Posted by spoc on March 18, 2004, at 12:42:13
In reply to Re: sayng what you are feelng.., posted by Tancred62 on March 18, 2004, at 8:22:17
So many really serious things I want to look into at this site, yet here I go posting to this thread again!! I guess I need to work through having just spent so much emotion and ungodly $$$$ in what was for me the wrong kind of therapy. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the kind the women here are in, but this thread brought up a common aspect of them all for me.
You said:
> Well thank you all for your comments. I was aware of the concept (some would say actual dynamic) of transference, but it seems that since the last time I heard/talked about it (15 years ago), it has really come into its own and is now a "standard" approach, for better and for worse.
Probably only with practitioners (often psychiatrists) of psychoanalysis. My assumption too was that transference *as KEY* was a concept from the past. That was why I was so shocked to find that I had sat through over two months of my only "treatment" being the anticipation from my pdoc that as he sat there I *would* (meaning no discussion to the contrary allowed) make him into -- and treat/react to him -- the same way I do to all the major types of players in my life.
Anyway it sounds from the posts here that these women have warmer, fuzzier interactions with their therapists, because when you're only seen as a stimulus-response lab organism, you know it! So theirs probably aren't "analysts," meaning they probably recognize but don't necessarily look for or "need" to see transference happening to perform their magic. Here, it's probably not the case that it's being applied "to" these women. When a therapist really *does* feel to a patient like a particular person/persons in their life, that part of it probably initiates from the patients themselves. I think my initial purpose in posting was kind of to ask whether the women realized that they may be transfering (and perceiving reciprocation of) their romantic feelings to an idealized, "conflict/reality-free" target; rather than experiencing unique compatibility/attraction with a specific individual.
I've been talking out of both sides of my face on this thread, but at first I thought maybe they should consider that in case their therapists weren't practiced in this "technique" and wouldn't end up helping them avoid being hurt by what would feel like a break up/rejection. Later I thought, the "T" has a plan that may not involve a stranger on a thread disclosing that there is no Santa Claus. Lastly I thought, maybe these women do know why they're really feeling what they're feeling but are just choosing to have fun with it in the moment. I have no idea if that's good. When I felt the "love" I laughed at myself and stuffed it right back in its cage. Never allowed myself to dress any differently. Didn't want to play into a classic pattern that therapists can spot a mile away (and in this case mine would have been right for the only time about when my transfered issues were at play). But maybe that is a sign of how I deprive myself or repress myself in real life! See, around and around the circle of reasoning goes. And indeed the "fruition" was that I saw I had projected ideal character on him based on nothing...So maybe I learned from that.
You said:
> I suppose what "disgusted" me in the thread was that the banter reminded me of teenagers talking about their latest "crush" and the latest fashion statements they had and were about to make. I assume your point here would be "That's exactly what we were talking about, and there's nothing wrong with that!" Hey, that's fine. Nonetheless, I had to cringe at the dialogue because it seemed to reinforce many of the stereotypes about women (obsessions with clothes, boys, gossip, etc.). If that is what transference has wrought for you, it seems a bit trivial; but again, perhaps their is more substance to what I see as trivial. Perhaps I am so unfamiliar with transference that I am missing the whole point.
Guessing again, but the above could be an exact illustration of what COULD BE "healed" by a therapist making use of the transference that really seems to be occurring in these cases. Tendencies to stay in the teenage mode of "falling in love" (infatuation not grounded in reality) and end up disappointed. Tendencies not to overcome the things women do that hurt themselves and hold them back in the long run. If someone could start therapy already knowing which of their chronic, self-destructive/disillusioning tendencies to reign in and how, they wouldn't be there! AND here's another guess -- some people may go to therapy because they have lost or never had the ability to love or feel sexual/sexy, and even to just play and flirt as they are talking about. Not being able to bring those things to our lives is actually pretty serious. Maybe they need to learn or relearn how to do that with their partners. In that case, if transference works right, the newly learned skills developed in a safe environment with their therapists will ultimately get redirected to where they should/could be in the person's real life.
No kind of actual "relations" are to take place of course. But taking it a step further for illustration purposes **only,** think of the one (bad?) analogy of how transference works that all laypeople seem to understand: a sex therapist. We all know that person is there to help someone who has been unable to perform in their real life to resolve their issues, so that they can ultimately move on.
On the seventy-third hand, everyone is human and we can only hope that the vast majority of therapists handle crushes constructively or at least so as not to cause damage. Who knows what could actually be going on here.
poster:spoc
thread:323332
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040313/msgs/325673.html