A thread on /r/psychotherapy/ got taken down today. The author (a therapist) shared his dilemma about a client that has sexual attraction for him. He was rather open for suggestions from his colleagues both in his OP and the subsequent answers but all he got was shaming and punishment from the other therapists. They accused him for letting the client's 'transference' progress so much and they advised him to document everything and get away from the client. Therapists galore ready to jump to conclusions only after a few lines of indirect description of a client. There is no Kantian ethics in psychotherapy - ethics is synonymous with law there.

I know I'm jumping to sharp conclusions myself alongside the fact that I've never been a therapist. I've only been a client that has read through the obscure psychoanalytic literature. I claim that whenever a client develops attraction for the therapist there are two options to be explored, namely: "This is all transference, I'll trust the theory" or "I'll act it out". The sadistic therapist can easily be spotted if he or she appropriates both stances - "This is all transference and I'll intervene 'therapeutically'". I don't think there's a middle ground here - the client either gets crushed by rejection(which is the best that can happen to him), be rejected and still be given some hope(pray for those poor souls) or be handled the responsibility to maintain boundaries.
I think at that point it's fair for the client to ask the therapist to pay him.

Good luck feeble clients and hail thy therapist.