[elliemay]

I never imagined mine would, but I found out recently that he does. Well, because he told me when I asked.

Shouldn't have done that. I thought the answer would be "no'.

Now, I'm afraid that I might bump into one in the waiting room.

Or even sit where he sat in the therapists office.

I've been trying to find a way where I'm okay with this, I'm know that someone has to see them. No doubt my therapist is a highly trained, very skilled psychiatrist and if anyone can help them it would be him.

It doesn't change the way he is with me, or how my therapy progresses at all, but still...

Something has changed.

[WePow]

(((( Elliemay )))) Your feelings on this are justified. My T made a POINT to tell me that he did NOT treat offenders. He said he had to when he first started his practice due to the requirements of the state and all that stuff. So he saw whoever the courts sent him. But he worked very hard to get his own private practice so he could choose who he wanted to treat or not treat. I am very thankful for that because of what you just said. I do not want to think of some perv seeing me go in or come out and then getting my car information and tracking me down - knowing I was seeing a T so "she must be vulnerable" -- that whole thing. It is just something I do not want to mentally deal with in addition to the rest of my life.

PS - maybe you could ask your T to make extra sure that no offenders are scheduled directly before or after you? I think that is reasonable. As to the chair, you could take a towel with you to sit on :-)

[purple_fins]

I don't know if the T. I see treats offenders.... I try VERY hard to not ever ask or hear about any of the clients T. sees.

Can you explain -- "something has changed"?

what is different to you?

is it that you feel much closer physically to an offender?
do you fear having one be that near?
do you fear for your therapist's well being?
(you don't have to answer those "out loud")

the way I figure it-- I went to school with a murderer, I have a molester, a drug dealer and many alcoholics in my family and don't doubt a neighbor somewhere nearby is doing something illegal....
offenders walk around in life just like the rest of us law abiding citizens.(that is, once they're out of jail or before they get caught) One could become so worried that they never want to go anywhere or do anything if they let themselves think about it very much.

I'm sorry it's got you a bit off balance...... maybe this is something that you could talk about next time-- could be something significant to discuss.

best to you

fins

My old T did not treat offenders, although he told me that when he was in school and training, he did a rotation with offenders. He said it was very hard but he learned alot that was useful in treating "victims." He made a choice not to work with offenders/abusers at all.

To me, I don't understand how a T could treat a person in extreme pain (the "victim") and then turn around and treat the reason people are in pain (offenders). you know?

It seems wrong. Whose side are they really on?

Plus, the recidivism rate is quite high in certain type of abusers.

Personally, I don't understand how T's can do this. I am sorry you found out.

[thunderbear]

My doc don't treat sexual offenders but I think that it should be something disclosed on the first visit for the simple fact the people with a history of SA can make the decision right then instead of finding out about it months or years into therapy w/that particular doc. Because people get used to their docs and comfortable. It is so hard changing therapists after seeing one for a long time. Sorry you are having a hard time. I don't blame you for feeling the way you do. I would not want to sit in a room with an offender (or in the same chair they may have sat in) either.

[fieldofdreams]

My T doesn't have a blanket policy of not treating offenders. He's been a T working with SA survivors for about 30 years, and during that time he's treated several survivors who eventually trusted him enough to reveal that they had also SA'd others. By then he had already established a good working relationship with them, and he believed that it took courage to reveal that to him and they needed treatment as much as any other survivor, so his policy is to always be aware of the possibility that a survivor may also be an active or past offender. He will not abandon a patient who came to therapy as a survivor but then admits to being an offender, so he works with them from both angles, to help them understand that they were not responsible for what happened to them as children but they certainly are responsible for their behavior as adults.
I like his policy. I think a blanket "no offender" policy can be counterproductive because it clearly gives all patients the message that they cannot be honest about their own behavior if it involves abusing others. To me, that seems to defeat the purpose of good therapy.

My t treated an offender when he was under supervision. He really didn't want to, but he did. He was glad he did because he learned a great deal about the mind of a perpetrator and even felt for him somewhat once learning his story. I don't think he makes it a practice to work with offenders now, but he wouldn't turn away an established client if this came up I don't think.

[3velniai]

I don't know if my T treats offenders. I don't care even if she does. Seriously.

[Melbadaze]

I have no clue, but as humans everyone deserves a hand up if thats what they want. Iv'e done some life threatening things when I was actively drinking.

[elliemay]

See, the place I want to really get to in my heart is a noble, and perhaps out of my reach - I don't know.

If an offender is in treatment, then perhaps he really does want to get better. Maybe he is trying really hard to stop. Maybe my T can really really help him to end the cycle and his heartbreak too. Maybe my T has gained a unique perspective that he uses to help me. Maybe he can give the offender a unique perspective in relation to the victims.

My T did say that he had never treated anyone who was actively offending, but then added that it never really came up.

A woman that I really admire counsels battered women. But you know what? She also counsels the men who hit them. Her contention is that if you really want to stop this, you go to the source and not the symptom. I know she is right, and have actively defended her stance.

Now here I am working as hard as I can to incorporate this very same aspect in my therapist.

In my last session I made a huge demonstration to my T about how I wasn't a victim. I described, in detail, about all the precautions and procedures I have in place to protect myself. I know it was in response to the upset in my feeling of safety in the office.

I feel eminently safe in his presence, but the office has changed - the environment is tainted somehow.

[Melbadaze]

yes I can understand how you feel in the enviroment...this is another reason for good boundaries...I have no idea who my T sees and when and have never crossed paths with any other client...think your gonna have to talk and talk about this with T until you feel at a place of safety with it.

[Ithinkimpsycho]

Unfortunetely, mine does too. I don't find anything wrong or odd about it, I think everyone deserves a chance to get help, no matter what demons they may have on the inside. It also helps that my therapist doesn't find anyone weird.

[fieldofdreams]

I think a "no offender" policy creates a false sense of safety and security for SA survivors, simply because T's would have to be mind readers to know what kinds of issues a new or current patient might bring to therapy. The fact that a patient hasn't identified himself/herself as an offender does not mean he or she isn't an offender, and realistically, unless it's court-ordered treatment, who would reveal that to a T prior to establishing trust within the relationship? So basically, short of hanging a "no offenders" sign on the door, I don't see how a T can be certain that he or she is not treating an offender. And even that couldn't guarantee that an offender wouldn't come in for treatment of other problems. Since most offenders don't see their behavior as wrong, and their thinking is very distorted, it's entirely possible for an offender to enter treatment for a variety of other reasons, and because he doesn't see himself as an offender, a "no offender" policy would not necessarily mean anything or apply to him.
I think that policy also creates a false dichotomy, lending itself to black or white thinking in both the T's and their patients because it separates survivors and offenders into two separate and distinct categories with no overlap, which does not represent reality. It creates an "us vs. them" illusion that does not exist in the real world. Some people are survivors. Some people are offenders. And some people are both. Attempting to protect and remain loyal to the treatment of SA survivors is a noble gesture, but not particularly realistic.

Originally Posted by elliemay

Now, I'm afraid that I might bump into one in the waiting room.

I have had students who were registered sex offenders. The funny thing was that I had already gotten that sixth sense that there was something odd about them before I ever knew their status. I had something similar happen in a church recovery group. There was a man who just gave me the creeps. I told my pastor about that (he was also my counselor), and he said that was my survival instinct kicking in -- to trust my gut. Turns out he was a sex addict.

It's unlikely that you would get those kind of vibes by just passing someone in the waiting room. It takes more interaction than that to get that sense of something truly amiss.

The fact is, everyone our t's see is broken in some way, at least the way I look at it. Your t is a professional, and just because he treats offenders does not make him any less capable or empathetic to victims. In fact, it probably helps him see with broader eyes.

[Fartraveler]

Hi Elliemay

I was thinking about this last night. I could see (feel) how horrible it must be to feel that something you believed was safe -- something that you trusted was safe, and something that you should be able to trust as safe -- to sense that it wasn't safe at all -- that in fact it was very dangerous. It almost might feel as if nothing at all could be trusted, nothing to lean on or rely on.

(Perhaps that's not right --- that's kind of the feeling I got when I read your initial post.)

Your feelings certainly seem justified, and yet -- there was something there -- also perhaps trapped in the past? Does this perhaps replay a past scenario somehow? The past and the present are always entangled, of course, but -- if that is part of what's going on for you, then it might be useful to think about the pieces that are now and the pieces that were then. (Just a thought -- might not be right.)

Good luck, Elliemay. I wish you strength and wisdom in dealing with this. I always admire your determination to be a good person. I wish you the ability to transform pain into strength and good energy. (I think you do that already.)

Take care,
-Far

[Perna]

Maybe a T doesn't treat "offenders" but I don't think one can know all about a person (like us) off the street and what they may/may not have done. Remember, many/most are not caught.

If one thinks about various crimes, bad things one may have done, where does one draw the line as to what would be "okay" and what not? Other people are just other people, like us, like T's, our idea of other people we don't know (like T's) is just our thoughts/feelings based on our own experience/issues and can tell us more about ourselves. I would talk about it more with your T elliemay.

[elliemay]

So, I flipped this around a bit and asked myself "what would my reaction have been if my T had said "no I do not treat offenders""?

At first I would have been like "yeah T!! Way to stick up for us!"

But with thought, I can promise you that I would have gotten equally as upset, and very likely thought a lot less of my therapist.

I mean he has all these skills and all this training, but he's going to pick and choose who is "good enough" to get his help?

That would not be fair, and IMO would not be ethical.

He offers help to all comers, and that is to be respected, even admired.

As far as safety is concerned, I've just got to be realistic here. It's not like my therapist is going to let an offender just have at me! In fact, if something did happen, I'm confident he would work like hell to intervene and put the guy in jail!

I likely pass several offenders a day on the street, and ride on the bus with them. I might even work with one!

The chair I sit in at my therapist's office is far from sacrosanct. What gives it meaning is my butt in it, and not the person's before.

What makes therapy safe is the relationship I have with my T, not the room or the furniture or the light fixtures or the magazines. It's him. And that's just the fact of the matter and it hasn't changed one bit.

I don't know if I'm finished processing this, but I'm moving toward resolution. As long as I'm moving, hopefully in a positive manner, I guess that's all that matters.

Wow Ellie! Absolutely great rational thinking!! Good work!!

[seventyeight]

interesting post. i've been thinking about your comment that you didn't know what exactly it was, but that something had changed - and i think it might just be your perspective. nothing physical or tangible has changed, but your view of the type of practice that your therapist has is now different.

i think also what makes it more difficult is that it strikes a very unique nerve within. as in, we sit there in therapy and sometimes we feel like afwul people, and our therapist is there to say, "no, you're a good and decent person. you've done nothing wrong." but now, knowing that your therapist treats offenders, it's like the game has changed. it might be easier now to put yourself in this yucky category (of offenders). does that make any sense? i'm not sure if i'm explaining it very well.

in addition, you might be wondering how your therapist could be so nice to someone that did harm to another person. i know i've often wondered what would happen if my therapist started treating someone from my past that had harmed me in some way.. would she be as nice to them as she is to me? it would be such a contridiction because here she would be saying that it was not me, that i did nothing wrong, that it was their fault.. but then i'd wonder what she would say to them. again, i don't know if i'm explaining this well though.

[Amazonmom]

My T told me immediately that she does not see offenders or perpetrators of violent, sexual or abuse crimes. She doesn't treat currently using drug addicts or drinking alcoholics either (not trained to do so).

Her husband does work with some addicts, but does not treat violent, sexual or abuse perpetrators either. Since they share a small house for their practices they share that info about each other to all clients.

They want their private practice to be a safe place for all clients, especially when in the waiting room with strangers. It was nice to know that when I had to bring my brand new baby there and the men waiting for her hubby smiled at her or said she was cute. I knew they were being nice instead of creepy. I also was having a huge flareup of PTSD from an attempted rape and safety was paramount to me.

*This post is geared towards the issue of adult offenders

What I find interesting is that some are making it seem as if it is wrong that a T choose not to treat offenders. -- "that everyone deserves help."

As someone said an "US" versus "THEM" issue.

Perhaps a T was a victim and has decided that it would be too complicated for T to work with offenders?
Perhaps a T is truly disgusted by the behavior and sorry excuses that many offenders offer and hence would not be affective in helping offenders?
Perhaps a T simply wants to apply all their energy and skills to helping those that were victims?

For those that think T's don't know and it sets a false sense of security or T is lying, that is not always true.
If clients are court-ordered for treatment, T's know they are offenders. T's that work in the field of abuse, also have a feeling ~ sort of how they can spot a "survivor"....
Additionally, in my city, it is very clear which T's treat offenders..even the phonebook/internet list T's in a specialty for offenders.
Some T's give detailed intake forms that ask about these issues to weed out clients with a history of being abusive.
Furthermore, if a client reveals they are an offender, some T's will refer them out irregardless of where the relationship is.

Is is possible to have a practice that is offender free. There is nothing wrong with this. Nothing.

And it is fair to ask and want an offender-free T.

And yes, it could be viewed as an "US" versus "THEM" issue. Why?

"THEM" were the people that CHOOSE to hurt someone else.
"US" were the people that were hurt.

"THEM" were the people that were selfish and only cared about their wants
"US" were the people that were giving -- of ourselves, our bodies, our brains, our lives

"THEM" were the ones that damaged a childhood/young adulthood
"US" are the ones trying to pick up the pieces.

People make a CHOICE to abuse. But people DO NOT make a choice to be abused.

[fieldofdreams]

I wish it were that simple and clear-cut, Moosetracks. But just because we may want it to be that way doesn't necessarily mean that it is. The world is not so neatly divided into "us and them" because we are all human and all capable of causing harm. There is a little bit of "us" in "them" and a little bit of "them" in "us" whether we care to acknowledge it or not.
And people are known to lie on intake forms. T's are known to make mistakes when they rely on feelings to spot survivors or offenders. And yes, I would prefer that my T continued to treat someone who revealed that he or she was an offender, because referring him or her out does not guarantee further treatment, and unless the patient's previous victim(s) come forward and accuse him, or he is currently a threat to a specific person, the T cannot legally divulge this information to anyone else, including another T, without permission. If my T continued to treat him, at least there would be one less untreated offender on the streets.

[lily99]

My T specializes in substance abuse, so she presumably works with offenders. It only makes me respect her more...

Originally Posted by fieldofdreams

There is a little bit of "us" in "them" and a little bit of "them" in "us" whether we care to acknowledge it or not.

Actually, I strongly disagree with you on this. I have none of "THEM" in me. I, like many other "victims" have made a conscious choice to not hurt anyone, to not become "THEM," irregardless of what my life saw, experienced and what was the cycle of abuse as I knew it. I made a choice, a different choice then "THEM". And in fact, many of "US" could not even fathom that level of harm that "THEM" have committed.

Now, yes, many abusers have claimed a history of abuse, so you might say they have some of "us" in "them." But what makes the major difference, many of "us" (me) choose not to hurt and choose to stop the cycle of abuse. I, like many others choose NOT to harm.

Maybe you have part of "them" in you and made your choice to harm at that level, but I can 100% state that what makes "them" does not make me.
I stopped the cycle and choose NOT to hurt. And in fact, if I died tomorrow, there is no-one I need to apologize to for ever harming.

I am stepping out because you know nothing about me to state that part of "THEM" is in me or the level of harm that they do is in "me". -- Nothing. And it is insulting.

And most "victims" should be offended by that statement. Because the statistics show that most "victims" never go on to harm people. In fact, most victims harm themselves and shudder at the thought of hurting anyone or anything...and especially at that level of harm.

[elliemay]

I don't know what training or particular skill set my T has that makes him think he can effectively treat offenders. If a T didn't have that particular skill set (whatever it is), then I do think they should not treat this class of patient.

I think the choice to treat or not should be based on the competence of the therapist and not the actions of the client. It took a while to get me to this place, but that's my honest opinion.

Physicians do get to choose their specialty, and thus their training and subsequent patient base, but, within that patient base, is it right - for the physician - to judge who merits treatment and who doesn't?

Now, as a patient, I DO get to choose whether to accept treatment from any physician (therapist as in this case).

I could choose to quit therapy with my therapist. Or I could choose to ignore the perceived loss of safety, or I could chose to face it and master it.

I'm choosing the later. Yes, that may mean I sit right across from a person who I think should be below the jail, but I think I can sit there and tolerate it. I think I can acheive a generosity of spirit that provides for that tolerance while still maintaing my sense personal safety.

If I can't do this, then to me, that would mean those people that really hurt me, and the people like them still have power over me. I do not want that. I don't. Maybe I'm ready to try to be free.