[colorsofthewind12]

I am at an impasse in my therapy.

For those who have been following, I engage in a lot of acting out behavior with my therapist through email/text. This consists of me sending an angry text about once a month, some months maybe twice. In the past, my T would inconsisistently respond.

Within the past month, my therapist has not responded to my emails/texts.
I am finding this boundary very difficult to tolerate because i found that it helped me regulate myself and it gave me a sense of power and control by being able to text that I am quitting etc.

I am very upset about this as I recently texted him and he didnÂ’t respond. At my recent session he told me that he didnÂ’t even READ the message.

I feel very hurt, angry and feel stripped away of any amount of power(even if it was illusory) that I had in the therapy.

While there is a part of me that realizes that itÂ’s in my best interest(and his) that he sets these limits so that I can learn to regulate myself, itÂ’s not working. I am so angry and dysregulated.

I am intelligent and mature outside of therapy and I feel lots of shame around how infantile I act within my therapy. I have this fantasy of starting over with a new T and having a fresh slate. But I am very attached to this T and find it difficult to leave.

All thoughts welcome.

[Out There]

I think it's really good that you recognize you're acting out ( it probably comes from a young place that wants / needs something ) I would talk to T about it , the fantasy of going to another T , it would be repeated would it not ? Maybe I'm not being much help but I understand the feelings.

[Ididitmyway]

While I do believe that you may have a problem self-regulating, I would not put the entire responsibility for how you are feeling on you.

From what you've described, your therapist has his own part in it. His way of dealing with your emails/text is not the most therapeutic and/or professional. From my experience, what helps people self-regulate is when the situation is consistent and predictable. Your therapist has been responding inconsistently. If he needed to make a change in his way of responding, he had to talk to you about it. When the therapist all of a sudden changes their response to the same behavior from the client without any explanation, it's dismissive and anxiety provoking, especially for those who have a problem self-regulating.

If you want to know my opinion, he shouldn't have engaged in the text/email correspondence to begin with. When a client sends an angry text/email for the first time, that should be a signal for a therapist that something is not working and this should be addressed and understood immediately the next session. Whatever it is that causes a client's angry reaction, it should be understood and resolved collaboratively and in a timely manner. The agreement should be reached on how to deal with the problem and, once reached, it should be followed by both parties. Any time it gets broken, there has to be a conversation about it, and, again, whatever seems to be a problem, should be addressed and resolved collaboratively and in a timely manner. This all is part of therapy work and it's the therapist's responsibility to ensure that this work gets done or, at least, to do their part to get it done since it takes two to tango.

Your therapist didn't do any of it. He didn't seem to communicate to you why he decided to respond to your text and emails in the beginning and why he changed his mind all of a sudden. He also didn't seem to be interested why you had the need to send him texts and emails between sessions instead of confronting him in session if you were angry at him. Then, suddenly, he didn't even read your last email. His way of dealing with your problem with self-regulation is dismissive and borderline neglectful and, frankly, irresponsible, which only contributes to your difficulty to self-regulate instead of helping you, which, in turn, makes you want to contact him again and again even more.. and the vicious cycle continues..

So, I wouldn't take the whole burden of responsibility upon myself if I were you. Your therapist has a good portion of his own share to carry.

[susannahsays]

I can relate.

I also don't think it was right of this therapist to not even read the message. You could have been feeling suicidal or something. I think it would have been better to just block you and inform you he had done so, than what he did.

My T has, always responded therapeutically to my anger.
It takes, the sting out of it and she's turn worked with it.

Ignoring doesn't hold any therapeutic quality.
After all. We're in therapy to be heard.

[SalingerEsme]

That must feel terrible. While my T doesn't allow texts, he set that rule from the getgo. We both know if I called him at home or sent him a text, it would be an absolute emergency. Telling you he didn't even read your text, is like a lifeguard stating he didn't even watch you while you were swimming in the ocean. I am going to hope he DID read your text to make sure you are safe, and is making a rhetorical chess move. Therapy is so difficult around boundaries, bc they often feel like they are for the benefit of the therapist.

Whenever my T changes rules, I am crushed and also I feel power-played and defensive. An example is that for two years he explained why he allowed Christmas presents and accepted them gladly so long as they didn't change the nature of the relationship, and this year suddenly he put up a No Gifts rule in the waiting room. I had brought a gift, so I felt super awkward. It wasn't the gift thing that upset me, but the arbitrary change and the display of power. He explained it is bc now he has a full practice, and he doesn't have the time he used to to be in touch with every gift-giving's deep reasons. That made me feel way worse.

In this situation, you were allowed to reach out, you sent angry texts that helped you regulate, and then your T suddenly said no more or said send them but he won't read them?

It seems like the right thing for him to do is explore with you the triggers that lead to you feeling so angry, and hold up to light the powers at work in your mind that dysreguate you in the first place. The texts are a sideffect or a symptom, not the problem.

It sounds to me like your t is losing interest in you. He/she may be experiencing a burn-out. Try raising this email thing next session. if they continue to avoid and dismiss your attempts at resolving things, you may want to think about whether or not you need a therapist like this.

[junkDNA]

I've done the exact same things except with much more frequency....acting out in texts and emails. My t has also admitted to not reading some of them ,he says it is distressing for him. He has also changed the boundaries regarding out of session contact bc of this. It's definitely majorly painful to have that taken away, I still deal with the hurt from it from time to time.

[feileacan]

I will offer a different opinion than the previous posters.

I don't think it is necessary to lay out strict email/texting rules just in the beginning because most people won't abuse them anyway and for those who will start doing it, this could be an important symptom that would be relevant to observe, which would be impossible if the rules would be clearly set right from the start.

I also don't think that the T has to allow this kind of acting out indefinitely. The goal would be to see what it is and then try to redirect this stuff into session. With some people it can be enough to just talk about the issue, with some people it might be necessary to stop responding and with some people even that is not enough and it is justified to stop reading these texts altogether.

The main goal of a therapy is not to make the person feel good in the moment but to aim for better regulation and adaptation, greater autonomy etc in long term perspective. For that to happen, it must be possible to work with emotional material in session and if reading/responding to texts hinders this, then not engaging with these activities from the T's part is justified. He would be irresponsible if he wouldn't do it.

So, yes, you are stripped of your power to send angry texts but you have all the power to go into your session and say all these things in person.

Edited to add: you are even not stripped by your power to send angry texts but you cannot control whether another person choose to respond to them or even read them as Anne pointed out.

[Anne2.0]

Empowerment to me and having power is the ability to control what I do, to make the choices I want, to speak up (as a previous poster said) whether it is in session or elsewhere. You still have all the power to send as many angry emails as you want, you just won't get a reply. But that's not the power you want.

What you are describing is the desire to control what another person does. Which we cannot, we which in my opinion have no right to do, whether we pay them in therapy or are married to them or are friends with them. It is his choice to read your emails, to respond to your emails, or to do anything else with or without discussion with you, especially since you are engaging outside of session.

I would center the problem at your desire to control him, especially outside of session. I think it's a normal and natural desire, perhaps one rooted deeply in infancy. In part it is the development of connection. When my son was a baby, he loved to discover things that would make me laugh or otherwise cause a "big" reaction, like tossing his food around the room. Someone posted a video of a mother and an infant "mirroring" I think, but that is also a demonstration of how a baby knows "if I do X, Mom will do Y", as opposed to being ignored or neglected. And we know how well it goes when parents neglect their kids, and of course an abusive response is part of this as well.

So we want people to respond to us, and there's some kind of mystical line between this normal desire (for reaction) for all relationships and the desire to control people. I lived through a childhood of being tightly controlled/intruded upon, so it was kind of natural for me to both have the desire to control others (which was mostly subconscious) and the desire to not control or be controlled, which could also go off the regular rails pretty easily.

So you can continue to send angry texts if you want, the power you no longer have is in his decision to not reply. He will give you a reaction in session if you want, like telling you he didn't even read the last one, but that's not the reaction you want. You are getting a reaction, though. You just can't control what reaction you get.

In my opinion starting back and exploring the desire to force him to react to your anger might be a useful therapy discussion. My guess is this is really multilayered and deep. Of course your current feelings are understandable but I don't think that's where the real work lies.

[Anne2.0]

Originally Posted by Jessica11

My T has, always responded therapeutically to my anger.
It takes, the sting out of it and she's turn worked with it.

Ignoring doesn't hold any therapeutic quality.
After all. We're in therapy to be heard.

In session I believe this is true. Outside of session, I don't think this applies to emails that a poster never discussed with the T, but just starts sending them and the T responds. I think if you expect something from a T, especially something ongoing and outside of session and for free, you should discuss rather than just assuming because they replied once that they will continue to do so. This is pretty basic in communication and part of the contract of being a client-- you bring up the things you want, the T responds. It's not his job to bring up the emails or explain his limits pre emptively. Just because someone is a T, it doesn't mean that rules of general communication don't apply. If you want something from someone, you need to ask. Otherwise it's just entitlement, expecting something for free from a person who works for living, works for you in fact.

[sarahsweets]

I may be in the minority here but I do not feel it is appropriate to text a therapist at all and at the very least only for scheduling purposes. At the same time your therapist should have not given you the number or said from the beginning at out of session he or she does not accept or read texts. And the therapist should have never answered you at all. I do not think its fair to have therapists be on call or involved at our disposal. I think its unhealthy for the client and murky boundaries for the therapist. I dont mean to sound cold but it increases liability, transference, reliance upon the therapist outside the bounds of therapy. They deserve to be off and have their own personal lives too. I think being strict about this is necessary to encourage the patient to be responsible for handling the crisis's out of session. At most a call and message left at the office is fine because many check their voicemails everyday and would be able to decide if and how to respond to an urgent matter.

[stopdog]

Both of the women I hired encouraged me to contact them by phone or email or text. I don't text all that much in general but I don't see texting a therapist as any different than any other professional. The reason I would not text a therapist is that I don't want those people intruding on me. I don't see that texts have to be responded to any more than I feel I have to answer the phone if it rings or that I have to respond to an email. The sense of urgency on the part of a sender is on them -not me.
I never concerned myself about what was or was not fair to a therapist. Those people can take care of themselves. Fairness doesn't enter into it as far as I believe.

[WarmFuzzySocks]

Hugs, colors.

Knowing rationally that the boundary is in your interest and feeling rational about it are entirely different things. Your old dysfunctional way of alleviating distress and regaining equilibrium is no longer on the table. Of course you’re feeling increased distress.

I think Anne is right on the money in that paragraph about empowerment, which can lead to finding heathy ways to alleviate distress, and understanding where our own edges end and others’ begin.

My question is, what is the replacement behavior? From a behavioral teaching perspective, a professional typically doesn’t try to extinguish a behavior without also teaching a (presumably more functional) replacement, which can eventually lead to that feeling of empowerment.

[SalingerEsme]

Originally Posted by Anne2.0

It's not his job to bring up the emails or explain his limits pre emptively. Just because someone is a T, it doesn't mean that rules of general communication don't apply. If you want something from someone, you need to ask. Otherwise it's just entitlement, expecting something for free from a person who works for living, works for you in fact.

I don't agree with part of this. I do think it is the T's job to do role induction/ explain the rules, boundaries and frame upfront. In my job, I get email nonstop, and many professionals do. I do agree there can be a sense of entitlement in emailing or a sense of demanding free therapy on The 4th of July- and how unreasonable that is. However, that is the meaty part of the T's job: to explore this with the client.

[colorsofthewind12]

Originally Posted by WarmFuzzySocks

Hugs, colors.

Knowing rationally that the boundary is in your interest and feeling rational about it are entirely different things. Your old dysfunctional way of alleviating distress and regaining equilibrium is no longer on the table. Of course you’re feeling increased distress.

I think Anne is right on the money in that paragraph about empowerment, which can lead to finding heathy ways to alleviate distress, and understanding where our own edges end and others’ begin.

My question is, what is the replacement behavior? From a behavioral teaching perspective, a professional typically doesn’t try to extinguish a behavior without also teaching a (presumably more functional) replacement, which can eventually lead to that feeling of empowerment.

Thank you for this.

I think I do need to discuss alternative ways of regulating myself.

[colorsofthewind12]

Originally Posted by SalingerEsme

That must feel terrible. While my T doesn't allow texts, he set that rule from the getgo. We both know if I called him at home or sent him a text, it would be an absolute emergency. Telling you he didn't even read your text, is like a lifeguard stating he didn't even watch you while you were swimming in the ocean. I am going to hope he DID read your text to make sure you are safe, and is making a rhetorical chess move. Therapy is so difficult around boundaries, bc they often feel like they are for the benefit of the therapist.

Whenever my T changes rules, I am crushed and also I feel power-played and defensive. An example is that for two years he explained why he allowed Christmas presents and accepted them gladly so long as they didn't change the nature of the relationship, and this year suddenly he put up a No Gifts rule in the waiting room. I had brought a gift, so I felt super awkward. It wasn't the gift thing that upset me, but the arbitrary change and the display of power. He explained it is bc now he has a full practice, and he doesn't have the time he used to to be in touch with every gift-giving's deep reasons. That made me feel way worse.

In this situation, you were allowed to reach out, you sent angry texts that helped you regulate, and then your T suddenly said no more or said send them but he won't read them?

It seems like the right thing for him to do is explore with you the triggers that lead to you feeling so angry, and hold up to light the powers at work in your mind that dysreguate you in the first place. The texts are a sideffect or a symptom, not the problem.

I agree. We do explore in session the underlying dynamic.

I was never “allowed” to send angry texts but he never said he won’t read them till recently.

[colorsofthewind12]

Originally Posted by feileacan

I will offer a different opinion than the previous posters.

I don't think it is necessary to lay out strict email/texting rules just in the beginning because most people won't abuse them anyway and for those who will start doing it, this could be an important symptom that would be relevant to observe, which would be impossible if the rules would be clearly set right from the start.

I also don't think that the T has to allow this kind of acting out indefinitely. The goal would be to see what it is and then try to redirect this stuff into session. With some people it can be enough to just talk about the issue, with some people it might be necessary to stop responding and with some people even that is not enough and it is justified to stop reading these texts altogether.

The main goal of a therapy is not to make the person feel good in the moment but to aim for better regulation and adaptation, greater autonomy etc in long term perspective. For that to happen, it must be possible to work with emotional material in session and if reading/responding to texts hinders this, then not engaging with these activities from the T's part is justified. He would be irresponsible if he wouldn't do it.

So, yes, you are stripped of your power to send angry texts but you have all the power to go into your session and say all these things in person.

Edited to add: you are even not stripped by your power to send angry texts but you cannot control whether another person choose to respond to them or even read them as Anne pointed out.

I appreciate your perspective and agree with you. It just didnÂ’t feel very good initially.

[colorsofthewind12]

Originally Posted by Anne2.0

Empowerment to me and having power is the ability to control what I do, to make the choices I want, to speak up (as a previous poster said) whether it is in session or elsewhere. You still have all the power to send as many angry emails as you want, you just won't get a reply. But that's not the power you want.

What you are describing is the desire to control what another person does. Which we cannot, we which in my opinion have no right to do, whether we pay them in therapy or are married to them or are friends with them. It is his choice to read your emails, to respond to your emails, or to do anything else with or without discussion with you, especially since you are engaging outside of session.

I would center the problem at your desire to control him, especially outside of session. I think it's a normal and natural desire, perhaps one rooted deeply in infancy. In part it is the development of connection. When my son was a baby, he loved to discover things that would make me laugh or otherwise cause a "big" reaction, like tossing his food around the room. Someone posted a video of a mother and an infant "mirroring" I think, but that is also a demonstration of how a baby knows "if I do X, Mom will do Y", as opposed to being ignored or neglected. And we know how well it goes when parents neglect their kids, and of course an abusive response is part of this as well.

So we want people to respond to us, and there's some kind of mystical line between this normal desire (for reaction) for all relationships and the desire to control people. I lived through a childhood of being tightly controlled/intruded upon, so it was kind of natural for me to both have the desire to control others (which was mostly subconscious) and the desire to not control or be controlled, which could also go off the regular rails pretty easily.

So you can continue to send angry texts if you want, the power you no longer have is in his decision to not reply. He will give you a reaction in session if you want, like telling you he didn't even read the last one, but that's not the reaction you want. You are getting a reaction, though. You just can't control what reaction you get.

In my opinion starting back and exploring the desire to force him to react to your anger might be a useful therapy discussion. My guess is this is really multilayered and deep. Of course your current feelings are understandable but I don't think that's where the real work lies.

Yes, you’re right, and my T and I have explored that. It’s something I need to work on/through.