![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 45 to 69 of 91. Go back in thread:
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.
>
>
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.
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.