T reaction to stalking

What, dear una, is a "town and gown area"? I've never heard that phrase before.

I suppose I am an Aristotelian, then.

Town and gown—in a college town, town is the non-academics, gown is the college (gown because of academic robes).

Great points to ponder. For me when figuring this all out, I consider how would I feel if I were in Ts shoes or in this case her family members shoes. I believe most Ts have an expectation that some clients will search for information on them. If they are uncomfortable with clients finding private information online they are able to "fix" it to some degree. However, family members did not choose Ts line of work. So that is why I put more thought into how I would feel if I were in their position.

Closer to Gauthian I would say (way cooler).

Quote:

Originally Posted by CantExplain This is a tradition from London coffee shops. In English taverns, you sat with your friends. In coffee shops you took the first available seat. This is what made the coffee shop such a melting pot, with all classes meeting as equals. (Six page essay suppressed.)

It's a tradition in Paris, too. Elbow to elbow, all tables touching each other.

I think this phrase came originally from Oxford and Cambridge. The townsmen ("town") resented the academics ("gown"), and especially the drunken antics of the students. (Young, irresponsible, gregarious, lustful and armed.) Also, academics of all grades were always in debt to the tradesmen.

Im closer to Gaussian - im electric!

I even took a nap after i first thought of this, but im posting it anyway.

That sounds like here alright!

I also thought, "surely moo means I am Gaussian!"

For you, "gassian" would be a better term.

And just like that CE's thread has jumped the shark.

Now you gave me the idea to go stand outside Ts house and make like a firefly...

Fonzie is back in da houz!

I found my transference T’s address on Zillow. My pdocs too.. I saw pictures of the inside and outside of their houses.

It’s funny because my mom says “you shouldn’t be doing that!” And then I say want to see what her house looks like? And my mom says “yeah, give me the address.”

For an ex-client? I don't think there's much anyone could do but talk to the person, unless there is real harassment or threats, etc. Then I suppose the T could try to get a restraining order.

Well just a thought. Let’s say I didn’t notice peeping tom watching me in questionable situation like in shower or bedroom window, or fitting room at the store or those awful people taking pictures under the bathroom stalls or under woman skirt etc

If I or anyone else didn’t see them and no one found out and no “direct” harm was inflicted upon me, so these people bear no responsibility for their actions?is it only a problem if someone knows about it?

These are not questions of morality, these are questions of legality since the acts you describe are criminal acts. It is also possible to argue that whilst the individual women in these examples might not be immediately harmed, women as a social class are harmed as it reinforces our status as oppressed and exploitable in the mind of the perpetrator (to say nothing of the fact that these instances often escalate into further assaults where women are directly and overtly harmed).

I think it's mostly a shared responsibility. At least as far as harmless stuff like google 'stalking' goes, not talking about actual criminal activity.

For clients, curiosity, wanting to feel more connected, wanting to mitigate the power imbalance, whatever other reasons one might have for googling their T, all very natural and I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to resist acting on those all the time. At the same time, I think for most clients it should be obvious that private life is private, and while there might be a large grey area, it's NOT safe to assume that their T will not mind them looking into stuff like kids and family just because it!s insufficiently protected. Still, I think their primary responsibility is to themselves - what are they hoping to get out of it? what are they actually getting out of it? could they get the same or better result by trying to to communicate their questions/feelings/needs to their T? Are they concerned how telling the therapist (or keeping it from the therapist) might change the relationship? is it good/harmful for them to be doing this? Of course, this changes if their behaviour is more intrusive or dangerous than the therapist can/is willing to accommodate.

For therapists, I think they absolutely have a responsibility to be mindful of their public digital footprint, how fits with their professional boundaries and their stance on personal disclosure. Also to educate their family about the heightened scrutiny curious clients migt subject them. It kind of sucks, but life is unfair like that. But there are limits to what can be reasonably expected. As you say, you can't possibly have full control over all of the personal info that makes it to the internet, and even the stuff you could theoretically control, might take more effort and attention than you can spare at a given time. Plus, a world where peope willingly respect each other!s privacy/boundaries/property really is a great deal better place than one where one has to constantly watch out for potential violations.

But so much depends on the therapist-client communication. With xT, we had this stupid, chaotic and painful transference/counter-transference mess, with lots of anxiety and crises and stuff, and I did google her fairly regularly mainly out of need for connection (still do occasionally even now, a long time after we terminated). It was usually just looking at her professional profile, but at times I did explore the personal info google brought up (hardly any, but probably more than she wanted me to know) and I did feel a little weird about that. With current T, there's none of that - she was fine with my keeping my distance, I feel increasingly safe, so I'm starting to want to feel more connected, but I trust I can work on that in session. I haven't yet felt the need to google her (other than to remind myself of details of her professiona background) and I don't even know if she has a FB account. So I think responsibility might go beyond privacy control, although transference stuff might be too difficult to control, not sure.

So, another comment on the googling. There's also the concern that you might find something you'd rather you hadn't known. Or that maybe you'd want clarification on. But then you're sort of stuck, because to talk about it would be to admit that you'd googled.

With my T, his wife made a post in a Facebook parenting group that I'd been a member of before I started seeing him. I told him that I saw the post, and she removed herself from the group and deleted most of her previous posts. But before she did that, I did read some past posts of hers (I did admit this to my T, and he understand, saying it was a group I was in). There were a few things she posted that made me wonder, particularly regarding her stance on a certain issue with kids on the autism spectrum (my daughter is, and from something ex-T told me, T's son may be, or was at least thought to be at one time--complicated story). But I felt weird asking him about them, because they were things I probably shouldn't have seen. Would have been even more so if I'd done googling on my own.

An amusing note: One time he made reference to where he grew up, and I said something like, "Yeah, if you grew up in x county [in our state], then [blah blah blah.]." And he gave me a look, like he was disturbed that I knew where he grew up. I don't think I said anything at the time, but I emailed him later saying how he'd looked disturbed, but he had that info in the bio of his professional website (like on the front page of it: "I grew up in [x city]") He replied saying he was bothered at first, but then he checked his own website and realized it was on there, which he'd forgotten about, so he apologized for his reaction.

Oops!

It is the nature of Ts to put up boundaries, and the nature of patients to resent them. Therapeutic tension, I guess.