![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 37 to 61 of 91. Go back in thread:
Posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 20:53:17
In reply to Getting involved mutally isn't therapy. It's abuse, posted by shadows721 on April 26, 2004, at 20:20:05
I agree with you, Shadows. The therapy relationship is imbalanced and therapists need to not use that imbalance to take advantage of the client. It is a huge responsibility.
Some therapists may not realize they are being abusive. They might genuinely feel attracted or feel love. But it is their responsibility to keep to the boundaries and not say or do anything that puts clients at risk. We are vulnerable. There is so much potential for harm if our therapists cross the line.
If clients test the line, which is understandable because of the feelings that can come up in therapy, it is the therapist that needs to re-establish the line. If it's hard to do, they need to talk to another therapist or a supervisor or a consultant or whatever to figure out how to keep the therapy relationship professional and in the client's best interest.
Posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 21:31:57
In reply to Re: Shadow, I agree w/ you/ I DO NOT, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 10:06:15
>Pdocs can never get involved with patients according to the American Psychiatric Association and I do not know the rules for social workers.
>Its less restrictive for social workers
OK, so I was curious and went and looked up some info on this. I've cited from 3 codes of ethics below. As for legal restrictions, these probably vary by state as most things do. But the ethics codes are by prof. organization. These below are the american ones.
Psychologists: APA Code of Ethics
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#10_08[ my comment: The 2-year period is only the first part of the rule. Read the second part--it is very important. I would bet that by "most unusual circumstances" they are talking about people who live in really remote places with very small populations and situations like that]
10.08 Sexual Intimacies With Former Therapy Clients/Patients
(a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessation or termination of therapy.(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client's/patient's personal history; (5) the client's/patient's current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships.)
Social Workers: NASW Code of Ethics
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp[my comment: No time limit. Note the "extraordinary circumstances" part in section C--see my comment above]
1.09 Sexual Relationships
(a) Social workers should under no circumstances engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with current clients, whether such contact is consensual or forced.(b) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with clients' relatives or other individuals with whom clients maintain a close personal relationship when there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. Sexual activity or sexual contact with clients' relatives or other individuals with whom clients maintain a personal relationship has the potential to be harmful to the client and may make it difficult for the social worker and client to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. Social workers--not their clients, their clients' relatives, or other individuals with whom the client maintains a personal relationship--assume the full burden for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries.
(c) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with former clients because of the potential for harm to the client. If social workers engage in conduct contrary to this prohibition or claim that an exception to this prohibition is warranted because of extraordinary circumstances, it is social workers--not their clients--who assume the full burden of demonstrating that the former client has not been exploited, coerced, or manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally.
(d) Social workers should not provide clinical services to individuals with whom they have had a prior sexual relationship. Providing clinical services to a former sexual partner has the potential to be harmful to the individual and is likely to make it difficult for the social worker and individual to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
Psychiatrists: Am. Psychiatric Assoc. code of ethics
http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/medicalethics2001_42001.cfm[my comment: No time limit. And, the wording here speaks to the issues we've been talking about]
The requirement that the physician conduct himself/herself with propriety in his/her profession and in all the actions of his/her life is especially important in the case of the psychiatrist because the patient tends to model his/her behavior after that of his/her psychiatrist by identification. Further, the necessary intensity of the treatment relationship may tend to activate sexual and other needs and fantasies on the part of both patient and psychiatrist, while weakening the objectivity necessary for control. Additionally, the inherent inequality in the doctorpatient relationship may lead to exploitation of the patient. Sexual activity with a current or former patient is unethical.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:40:24
In reply to Re: the rules, posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 21:31:57
Gosh, that's depressing.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:41:48
In reply to Re: the rules, posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 21:31:57
I do not dispute anything you posted I have been to the site,,,and know the code and revisions on it.....and see the last part...I copied you on..it IS done,,,,and some have married their psychologist...Just know, it is and has been done..Now I dont want anyone waiting on that to happen but.,....tis been done and they KNOW how to do it..as I posted somewhere before I know a couple of cases and I saw a post by another poster a while back saying her old T she found out he married a former client..SO IT IS DONE AND AS IT SEZ....they check to make sure no exploitation...Nobody HAS to do it...it is just a case of it IS possible :) I am also sure they could write it all up to fit all the critera if need be and they were bottom feeders but it happens and can end happy
<<(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client's/patient's personal history; (5) the client's/patient's current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships.)>>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:44:55
In reply to Re: the rules » noa, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:40:24
>
> Gosh, that's depressing.AND SEE MY POST
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:45:22
In reply to Re: the rules » noa, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:41:48
that makes me feel a teensy bit better.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:48:49
In reply to Re: the rules/:: (((crushed )) why? » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:44:55
I did, thanks Fallen.I'm just depressed because I want so badly to believe it *can* happen with my T someday (even if it's highly unlikely). I guess the unlikelihood is pretty dang depressing to me right now, too, though.
I feel really, really bad.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:51:52
In reply to Re: the rules » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:45:22
>
> that makes me feel a teensy bit better.I figured it would :) and I would post more but can't on this in here but KNOW it does happen :)
NOW...THAT DOESNT MEAN DO IT,,,Just that it can be done
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:55:41
In reply to Re: the rules/:: (((crushed )) why? » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:48:49
(((((((( crushed ))))))) I wish you didnt feel so badly :( AND that I could take some of that pain away....PLEASE read between the lines in my last post and it may perk you more...though I am not saying do it or its good...but some Ts plan for a while to set records up ahead....and they KNOW it wont mess with that client and stuff long term....its not always a good thing please know that...but in some cases... :D My dog snorted hello btw lol
> I did, thanks Fallen.
>
> I'm just depressed because I want so badly to believe it *can* happen with my T someday (even if it's highly unlikely). I guess the unlikelihood is pretty dang depressing to me right now, too, though.
>
> I feel really, really bad.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:55:51
In reply to Re: the rules » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:51:52
I really don't think my T will do it, anyway. I feel like hell. :(> >
> > that makes me feel a teensy bit better.
>
> I figured it would :) and I would post more but can't on this in here but KNOW it does happen :)
> NOW...THAT DOESNT MEAN DO IT,,,Just that it can be done
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:58:22
In reply to Re: the rules » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:55:51
YOU feel like HECK YOU MEAN RIGHT? Why so down tonight hon?? I AM ON FOR A WHILE....I'LL CHAT WITH YOU IN HERE...You done with her...staying ??
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 22:34:15
In reply to Re: the rules CRUSHED » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:58:22
yeah, heck, did i violate the rules? sorry dr. bob, if i did.i guess i'm staying with her, at least for now. things have gotten better since she woke up and smelled her client leaving.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 23:48:33
In reply to Re: the rules CRUSHED » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 22:34:15
Sorry I didnt see this sooner..well good if shes being ok with you....she best not mess with you I dont wanna hurt her :P BUT YES...THERE IS HOPE...I am going to bed soon but...wanted to send you to bed with that
hugs and see you tomorrow or so?
>
> yeah, heck, did i violate the rules? sorry dr. bob, if i did.
>
> i guess i'm staying with her, at least for now. things have gotten better since she woke up and smelled her client leaving.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 23:53:05
In reply to Re: the rules CRUSHED » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 23:48:33
thank you fallen. yes you will see me around a lot i bet.
Posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 1:01:47
In reply to Re: the rules » noa, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:41:48
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 crushedout on April 30, 2004, at 8:24:16
In reply to Let's get the denial out in the open, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 1:01:47
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 shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 12:19:54
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
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 Dinah on April 30, 2004, at 12:26:50
In reply to This is why they made the rules, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 12:19:54
> It's a pay for service relationship. Half of the time, they just are paid listeners.
G*d, I'm depressed.
Posted by All Done on April 30, 2004, at 12:42:11
In reply to This is why they made the rules, posted by shadows721 on April 30, 2004, at 12:19:54
May I jump in?
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this board lately and have only read the last posts of this thread. So, I apologize if I'm way off base, but when I saw the word intimacy being used, I wanted to address it as my T and I have used it on several occasions when discussing our relationship.
Per Merriam-Webster
Intimate:
1 a : INTRINSIC, ESSENTIAL b : belonging to or characterizing one's deepest nature
2 : marked by very close association, contact, or familiarity <intimate knowledge of the law>
3 a : marked by a warm friendship developing through long association b : suggesting informal warmth or privacy <intimate clubs>
4 : of a very personal or private natureNone of these definitions include anything of a sexual nature. While I agree, intimacy *can* have sexual overtones, I believe it is also used in other ways to describe the close therapeutic relationship.
IMO, sharing my innermost thoughts and baring my soul to another should be an intimate experience for me and I don't believe my T is merely a listener. He is processing what I've told him and teaching me how to deal with all of my thoughts, fears, relationships, and experiences.
Just my two cents. Hope you don't mind, shadows.
Take care,
All Done
Posted by pinkeye on April 30, 2004, at 13:17:01
In reply to Re: This is why they made the rules » shadows721, posted by All Done on April 30, 2004, at 12:42:11
I agree with shadows. Though I am deeply attracted to my therapist, I feel it would be a big disaster if he ever crossed the boundary.
Even if they really feel for you, how much can that be? Maybe 40 - 50 % of the concern that they show you in the therapy room. Rest is all pre prepared acting out. That is not real. So imagine what happens when you start a relationship? You will be expecting the same 100 % care, but you will get at best 40 - 50 % of it.
That said, I also do hope someday I can have a relationship with my therapist.. Sigh.. I am also a human and can't really control all my heart with my mind :-(
Pinkeye.
Posted by crushedout on April 30, 2004, at 13:42:11
In reply to Re: This is why they made the rules, posted by pinkeye on April 30, 2004, at 13:17:01
Hey, I just want to make clear that I think in the vast vast majority of cases (like 99.99999%) and probably in my own, having a sexual relationship with your therapist is courting emotional disaster. All I'm disagreeing with is whether there is "real" intimacy and love. I think there is.I also (like many of you) doubt it would feel the same if it became a "real" relationship (as opposed to only a therapeutic one), and I agree that you wouldn't get nearly as much undivided attention as you're used to getting in a therapy session, and that could be hugely disappointing.
In general, I believe sleeping with your therapist is ill-advised. That said, I would do it in an instant! (Partially because I'm nuts.)
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.
>
>
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.