I think my session today was about a 50/50 mix between therapy for me and therapy for T. Some of his self-disclosure was helpful, some of it was very hurtful. I wasn't in a great place before session, but I feel markedly worse now. I have a better appreciation for why my T expressed previously that he has quite a bit of countertransference when we discuss bio mom. But where is the line between using that countertransference to help the client and when it's self-serving? Today it felt like T made it about him.

And now I ask how much of therapy has been for him, at least in a small part. I know that my bio mom is a huge source of my issues, but it's not the whole enchilada. My T practices client centered therapy, but if I'm having trouble starting a session or if there's an end to a discussion, T will at times facilitate a conversation. So if he's going to push to talk about certain issues, why would T not go for CSA? Why the mom stuff, if it's not in part motivated/influenced by his own trauma?

I'm sure there are other people here who have experienced this in therapy before. Did you bring it up with your T? Why or why not? If you did, how did it work out? Is it rude for me to ask if my T is in a peer support group or has sought consultation? I really want to.

[*Laurie*]

It is very important for therapists to be in therapy. You have every right as a client to ask your T if he is in some kind of therapeutic situation.

[stopdog]

I think a lot of therapy is for the therapist. Either because it makes them feel good about themselves or because they identify with clients. But if his identification with your issues is bothering you, I would tell him or try out some new ones.

[kecanoe]

I think it is fine to tell t you want less of his disclosure. I do think sessions can become more about the t than the client if the t isn't careful.

I do think, though, that a t is not likely to steer conversations to CSA. In my experience they wait and wait and wait for me to bring it up. My ts haven't done much steering-sometimes it would be toward a reframing of something. And I have had them bring up how the last session ended and ask if I want to continue with that or is there something else I want to address. Occasionally they have checked in on past subjects like sui thoughts/intentions. But I can't think of a time when any t has said "now let's talk about abuse". So I think your t's not bringing that up may be more of a policy to wait for the client rather than trying to put focus elsewhere.

I know that T is in therapy, but I guess the question that I need to ask is if he's sought consultation specifically in regards to me. If the roles were reversed, then it'd be hard for me to not bring my stuff into the room.

And it isn't so much that he relates to me that bothers me, but the amount that he unpacked in the room today and the nature of what he self-disclosed. I'm hesitant to discuss specifics since some of what he said was very personal. He was starting to get misty. I would too, but I don't pay him $95 an hour for him to process his trauma.

[atisketatasket]

I have a previous therapist who would say that therapy is always for the therapist.

I think you have every right to ask if he has consulted over you and his countertransference. And what he plans to do to prevent this situation from recurring.

[awkwardlyyours]

How long have you been working with this T?

The self-disclosure seems rather excessive.

I'm wondering if you both have ever talked about self-disclosure and the ethics around it, before?

Originally Posted by awkwardlyyours

How long have you been working with this T?


The self-disclosure seems rather excessive.


I'm wondering if you both have ever talked about self-disclosure and the ethics around it, before?

Good questions. I've been seeing him for 8 months. We have discussed self disclosure before. He disclosed the basic story of his experience with his mother at the end of our first session. That was appropriate at the time, as it was 100% motivated in my best interest. Today didn't feel appropriate. He crossed the line.

[awkwardlyyours]

Originally Posted by daisydid

Good questions. I've been seeing him for 8 months. We have discussed self disclosure before. He disclosed the basic story of his experience with his mother at the end of our first session. That was appropriate at the time, as it was 100% motivated in my best interest. Today didn't feel appropriate. He crossed the line.

I haven't had this experience with either of the Ts I've seen long-term.

But, I sorta kinda ran into it with a bunch of the Ts I interviewed -- I didn't reject them because of the self-disclosure but it did make me inordinately queasy.

I would talk to him about it. And, if you think that you can't talk to him about it or have him be non-defensive about it, then that by itself would be a huge red flag -- combined with the self-disclosure, it would make me wonder if it was worth it.

Originally Posted by awkwardlyyours

I would talk to him about it. And, if you think that you can't talk to him about it or have him be non-defensive about it, then that by itself would be a huge red flag -- combined with the self-disclosure, it would make me wonder if it was worth it.

I think if I brought it up that he would be open to talking about it in a non-defensive way. I think that what's making this difficult for me is my own transference. I see T as a fatherly figure, and I'm unable to have any kind of difficult conversation with my own father. So I'm hesitant to initiate a lot of conversations with T that I've wanted to. Once I have in the past, T has been open and receptive.

[Ididitmyway]

I would definitely initiate a conversation about it even if it's difficult. Also, you do have the right to ask him if he is consulting with his colleagues about your case. On the other hand, he has the right to refuse to answer, so be prepared for this possibility.

My last therapist self-disclosed way too much in sessions and it was absolutely self-serving as I realized in hindsight. At the time though it felt helpful to me.

If his self-disclosure feels inappropriate and self-serving then that's how it is for you and that's enough to raise this issue with him.

[BudFox]

Originally Posted by daisydid

I think my session today was about a 50/50 mix between therapy for me and therapy for T.

Shouldn't he waive the fee then?

Isn't there something basically dishonest about mooching part of the client's session for self-gratification, taking payment for it, and then forcing the client to raise the issue?

[lucozader]

Daisy, this seems like bad news to me. I don't know why your T felt it was helpful to share his countertransference in the first place, let alone further details of it. As you say, it's wrong for your therapy session to end up being about him (how is that client-centred?!), but also it's clearly having an effect on the therapeutic process for you - it's blocking you from making progress.

He should have processed (at least in part) his issues with his mother, and still be processing them in therapy if necessary (which it clearly is). He should also be having supervision and I can't imagine a good supervisor encouraging him to share such details with you.

Ask him how he expects this over-sharing to be helpful to you. I would like to hear his answer.

Not impressed with robo-T

Originally Posted by lucozader

Daisy, this seems like bad news to me. I don't know why your T felt it was helpful to share his countertransference in the first place, let alone further details of it. As you say, it's wrong for your therapy session to end up being about him (how is that client-centred?!), but also it's clearly having an effect on the therapeutic process for you - it's blocking you from making progress.

He should have processed (at least in part) his issues with his mother, and still be processing them in therapy if necessary (which it clearly is). He should also be having supervision and I can't imagine a good supervisor encouraging him to share such details with you.

Ask him how he expects this over-sharing to be helpful to you. I would like to hear his answer.

Not impressed with robo-T

The conversation about countertransference was in relation to us discussing when T1 terminated with me ages ago. It came up naturally; he was saying that it's super important for Ts to be able to acknowledge when a client elicits strong emotions in the therapist. "Like I know that there are times where I deal with some pretty strong emotions when it comes to your mom." I wasn't angry at this; I actually appreciated his willingness to admit it.

Why I'm concerned now is I don't know that he's consulting to deal with it. Supervision? He's been practicing for as long as I've been alive, so I'm not sure that'd be appropriate.

I know that he's worked on his issues. He discussed in our very first session that he spent ages in therapy for his issues, and so it can get better. Again, that disclosure at the time was very helpful in the context of the conversation.

What wasn't helpful was...I'll PM you. But I plan on out next session dealing with this to my satisfaction or I'm asking for referrals and walking out.

[lucozader]

Originally Posted by daisydid

it's super important for Ts to be able to acknowledge when a client elicits strong emotions in the therapist.

I agree that such things should be recognised - I don't at all agree that they need to be shared with the client. They need to be discussed in therapy and in supervision.

Originally Posted by lucozader

I agree that such things should be recognised - I don't at all agree that they need to be shared with the client. They need to be discussed in therapy and in supervision.

I'm not sure what school of thought you ascribe to, but wouldn't something like that for a Rogerian therapist fall under congruence?

File this under an ignorant Daisy question.

[lucozader]

Originally Posted by daisydid

I'm not sure what school of thought you ascribe to, but wouldn't something like that for a Rogerian therapist fall under congruence?

File this under an ignorant Daisy question.

I'm primarily person-centred.

It would fall under a misunderstanding of the term 'congruence'. Being congruent doesn't mean just sharing everything that's going on for you. In the same way that being an honest person doesn't mean just going around telling everyone exactly what you think of them.

[lucozader]

Like, I'm an honest person. That doesn't mean if I see someone wearing a weird hat that I'll approach them and say "wtf is up with your hat?". If they directly ask me, I might find a tactful way to answer them that expresses my confusion about the hat but doesn't hurt their feelings. That would be being congruent, vs. over-sharing to another person's detriment. Does that make sense?

It does, thanks Luc!

[velcro003]

Originally Posted by daisydid

The conversation about countertransference was in relation to us discussing when T1 terminated with me ages ago. It came up naturally; he was saying that it's super important for Ts to be able to acknowledge when a client elicits strong emotions in the therapist. "Like I know that there are times where I deal with some pretty strong emotions when it comes to your mom." I wasn't angry at this; I actually appreciated his willingness to admit it.

I think it is a positive thing that he recognizes countertransference. If this isn't something that happens regularly, or enough that it seems to be a pattern, I might just email him if you could, or bring it up next session.

Just last week my T talked about a couple of clients that used different positive methods of coping that had helped them. She never went into great detail, but she shed enough light on their issues that made me realize that mine are peanuts compared to them.

That wasn't the first time I have felt that way when she brings up clients' issues.

I emailed her that it made me feel guilty when she brought up clients, because all it made me feel like was that my problems aren't a big deal, and my T would be better off helping other people more in need.

I see her tomorrow, so we'll see how it goes