> i hope you understand I'm not being critical...

Sure. We are having a discussion... Different opinions are fine (life would be pretty boring if nobody ever disagreed / had a different perspective).

> the idea of sexual feelings being present or not are indicators rather than facilitators.

Indicators of what? That is the million dollar question, really...

> In psychoanalysis there seems ( and god, i am NO expert on this) to be a strong interest in exploring self through exploration of the stages of psycho-social, or psycho-sexual development.

Freudian / ego psychology is focused on sexual development because Freud focused on Oedipal conflict as the source of psychopathology. The majority of other approaches focus on conflicts that were thought to have occurred PRIOR to the Oedipal stage, however, so they typically aren't focused on sexual feelings in the way that Freud was focused on sexual feelings.

Freud and ego psychology more generally has a tendency to sexualize ALL relationships. Little kids (around 2 or 3) are thought to have sexual feelings for their parents. Brothers and sisters are thought to have sexual feelings for each other. Freud basically proceeded to sexualize ALL relationships.

There has been much controversy over whether Freud was right to have done so even if we limit his claims to apply to repressed upper middle class viennese female jews living in victorian society. Even if we grant him that there has been much much much much MUCH more controversy over whether Freud is right about ALL (read 'our') present society's relationships being like that.

Other psychoanalytic theorists don't accept Freud's sexualization of relationships / intimacy in general. They consider that there are relationships that can be DEEPLY intimate that are not inherently sexual. The majority of people think that little kids do not typically have sexual longings / thoughts for their parents. The majority of people think that parents do not typically have sexual longings / thoughts for their infant children. The majority of people think that uncles and aunties and sisters and brothers and grandmothers and grandfathers and friends... do not typically have sexual longings / thoughts for their friends and relations.

The absence of sexual longings / thoughts for friends and relations is NOT supposed to signify any lack of intimacy or closeness or liking or attachment. Thus... Why think that the PRESENCE of sexual longings / thoughts signifies intimacy or closeness or liking or attachment? There are many examples of sexualization in our culture that divorce sexual longings / thoughts from any genuine intimacy (think of the objectification of sexuality in soft and hard porn including movies and music videos and books where they attempt to foster sexual feeling in response to an object that is not responsive to you at all).

So... Why should a therapist-patient relationship be experienced as sexual rather than as fatherly or brotherly or uncle-like or friendlike? Why should sexual longings / thoughts signify intense depth of intimacy when 1) sexual longings / thoughts do not signify that in general and when 2) it is (arguably - unless one is Freudian / ego psychological) possible to have far deeper and more intimate bonds and attachments in the absence of sexual longings / thoughts?

I don't see that deep intimacy inevitably or typically leads to sexual feelings / thoughts...

And I don't see that sexual feelings / thoughts inevitably or typically leads to deep intimacy...