![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 58 to 82 of 91. Go back in thread:
Posted by crushedout on April 30, 2004, at 13:52:34
In reply to This is why they made the rules, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 12:19:54
People don't always follow rules, even when they ought to (look at Enron). Usually this is bad, but sometimes it's good to break the rules (sometimes you should eat ice cream for breakfast for example -- I did this morning -- mint chip). Life doesn't always fit into simple rules. It would be simpler if it did, but it doesn't.
> Well, it appears the we will just have to disagree on this issue. I am not talking about anyone personal situations. That's their risk and their issue at hand to deal with. This original issue was brought up about the getting "involved sexually with a therapist". It's in the rules of ethics and it's just plain common sense. You don't get involved with the therapist in this manner. It is black and white. Where in those rules does it say in some situations it's okay to cross that line? I can't find it. It's a shame that we need this spelled out, but their are those that get off on breaking those rules.
>
> The word intimacy is not really appropriate term for therapy. Therapy is a profession. Therapy is done in a confidential manner, not intimate manner. Intimate manner has a sexual overtone to that. That's where people get their wires crossed and think that the therapist has the hots for them or visa versa. Intimate relationship - No - It's a professional relationship. It's a pay for service relationship. Half of the time, they just are paid listeners.
Posted by crushedout on April 30, 2004, at 13:54:03
In reply to Re: This is why they made the rules, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2004, at 12:26:50
> > It's a pay for service relationship. Half of the time, they just are paid listeners.
>
> G*d, I'm depressed.Believe me, Dinah, I know how you feel. :(
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 15:29:58
In reply to Let's get the denial out in the open, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 1:01:47
IF you are referring to ME and MY posts youre making assumptions about what I do and do not know about transferance and other issues. I am NOT saying to have a personal relationship while A PERSON is still in therapy I DID OUTLINE THE RULES. I am not overly concerned with the issue.
> The point of the therapy is to have someone that is not involved with us personally to have an objective point of view. So, suppose, I am having an affair with my t. Who do I go talk to then about the affair? The therapist? Who do I go to when things go wrong? The therapist again? Not hardly! That just doesn't make any sense to me at all. I have heard of therapist that have sex with their very vunerable clients with sex abuse histories. This is revictimization. The client isn't paying for this type of treatment.
>
> It's common for clients to view that trained total attention for love. It's not love. It's called therapy. For some, it is the 1st time in their whole lives that they have had this type of attention, so they mistaken it for love. Also, because the client is spilling their most personal information, they take that as a form of intimacy as well. Telling your secrets to an attentive trained listener is not intimacy.
>
> The t is a t and not a lover, priest, God, parent, etc. As far as hearing about therapist marrying their clients, I don't know of any and I haven't heard of any. Let's say they did. Would you trust this t (the supposed lover) with their other clients? After all, they thought you were attractive and nothing was wrong with getting involved. They will do it again. Ask the t about the truth about behavior.
>
> Here's another spin on this. Many folks transfer unresolved feelings of their family members onto their therapist. So, having sex with a therapist is like recreating incest. How is that therapy?!
>
> Therapy is a complicated and loaded issue that should not involve sex with a therapist. That's just asking to get hurt. To be sexually involved with a therapist, it is really showing that you are still in denial and that you feel subconsciously you deserve to be hurt. After all, you are choosing to recreate a very painful relationship from your past into your present.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 15:34:09
In reply to Re: Let's get the denial out in the open » shadows721, posted by crushedout on April 30, 2004, at 8:24:16
Thank You Crushed I apprecate your reply on my behalf....I was feeling *VERY attacked* by that post as well as poster...I am not in denial and have NEVER posted one SHOULD have a sexual relationship while in therapy and have said that repeatedly.
> Shadows, with all due respect, I don't think it's this black and white. The fact that the listener is trained doesn't mean it's *not* intimacy. I think almost any therapist would agree that the relationship really *is* intimate, regardless of their feelings about the client. And many therapists "love" their clients as well. ("Love" is such a fuzzy word -- who even knows what it means?)
>
> But in any case, I don't think Fallen is suggesting that sleeping with or marrying your client IS therapy. (At that point, your therapist is no longer your therapist, and if you need therapy, you'll have to get a new one.) She's just saying it can happen and it doesn't *necessarily* end in disaster (although I think she would agree that it often does).
>
>
>
> > It's common for clients to view that trained total attention for love. It's not love. It's called therapy. For some, it is the 1st time in their whole lives that they have had this type of attention, so they mistaken it for love. Also, because the client is spilling their most personal information, they take that as a form of intimacy as well. Telling your secrets to an attentive trained listener is not intimacy.
> >
> > The t is a t and not a lover, priest, God, parent, etc. As far as hearing about therapist marrying their clients, I don't know of any and I haven't heard of any. Let's say they did. Would you trust this t (the supposed lover) with their other clients? After all, they thought you were attractive and nothing was wrong with getting involved. They will do it again. Ask the t about the truth about behavior.
> >
> > Here's another spin on this. Many folks transfer unresolved feelings of their family members onto their therapist. So, having sex with a therapist is like recreating incest. How is that therapy?!
> >
> > Therapy is a complicated and loaded issue that should not involve sex with a therapist. That's just asking to get hurt. To be sexually involved with a therapist, it is really showing that you are still in denial and that you feel subconsciously you deserve to be hurt. After all, you are choosing to recreate a very painful relationship from your past into your present.
>
>
Posted by crushedout on April 30, 2004, at 16:01:37
In reply to Re: Let's get the denial out in the open » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 15:34:09
You're welcome, Fallen. I don't blame you for feeling attacked. I know you've never posted that.
> Thank You Crushed I apprecate your reply on my behalf....I was feeling *VERY attacked* by that post as well as poster...I am not in denial and have NEVER posted one SHOULD have a sexual relationship while in therapy and have said that repeatedly.
>
>
> > Shadows, with all due respect, I don't think it's this black and white. The fact that the listener is trained doesn't mean it's *not* intimacy. I think almost any therapist would agree that the relationship really *is* intimate, regardless of their feelings about the client. And many therapists "love" their clients as well. ("Love" is such a fuzzy word -- who even knows what it means?)
> >
> > But in any case, I don't think Fallen is suggesting that sleeping with or marrying your client IS therapy. (At that point, your therapist is no longer your therapist, and if you need therapy, you'll have to get a new one.) She's just saying it can happen and it doesn't *necessarily* end in disaster (although I think she would agree that it often does).
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's common for clients to view that trained total attention for love. It's not love. It's called therapy. For some, it is the 1st time in their whole lives that they have had this type of attention, so they mistaken it for love. Also, because the client is spilling their most personal information, they take that as a form of intimacy as well. Telling your secrets to an attentive trained listener is not intimacy.
> > >
> > > The t is a t and not a lover, priest, God, parent, etc. As far as hearing about therapist marrying their clients, I don't know of any and I haven't heard of any. Let's say they did. Would you trust this t (the supposed lover) with their other clients? After all, they thought you were attractive and nothing was wrong with getting involved. They will do it again. Ask the t about the truth about behavior.
> > >
> > > Here's another spin on this. Many folks transfer unresolved feelings of their family members onto their therapist. So, having sex with a therapist is like recreating incest. How is that therapy?!
> > >
> > > Therapy is a complicated and loaded issue that should not involve sex with a therapist. That's just asking to get hurt. To be sexually involved with a therapist, it is really showing that you are still in denial and that you feel subconsciously you deserve to be hurt. After all, you are choosing to recreate a very painful relationship from your past into your present.
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by joslynn on April 30, 2004, at 16:40:52
In reply to Re: Let's get the denial out in the open » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 15:34:09
My thoughts...I feel like even if there is no actual sex, but the T somehow dangles the promise of sex at a later date after terrmination or flirts seductively, or somehow alludes to availability and interest in that way, it is still not right.
I think therapy should serve as a bridge to healthy relationships outside of therapy, not be THE relationship. I don't think we should get stuck on the bridge. And just for the record, I have often in the past yearned to get stuck on that bridge!
Especially if the T is married, I think it is doubly wrong for him or her to come across as seductive, because then it's going against two sets of boundaries: the boundaries of the profession and the vows of marriage
I do recall of someone posting about an ex-pdoc having an affairs with patient(s)... and now that doc needs to have a nurse in the room at all times. So, that story didn't have a happy ending.
I guess my concern is that whenever boundries have been crossed by Ts etc with the people on the board, it has resulted in things like SI, suicide attempts and depression, every time. We go to Ts to heal from those things, not to have more reasons to want to do those things.
I am not saying this because I want to hurt someone on here, but because others have gotten hurt by their Ts.
Posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 17:22:52
In reply to Re: Let's get the denial out in the open, posted by joslynn on April 30, 2004, at 16:40:52
Well, I was starting to believe based on the lack of response that we should just pass out condoms at our next therapy session. Rules or no rules. Who needs rules anyway right? If you are attracted and they are too, just go right at it. If I feel like it and they do too, so be it. I am being sarcastic here.
The issue being discussed is indeed infact "involvement with t". That's what I thought this discussion was about. Did it hit some nerves? Yep, it did. As well it should. This is a very serious issue. This can be a very damaging issue.
Getting off the topic now. As far, as my comment about the t being a paid listener. I don't think that's depressing at all. It's very validating to be listened to. They should be doing a lot of listening. And, yes, when you listen, you think. I don't know about you, but when I listen, I think. <<Gees, People!!!>> If they are doing all the talking constantly for an hour, what are you getting out of that. T is for you and not the t.
Okay. Look out. The dictionary was pulled out for word intimacy. Is it that we really don't know what itimacy is? The word was taken out of it's original context to prove a point that the word intimate does not have a sexual overtone to it. All Done, look Webster states... very close association, CONTACT, familiarity, of a VERY personal, or PRIVATE NATURE. What does it mean when someone says, "We were intimate last night." hmmm OH, NOW, GIVE ME A BREAK! RLOL Words can be manipulated to be what you want them to be. Now, back to my point..Some folks feel when they share private details of themselves, that the t and them are intimate. Nope. That's all made up in one's mind. Now, questions...Are you intimate with your t Or are you discussing intimate things with the t? That's very different. Isn't it? Does it change the rules? Nope.
Eating ice cream for breakfast is breaking your own rules Crushed. A t having sex with a client is breaking the law and is very damaging emotionally for a client in the long run. If my t tried to have sex with me, I would call it attempted rape, because it would not be mutual.
Crushed What the ?...Enron?... Oh, I am not even going on that one. . <shadows shaking their head>
Posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 18:11:18
In reply to the eyes have it, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 17:22:52
I am glad that the dictionary was brought up on the term. It just validates what the origin of this whole discussion is revolving around. People do confuse the t with different levels of intimacy. For example, suppose, a client shares fantasies with the t. He/She may think, because the t is listening. They are in agreement with the fantasies as well. This isn't the case. The t is listening nonjudgementally.
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2004, at 18:33:26
In reply to Levels of intimacy and confusion, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 18:11:18
As far as sex and falling in love goes, I agree with you, for what it's worth. Not only are the rules prohibitive, but the statistics are even bleaker. Therapist marriages to former patients last on average two and a half years, even if they do marry them. There are too may dynamics invloved to make for happily ever after. Resentment at career problems, the whole rescuer/damsel in distress thing, the fact that it's hard to step out of therapist/client mode, any host of problems that well nigh doom such a relationship. Not to mention character traits of therapists likely to thumb their nose at the rules. They aren't odds that I'd like to play.
But I for one need some level of illusion that my therapist has a caring professional relationship with me. Yeah, we're not friends. I don't hear about his problems. But I hope he feels some caring and closeness to me. Some genuine liking that doesn't come from my checkbook. It's hard enough to believe that they aren't emotional whores who care only as long as we leave a check on the desk on our way out. It needs to be more than that. If it isn't, I don't think I can go on.
I'm already having a hard time believing that there's any genuine caring. Please don't rob me of my remaining illusions. The consequences are too dire.
And no, I'm not in love with him. But I've seen him once or twice a week for nine years. I care about him, if only from length of association. He's seen more of the real me than anyone in the world. If he didn't care at all about me, I'd have to assume I wasn't really worth caring about much. Not sure I can handle that.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 18:39:21
In reply to the eyes have it, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 17:22:52
Wow I do not think you need to make remarks on some of our feelings and all..You have a right to disagree and I FOR one respect to agree to disagree but I find this as hurtful not to disagreement but to the personal attacks those are not necessary
> Well, I was starting to believe based on the lack of response that we should just pass out condoms at our next therapy session. Rules or no rules. Who needs rules anyway right? If you are attracted and they are too, just go right at it. If I feel like it and they do too, so be it. I am being sarcastic here.
>
> The issue being discussed is indeed infact "involvement with t". That's what I thought this discussion was about. Did it hit some nerves? Yep, it did. As well it should. This is a very serious issue. This can be a very damaging issue.
>
> Getting off the topic now. As far, as my comment about the t being a paid listener. I don't think that's depressing at all. It's very validating to be listened to. They should be doing a lot of listening. And, yes, when you listen, you think. I don't know about you, but when I listen, I think. <<Gees, People!!!>> If they are doing all the talking constantly for an hour, what are you getting out of that. T is for you and not the t.
>
> Okay. Look out. The dictionary was pulled out for word intimacy. Is it that we really don't know what itimacy is? The word was taken out of it's original context to prove a point that the word intimate does not have a sexual overtone to it. All Done, look Webster states... very close association, CONTACT, familiarity, of a VERY personal, or PRIVATE NATURE. What does it mean when someone says, "We were intimate last night." hmmm OH, NOW, GIVE ME A BREAK! RLOL Words can be manipulated to be what you want them to be. Now, back to my point..Some folks feel when they share private details of themselves, that the t and them are intimate. Nope. That's all made up in one's mind. Now, questions...Are you intimate with your t Or are you discussing intimate things with the t? That's very different. Isn't it? Does it change the rules? Nope.
>
> Eating ice cream for breakfast is breaking your own rules Crushed. A t having sex with a client is breaking the law and is very damaging emotionally for a client in the long run. If my t tried to have sex with me, I would call it attempted rape, because it would not be mutual.
>
> Crushed What the ?...Enron?... Oh, I am not even going on that one. . <shadows shaking their head>
>
>
>
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 18:42:34
In reply to Re: Levels of intimacy and confusion » shadows721, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2004, at 18:33:26
Dinah a lot of T's care beyond the CHECK...My T has seen me often UNPAID...And a friend of mine her T knew she was broke near XMAS and gave her her check back...they can care and many do I bet yours truly likes and cares about you as a person..who wouldn't ?
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 18:46:13
In reply to Re: Let's get the denial out in the open, posted by joslynn on April 30, 2004, at 16:40:52
I do not totally disagree with you. I do here and there but you have some valid points and some I do not agree with
> My thoughts...I feel like even if there is no actual sex, but the T somehow dangles the promise of sex at a later date after terrmination or flirts seductively, or somehow alludes to availability and interest in that way, it is still not right.
>
> I think therapy should serve as a bridge to healthy relationships outside of therapy, not be THE relationship. I don't think we should get stuck on the bridge. And just for the record, I have often in the past yearned to get stuck on that bridge!
>
> Especially if the T is married, I think it is doubly wrong for him or her to come across as seductive, because then it's going against two sets of boundaries: the boundaries of the profession and the vows of marriage
>
> I do recall of someone posting about an ex-pdoc having an affairs with patient(s)... and now that doc needs to have a nurse in the room at all times. So, that story didn't have a happy ending.
>
> I guess my concern is that whenever boundries have been crossed by Ts etc with the people on the board, it has resulted in things like SI, suicide attempts and depression, every time. We go to Ts to heal from those things, not to have more reasons to want to do those things.
>
> I am not saying this because I want to hurt someone on here, but because others have gotten hurt by their Ts.
Posted by noa on April 30, 2004, at 19:30:05
In reply to Re: the rules » noa, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:41:48
I know you will disagree with me on this.
I know it does happen, but I feel that the fact that it happens sometimes doesn't make it right, even if the professional feels it is about love and not exploitation. And the codes all seem to be saying that the burden of proof is on the professional that there is no potential for harm and that the exception is ok because the circumstances are extraordinary.
Sorry. I guess we will continue to disagree on this.
Posted by noa on April 30, 2004, at 19:36:26
In reply to Re: the rules » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:55:51
Crushed--whether or not your wish for a personal relationship will come true, I hope you can appreciate what IS wonderful about what you DO have in your therapy relationship.
It is ok, more than ok, to want it to happen--that is very normal and natural and all of us can relate!!!
And whether or not your T reciprocates with a personal relatinship, that doesn't mean there isn't real caring and love going on. It is just that ethically the T is obligated to keep it within the boundaries of the therapy relationship in order to put your needs above his own.
I know it can be frustrating. But having a boundary like this doesn't mean that a T can't feel love for a client--it just can't be acted on in the way you want. But wanting it is really fine.
Posted by noa on April 30, 2004, at 19:49:34
In reply to This is why they made the rules, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 12:19:54
I think there are different types of intimacy. There are aspects of therapy that can be very intimate, but of course thearpy is such a unique relationship that the intimacy is like no other.
But I agree that acting on sexual feelings in therapy puts that special intimacy totally at risk. And that because therapy is so unique, entering into another kind of relatinship after therapy is not good because of the power imbalance that naturally exists in therapy, no matter how 'down to earth' and non-hierarchical the therapist is. Therapists must recognize the power imbalance even if it seems a subtle one. It is there.
I think it is possible for there to be real feelings of love and caring. But the therapist has to be very very careful with these and maintain the professional boundaries.
Therapy is the wierdest relationship! That is why these boundary issues are so difficult for so many people. Therapy isn't THIS but it isn't THAT either. It's professional but very personal but can only be helpful if the personal aspects of it are kept within certain boundaries, etc. etc. It is just so different from anything else!
My first therapist, whom I saw for a long time and was very helpful (termination was due to my moving to another area) once told me that he felt his job was to "stay out of the way" and explained that what he meant was that he needed to steer clear of relating to me in the ways that people in my life had related to me. And of course, this can only be done if therapeutic boundaries are kept.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 22:03:31
In reply to Re: the rules » Fallen4MyT, posted by noa on April 30, 2004, at 19:30:05
Noa, I have absolutely NO issue with you or your post and respect your view...yes we disagree but thats ok.
> I know you will disagree with me on this.
>
> I know it does happen, but I feel that the fact that it happens sometimes doesn't make it right, even if the professional feels it is about love and not exploitation. And the codes all seem to be saying that the burden of proof is on the professional that there is no potential for harm and that the exception is ok because the circumstances are extraordinary.
>
> Sorry. I guess we will continue to disagree on this.
Posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 0:02:55
In reply to Re: the rules » noa, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 30, 2004, at 22:03:31
There were no personal attacks on you and actually I didn't see any on me either. Yes, we disagree on this topic. I don't take that personally at all. This is actually a discussion that is getting wonderful feedback from folks and getting them to think about therapy and their issue. That's a great thing.
I do have strong believes this issue. I think the topic is a good one. We all need to deeply examine our boundaries inside and outside of therapy. I have gotten a lot out of this discussion. Even if you don't agree, you may have seen the issue from someone else's eyes.
As a sexual abuse survivor, I am very vunerable to this stuff. Therefore, I have to have high boundaries to protect myself. For example, how can you really tell if someone is coming on to you? When you have been taught to not trust your instincts, it's hard to tell. Also, I have to put things in a child's perspective for myself. During my whole childhood I was brutally sexually abused, therefore, it is really a child that is in therapy. A therapist that would cross the line would also cross the line of the child. That's how I see myself in therapy. So, as far as a t and I being involved, no way and no how. They could look like a greek godlike image and talk so sweet that I would be hypnotized. That's not what I paid for and that's not what I am there for. That would be very traumatizing to the child that still is alive and scared in my mind. To put it more bluntly, I would be totally ticked off. A t was looking at me sexually as I was telling them about trauma. That's wicked. I was paying them to listen and not to have a fantasy.
So, now, you can see where and why I stand on this.
Posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 0:12:07
In reply to Re: Levels of intimacy and confusion » shadows721, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2004, at 18:33:26
"Please don't rob me of my remaining illusions. The consequences are too dire."
No, I am not going to rob you of any illusions. LOL
Posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 0:25:32
In reply to Re: This is why they made the rules » shadows721, posted by noa on April 30, 2004, at 19:49:34
I totally agree Noa. It's a very unusual relationship, because it is very one sided. As well it should be. I have had four therapist total. Each one was totally different. Even though, I had to get rid of the 1st three. (One cried every session, one was pointing at words the whole session, and another flipped out after having a child.) I still feel like I learn from them. As my current long term t stated, "Some of the sickest people are drawn to work in psychiatry." Clients have to be careful too. Whew!
Posted by All Done on May 1, 2004, at 0:28:32
In reply to the eyes have it, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 17:22:52
> Okay. Look out. The dictionary was pulled out for word intimacy. Is it that we really don't know what itimacy is? The word was taken out of it's original context to prove a point that the word intimate does not have a sexual overtone to it. All Done, look Webster states... very close association, CONTACT, familiarity, of a VERY personal, or PRIVATE NATURE. What does it mean when someone says, "We were intimate last night." hmmm OH, NOW, GIVE ME A BREAK! RLOL Words can be manipulated to be what you want them to be. Now, back to my point..Some folks feel when they share private details of themselves, that the t and them are intimate. Nope. That's all made up in one's mind. Now, questions...Are you intimate with your t Or are you discussing intimate things with the t? That's very different. Isn't it? Does it change the rules? Nope.
Shadows,
Try as I might, I can't seem to put together an adequate response to this. I apologize if I took the word out of context.
Consider me jumping out as quickly as I jumped in...
All Done
Posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 0:50:07
In reply to Re: the eyes have it » shadows721, posted by All Done on May 1, 2004, at 0:28:32
I think you brought up a very valid point. You got me thinking about my relationships and what levels of intimacy they had. Thanks for sharing. I am glad you jumped in. Jump in any time. :>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on May 1, 2004, at 0:59:20
In reply to To: Fallen4myT more info about the shadows, posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 0:02:55
Shadows you do not know enough about me....many of my posts are a ways back and in different T subjects ..I too, to fill you in Readers Digest version :) am a abuse (child) and adult rape survivor and I *see* your points.I have said that to you and to others in the past and what may be good for some isnt good for others. I never..NEVER said when in therapy in a serious way to have sex with your T **while in therapy* with them and see them as a T and have sex ..
I do however take a different stance and that is I DO see where..and I cited examples in this thread and others where it IS OK to after the 2 years have any relationship TWO adults in agreement can and wish to take that would of course ban IF it hurt ANY of the parties involved. I DO know of cases where the marriages with T client were fine and sucessful....
I know stats say 50% of all marriages end in divorce and someone said T marriages to clients end after 2 years...but that is in what study? By whom> How many T's marriages to clients over how many YEARS were studied..what age groups what etc...Stats can be slanted by whomever does the study as in drug companies who do 6 week studies on say 1000 people and say the drug has a 1% rate of this bad side effect or that..I book or study does not make it so...I do not always fit the stats..I agree we disagree and that to me is OK really I am in the minority on this site on this issue BUT NOT ALONE. But it is still my stand for ME and I know IF/WHEN/NOW MAYBE if I was with my T it would NOT damage me..YES I agree there are many it could and does..for me no I am well aware of transferance and I am NOT as you posted in DENIAL thats is where I feel attacked that post. In my case and some others have found we arent as vunerable as some of the people that get hurt in these situations. Discussion is good and talking about our feelings but debate is ify when it comes to a civil thing I can and do feel attacked and all when I feel folowed by a poster who keeps insisting and restating the same disageement...We could go for a million posts each and you know, we will not agree on this. You and I that is. I wish you well :)> There were no personal attacks on you and actually I didn't see any on me either. Yes, we disagree on this topic. I don't take that personally at all. This is actually a discussion that is getting wonderful feedback from folks and getting them to think about therapy and their issue. That's a great thing.
>
> I do have strong believes this issue. I think the topic is a good one. We all need to deeply examine our boundaries inside and outside of therapy. I have gotten a lot out of this discussion. Even if you don't agree, you may have seen the issue from someone else's eyes.
>
> As a sexual abuse survivor, I am very vunerable to this stuff. Therefore, I have to have high boundaries to protect myself. For example, how can you really tell if someone is coming on to you? When you have been taught to not trust your instincts, it's hard to tell. Also, I have to put things in a child's perspective for myself. During my whole childhood I was brutally sexually abused, therefore, it is really a child that is in therapy. A therapist that would cross the line would also cross the line of the child. That's how I see myself in therapy. So, as far as a t and I being involved, no way and no how. They could look like a greek godlike image and talk so sweet that I would be hypnotized. That's not what I paid for and that's not what I am there for. That would be very traumatizing to the child that still is alive and scared in my mind. To put it more bluntly, I would be totally ticked off. A t was looking at me sexually as I was telling them about trauma. That's wicked. I was paying them to listen and not to have a fantasy.
>
> So, now, you can see where and why I stand on this.
>
>
>
Posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 1:48:30
In reply to Re: To: Fallen4myT more info about the shadows » shadows721, posted by Fallen4MyT on May 1, 2004, at 0:59:20
Yes, I did title the post about denial and it is about denial. The denial of the seriousness of what can happen to a person when they are abused by a t (especially with a history of rape).
Yep, I saw that item about the two years. Who is really going to believe there will be absolutely no contact for 2 years. Something funny went on in that t. Someone crossed the line Fallen. Okay, I am to believe ....t and client - I find you attactive and you too. I want to marry you, but let's not talk or meet for 2 years. I don't think so. You can't pull the wool over my eyes Fallen. tisk tisk You are cornering yourself. What do I care about stats. I don't want to marry a t. This is about you and not the stats and not the justifications. You are justifying this to yourself. It's your life. You don't have to justify this to me. But, something is bothering and it isn't all little ole shadows.
Sort off the topic, I could tell you were an abused person. That's why I shared.
Posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 2:07:25
In reply to Re: To: Fallen4myT more info about the shadows » shadows721, posted by Fallen4MyT on May 1, 2004, at 0:59:20
Posted by toomuchpain on May 1, 2004, at 3:02:53
In reply to to Fallen: I agree. We disagree: (nm), posted by shadows721 on May 1, 2004, at 2:07:25
well my input is what it is .. i dont think that a therapist should be balmed for everything when a client comes to them wanting different things from them ... sometimes therapits break down too ... everyone seems to place blame on just therapists .. u kno the clients have alot to do with this too !!!! i guess in all reality i think that weather the attration is mutual or not it could happen in any setting there is out there .. i have been in that sitiuon and i think the rules suck for a therapist.. they are people too i think they have a right tooo feel the way they do and do what they please as any other human being in this world ... my former t has crossed boundries with me quite a few times .. he wasnt wrong at all .. he did what his heart told him to do .. i wished it would have happened sooner then i would have known ... i would still take him back to this day .. he was a great person but he had a weekness but who dont
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.