[MissCharlotte]

If I were still going to therapy once per week i wouldn't have a chance at continuing the work to the level I need to heal. Because of neglect in infancy/early childhood I can't hold on to anything good for any length of time.

So, twice a week i trudge off to T's. On the first session of the week, it has been five days since I saw him and it often feels like I haven't been there in ages. I have a very had time holding on to his presence in my heart. On the second session I usually am full of stuff I want to share, insights I've made, and feel like there is never enough time to cover everything!.

This week T and I talked about how hard it is for me to hang on to "us." My holding onto the relationship is entwined with my desire to have T hold onto me. This was the gentlest and softest of conversations and I told him that I wished he could hold me and he said he understood that and he said, "Why wouldn't you want to feel special to me?" At that point I melted like a warm snowman. I told him I was afraid that he would think that I wanted to have sex with him. And he said, "Why wouldn't you want to have sex with me? Is there something wrong with me?"


He--ever so gently--let me know that what I was feeling was okay--that there is nothing wrong with having feelings. Sigh.

Now what the heck will I say next week?

[spiritual_emergency]

<blockquote>
You may find the following to be insightful. It's taken from a text dealing with schizophrenia and psychosis but it's related to the therapeutic relationship itself.

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

Relationship as Healing

If the therapeutic factors in the psychotherapy of the neuroses are puzzling, those in the psychoses are utterly mysterious. So much is this the case that in the average psychiatric opinion, it is generally held that, as a matter of fact, there is no healing for the psychoses, that there can be allviation of symptoms but not cure. I have always been reluctant to accept this closing of the door upon the possibility of healing, and this is because I find, as Jung has found, that the psyche knows better than we do what it is up to in its deep turmoils.

Since the psyche had its own intentions in a psychosis, when the unconsciousness is activated to this extreme degree, a welter of emotions wants to come into play, accompanied by images of a mythological cast that belong to these emotions. Most of these elements of the psyche are very necessary to the further growth and development of the personality. It becomes a very painful experience when they meet a wall of prohibition that dams up their flow and prevents their movement.

Our question is, then, what is it that goes on when psychotherapy does the other thing, allowing all the communications of affect and image to come through and be received into the relationship? What is the nature of this therapeutic bond that makes it work toward reordering and reintegrating the psyche?

Speaking in very general terms, the intention of such therapy is to honor what the other person experiences with a readiness to receive her whole being, to relate to all that is in her, and thus to share in her psychic life and be in it with her during this critical period of growth. This entails attitudes of regard, respect, interest, concern, and partnership in the developmental process, with a full range of emotional experiences. Thus, as Jung has put it, psychotherapy consists of two whole psychic systems interacting in depth, in which action each is deeply affected by the other.

The analogies here to the relation of loving feeling between two persons cannot escape the eye. It is very difficult for the profession of psychotherapy to know what to do with this awkward circumstance. The way to ease the tension around the issue has been from the beginning, to take refuge in the fact of the "transference," which, holding vestiges of previous, parental relationships, minimizes the validity of the presently growing relationship that exists in its own right. The ardor that springs up has been made even more safe by perceiving it as the "transference neurosis," needing a lot of interpretation to keep it under control and finally, to dispell it. A term that has been used for this effort is the graphic phrase, "crushing the transference," thereby telling the whole story in epitome.

There are advantages in acknowledging the therapeutic relationship as one of loving feeling. Chief among these is that the emotional charge and heightened intensity induce at the same time a dramatic activation of the unconscious psyche in great depth, so that the archetypal affect-images become vivid and dynamic. They are stirring in this atmosphere of mutual trust and mutual enthusiasm. It is characteristic of love relations that the archetype of the Center is constellated between two individuals.

Much of the synthesizing and organizing action of the psyche goes on at the level of the unknown, that is, of unconscious process, long before it is a matter of conscious insight - long before it reaches the ego. This unconscious process is essentially emotional in its quality and hence the play of emotion is best allowed to do its own work. Too early a recognition of meaning, and formulation of it, may scotch this subtle process that goes on beneath the surface.

The central archetype is the factor in the psyche that, according to all the evidence in our observations, has the capacity to transform the self. This change involves not only the self-image in the usual sense, but also the structure of the personality as a whole. The means by which this is brought about in the psychotic episode are those that I have described as the "renewal process." When I speak of this kind of "ideation," it should not be thought of as a fanciful play of symbolic ideas. Rather, they occur as powerful, even overpowering, emotional and spiritual experiences. That is the reason for my preferring to refer to these archetypal phenomena as "affect-images," since they are made up principally of emotion and image together as aspects of the same entity.

This means that there comes through this process a new valency, so to speak, for relating in depth. This term is borrowed from chemisty but is also very apt for the psychology of relationship. In chemistry, it means the quality that determines the number of atoms that a particular element may combine with, thus a readiness to unite. This readiness of the individual in the "pychotic" process to relate in depth imperatively requires a corresponding readiness of the therapist to do likewise. Both centers must be prepared to combine, again, a chemical metaphor. When this does occur, the two centers become involved mutually and together undergo an experience of transformation. Things go well as long as the individual and the therapist are able to tolerate the play of the emotions that are released - rage, love, agony, exhaltation, and so on - no matter how intense, as well as the play of all the imagery - mythic, religious, political, and so forth - no matter how unfamiliar.

In the Jungian framework, these two modes belong to the general category of experience that we call "Eros" and "Logos" respectively. Eros tends to move toward entanglement in relationship, Logos toward abstracting out of experience the meaning and understanding. For balance and wholeness, both should come into play and receive their due.

Source: Trials of the Visionary Mind - John Weir Perry


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

[MissCharlotte]

Hi Spiritual,

Thanks for the insight.

Despite the YIKES symbols in my post, I am pretty comfortable with the content of our exchange. Yes, I am working on integration of different aspects of myself right now with T and I am aware of that. However, I do find that if I get too far into the intellectual aspect of therapy I will use that to avoid the feeling state. I noticed your links to tonglen practice below and thought I'd share what I told T recently. I was browsing at Barnes and Noble for a book on attachment and it was too stimulating for me -- as I read I kept thinking "omg that is what happened to me OR omg that is what I did to my kids."

I told T I would stick with reading my PEMA CHODRON for now. He said that was okay because I would wind up in the same place and I am beginning to see that!



Thanks for your response.

[Kiya]

"I was afraid that he would think that I wanted to have sex with him. And he said, "Why wouldn't you want to have sex with me? Is there something wrong with me?"

yeah... i dunno... these seem like two different things.... =( being afraid that a male would only see sexual intent i think if different than a male specifically asking "why wouldn't you want to"... i don't know if i can explain my thinking.

[MissCharlotte]

HI Kiya

Yeah, I can see where your thoughts might go but think of it this way; He was validating me and saying that even if it meant that it would be okay to own those feelings. He was not saying it would be okay to have sex, but to own the feelings of wanting sex if that's what my feelings were.

I think that her T was really just mixing validation with a bit of humor. It's hard to read such posts without actually being in the context of the session and knowing the client and the T individually. I suspect that MissCharlotte and her T have a certain connection in which they get each other's sense of humor in a safe way and know how far it can go and the boundaries in which it must stay.

[Kiya]

i still can't quite get a handle on it... ( i totally get the sense of humor and validating the feelings that come up)...

more like there is this underlying, prevailing sense that men think about sex all the time. and also that anything a woman does might make the guy think about or want sex. and for a woman to be concerned that her actions might *Make the guy think she wants sex*...
the answer being "what's wrong with wanting..." is a different issue than "being afraid he'd think you wanted".... i'm trying to make my thoughts clearer...

I just finished my final in Ethics.... forgive my frame of mind.
there is something about western culture that says it is ok for men to think about sex all the time - AND that women bring it upon themselves... that women have to be concerned for their actions, and men are expected to act.... see the difference?
I'll bow out of this thread now - clearly i am on a different track than the one that was meant.... despite the clear caring that is being conveyed (or trying to), i find it disturbing at a cultural level.
Kiya

[MissCharlotte]

I get you Kiya. No need to bow out. Your comments have given me a deeper level of knowing this exchange between me and T.

I understand that your concern is with my not wanting him to think I would want to have sex. Because, in reality, what would be wrong with me wanting to have sex? Right?

There is nothing remotely wrong with anyone (male or female) 'wanting' sex. And yes, culturally, it is accepted that men can 'want' more so than women.

My personal issues about wanting/not wanting sex or not wanting someone to know what I want run very deep and are rooted not only in the culture and times I grew up in but in my mother's denial of her sexuality.

In the "for what it's worth category" I do believe that in his comment, T was saying that it was okay for me to want to have sex with him, with maybe a tad of humor thrown in. But we weren't rolling around on the floor laughing either. He was telling me that my wants, and desires are okay. It was validating.

frong.

[Perna]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
MissCharlotte said:
I understand that your concern is with my not wanting him to think I would want to have sex. Because, in reality, what would be wrong with me wanting to have sex? Right?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I think Kiya's concern is with a "woman's" idea that wanting to be held might be construed as a signal to a man that the woman wants sex. That's different from whether or not one wants to have sex. There's nothing wrong with you wanting to have sex but there is something "odd"/different about your thinking that being held will "trigger" something in a man and they might think you want sex. There appears a crossover between sensual (being held, being loved in a non-sexual way) and sexual (being loved in a sexual way). A male client and female T would have had a different conversation?

[MissCharlotte]

Hmmmm I don't know what Kiya meant but the interesting thing is that I don't think it is odd at all to think that a male may be aroused by a hug and a woman wouldn't. It has been my experience that men and women react differently to hugs.

Take me and my husband for example; there have been many times when I just needed a comforting hug and he wanted a tad more. Now, maybe that is just my experience but I don't think so.

A friend of mine told me it was a "natural male reaction" to become aroused when he hugs a woman. Now, this is probably not true for every man/woman interaction but I really don't think it's odd to be concerned about that possibility.

Soooo, maybe it's just because of my personal life experience but I don't think it's at all odd or different for me to worry that if I said I wanted a hug then T would think I wanted more than a hug. Apparently, neither did he.

This is my therapy and I am very comfortable with it. The irony here is that my statement to T was very very difficult to make and was a leap of honesty in the relationship. He knew it and the intimate nature of the relationship was able to grow because of it.

[Flowerb]

I like his response a lot - sounds like something my T would say too. But it might be interesting to take the question and explore it - "Why wouldn't it be OK to want to be special?" -- actually for me, being special has more "stuff" around it than the sex part -OK, well maybe not MORE - but at least as much.

When I think about wanting to be special, I feel selfish and presumptuous - and like I'm looking for my T to gratify some ego need. And I get all hung up in the "I'm not pretty enough, slim enough, smart enough, etc, etc." to be special to someone like my T. And then I'll go down the "I shouldn't want this/need this" road - ug. All very old stuff.

So even though the question was validating - it might be useful to actually try to answer it.

And...I also want to say that I think you are very brave to have taken such a leap of faith. Good for you!

[chaotic13]

Flowerb, when I read the first post I thought the same thing. I stopped at the "Why wouldn't you want to feel special to me?" and asked myself, Do I want my T to think I am special? And my answer was NO! Then of course came the Why? Am I abnormal that I like the fact that my T sees a lot of different patients an likely doesn't think of me as special?..... I also eventually came to the same conclusion, wanting to be special suggests that I want more from the relationship than I should or deserve.

Miss C. I am frequently concerned about what messages I may send to men. My experiences also suggest that hugs mean a totally different thing to guys than they do to women. There is no cuddling with my husband. With the exception of the men I work with, the most of the men I've known have been this way, just waiting for an opportunity to pounce on you. The guys I work with are probably like that too, they just are more refined and hide it better than others. Sorry guys, I know I am being very sexist and making a generalizations here. I'm just in an area where the tooth:tattoo ratio is not so great.

[MissCharlotte]

OK, I will answer the question? Although it was posed rhetorically...

Why wouldn't I want to be special to T?

Because then it would mean we have an intimate relationship where I have a responsibility to be present and consistently responsive to another person. Because it means he matters to me.

Dang

[(JD)]

You got it.

Keeping those people who care about us, at bay, allows us to cut ourselves off from the world and immerse ourselves in self pity and depression.

Reaching out and caring and acknowledging someone cares also opens us up to disappointment.

(((Miss)))

[Perna]

What a woman says:
"This place is a mess! C'mon,
you and I need to clean up,
your stuff is lying on the floor and
you'll have no clothes to wear
if we don't do laundry right now!"

What a man hears:
"blah, blah, blah, blah, C'mon
blah, blah, blah, blah, you and I
blah, blah, blah, blah, on the floor
blah, blah, blah, blah, no clothes
blah, blah, blah, blah, right now!"

[Kiya]

no

to me, the being held has nothing to do with it. I just find it odd that in reply to the comment about being special Miss translating that to "i don't want you to think i want to have sex"), his comment would be "why wouldn't it be ok to want that.." it just (in my mind) takes it in a totally different direction.

it is just weird (and yet culturally accepted) for a woman to be concerned about the image, and for the man to *Not* be concerned.

there's something to that ... the need to be special gets tarnished with "having sex".... like "i can't be special because i don't want to be seen as wanting sex" ...see what i'm getting at? There's something important there. and with it he said "why don't you want to have sex with me? what's wrong with me?"

again - that's coming from my own lens... where special gets mixed up in something that doesn't need to be there.

thanks for letting me clarify. kiya

it gets to me. i'm still not sure that's really clear... and maybe i can't make it be any clearer.

regardless, i am really glad for you Miss that you got what you needed from the session - that rocks.

[Kiya]

what i am trying to say is that maybe it would be important for miss to find out why her being special to t makes her afraid that it would come across as being sexual.

*whew* there, i got it together.

*sigh* - only a page late and the question's already been answered. ...hangs tail and goes back to corner.

Miss C yeah it did take a lot of courage to ask... and even more to post it here where we all shread it from our own perspectives.

[Flowerb]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
mckell13 said:
Flowerb, ..... I also eventually came to the same conclusion, wanting to be special suggests that I want more from the relationship than I should or deserve.

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

Just to clarify - Even though I think I don't deserve to be special, or shouldn't want to be special, I truly wanted/want to be special to my T - and yet that scares the begebies out of me. And even though he tells me I am special to him and he cares about me, I find it hard to believe I guess, and I don't know how to take it in. I think admitting this is important gives him power (more power?) to hurt me by withdrawing his caring. Being special feels good and yet scary - what is the payment for being special?

We've talked, and continue to talk, about this a lot.

(btw - Other clients - what other clients?)

[MissCharlotte]

Hi Kiya,

You make this really introspective and that is good!

I need to clarify now. </font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I told him that I wished he could hold me and...he understood that and he said, "Why wouldn't you want to feel special to me?" At that point I melted like a warm snowman. I told him I was afraid that he would think that I wanted to have sex with him. And he said, "Why wouldn't you want to have sex with me? Is there something wrong with me?

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

The sequence of the conversation [with explanation to clarify]:

I told him I wished he could hold me.

He equated my desire to be held with a desire to feel special to him.

I explained that I had not told him before because I was afraid he would think that I was saying I wanted to have sex [if I said I wanted to be held].

He said that even if it did mean that, so what?

So, it was in the desire for the *physical act of holding* that I was concerned it would come across as being sexual, rather than the desire to be special, which can have a whole slew of interpretations.

However, having said that, I don't necessarily think that a desire to have sex is a bad thing either. I definitely do, equate sex with intimacy. And I desire a really intimate relationship with T.

Peace

[pegasus]

((((((((((( MissCharlotte )))))))))))

What your T was saying was that it is absolutely OK to have feelings! All feelings are allowed! I'm so glad for you!

[pegasus]

Perna!!! You crack me up!