yeah. the article on boundary crossings looked at why it is that so many therapists and professional organisations discourage touch.

one notion was that there could be a slippery slope. handshake one day and %#@&#! each others brains out the next. i'll admit it was put more plausibly than i'm putting it here.

the article looked at boundary crossings versus boundary violations more generally and the notion was that boundary violations tend to lead to more boundary violations but that boundary crossings were okay.

whether something is a boundary crossing or a boundary violation depends on the individual circumstances, however. if my therapist were to wrap me up in a blanket and hug me then that would be a boundary violation - but that is because of how it would affect me. i think that such a technique could be used to good effect for some people... but not for me.

my therapist gave me his personal email address and his cellphone number. 'traditionally' that would count as a boundary violation too. i guess i worried about it (partly) because i was worried that it did indeed constitute a boundary violation. but i guess i've thought some more on it... and i guess i see it as a boundary crossing now. i guess that ultimately it has increased my trust in him. partly because he is very good with other boundary issues that are important to me (ending the sessions on time and not touching me, for example) and also because i understand the rationale for him having done that.

there is some evidence to show that the body stores bodily memories before (and after) we are verbal. some people missed out on a lot of things that infants get. being held and massaged and stroked (non sexually). there are some therapies that attempt to use touch so that someone can learn / heal by experience similarly to how a therapists empathetic voice can heal by experience. the content of what is said isn't so important as the emotional attunement.