Errrrotic Trrransference

As some of you may remember, I had a dream last week about my T holding me in bed. He was wearing boxer shorts only. I shared this dream with him when there was only three minutes remaining in the session.

I had another session yesterday and we were discussing the primal scene and how I never really saw my parents as a "couple." We were laughing about how I was getting disgusted thinking about my parents having sex and the T stated that I pretty much get uncomfortable anytime we talk about sex.

At that point, I reminded him about the dream (which we had yet to talk about) and said, "Well that should pretty much open the doors to talking about sex." Then there was a silence and T said, "So what color boxers was I wearing?" And I told him, "Plain white!" And he repeated "plain white," while looking all reflective and amused as if in real life he wears boxers that look like abstract paintings or something.

Then I asked him a question about a statement he had said during the last session after I had initially told him about the dream. I had mentioned how I felt inappropriate having the dream and we were talking about boundaries or something (can't remember exactly what) and he said, "We just have to be careful." I have a history of not asking what he meant until much later on.

So I asked him yesterday. We talked about my desire to sexualize my relationshp with him (although cognitively I understand that this could and would never happen). We talked about how the desire to sexualize our relationship is an attempt to normalize it-- because that is what I'm used to from male intimacy and relationships in the past.

T said about the "being careful part"-- "it's not like we are going to jump on the couch and have wild sex" but rather it is about the importance for me to learn the difference between the male relationship with and without the sexual component. He said we have to be careful that those boundaries are clearly in place because of the intimate nature of our relationship.

sounds like your T knows what he is doing/dealing with. He has accepted your erotic transference and knows what it means and how to handle it. The boundaries are clear, and everything seems to be in place. I see nothing wrong with your erotic feelings or the way T handles them. You are lucky to have such a good T that you can be open with about those feelings instead of feeling like you need to prevent them or erase them. Some others may not be as fortunate...

OK Pink
In your other post you said:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
pinksoil said:
I come from the school of though that erotic transference is an absolutely necessary part of therapy.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Did you mean that this was necessary part of your particular therapy or were you suggesting that this is a necessary part of most people's therapy?

Pink,

This makes so much sense. It goes to show that these feelings are not always about having sex but about connecting. It's really no different than other ways of being when we are children.

For example, when a child looks to her caregiver for soothing and is met with neglect, she will look to external objects to self-soothe.

By the same token, a child who grows up in a sexualized environment may unwittingly repeat those patterns in therapy.

This is so interesting.

I think you are brave. I am still unsure of how to bring up these feelings but in time I suppose I will find the way.

Can you explain again, what the primal scene is?

Peace.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
pinksoil said:
And he repeated "plain white," while looking all reflective and amused as if in real life he wears boxers that look like abstract paintings or something.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I love your writing Pink. That line is just hilarious.

I remember reading that you said erotic transference is necessary to therapy. I'm kind of curious about that. I don't think I have any erotic feelings towards my T. I totally love him, but I've also completely cast him in a father-figure role. I would love for him to hold me, but it's not a sexual thing. The closest I get to erotic is imagining that he sees me in the arms of my new lover (assuming I ever find a new love in my life). I think that's a father-figure thing -- wanting him to see me as happy and being approving of my life or something.

Sidony

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
sidony said:

I remember reading that you said erotic transference is necessary to therapy. I'm kind of curious about that. I don't think I have any erotic feelings towards my T. I totally love him, but I've also completely cast him in a father-figure role.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

That's erotic transference right there. :-) Erotic transference is not limited to sexual feelings, but also encompasses feelings of love as well as parent feelings. It can also occur between female T/female patient and male T/male patient. If you really go old school on the erotic transference stuff and related it to Freud, even the parent/child stuff has a sexual component to it, i.e. the Oedipal stage.

Erotic transference includes love-- real love feelings. The goal is for that transformation to occur-- for you to take that love for your T and use it elsewhere. It is not limited to only sexual feelings, although it often includes them.

Okay thanks! In that case, I do have erotic transference. I definitely love him.

Sidony

Ah, never thought of it like that, Pink, thanks for pointing that out:

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/psych/sex3.html

Interesting link Perna - Eek! Nice segue into BDSM...

Sorry about that I just read the first 2-3 paragraphs and realized it sort of expanded on what Pink seemed to be saying.

Too funny...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
pinksoil said:
Erotic transference includes love-- real love feelings. The goal is for that transformation to occur-- for you to take that love for your T and use it elsewhere. It is not limited to only sexual feelings, although it often includes them.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">So does that mean that anyone who loves their T has erotic transference? Why don't they call it love transference then? Or just "love"? That "erotic" bit throws me for a loop. I thought it meant you wanted to have a romance or a fling with your T. That is not me. I love my T for who he is, it is genuine, I am not transferring love or sexual longings from a past experience/relationship onto him. I have never been jealous of my T and his partner, and I know it upsets some people here to think their T has a romantic interest of his/her own. That is so not me. I am happy my T is in a loving relationship and feel zero jealousy. (It actually gives me hope that one day in the future maybe I too will find love again, after my failed marriage.) My love for T is platonic and seems different from a physical love/longing. Does that still qualify as erotic transference? I do not see him as a parent either. I guess if I had to assign a relative's role to him, it would be a really, really close brother, one who is older and wiser and really helpful. And a non-relative role would be a really, really close friend, although he is so much more than a friend--he is my therapist!

I think I'm gonna keep calling it love....

Pinks comment caught my interest because the term erotic transference imply sexual feelings to me. I do not have any such feelings for my T. I think I would have experienced confusion or at least thought about this concept if there had been physical contact between us. I admit I am a bit of a freak who often confuses (at least initially) physical contact with a sexual advance. I likely would not have handle this confusion well considering my anxiety about therapy to begin with. But thankfully there hasn't been so this is not a problem.

Here another question regarding Perna's link.

This is a quote from sci.psychology newsgroup Perna shared above
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I think that in large part being in love is an effort to recover (or recapitulate) the relationship that the very young child had with his parents. (I am referring here to the initial stages of being in love, perhaps often better described as infatuation.)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

So making a major assumption here that this statement is in fact true. Would a child who did not experience this earlier parental love have difficultly participating in the erotic love later in life?

That's a great explanation Pink! My T has said those exact words to me...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
mckell13 said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I think that in large part being in love is an effort to recover (or recapitulate) the relationship that the very young child had with his parents. (I am referring here to the initial stages of being in love, perhaps often better described as infatuation.)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

So making a major assumption here that this statement is in fact true. Would a child who did not experience this earlier parental love have difficultly participating in the erotic love later in life?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I think the "very young" child always experienced this earlier "parental" love in that they were fed/sucked from the breast/bottle and had their diapers changed and were held enough to not die. When one is "hungry" one loves the person that feeds/cares for them. It's built in, not "thought" about and decided on. I think that is what this author was pointing out, that later on that is recreated in the T "feeding" and caring for us psychologically/emotionally?

OK.. that kind of makes sense Perna

Also the more general definition erotic transference seems OK too, but like Sunrise I also think the word "erotic" makes it seem like it is a sexual thing.

I like my T, I value and respect her insight but I wouldn't use the word "love" to describe my feeling though. I definitely appreciate the information she has provided me.

I've read a lot of the other posts on transference. I don't think I do this either. I view my T as someone who is there to provide insight into why my life has gotten so out of balance. Maybe provide some ideas for bring it into better balance. Someone to practice actually voicing some of what is going on in my head with. I don't think I've pretended or related to her as if she someone other than a therapist. Is this a bad thing? Is it an indication that therapy is not being real successful?

It think part of me would like to feel more... something. Maybe that's why when you all talk about different attachments you've had with your T, I'm curious.

I think maybe I just don't have the capacity to feel things that other people do.

Pinks,
Don't forget to ask your T, "Hey, what are you wearing?" when he calls you in NY!!!!!! He may be wearing white boxer shorts. You never know

mckell, I have an extremely strong attachment to my therapist and I am comfortable using the word love about what I feel toward him. But yet I have not "pretended or related to her[him] as if she someone other than a therapist." I love him for who he is and what he has meant to me and done for me. He's great! I don't think you need to pretend your therapist is someone else in order to feel love towards him.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I think maybe I just don't have the capacity to feel things that other people do.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">mckell, it could just be the client-therapist dyad you are in, not that you don't have the capacity. Love doesn't have to be part of it in order for you to make progress and benefit from therapy. With my first therapist, I definitely did not love her, but I respected much of what she said and found that when I followed her advice, sometimes I made progress and things got better. Therapy with her was definitely worth it, not a waste of money, and I'm glad I did it. When I moved on to my current T, I experienced something different with him (love, closeness, attachment, call it transference?) that I had not with the first. We have made great progress and I have experienced so much healing with him. But I don't think this means the experience with the first therapist, with whom I didn't experience this closeness, was not beneficial. There are just different sorts of therapeutic experiences. It sounds like you get a lot out of yours, and that's great!

I just believe that the most important aspect of the therapeutic relationship is just that-- the relationship. The relationshp comes first, the insight, the guidance, etc., comes second. Most of the insight and interpretations (that I tend to make myself because my T doesn't like to make them-- he wants me to reach them) comes from what goes on between us in the relationship.

I think some of the transference and like/love thing has to do, also, with type of therapy. Someone just doing CBT or other "practical" types of therapy isn't going to get as "close" to the therapist as someone in psychoanalytically-based therapy like I think Pink is talking about here.

Perna, I think that could play a role. The first therapist I referred to above, with whom I did not have a close relationship or attachment, was CBT. My current therapist is of the humanistic psychology school (not psychoanalytic) and we are so close; he is not CBT at all. However, I do read here on PC about people with CBT therapists who are very close to them, so I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement. For me, the relationship is the most important thing in my therapy. I would not be where I am today without it (but I do think you can get some things accomplished without a strong attachment). There have been quite a few studies that have shown it is not the type of therapy you engage in that makes it effective, but the strength of the therapeutic relationship. There are even instruments for measuring the strength (that is one test I would actually be interested to take!--I'm not much of a psychological test person).

Really interesting paper on "The Therapeutic Relationship" talking about the personal relationship, negative transference, etcetera:

http://www.psychpage.com/learning/li...ng/thxrel2.htm

"client-therapist dyad" I've learned yet another term in this thread :-)

Yes, I've found my interaction with my T very helpful, even if still somewhat guarded. And honestly, if it wasn't so...professional, I don't think I could handle it in the beginning. However sometimes I wonder if I may be approaching things too analytically and missing the whole point sometimes. Actually, I know I'm thinking too much about things. She chuckled and shook her head last session when I asked her to confirm if some the assumptions/ expectations I wanted to have regarding our relationship were OK. I guess some of them were obvious.

When I mentioned my capacity, I meant that I'm not sure if I have the ability to "experience" deep feeling the way a normal person does. Therefore, I don't think I could inadvertently or therapeutically project these feelings towards my T. I'd probably have to ask her if it was OK and appropriate first :-)

Maybe that's what I can put on the agenda for tomorrow's session--'Hey, in an effort to bring back some love and passion to my marriage, I would like to know if it is OK for me to engage in erotic transference towards you.' LOL

I just saw the comments on therapeutic relationships link above.
Based on the relationships link Perna provided and how other describe CBT, it is not what I'm doing.
The description of humanistic therapy seem to match with my T approach to me anyway.
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
The therapist does not help the client gain insight by leading them along a road towards the final goal of an insight the therapist has known all along;, but rather, the therapist helps the client gain insight by reflecting back the client's feelings and thoughts so that s/he can learn insight on their own and teach the therapist.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I kind of like that approach so I'm going to stick with it for a while longer.

I think why this thread is interesting to me is because I've never experienced a relationship like the one you have with a therapist. Since it is new to me I want to define, analyze, and reflect on everything and make sure I'm not missing something. In doing so I fear that I may be stuck in the very pattern of behavior that creates problems in my life.

Have any of you been this %#@&#! about therapy? Did you at one point find a way to simply quit thinking and simply allow yourself of react, respond, and experience the connection? If so, did you find it helpful or did you end up getting more confused and messed up in RL.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
mckell13 said:
When I mentioned my capacity, I meant that I'm not sure if I have the ability to "experience" deep feeling the way a normal person does. Therefore, I don't think I could inadvertently or therapeutically project these feelings towards my T. I'd probably have to ask her if it was OK and appropriate first :-)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
One cannot experience feelings the way anyone else does because they're only one's own experiences, not another person's. And there's a huge difference between feeling/experiencing one's feelings and talking about or projecting or whatever; we don't get to "choose" what to feel, we only get to chose what to do/think/say about those feelings. Denying one feels doesn't mean one doesn't feel; it only means one isn't aware of what one is feeling (it's unconscious) or one wishes they didn't feel what they feel and thinks they can push it away and not feel it by denying it. As I'm sure we all know; denial doesn't work very well/forever and things ooze out the cracks despite our best efforts to keep them in check.