T reaction to stalking

I wonder if Ts get a lot of ex-patients wandering up and down their streets like zombies, or camped out nearby with binoculars.

And if so, what do they do about it?

I got paranoid walking past my ts building a month or so ago when i got a haircut near there. But i wouldnt say i was stalking him, exactly...

Not sure how many ts are back to their offices yet?

We have a bazillion ts swarming the town and gown area usually. Stalking them at a coffee shop would have been pretty easy in the before times, when you would sit elbow to elbow and stocking feet to the fireplace with complete strangers at Starbucks.

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.)

CE, are you trying to tell us something?

I can’t imagine it’s super-common. But I imagine they either ignore it, or approach the client, or call the police if it seems serious.

Not me, but there are hints of it on the forum, and once I saw someone walking up and down outside Madame T's house taking photos. I told Madame T and she seemed completely unconcerned. Either this was a regular visitor she knew about, or she was wearing her usual mask. And no, definitely not a realtor!

I never think of coffee in Britannia! Dont suppress on my account!

I wouldn't say I have stalked my T, but yes, there were times when I used to sit outside her house. Occasional times. Maybe some would call it stalking. I was hurting. A lot. I told her about it and we talked about it. Like all things. We talked about it and tried to uncover the hurt. In the end we did uncover the hurt, and we found ways to build a life up so that the hurt and the hole wasn't so big anymore.

She was gracious about it, no matter what she felt or thought on the inside. She appreciated me being honest about it and this facilitated learning and growth. Had she berated me for it then it would have derailed the therapy, not just about this matter, but the trust would have been broken. I wouldn't have felt able to talk to her about a lot of other things either.

Now I am an ex patient (I think, I am still not sure what is going on there) I have sure been tempted again. I wanted to go on Tuesday, but I didn't. After our last session where she basically just quit half way through the session I couldn't leave afterwards. Firstly, I wasn't in a fit state to drive. Secondly, I simply couldn't bring myself to leave. There was too much left unanswered, unsaid, unfinished. I just couldn't process what was going on so I just sat on the grass outside her house.

She had a few options. Ignore me and hope I went away. Call the police and have me arrested for stalking. Come and talk to me. Thankfully she chose the latter. 10 minutes on the grass (actually I have no idea how long it was I was very spaced out and the situation was so bizarre) and I felt able to leave. She understood. I think.

I wonder how often it happens though?

I think if I ‘stalked’ my T in any way, he would terminate therapy as it’s a violation of boundaries.

In the UK, there is no legal definition of stalking but it is a crime which is characterised by at least two reckless behaviours which are intended to cause harm, fear or alarm. Sitting outside your therapist's house isn't stalking, neither is walking past your therapist's house, and neither is googling them, or any of the other everyday behaviours which clients exhibit when they are seeking connection with their therapist. Therapists might feel uncomfortable about some of these behaviours (others might accept them), but the client is not a criminal in these instances.

My Ex Ext T said that googling was so ordinary and that it was entirely the therapists responsibility to observe their online presence. That therapists should realise that it happens, and why it happens, and be able to work with the feelings around it. Made me feel a lot more normal.

Common in a self-selected internet population =/= common among all therapy clients.

I agree with this, but there are also clients who google the therapist’s family. To me that’s less clear cut since the family members didn’t sign up to be the object of an unknown coient’s obsession.

This is still not criminal behaviour and, in itself, does not qualify as stalking. It might be intrusive or unsavoury (especially to the family members and even to the client themselves), but Googling people is not criminal.

True, but it is each person's individual responsibility to manage their own online profile. We have a guy at work who google stalks people for fun. Not a therapy client, just a regular guy who likes seeing what he can find out. Like most 'normal' people, he does nothing with this information. Make sure you don't put anything online you don't want the world to see, it the motto of the story I think, and therapists should, like all adults, teach their children this lesson.

haha great question.

After my long term therapist's death I drove by and walked by her previous home quite a bit. At one point I saw her in her home office. She had moved month before her death. It was my way of feeling connected to her after the loss and she lived within a mile of my home and in a nice residental area.

Ooh, thanks! I recently heard stalking while watching the Wire in the Blood series starring Robson Green. Its not mentioned much like it is on american tv, that ive seen.

Also how easily broken into are English flats? I swear almost every episode of Wire a murderer had gained access while the owner was out.

You'd never think it cause it's generally daylight robbery. I last paid £3.30 for a cup of hot chocolate around two years ago.

Haha! Maybe it says less about our home security and more about the fact that our murderous burglars are very good at their jobs.

I didn’t say it was stalking, note…I was asking about whether family members also should be expected to take on the same responsibility because of the therapist’s job.

I think when family members are involved by the “stalking” client, that’s when things can get uncomfortable for the therapist.

Again, yes, everyone's responsibility...but what about the guy at your workplace? Does he bear no responsibility for his behavior? (I am not calling it stalking.)

Also, the personal responsibility may apply to what individuals post online, particularly on social media, but we no longer control what others post about us. For instance, I'm a state employee, so anyone could find my salary online since they're public knowledge. I have no control over that. People can find out quite a lot about someone online when that person actually has nothing to do with that information.

I'm really asking, what responsibility does the client bear over "stalking" behaviors? None? Some? If some, where exactly does that responsibility lie? Doing it, not doing it, stopping when asked, exploring it in therapy, what?

No, he bears no responsibility, as no-one ever knows he did it. I'm not sure what responsibility you talk of? It's all a bit too big for my little brain to think about. It's a tough one really, because if no-one knows about it, is there really a problem? And if there is no problem, is there any responsibility to be borne. But that's a philosophical question I guess.

So if I commit a crime, but no one ever finds out, I am not responsible for it?

Legally, sure. Morally, no.

Or if I don’t commit a crime, but I do something else questionable, it’s not a problem if no one finds out and I never tell anyone?

ETA: again, not calling Google stalking a crime.

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?