Of course we do have emotions and reactions. But something is not adding up. No one can have an impact on us, it's just us reacting?!

let's take some concrete examples, SA, or CA (or even CSA); am I hearing that one's (huge) anger about experiencing this is never about the other person, it's only the victim's problem if they have an adverse emotional reaction? this makes no sense. To me this sure sounds like blaming the victim.

Now and then, in my general reading about therapy, I do get a whiff of this kind of belief - that some Ts may actually believe the client/patient is responsible for the effect that others' actions have on them - and I strongly protest. These authors say nicey nice stuff ike, "no one can make you unhappy. Only YOU can do that" but tell that to the people here on PC (so many names come to mind) whose worlds were simply shattered. They didn't do it, somebody else did. All they can do is try to stitch the pieces back together somehow, and heal as much as possible.

Other people's actions are seldom neutral, but will affect others for good or for bad. It IS perfectly possible for other people to do things that impact us, just as we have the capability of impacting others. Nobody can just do whatever comes to mind and then say that they don't want to hear about it, it's all in the emotion, the reaction, of the one done to, and is never about what they did.

I don't think that Perna meant this or you either FG. Surely not.

Perna said, >> So, if you yell at your T, it's not something your T said or did, it's an "a-ha" moment inside yourself, a lightning flash showing where you're feeling stuck. It's just another tool to help you "see". <<
and I agree with this BECAUSE it's happening within the therapeutic dyad, with transference deliberately engaged etc.
But it doesn't follow that >> Anger is never about the other person..
OK folks, off my soapbox now