illustrate the difference
between real agreement and superficial assent. That's what I was
looking for. Not "what's like therapist-client relations" -- "Oh, I
know, rape!" Rather: "What's something I could agree to in an abstract
way as a possibility, but basically not believe?" "Oh, I know -- a lack
of alien life." Thought I was going to say rape? No, actually, the
first example that sprang to mind was, "It's like if I agreed that we
are alone in the universe." I could agree with someone that it's
possible that we are alone in the universe, but I don't really believe
that. I added a second one, rape, and was going to add some more but
figured two was enough, and what the hell, one made the point anyhow,
and rape is closer because two people are involved (rather than beings
on other planets) and a woman usually gets hurt. So let me be real
clear, no reading between the lines allowed: I was trying to illustrate
the difference between real assent and agreement based on
"possibilities." I recognized the obvious discrepancies; I assumed you
and others would too. But since I could imagine a lazy reader thinking,
"What? He thinks rape and therapist-client unions are the same!?" I
stuck in a parenthetical comment: "not that I'm drawing a parallel
[between rape and client-therapist relations]." Sigh.
Ed
John Clark
Gene Douglas wrote:
> To sacrifice one person (not called a patient) to help another (called a
> patient) seems a sort of parasitism.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I watch one of those hero movies about
someone who throws themself on a granade to save the others... the others
are just parasites....
John Clark
Mark Morin wrote: I have discovered that the quality that brings life to my
> relationshps--relationships with my parents, with my siblings, with
> friends and yes even with clients and supervisees--is love. Without it
> I am but a noisy gong, spewing words, some of them may be correct some
> may be off target and some may find a home. With love there is a
> connection, there is a bond, there is a context for healing to take
> place.
You did mention that you were a minister didn't you... or am I suffering
from a false memory... Paul isn't it...
Kristin Wood
> Andrew Gray wrote:
> > True - I think that all relationships generate transference at some
> point.
>
> > The point is that an analytical therapist will go out of his or her
> way to
> > maximise the transference and minimise the real side of the
> relationship.
Mark Morin wrote:
> won't this ruin the chances of anything therapeutic happening in
> therapy. There's no way I'd want to be in therapy with someone with
> whom I had anything less than a real relationship.
>
> Mark
Mark,
I like the sentiment, but I'm curious how you define a "real
relationship". It seems to me that a therapeutic relationship is a very
constructed, controlled, and unbalanced relationship. It seems difficult
at times (to me at least) to distinguish between "real" and "scripted".
I think most therapists will admit that given the same circumstances,
they will respond differently to a client than a non-client (e.g. a
friend). Which is more real?
Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here. I think I see what you are getting
at, but I got hung up the concept of a "real" relationship.
Regards,
Kristin
--
*****************************************
Kristin Wood
Department of Geological Sciences
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405
krd...@indiana.edu
http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~krdwood/home.html
*****************************************
John Clark
Mickey wrote:
> Besides, (talk to any firefighters lately?) lack of altruism does not
> mean parasitism. And Gene only said it seems like parasitism when an
> employer turns a profit while paying an employee to get damaged.
Sounds like professional sports now that you mention it, especially the
ever popular football or hockey, take your pick. As for pro-wrestling...
we all know that's faked...
John Clark
Kristin Wood wrote:
> Mark,
> I like the sentiment, but I'm curious how you define a "real
> relationship". It seems to me that a therapeutic relationship is a very
> constructed, controlled, and unbalanced relationship. It seems difficult
> at times (to me at least) to distinguish between "real" and "scripted".
> I think most therapists will admit that given the same circumstances,
> they will respond differently to a client than a non-client (e.g. a
> friend). Which is more real?
Of course it's obvious that a therapist will respond differently to a client
than a non-client... they, therapist and non-client, may even develop a
relationship that has an explicit erotic component, which is a
'real relationship'(tm).
The fact that the therapist may have abysmal relationships out side the
theraputic setting is inconsequential....
But then I think the same about some types of marriage relationships,
namely, 'honesty' is perhaps a sought after quality, but if the 'truth' is not
what's expected, there is no marriage... or at least as soon as the divorce
can be concluded...
Personally I think people can live long lives without requiring absolute
honesty, and in fact perhaps requiring some necessary fictions.
John Clark
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> deplores in others behavior she admits to having exhibited three
> minutes earlier herself, she must count on the logic of
> confession. The old Augustinian trick -- help me to stop sinning,
> God, just not yet.
In my youth it was 'get behind me satan... now push'...
Deirdre
In article <3575F1B5...@idt.net> Mark Morin <mmo...@NOSPAMidt.net> writes:
>From: Mark Morin <mmo...@NOSPAMidt.net>
>Subject: Re: Affair With Therapist?
>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>snip
>
>> It's not more important to me than the possibility that a therapist can
>> love a client. Actually less.
>Love is healing.
>Perhaps I'm waxing poetic and perhaps I'm setting myself up to be flamed
>and despite not having said it very well, this is something that I
>needed to throw into this equation.
>Mark
>--
>=====================================================================
>Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back
>and discover they were the big things.
I think you said it all AND you said it beautifully!
Best
Deirdre
<
>http://members.tripod.com/~morinm/index.htm
Lorne D. Gilsig
>>As for pro-wrestling...we all know that's faked...<<
WHAT?!?!?
Lorne D. Gilsig
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On 2 Jun 1998, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> I'm interested in deviance here, and how to create a space for
> it. Your scenario seems to be the following -- lecherous therapist sees
> attractive but vulnerable client, abuses her emotions, hurts her feelings
> and leaves her in the ditch. Why is there, in _your_ fantasy, no room
> for different scenarios? I'm truly fascinated by this question -- why
> does eroticism seem such a sordid affair to you?
>
No one has objected to eroticism. You would like to describe anyone who
disagrees with you as some sort of repressed prude. All of the concerns
here have been about the effectiveness of therapy when boundaries are
crossed or about the effect of betrayal of trust on the client.
You have also mentioned that you view therapy as a love relationship and
that all of life can be viewed erotically. Broadening terms to that point
obfuscates meaning. This isn't about sex or love. It is about what helps
people solve the problems that brought them into therapy. Even if those
problems were sexual/love/erotic in nature, having a sex/love/erotic
relationship with the therapist would not solve them.
Your insistence that love is worth more than therapy strikes me as wrong.
I have difficulty seeing how someone can enjoy or participate fully in
love while coping with the kinds of problems that bring one into therapy.
The experience of love can only be heightened by improvement in therapy.
Since you define love/eroticism as pervading all aspects of life, this
will be all the more true for you. (This is your cue to explain how love
requires suffering or pain which can be heightened by derailing one's own
therapy, or some such nonsense.)
Nancy
Andrew Gray
John Clark wrote in message <3574DAB4...@ucsd.edu>...
>
>On the other hand long term relationships could then very well be
>those that the transfered elements are in fact the person's 'real
identity'.
>
>
True - I think that all relationships generate transference at some point.
The point is that an analytical therapist will go out of his or her way to
maximise the transference and minimise the real side of the relationship.
This puts a responsibility on the therapist, and his or her supervisor to
Mickey
> I'll keep that in mind the next time I watch one of those hero movies about
> someone who throws themself on a granade to save the others... the others
> are just parasites....
Um. The surrogates are not throwing themselves on grenades. Neither is
there a crowd of people hanging about who would otherwise die from a
violent area effect attack.
Besides, (talk to any firefighters lately?) lack of altruism does not
mean parasitism. And Gene only said it seems like parasitism when an
employer turns a profit while paying an employee to get damaged.
Grenades, sheesh...
MICKEY
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." -- Frank Zappa
Mark Morin
correct and correct. When words fail me, I often find myself resorting
to the myth which I have found to capture the truth that I experience as
real.
mark
--
=====================================================================
Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back
and discover they were the big things.
Mark Morin
Kristin Wood wrote:
> Mark Morin wrote:
> > won't this ruin the chances of anything therapeutic happening in
> > therapy. There's no way I'd want to be in therapy with someone with
> > whom I had anything less than a real relationship.
> Mark,
> I like the sentiment, but I'm curious how you define a "real
> relationship". It seems to me that a therapeutic relationship is a very
> constructed, controlled, and unbalanced relationship. It seems difficult
> at times (to me at least) to distinguish between "real" and "scripted".
> I think most therapists will admit that given the same circumstances,
> they will respond differently to a client than a non-client (e.g. a
> friend). Which is more real?
> Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here. I think I see what you are getting
> at, but I got hung up the concept of a "real" relationship.
> Regards,
> Kristin
It's not an easy distinction to describe. I do believe that you know it
when it is there and it makes all the difference.
As an analogy, when a client comes in for therapy, they come in with an
"inside place" that contains failed hopes, brokenness, current hopes and
desires, hurts of various sorts. It's like a terrain that is full of
broken glass and nails interpersed with oases of green lush. A real
relationship is where the therapist takes off his shoes and walks
through that terrain with the client recognizing it for the holy ground
that it is. In some other type of relatioship the therapist may stay on
the sideline coaching the person through the obstacles. Could such a
person be useful to the client? Probably. Is there a difference
between the two approaches? I think so.
Mark
Gene Douglas
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l55du$v1r$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
:
:: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l4p13$h9l$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
:
:Oh, forgive me, I thought it was obvious -- if Nancy publicly
:deplores in others behavior she admits to having exhibited three
:minutes earlier herself, she must count on the logic of
:confession. The old Augustinian trick -- help me to stop sinning,
:God, just not yet.
:
:But that's not nearly as amusing as this spectacle of you and Nancy
:seeking solace in each other.
:
:smw
You seem to think people should choose up sides and stay on them. Reminds
me of someone who sent me e-mail saying he had supported me, now why wasn't
I supporting him? Are you getting a chuckle then, from BG momentarily
sharing a "side" with me?
Gene Douglas
Mark Morin wrote in message <3576968D...@idt.net>...
:
Of course, what we're talking about here is the therapist who says, "what
the hell, I'll take the green lush and you can keep your broken glass. At
first, until I'm through with you, you wont't even know the difference, and
you might even think I'm still leading you around the sharp objects for a
while."
Alan
f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com (Fiona Webster):
> Apropos of what Alan said, I don't at all think the defining
> characteristic of a therapy is that the therapist has more power
> than the patient.
Of course not, but it can sometimes seem that way to some clients.
> The therapist has some kinds of power, the patient has others (such
> as the power to act out in the real world in ways that would hurt
> the therapist emotionally).
With some clients that sort of acting out is a real possibility; with
others it is not.
> The defining characteristic of therapy is that the therapist is in
> the therapist role and the patient is in the patient role.
And the patient is entitled to rely on the therapist to remain in the
therapist role.
I liked your pilot analogy.
- Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As 40 flabbergasted guests looked on, the elated lady tied the knot
with her pet shark Archie in a seaside ceremony at her home in Sydney,
Australia.
`Everybody says Archie is dangerous and that someday he's going to eat
me alive--but compared to the men I've met lately, he's an absolute
angel,' the blushing bride gushed to reporters."
- from Fiona Webster's home page
We are also told that the shark "kisses nice," but it's unclear whether
he meets Silke's exacting standards for erotic fluidity.
John Clark
Mark Morin schrieb:
> Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message <6l2asb$bsn$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
> >I was responding to the argument that "involvement is bad because it
> >would end the therapy." I think I'd find it easier to find a therapist
> >than someone I'd like to be seriously involved with.
>
> Now ain't that the truth!!!!--despite the fact that a preposition ends the
> sentence.
It's a postposition not a preposition... in hindi, prepositions are horrible
things with which to begin phrases...
W.E. 'Bill' Goodrich, PhD
In article <mickey-0406...@user-37kbo93.dialup.mindspring.com>,
mic...@thedesignlab.com (Mickey) writes:
> In article <35761987...@ucsd.edu>,
> John Clark <j1c...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > I'll keep that in mind the next time I watch one of those hero
> > movies about someone who throws themself on a granade to save the
> > others... the others are just parasites....
> Um. The surrogates are not throwing themselves on grenades.
Just exposing themselves to ongoing risks to their emotional and
physical health.
> Neither is there a crowd of people hanging about who would
> otherwise die from a violent area effect attack.
> Besides, (talk to any firefighters lately?) lack of altruism does
> not mean parasitism. And Gene only said it seems like parasitism
> when an employer turns a profit while paying an employee to get
> damaged.
They were not being paid to get damaged. They were essentially
specialized physiotherapists, and as such they were mostly independent
subcontractors who associated themselves with one or more treatment
facilities/practices. While many subcontract therapists (especially
those involved in rehabilitation physiotherapies) at that time
suffered a relatively high burnout rate, the surrogates' problems were
exascerbated by their controversial status and a widespread perception
of them as little more than prostitutes. Despite all of that, they
produced a level of improvement in various forms of sexual dysfunction
which was far in excess of those achieved by other contemporary
therapies.
Since that time, social factors and improvements in physical, social,
and psychological understandings of sexuality have rendered such
surrogates pretty much obsolete.
--
W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * bgoo...@nyx.net bgoo...@filebank.com *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
John Clark
Ed Anderson schrieb:
> I think you're wrong about that. I can't speak for Gene. But what I
> want to ask is, please be careful in the future when you link the
> concept of "fantasy" to rape. To be called a latent rapist hurts.
Why... personally I'm not at all amazed at the 'free' association that's
occured on this thread, namely 'therapist love' and the response of 'rape'
but therapists or those in training. If I were a freudian I'd bewonder myself
that there may be some displaced libido action beneth the surface of
sexless relationships which is only waiting to tear itself loose...
John Clark
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. schrieb:
> Therapists are not in the business of providing love in exchange for
> money.
Given the discussion on 'transference', then it would seem that in some
therapies, the therapist is the prostitute of the imagines of the client... and
so therapist thereby are prostitutes who nether kiss nor screw.
John Clark
Mark Morin schrieb:
> It's not an easy distinction to describe. I do believe that you know it
> when it is there and it makes all the difference.
Along with truth and pornography we now have 'real relationships' as something
that needs to be 'seen' to be determined.
Edna
Andrew Gray <andy_...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<eLbk4Y0...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>...
>
> John Clark wrote in message <3574DAB4...@ucsd.edu>...
> >
> >On the other hand long term relationships could then very well be
> >those that the transfered elements are in fact the person's 'real
> identity'.
> >
> >
>
> True - I think that all relationships generate transference at some
point.
> The point is that an analytical therapist will go out of his or her way
to
> maximise the transference and minimise the real side of the relationship.
Sorry I disagree with this. I don't think there is any need to 'maximize'
the
transference as it would occur spontaneously. I would most certainly
disagree with minimize the real side of the relationship. Granted that
therapeutic alliance is unilateral, as much as that the therapist leaves
his own needs, feelings, difficulties, etc. out of the session it does not
mean to
minimize the real side of the relationship. It is a *genuine* relationship
and
that is a *must'* if any clinical work is going to be done.