T reaction to stalking

The difference is in whether it is a crime or not, surely. If it isn't a crime, people aren't doing anything wrong and so they should have to bear no responsibility for it. Surely. Is it questionable? That's where we are all different isn't it....
I am not going to answer the first question, because it is totally off topic. You are talking about a crime. That is a different subject than 'questionable activities' in my opinion.
What makes something questionable? If it is legal it is legal. If it is legal and it has no impact on anyone, what's the problem? I think? I could get tangled in this and I would rather not. Just lets leave it there (you can have your say but I won't answer, I have bigger things on my mind!)

Hmmm, interesting. It appears you have touched a nerve! Of course, I feel guilt for my actions sometimes, no wonder you touched a nerve, and I have had this discussion with myself time and time and time and time again. I still don't have an answer. Is it 'right' or is it 'wrong'. Or is it just 'is'.

Sorry to touch a nerve. I am really just interested for myself in the question of where responsibility lies. I've google-stalked a therapist, and I've also looked up their family members. I stopped altogether because while I had no problem with looking up the therapist, looking up family members made me feel really icky and I decided it was wrong. I don't think the idea of responsibility is legal only.

I'll spare you what I was going to say in response to your earlier post.

Thank you for your huge amount of understanding!!

In this example, you have a responsibility to yourself to stop behaviours which are causing you some degree of harm (feeling icky). However, did you have a moral responsibility to the therapist's family members, even though you had incomplete information about how they would respond and what their personal boundaries were? They might have shrugged, whatever, no big deal.

These are moral philosophy questions and the answers depend on the branch moral philosophy which we choose to incorporate. For example, theology would say that God knows all our wrong doings and therefore we should not commit such wrongs. Feminism might say that patriarchy holds a greater responsibility than the behaviours of individual women. Contractarianism might say that a rational being would not behave in a way that caused harm to others as ultimately this harms the self (which seems close to what you decided for yourself).

In any case, I think there is leap being made between the idea that we are each responsible for our own actions (assuming no other impairment) and that we have a responsibility to stop actions when there is the possibility that they might be perceived as morally unacceptable. It's too much of a leap for me. I think there has to be demonstrable harm for an action to be considered harmful. If I steal £1 from you and you don't notice because you have £10,000 in your wallet, have I harmed you? No. Have I harmed myself? Probably not. If I needed the £1 to feed my children, I might even feel morally justified.

What harm is caused to the therapist or their family if a client Googles them?

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.