Seeing your Therapist as more of a Peer than a Therapist

I think what may exacerbate my (and maybe others', but I won't speak for them) reaction to this is the gender dynamics here. Many women have *extensive* experience dealing with men who believe that women to whom they are attracted or have some kind of desire for somehow owe them something. As if being the object of attraction, however unwillingly, were enough to exact some kind of emotional or sexual price.

You may have these feelings about her, but they are YOUR feelings. She is a human being, not an inanimate object, who has her own feelings. Your feelings and her feelings are equally valuable. If she is not comfortable engaging in personal chitchat, hugging, whatever, that is definitely -- DEFINITELY -- not overruled by your desires. Therapist or not.

If she feels these boundaries make her a more effective therapist, it is her right to maintain them, and it is not your right as someone who desires her as more to take more from her. And honestly, it doesn't matter that she's your therapist from this standpoint. She has personal boundaries. It seems like so far you only think about violating these personal boundaries. I will say that it is coming from me that arguing over where these boundaries should lie is rather triggering. It brings up countless male "friends" who wanted to be more than friends (but I wasn't interested), who would push and try to bully me into hugging them when I didn't want to, claiming that we were friends and they weren't doing anything overtly sexual so why not? (To which I argue, if hugging is so not-gratifying, then why is it so important?) It's violating just to have your (completely harmless) boundaries pressed upon and shown so little respect. And it's hard to see the "harm" a man would incur by respecting my boundaries to be worse than the emotional harm I could incur by his intentionally bypassing them. I get that these boundaries suck -- I'm not super thrilled about not being able to hug my therapist -- but I don't see how a person has any sort of "right" to negotiate about them.

I mean to answer your original question, as to whether I see my T as a peer -- yes and no. We are both PhDs working in health care, but on very different sides. I respect his expertise as a therapist, he respects mine as a scientist. Seeing someone as a peer, to us anyway, is a term that implies respect, not a gain of some kind of advantage, or an implication of acceptance or rejection. It has some effect on how we see each other, but I certainly don't take his respect for my intuition and intelligence as a reason to push him into personal contacts that he does not want, for whatever reason.

Like feralkittymom, I'd also be reluctant to speak for whether it was really "no problem" for your TA. If a student hugged me, I'd have been in the very uncomfortable position of having to purposely not hug or push away, or verbally say I wasn't going to hug them, which is awkward, and I would feel a little manipulated. It's hard to tell the situation, whether she had the option to not return the hug. I have hugged a student before, but it was after we were no longer student and teacher, and she was someone I tutored privately so it was a different relationship -- I was never responsible for her grades.

Let me elaborate on the TA hugging situation and say that it ONLY happened when we saw each other at a social event (the school I went to had many sponsored events on the weekends that we frequently saw each other at) and NEVER when we may have passed each other during normal school time. I was also part of some religious clubs where at the end of each meeting we would almost always all hug each other (sort of to show religious unity) and I know for a fact that some Grad Students were members of that.

I will also say that as more and more people go right from College to Grad School (without taking any time off in-between) and in some cases right from getting their Master's to going for their PhD (or other Doctorate) that the line between and Undergraduate and Graduate Student (and in some cases Doctoral Student) is getting fainter and fainter especially in regards to social situations. So many Grad Students really don't see themselves that much socially different from Undergraduate Students since they are very close in age to them. I once had a class with a PhD student as the Professor who I think that sometimes saw us not only as his Peers but even as his Friends by the way he was teaching us but I still thought that he was a great Professor and got a lot out of the class.

While it is true that most people go to a concert for different reasons most of them are fans of at least 1 of the bands playing there (if not more), and while people go to Universities for different reasons if we are at a specific Alumni event together (for example to raise money for a charity or whatever) than we are both at the event for a specific cause, which is why I see these situations as different from being out in the general public. She does acknowledge the Alumni bond though.

What other things?

For instance like I said earlier if we met at a concert I think we are also fans of some (if not all) of the bands playing. Or (and I mentioned this to my Therapist at session yesterday but as you will see it is just a hypothetical situation) that if we happened to meet at a Comic Book Convention (which we never will since I have absolutely no interest in comics) than I also think we are a couple of Comic Book Nerds.

So while we are still (to a degree) Therapist and Client, I think that we can be other things based on the circumstances that are at hand.

I just wanted to chime in on this as someone who (1) went to grad school right after college, and so TA'ed kids who weren't far off in age from me, and (2) dated a grad student, who is now my husband, while I was in college.

No one's saying it's bad for an undergrad to hug a grad, in and of itself. The issue is that there is a power differential in a student/TA situation, like it or not. Even when I was in grad school, and my TA's were fellow grad students only a year above me -- and sometimes younger than me -- there was a power differential. I was pretty chummy with some of my TA's depending on whether I knew them outside of class. And this is going to depend a lot on the size of the school/program... in small programs, chances are you're going to have a friend TA you at some point.

If you and your TA were in a group together where y'all hugged, it's an understandable situation. But even when I have run into students outside the classroom, as long as I'm holding the red pen, I keep a student/teacher relationship intact. The power differential may be a small one, but the fact is that the TA is responsible for grades. It's in their interest AND mine to keep the relationship boundaries as clear as possible. I don't want a student to feel personally hurt by me when I mark their papers down. And I don't want to feel too hurt (even though I do a little because I'm a softie) when I mark them down. Or worse, to unconsciously inflate their grade because "I know they know this stuff, they probably just had a bad day." My job is to educate them, and that means being tough but caring, and impartial. It doesn't matter if they're older, younger, at the top of their class, or failing. I can't do my job nearly as well if there's friendship or romance mixed in there.

When I was in college I actually had a TA hit on me before, and it was incredibly uncomfortable. Did this mean I had to flirt back to get an A? What if he really pressed me to go out with him and I said no -- would I drop a grade? If I try to get a new TA, how am I going to explain why I need a new one? (He was very good at falling just short of directly hitting on me, and left everything ambiguous -- but it was clear to me, and it is almost never clear to me.)

My H was never my TA, although sometimes he knew my TAs. And sometimes there were conflicts of interest, but we always did what we could to make sure we both ended up in a good spot in the end.

This is all a long-winded way of saying, the key issue with TAs is the power thing -- whether being someone's friend or more than that can interfere with their ability to be a good teacher to the whole group. Most favor putting up professional boundaries to protect both student and teacher for as long as the relationship is active. It's not just about grad students and undergrads.

I think this thread is starting to veer way off topic (something I had no intention of doing) plus I am ready to move on from this discussion (having heard all of your points of view and will take each and every one into consideration), I think I will just say to my Therapist next week that we are talking about a big what-if that is unlikely to occur (since we don't live in the same immediate area the odds of us running into each other at a place like the supermarket are highly unlikely) so maybe it is just best if we just take care of any potential situation when it actually happens should it occur.

That's all very and good. I'd like to point out that as a man, things can be very complicated for us, especially if we have romantic or sexual feelings towards a female T. We know that we have to tread carefully, that we are physically stronger, that we don't want to scare our female T, that we don't want to be seen by her as a creepy guy or someone who she fears may sexually assault her or be some crazy stalker that she fears may murder her. When a man, especially a young man see a young female T, this are all the pitfalls we're often aware of and how we don't want to seen as potentially being by our T.

You see it's okay for many females in psychotherapy. Even if you have romantic or sexual feelings, you can ask for a hug from your male or female T, as men we can't because of the dynamic. That can be frustrating, especially if there's also a maternal transference involved or just a mutual but non romantic or sexual feeling.

The problem isn't in the asking by male or female, it's in the refusal to accept no as an answer.

This might need its own thread. It's something that will derail me.

Okay, and I want to say that I do hear you saying that. And I understand, as much as I can in the context of an online forum, your desire for her to be something other or maybe something more than your T outside of her office. And I think the best thing you can do is to continue to talk to your T about your wants and desires and feelings. But I also want to categorically say that she cannot be your T in her office and something other than your T outside her office.

I think what several of us have been saying (and I've said before) is that the relationship between a T and a client is unique. It is not a peer relationship. You are paying for her services to be your T.

And that if/when you saw each other outside her office and even if she tried to be your friend/peer, or gave you the idea that she was, than this (1) would negatively affect your relationship with her as your T and thus (2) would make her a poor T because she would not be acting in your best interests, which is essential, definitive part of her being your T. If she does anything on purpose to cloud the relationship or cross the border between T into friendship, then the whole T-client relationship has been compromised.

It seems that it is important, perhaps even deeply important for you that she be able to be your friend or perhaps act as your friend outside of the office. But because she is your T, she is still your T outside her office.

The example of seeing her dancing in the aisles at a concert is interesting. If I read you correctly, you said that it could basically be therapeutic because she would be influencing your behavior and thus you could dance alongside her. I find this problematic. Because, unless she is specifically doing some onsight behavioral therapy with you to help you to dance at concerts, then this rationale you give: that one presumably positive result of having her as a friend outside the office would be that she could (also) influence your actions because she is your T inside her office to be an example of (a) the confusion that could arise when the two roles become mixed and (b) precisely why Ts cannot be their clients' friend.

That's all I can offer for you. I don't think it's wise to try to blur the distinction between a Therapist and a friend, it is injurious to your relationship with her as your T, the only reason you know her is because you met her as T and are paying for her T services. That you want her to be more than, or something additional to, your T would probably provide very fruitful ongoing discussion with her in her office--as your T. I don't know where that discussion might lead, but one possibility is to greater things than your desire for her to be your peer.

I think I have a better idea of what the original post was asking. Inside the therapy session we are T and client. Nothing more or less. We do not have an social activities in common, but have run into each other out in public. Both of those times it was just to nod and say hello in passing. I have tried to pick my therapists so that we don't have too much in common. For example, I would not go to a T who was a member of my church. As a said before, I am also a health care professional and sometimes my T and I have mutual patients that we need to discuss. That is done by phone and the conversation is strickly around our mutual patient. There is no discussion of therapy issues, no personal questions, not even a reminder for my next appointment or see you soon. Therapists in general are very careful about dual relationships with clients (as they should be). It can cause issues in the therapeutic relationship if there is a relationship of a different sort (friend, etc) as well. I think that a lot of us would like to be "peers" with our T's, but I suspect that a lot of that stems from transference issues. We love our T's and we think that our lives would be nothing short of perfect if we could be with them whenever, wherever, and however we wanted.

I wasn't going to respond to this again and was going to move on but since you keep commenting on it and this was something that just came to my mind I will ask if this is a reasonable compromise:
Say I know beforehand (maybe because I mentioned it in session) that my Therapist and I will both be at a concert taking place at a large arena (with assigned seating) and I tell her that after the concert ends I may (but not guaranteed) stop by the both for a local radio station doing post-concert coverage (which I frequently do after concerts at large arenas) and tell her that if she wishes to she may stop by to talk about the concert but end it there. I think that is a reasonable compromise since we don't give out any personal information (i.e. personal phone numbers) and neither of us have committed to being there and if one of us does not show up there then we just move on. But at the same time if we do know beforehand that we are going to be at the same concert then we can just talk about it at the next session (obviously if we happen to run into each other at the concert than that is another story).

I think that's generally how most T's like to handle it, and it's totally reasonable. Generally it's a good idea to just talk about these things up front, so that you don't hit the emotions that you're inevitably going to hit right then and there -- even if it stinks that you know she's not going to go beyond polite small talk in public, at least you know, and you won't have so much unpleasant surprise to add to the frustration that you'd probably feel either way.

A big thanks for the response, I don't that that I will mention this too my Therapist right now since it really has no relevancy unless we know in advance that we will be at the same place. But if we do happen to know in advance that we will both be somewhere then I will probably bring it up with her.

The scenario still expresses a need that is not being acknowledged--all of these one-sided negotiations and "compromises" and tweaking of situations and levels of info are a distraction from the core issue of why you need to see your T as something other than your T. Why is that relationship not enough? Or why does whatever power imbalance/control? you seem to be reacting to necessitate your "refusal to accept no for an answer?" (The "no" is inherent in the relationship and frame of therapy, not an answer your T will give or not depending upon the criteria you offer). I hope as you talk to your T you--or she--focus on these aspects, rather than the elaborate situational what-ifs.

I say all this as someone who has an on-going, warm, and yes, boundaried, relationship with my former T. But this was a shift after therapy was finished, and my T had retired. There was no thought given to such a possibility during therapy. And it would not have been possible if my challenges had been of a different sort, and I had not done my work, and my T were not someone with very secure boundaries.

I left a Voice Mail to my Therapist today saying that all of these "what-ifs" concerning seeing each other outside of session are unlikely to ever occur and if it should happen just to worry about it than. There is really no reason to keep discussing something that is unlikely to occur.

Well, I think the reason is that it concerns you and expresses thoughts and feelings about the relationship. The RL incidence of such meetings actually happening is far less important. If Ts restricted what's important to only what can happen in reality, they'd go out of business

since we all know that a therapist is untrustworthy, and a betrayer of clients trust, tell me please why should I keep going?

answer id because with just a few key strokes made out of spite a T can totally destroy what is left of a miserable life.

oh crap better not make her mad or annoyed.....