Do you experience therapy as adversarial

Sorry Stopdog, I read adversarial as the first given definition, where I view my t's reaction to my comments as expressing opposition. Are you referring to a hostile relationship with t?
Adjective:
Involving or characterized by conflict or opposition.
Opposed; hostile.
Bluemountains

yes, I agree with this. being straightforward and direct, or even being blunt or tactless, is not adversarial ..... but nonetheless, the perception of it as adversarial can be there. And that has something to do with people not necessarily liking to hear something that seems very contrary to what they want to think/believe ..... a resistance to accepting that the other party has a point and taking it as a condemnation and fighting that rather than considering it might be helpful to look at something you believe from a new perspective.

I think people are defining adversarial in a lot of different ways here ..... a lot of different perceptions of what it means to be adversarial, or what can be experienced as adversarial, in therapy, in other relationships.

I asked my H last night, am I an adversarial person? He said, what? I didn't know adversarial was a type of personality.
But then, we had a long, heated, deep discussion on personality/spirituality, etc, and at some point, he looked at me and said, maybe you ARE an adversarial person!
But I wonder.....perhaps you can be argumentative without necessarily being adversarial. And maybe you can be defensive, resistant, but that doesn't define you as outright adversarial.
So, hmmm, how should we define adversarial?

Is therapy adversarial because the therapist challenges us to see a different perspective on our beliefs and behaviors so that we could change our beliefs and our behaviors by learning/accepting that there is a different perspective we could take on them ....... is therapy adversarial or the therapist adversarial when he/she persists in challenging us when we want to hold on to our own perspective and not acknowledge/consider a new one?
Therapists are supposed to challenge people to see things differently, confront them with negative behavior/thought patterns and not just give up/give in and tell people, go ahead and believe that and don't change that and you're right, and etc. If my Ts had ever done that, I would have thought they were doing me no favors, being wimpy pushovers, etc .....
Do we go to therapy to have our perspectives/beliefs challenged or do we go to get confirmation we're right? What do we want from therapy, from the therapist?
I have debated my therapists a lot ...... in particular I spent a great deal of time debating T2 about my 'badness' as a person, my defectiveness, my supposed intractable emotional instability, incapability to be a whole person. Well, I wanted to hold on to my set of beliefs and have HER agree, I was right, what could be done with me, I don't have to try to change because this badness about me can't be changed, blah blah, etc etc. Well, she wanted me to see I was limiting myself by holding on to that perspective, so she held firm to her position ..... until I began to consider that she had a point, and I ended up with a broadened perspective of myself, a more authentic perspective..... So, was she adversarial because she refused to give in and agree with me because I was stubborn about my beliefs about myself; or was I adversarial because I wouldn't give in and consider the perspective she offered me on my beliefs and how to modify them and my behaviors? Or was any of it really adversarial at all? I never felt that way ...... to me, the word adversarial carries a hostile sense or at least a sense of working against someone purposefully. T2 was not working against me or fighting against me ...... even though she poked and pushed me sometimes and directly challenged me ..... she was working for me to help me stop working against myself.

If I may borrow Can't Explain's lovely format:

T: Why are you acting that way?
Me: What way?
T: You're doing A.
Me: I'm not doing A, I'm doing B, and this is why.
T: Oh! B+ would be a better choice.
Me: Doing B+ hurts, is scary.
T: I'll help.

This is how I see it. We are a little off the mark in what we are doing, but it is perceived way differently than what we intend. The first step is to get T to understand the ACTUAL method behind our madness, then to tweak it.

My T challenges my assumptions and assertions sometimes, but is never adversarial. He's in my corner, always.

Sometimes I'm adversarial in therapy because I think it's fun.

I'm not particularly proud of this but it is true.

What do you want to do with it?

I don't particularly want to do anything with it. I want to know what is supposed to be done with it.

I'd like to hear your reasons why T would be adversarial.

I think a T should respond like this:

"OK, that was your head answer. But I'd also like to hear what your heart has to say."

Suppose T says, "OK. You win. By your definition our relationship is adversarial."

What then?

Yup. Being clever and being right are great pleasures and not easy to forgo.

I rather enjoy this myself from time to time. If only people would acknowledge it more, I'd enjoy that too!
I enjoyed my 2nd T because she didn't insist on being the only clever or the most right person in the room....and she respected my cleverness, if you will.

Does something have to be done with it? What if nothing really does have to be done with it? What if you just accept it, say this is how it is for me, and then see what happens?

Do our Ts sometimes let us define the relationship as we want, as it were boundaries we set that they respect ..... so that it's a framework we're comfortable working within?
That aside, I'm curious too what your response would be, stopdog, if T did say that to you?

Then I would say at least you (therapist) finally quit lying to me

1. Yes of course - or at least for me. I do not see the point to doing the rest of this in the manner you describe and thinking about it hurts my brain.
2. Yes - I am not sure I would use the word "let" us - rather they may accept we set boundaries too. If they are unable to handle it, I find someone else.

Well, doing nothing is sometimes actually 'doing something' ..... and sometimes it's the most right thing to do at the moment, anyway. Rather than keeping twisting myself into mental and emotional pretzels, I give myself a break from the whole analysis stuff and just let it be. Eh, that's a new tool for me, though.
Ts know clients have boundaries too and why shouldn't they respect them, especially if they want the client to respect theirs? Relationships that are going to work (ha, even adversarial ones) need to be/are founded on mutual respect and consideration for the boundaries of the other person.

If I want to do nothing I can do it on my own time and for free. I pay the therapist - I expect there to be a point to what goes on.

I agree (if I overlook the relationship thing) that adversaries can respect each other. And I consider it better if they do.

OK, I'm going to go back to this statement instead of debating the merits of doing 'nothing' versus doing 'something'. Although.....the 'nothing' that seems to happen in therapy at times has more productive value than the 'nothing' that I can do by myself at home. Just my odd opinion.
About understanding what good it does to have one running around claiming to be an ally ---- OK, you wonder what you're supposed to do with that?
Another post, you say, I don't want to do anything with it. I just want to know what's supposed (italics/bold mine) to be done with it?
I suppose another way to approach what I mean by doing 'nothing' is to do what feels like nothing ..... that is, stop wrestling with what to actively do about it and just accept its existence, whether you completely comprehend or can fathom it or even exactly like it. That might seem like doing nothing, but is actually something important.
Take a new angle, consider accepting the possibility that T might be an ally or at least that her intent really is to be an ally rather than adversary (and that if her intent is really to be an ally, then why would she want to admit to something that is not truth for her and say, yes, I'm deliberately being adversarial and I'm not your ally...). Explore what that might look/feel like to you or mean for you. Explore why it feels odd to consider T might be an ally, even though the whole process feels adversarial to you. Stretch your mind....even if your brain hurts, it won't really hurt your brain.
Actually, you could just ask your T about this whole topic/issue, since it seems to be a fairly big question/concern or whatever in your mind. What might she say you are 'supposed' to do about it?

Done by whom? Who would be doing the doing so to speak?

By the client.
I do not need an ally as far as I can tell. If i am supposed to have one, what good will they do?

well, if you get the same sort of benefit out of having an adversary that others might get out of an ally, then for you, your adversary is really sort like your ally, perhaps.
I might ask, curiously, what good do adversaries do you....how does having adversaries, rather than allies, benefit you?
people like allies or friends because they like having the support, they like others who both encourage and challenge them, nurture/nourish them; they like someone they can learn from and/or get the satisfaction of teaching; they like having others around who like/approve of them; they like someone who can help them achieve/accomplish what they want, sort of like colleagues. people like positive connection, healing connection.
isn't it easier to work with an ally than an adversary? having someone as an ally doesn't necessarily mean they're a friend; just that you can work respectfully/courteously with them to accomplish something for your (and others) mutual good - or even, they might be selfless enough to work more for your good. you never know!
I've had people more like adversaries (not totally enemies though) in my life I suppose....I guess, even though some I didn't like/they didn't like me, we still learned something from each other. But on the whole, I have trouble figuring out how adversaries, at least hostile ones who work to undermine me or just are spiteful, do me much good or benefit me in a practical sense.
I just don't know if you are really as adversarial as you think, either....not by how I think of adversarial, anyway!
But if that's your truth, that's your truth.
Eh, and one more question ..... how do you experience PC? Do you experience people here as being supportive, nonjudgmental, genuinely interested in you/your questions (that is, sort of like allies!), or as adversaries, sort of, with whom you can spar and see who can match up? Or somewhere in the middle?

You're going to fight all your battles single-handed and never surrender, right?

I just do not see how thinking of some stranger as an ally is going to help with why I went to therapy. I doubt I have secret enemies out there or not secret ones either as far as I know.

LOST MY COOL:

Arrrrrrgh! You drive me crazy!

You are the one who decided that T can never be more than a stranger.
You are the one who decided that you're never going to trust her.
You are the one who decided that T must always be an adversary.

It doesn't have to be that way. It's your choice.

Yep....there is the element of choice and power here, and who is holding it?

My question remains, how is viewing T as adversary helping with why you went to therapy, stopdog? How is it working better than choosing to think she's a stranger who might actually become an ally if given the chance?
Why did you go to therapy in the beginning? To get help from a stranger and have an adversary to bounce things off of?
Hmmm.....maybe I sound adversarial. Oh well!

Take a breathe. I think it is adversarial. I do not mind the therapist being a stranger. I think that is beneficial to me. Why does it bother you that I see it that way? You do not have to agree with me and I am not trying to stop you from having an ally if you find it beneficial.