Quote:
Originally Posted by Torn Mind
FKM, post full of wisdom as always  .
I needed to comment on this that you said though, because it reinforces for me something that I think is received wisdom in therapy and not actually based on what clients might really need.
This is very much the, if the client wants it, deny them (ostensibly in client’s own best interests) because give an inch they take a mile. If the client doesn’t want it, then it’s safe to push it on them because the T can be assured the client won’t ‘abuse’ the offer…
While I think I can rationally see what you mean when you talk about such denial creating a secure frame, I’ve never experienced it as particularly valuable or useful, to me it just recreates the denial and detachment and arbitrary control on the part of attachment figures I’ve endured all my life  .
But I don’t mean to oppose you on this, as it’s pretty clear that what I’m needing, therapy by its very nature may not be able to help with anyway. I’m just struggling with it because I put a lot of hope in every T I meet and the needs get awakened every time and I end up floundering neither getting those needs met nor being helped to deal with having them. Being denied is not my idea of being helped to deal with my needs  |
This isn't what I mean. It's not denial for denial's sake, and certainly not denial for the T's convenience (well, not with a good T, anyway). When you say "I suppose my issue is that my neediness is so huge and all encompassing that it couldn’t ‘realistically’ be met anyway
. But that doesn’t stop me from needing it " it sounds to me like unlimited contact wouldn't satisfy the need, but intensify it and disappoint. The research seems to bear this out as a major cause of ruptures.
This--"I think if I were given carte blanche in the contact stakes, I too would be careful not to overdo or overuse the option – again something T’s don’t seem to give clients credit for…" seems inconsistent to me with how you characterize your need. I'm sure you believe this, but I think trying to satiate the need actually encourages it to grow, making this sort of control of self extremely difficult and painful. I think experienced Ts want to avoid creating that struggle. Inexperienced Ts, in over their heads, can easily out of the best intentions want to "be there" for their clients in this way, but story after story shows that it often ends badly.
The challenge is to find a way to take in the empathy as real as it's offerred. And it could be that 2-3 sessions a week could help (though it often intensifies transference, for better or worse.) But I think the out of session contact, with the exception of an emergency, doesn't generally help because it rarely feels satisfying (so it nudges the need, but doesn't relieve it).
BTW, it isn't about "opposing me"; it has nothing to do with me, it's psych theory.