It's not speculation that he had some sort of discomfort if he literally expressed some sort of discomfort.

Where did he express discomfort? I read that he said the need was OK.

When he responded 10% weird (let's assume it wasn't lame humor, even though it might have been because we just can't know) I read that as responding to LT's fear that it was very weird--she characterized the action first. By saying "only 10% weird" it's minimizing that expressed fear. And let's be objective here: while it is not an unusual desire to ask for a TO in therapy, and as such, perfectly appropriate, it reflects a childhood need that in the usual course of development, is outgrown. So it is not 100% "normal" for an adult to feel such a need for an object in order to be reassured about an emotional connection, one that ideally would be internalized. There are lots of interactions in therapy that are appropriate and useful, but that would be seen as aberrant in other circumstances. No judgment here about the need or its expression.

And yes, it led to a good discussion in session--as it should. And that discussion will need to be repeated many more times. But how is all the projected speculation here, that undermines the in session discussion, helpful?

Turning this into a referendum on the T's stability or competence seems completely unfounded to me.

@at&t, I agree with you that "normal" adults imbue all sorts of objects with emotional sentiment, but it is because the objects are a tangible expression of an already internalized relationship/ experience (like your remembrance of your grandfather). That's very different from needing to obtain an object in order to feel/sustain the relationship. The latter is a developmental stage of childhood.