T and growing up

Yes, they set the boundaries, or -depending on the situation and patient- I think it can be more of a negotiation.

In any case, I think sometimes what is important is thinking about the purpose of the boundaries and adhering to the intent behind them.

So, for example, if (I'm not entirely sure) one your T's goals for you is for you to learn to contain your emotions until session and maybe be less impulsive (about sending e-mails, but this may relate to other things as well), then although she has specifically said you can e-mail but she just won't reply, maybe adhering to the intent would be: not sending e-mails at all, so as to work on containing emotions until session and being less impulsive. If that's the intent and part of the goal for you, then it's not just a matter of her having said it's 'okay' she 'just won't reply' it's a matter of working on containing emotions and not being impulsive overall/in a more general way. I'm not sure this makes sense, but for what it's worth...

She has told me, even when I am not in her presence she thinks about me, and I am in her heart. I feel her presence at all times now. She is feeling me up - internal adult attachment figure.

This is interesting. I think one of the goals of therapy is -if you have trouble with this kind of attachment- is that once you have sufficiently internalized your therapist (their presence, their caring, etc.) then the need for constant contact between sessions will lessen --in other words, at this point (and you're saying you've overcome this hurdle, which is wonderful) there would no longer be the need for constant reassurance that she's there, she cares, etc.

So if you no longer have that need for constant reassurance, etc. (which seems to be the case, you indicate you have internalized her very well at this point), what is the purpose of the contact? If you don't 'need' it anymore because of what you wrote above, then what need is it fulfilling at this point? This isn't rhetorical, I really am curious.

Thanks, ultramar. I asked my T today if I sent her too many emails this week. I sent 2, then my poem, and then 3 emails with 4 photos each (that could count as one but I don't like to send so many photos at one time). Only the first 2 emails were about my session. She said no, it was fine! She said it ebbs and flows. I said I was getting some feedback from the psych forum (she knows about my activities) that made me wonder, and as usual, she tried to tell me not to spend so much time here. So, I don't think we're working on containing my emotions and being less impulsive. She wants me to "get my feelings" out.

I'm not sure who you're quoting but it's not me.

I think we're talking about two different things. I really and truly think therapists are perfectly able to handle themselves and their time; it's part of their job to be able to juggle their responsibilities and it's not the client's job to worry about them. To me this just isn't the issue at all.

In my opinion, it's about clients learning to navigate, comprehend, and respect others' boundaries --this is a huge issue for some people IRL, I've met plenty in my lifetime. A big part of therapy for some people is learning interpersonal skills. And email (and other boundaries) in therapy, I think, is very fertile practicing ground for real life, there are lots of lessons to be learned. So how the whole between session communication/contact thing plays out in therapy can correlate with real life problems that do need to be addressed.

Because, yes, therapists can take care of themselves, will not take things personally, will not -usually- reject you or get mad at you for violating boundaries (although everyone has their breaking point, they are human) -however, people in real life --if you do not respect their boundaries-- will (quite understandably) likely not respond like the good therapist and relationships will suffer as a result.

If people push too hard or violate my boundaries, that relationship is likely not going to work out. If they don't have the skills to put themselves in my shoes, in others' shoes, to see that their behavior is intrusive, then that's not going to work for me, and it's not going to work for most people.

But if it's worked on in therapy (and negotiating e-mail boundaries is one good way to work on it) then maybe one's relationships IRL can be more successful. And surely that is a goal in many peoples' therapy.

I live in Boston. I lived in NY during 9/11. I lived in a South American country for 2 years in the midst of a war. But I still think it's okay to disagree with each other, there's a lot to learn from each other. Each post makes me think things through in different ways. I do agree with you, Rainbow, in the goal of being civil in our disagreeing.

Thanks, Rainbow, I understand where you're coming from.

I know -sorry about that.

This is my quote, but I don't remember what post I responded to. This is Rainbow8's thread, and I don't want to rain on her parade. She is doing so well, and I love her responses.

GTGT

This was so beautifully expressed I just wanted to memorialize it. I wish it could go as a sticky at the top of a forum. I would say it is genius, but that would be over the top gushing kind of praise, and that's not me. Thank you for posting it, though.

I want to thank Ultramar for this:

So, for example, if (I'm not entirely sure) one your T's goals for you is for you to learn to contain your emotions until session and maybe be less impulsive (about sending e-mails, but this may relate to other things as well), then although she has specifically said you can e-mail but she just won't reply, maybe adhering to the intent would be: not sending e-mails at all, so as to work on containing emotions until session and being less impulsive. If that's the intent and part of the goal for you, then it's not just a matter of her having said it's 'okay' she 'just won't reply' it's a matter of working on containing emotions and not being impulsive overall/in a more general way.

I think this is my t's goal, and it gives me more incentive not to impulsively email her so much. She will answer, but I know she would like to see me be able to contain my own distress by using my coping skills until my session comes around.

As far as Rainbow's emails, I see no need to categorize her behavior as either "good" or "bad." What may be good for one person's growth in therapy could be bad for another person. Rainbow and her t have an arrangement that is mutually agreed upon and that works for both of them. I see that as positive!

Sorry, Rainbow, I didn't mean to talk about you in the "third person." I think your email arrangement with your t is fine as long as she says it is fine.

As I continue to read about clients emailing their T, I wonder if emailing can be like going to a crying baby. I said this on antoher thread (I don't think this one). My understanding of research is that babies who are attended to when they cry are more secure than babies who are not routinely attended to. The babies whose cry brings a response learn that someone will come and they can feel more confident. Those babies learn to give up, or cry louder and sooner and faster because they aren't sure someone will come.

So perhaps the emails are a way to be comforted. And as the client progresses, and becomes more secure in themselves. their need to email is diminished. And they come to the time when they no longer need to email, or seek comfort from the T.

There certainly are differences between a baby crying because she is hungry, wet, bored, afraid and an adult client emailing. But as I listen to the stories, I feel the similarities

I was thinking this, too.

I stopped emailing my T because I felt more contained and wanted to actually talk about things, but last session I said I'd written something down and then deleted it as it was too upsetting, and he pointed out that I used to email stuff in that scenario to stop me deleting it, and said "I'm worried we've lost something," which is not how I thought he'd respond to me not emailing.

Quote From Above Post:

Syra: "As I continue to read about clients emailing their T, I wonder if emailing can be like going to a crying baby. I said this on antoher thread (I don't think this one). My understanding of research is that babies who are attended to when they cry are more secure than babies who are not routinely attended to. The babies whose cry brings a response learn that someone will come and they can feel more confident. Those babies learn to give up, or cry louder and sooner and faster because they aren't sure someone will come.

So perhaps the emails are a way to be comforted. And as the client progresses, and becomes more secure in themselves. their need to email is diminished. And they come to the time when they no longer need to email, or seek comfort from the T.

There certainly are differences between a baby crying because she is hungry, wet, bored, afraid and an adult client emailing. But as I listen to the stories, I feel the similarities"

******You are so right on the nose Syra as to how attachment based therapy works - based on John Bowlby's and others' work - (very different from the much maligned attachment therapy).

On page 11 of the below website there is a simple diagram of how it has been working for me. As a person grows into an adult it doesn't mean they don't need the safety and security that the infant by right should have. They just get it in different ways. And, if you've never had it, again like me, research shows that it can still be attained. My therapist replicates that child parent relationship as much as possible. The only difference is she's not my parent, she cannot be there 24/7, and most importantly I am an adult with cognitive abilities. If I have a need and/or want she tries to meet that need as much as she can: unlimited holding, kisses on the forehead, unlimited emails, unlimited sessions, unlimited phone calls, , a blanket, reading a bed time story over the phone, etc. Sometimes I have to wait or she has to say NO. She doesn't like to say no to any of her clients, but she has to, sometimes. No, she has not burned out, and she takes very good care of herself. Since, she practices emotionally focused therapy she will not do this for couples. I feel I lucked out. I get this while having a real life: working raising a family, and being with friends.

http://thebowlbycentre.org.uk/pdf/at...%20therapy.pdf

An aside: Thanks TC for the kisses on the forehead.

Hi Rainbow,

I don't want to hijack your other thread, but since we've already started on this topic of 'loopholes' around boundaries and 'justifications' I wanted to point out something you said on the other thread because it perfectly illustrates what I was trying to say, but not explaining very well.

I'm a little freaked out by something. My T said I'm perceptive. I had been wondering for a while, and I don't know why, about T and her H, but I haven't mentioned him for months, since that's a boundary she made very clear to me. Last week when she said she wasn't planning any trips, it hit me, so I emailed my thoughts to her.

I brought it up today, said I wasn't obsessing, but just wanted to know that her marriage was okay

Boundary: Don't ask T about her husband.

Loophole (as indicated above): But she didn't say I couldn't ask her about him when my perceptions are probably correct and when I'm not obsessing.

Justification: 1) She said I'm perceptive 2) I'm not obsessing about it 3) I'm worried about her.

Boundary successfully circumvented.

I'm going to take a stab at possible follow-up justifications for violating a boundary she has made more than clear: 1) She didn't get upset when I asked her 2) She answered me.

In my opinion neither of these really matter; it's part of her personality, she's not confrontational. But this doesn't change the fact that you found a loophole to get around this boundary, violated it, and then justified it. The fact that she answered, and an extremely personal question, just does not justify this. Maybe this won't affect your therapeutic relationship, but it would -and this is what it's all about- a real life relationship (real life people tend to have different sorts of boundaries than therapists, but the idea is the same).

I do think you have progressed, Rainbow! But I also think the above continues to be a challenge that you could work on.

ultramar, you're right. I don't like to admit it, but you're right. 100%. My problem is that I don't know how I could have continued therapy not asking her, not knowing. Then I WOULD have obsessed and wondered and driven myself nuts, and had to tell my T. Just guessing what would have happened.

Maybe I need to apologize to my T for asking. Initially, I just wanted to know if she was going on vacation so I could prepare for it. Not justifying, just stating a fact. I have to go somewhere now; will think more about what you said.

I'm glad you can see this, Rainbow. I really don't think you need to apologize, I'm sure she can take care of herself/she's fine/you're both fine, just a matter of working on it for the future -for yourself, not her.

[QUOTE=rainbow8;3012186]ultramar, you're right. I don't like to admit it, but you're right. 100%. My problem is that I don't know how I could have continued therapy not asking her, not knowing. Then I WOULD have obsessed and wondered and driven myself nuts, and had to tell my T....
/QUOTE]

This makes perfect sense to me. And this is your issue. I wonder if something like this could capture it:

Last week I asked you about your marital status - I know that's personal. I also felt I NEEDED to know or I would have obsessed about it driven me nuts. I don't want to be like that. I feel uncomfortable/afraid/??whatever it is for you thinking you might be having marital trouble, and I feel a need to (Y_?? know so that I can feel safe about what I say??) I'm afraid I'll hurt you by saying something. Why do I obsess about such things?

I'm thinking the issue isn't primarily that you may have circumvented boundaries, the issue is why do you feel a need to know "x."

How are you feeling? What do you need to feel comfortable?

Does that capture your issues? Or is it different (I imagine it probably is, I just tried to think of something that would fit) Would that work?

The problems I see with the attachment/obsessive connection/needs issues and responses that have been expressed in these situations is twofold:

Firstly, I think it's a very, very fine and easily crossed line between meeting a need so that it can be satisfied and left behind, and indulging a need that has outgrown its place and in fact, has become an unhealthy want.

Secondly, and most importantly to me, continuing to indulge such needs beyond an optimal point actually becomes restrictive of growth: it prevents the development of a much deeper, more rewarding, mutuality of relationship that is appropriate for adult development.

The temporary satisfaction of indulgence may feel good--and I suspect could even be addictive--but I think the price to be paid for it is far too high.

###Life is so good for me, and to me, I'm willing to pay that price, and continue to pay the price. Because, you see now feralkittymom: I HAVE A LIFE!

GTGT

GTGT-- Just so you know in case your post is in reply to mine, I don't see your posts.

If it's not, nevermind!

well said!!!!!

I think that people have a good point in pointing to the boundary issues involved in this exchange, and you've been VERY open to hearing this. I was just going to remark, and I don't mean this sarcastically at all, I never thought I'd see the say when rainbow had a 10 page thread and it wasn't locked or removed

But I disagree respectfully that your question crossed the boundary your T set not to talk about her *husband.* The state of her marriage is not the same thing as facts about her husband. If you'd asked whether her H was going to travel anywhere soon or whether her H did x, y, or z, I think that might come closer to treading on the boundary that your T has set. But you asked about her marriage, which is a different entity than her H. I'm not telling you whether to apologize or not, and in general I don't think apologies are really necessary in T, but I just wanted to tell you that I see it differently than a boundary crossing.

Actually, I don't see any Q in therapy as a crossing a boundary- T can decide whether he/she wants to answer. But then again I have this 'rule' from my therapy so I might be a bit biased:-))