The trigger icon has been applied for anyone who feels they may be triggered by a therapist's emotional disclosure to a patient-- I understand that this post may trigger some people who are extremely sensitive to anything that could be perceived as a break in the therapeutic boundary; however, I assure you that all is safe.

As some of you know, T and I got into the erotic transference topic last session. When I left, there was a woman in the waiting room. I wanted to scratch her eyeballs out because not only did it comfirm that I am not T's only female patient (lol, I know...), but she was there on Saturday-- my Saturday! I had also sent T an email telling him that I often feel as though that the only way to work through the erotic transference is if he would just admit that he felt some of those feelings for me, too-- if he says nothing, then it is automatically perceived as a rejection.

Yesterday, with about 10 minutes left in the session, I told T about the woman in the waiting room, and how I wanted to scratch her eyeballs out. T was amazing-- not only did he validate my feelings, but he said a couple things that I wanted to say, but was feeling a bit too ashamed to admit. T said, "You view Saturday as your day here-- is there any reason why you wouldn't feel jealous of seeing a woman here?" Then he said that he could understand why I would feel angry, imagining that other connections exist outside of our relationship. T said that he could tell the change in my body language and facial expression when I left his office that day. He said he noticed my shoulders stiffen as I walked out of the room. T said, "How did you handle this when you left? I'm assuming you didn't do what you said you were going to do, unless I never see that client again!" Hahaha

Then I asked him, again, if he was scared. I asked him this because sometimes I am afraid that each time I express erotic transference, I am pushing him away.

My session ends at 11:30 on Saturday mornings. At 11:28, T said, "Yes, sometimes I am scared. Not of you, but of certain feelings."

T dropped a therapist doorknob. I looked at the clock, looked at him, and said, "You have exactly two minutes to explain."

T said that sometimes the feelings that our relationship brings up, for him, can be scary. He said that he has to be willing to explore them, and at times, ask himself what is going on for him. He said that the best thing about the relationship is the strict boundaries and, "knowing where this relationship can't go." He asked me if I thought that just because I was the patient, I was the only one who could feel these feelings. Of course I said, "Uhh yeah. You are the therapist, so you are exempt from these feelings." T said, "No one is God-- if I was exempt, what would I be? I'm human." (He use the "no one is God" expression in response to a poem that I written which I had shared with him earlier int he session). I asked him if it was uncomfortable for him, sometimes, to discuss the erotic aspects of the relationship. He was honest, and said that sometimes it is.

He said that there is a writer, Nancy Bridges, I think... who wrote about erotic transference. He said that she wrote that the therapeutic relationship is the best way to experience levels of intimacy-- moreso than any other relationshp because so often, sex can complicate a connection. He said that in our relationship, we have those boundaries, so we can take risks and explore the feelings, while knowing the places that the relationship can't go.

Whoa.

So yeah. I don't know. I guess what I really want to ask him now is why he felt that it was okay to express this stuff at this time. The risk that he took was quite amazing, knowing my intense feelings-- he must trust the relationship a lot.

Of course, there is a part of me that is doubting the entire thing, like I misunderstood (this basically happens every time he makes any type of emotional disclsosure to me). I convince myself that I think he was talking about one thing, when in reality it was totally something else. Like, maybe he was just talking about.... something. I don't know. Something else. I have a lot of questions for him. I don't know if he can answer. If I understood any of this correnctly, then it helps to know that he is human. It helps to not feel rejected. It helps to know that the feelings can be explored openly and safely because the boundaries are there.

The 1st thing that T asked me in the sessin was, "So... what don't you want to talk about today?" I told him, "I don't want to talk about anything that happened last session, and I don't want to talk about that email!"

The very last thing T said in the session was, "Whew! Well, at least we didn't talk about that!" LOL.

[Kiya]

Wow - that's cool. So much there and the abilities to go deep within a context knowing that the boundaries are there as a ... hmmm... safety net? I think it's cool - and probably very healing, as much as I am sure it brings up. Kind of a Pandora's box.... letting out so much on the entire spectrum.
Glad you were able to post about it.
kiya

Hey Pink

I think it's so cool that the two of you were able to talk openly and honestly about the ET - and that he trusted the relationship, and you, and himself, enough to talk about HIS feelings too.

I really want to hear about you next session - what happens after a session like this one??!!

[kessa19]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
pinksoil said:
I assure you that all is safe.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
You really seem to be a strong person and I admire your courage and your willingness to explore this relationship. Part of me thinks wow, this situation could really be a growth experience and a wonderful turning point for you. Then another part of me thinks, Please please please be careful. I'm truly scared for you. I hope you're not angry that I'm saying that. I just worry for your emotional well being. Does he have a supervisor who he consults with on this issue? Okay enough of being mother hen. I'll shut up now. I honestly do wish you the best.

[kim_johnson]

There is something about it, isn't there...

You don't *want* to let it go...

I wonder why...

[kim_johnson]

I just mean... That it seems to be starting new threads about feeling the feelings rather than following older threads through to completion of coming to understand those feelings.

He is training at a psychoanalytic institute - isn't he? That leads me to believe that he is likely to have supervision regarding this. I am hoping that he has a view of the utility of fostering these feelings. Because it seems to me... That he is doing more in the way of fostering / encouraging these feelings than he is doing in the way of accepting BOTH the presence and absence of these feelings...

Which returns me to the issue of: I hope he is getting adequate supervision and has some theoretical rationale behind his self-disclosure. Otherwise... I'd be worried about his narcissism (and the potential negative impact on you in the sense of reinforcing your false belief that sexual feelings pave the way to intimacy). I also hope... That he has sufficiently worked through his own sexual transference feelings (and the rationale for them) in his own therapy... Otherwise... No good will come of it methinks...

[winterbaby]

Well your T seems human, as he stated. Take one intelligent female and male in the same room for (years?) with lots of emotional intimacy and of course the feelings can fly on both ends. It probably was pretty obvious he had those feelings even before he said it right? One thing I gather from your post, he seems so sure nothing will happen. Well of course it could happen! As he said, he's human. It's happened to many T's and clients who said it would never happen. So, yes, he is acknowledging his humanness but hopefully is getting supervision and being honest in supervision about this humanness. In the meantime enjoy it, I guess!

[(JD)]

[Simcha]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
kim_johnson said:
I just mean... That it seems to be starting new threads about feeling the feelings rather than following older threads through to completion of coming to understand those feelings.

He is training at a psychoanalytic institute - isn't he? That leads me to believe that he is likely to have supervision regarding this. I am hoping that he has a view of the utility of fostering these feelings. Because it seems to me... That he is doing more in the way of fostering / encouraging these feelings than he is doing in the way of accepting BOTH the presence and absence of these feelings...

Which returns me to the issue of: I hope he is getting adequate supervision and has some theoretical rationale behind his self-disclosure. Otherwise... I'd be worried about his narcissism (and the potential negative impact on you in the sense of reinforcing your false belief that sexual feelings pave the way to intimacy). I also hope... That he has sufficiently worked through his own sexual transference feelings (and the rationale for them) in his own therapy... Otherwise... No good will come of it methinks...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Excellent points kim_johnson. I too, thought it was a very bad idea for him to answer the way that he did, as I can't see any good come out of it at all. It seems to only reinforce the transference issue, and I have to wonder about the stability of the therapist now. He should tread very carefully, because this is incredibly fragile right now.

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

Excellent points kim_johnson. I too, thought it was a very bad idea for him to answer the way that he did, as I can't see any good come out of it at all. It seems to only reinforce the transference issue, and I have to wonder about the stability of the therapist now. He should tread very carefully, because this is incredibly fragile right now.

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

There is quite a bit of literature out there on the therapist's disclosure of these feelings. Here is an exerpt from an interview with Dr. Florence Rosellio-- she wrote "Deepening Intimacy in Psychotherapy-- Using the Erotic Transference and Countertransference:

Manny Ghent's (1990) ideas on surrender are wonderful in the way he understands the notion of emotionally yielding to another individual. Not just the patient, but also the therapist must yield to emotions and be vulnerable in order for there to be therapeutic developments. Ghent is very spiritual in his response to the individual's inner world, and I've kept this idea as my analytic mantra in work with patients. If I am asking a patient to become vulnerable, then I'd better be prepared to take a similar emotional risk in the treatment if it's indicated or thoughtfully requested by the patient.

She also said:

Well, I think the heart of psychoanalysis lies in the therapist. I believe our practices depend on our character and how we present ourselves and relate to people. One reason my patients attach to me or have emotions about me is because I try to become as real and as vulnerable as I can be. I create a demand within myself to be as emotionally available as I can be with patients. My feeling is that if I'm asking my patients to take emotional risks in their treatments, I must be willing and capable of taking similar emotional risks in their therapy if it is therapeutically appropriate.

And finally:

I think being tentative in a treatment with erotic feelings is a really good idea because it heightens our awareness of risk. Still, I don't believe we can work with an erotic transference until we feel ready.... In the same way we wait for patients to present their inner lives, they seem unconsciously to wait until we've emotionally conquered the inner struggles they create with us. It's something we know about each other in developing intimacies.

I love the idea of the therapist willing to take a risk and be vulnerable.. just as the patient is expected to do.

As far as "reinforcing the transference," I'm not sure what you mean. Do you see anything wrong with a patient having transference? We transfer feelings everyday to everyone that we come in contact to. It isn't a question of reinforcement.

Also, I am quite tired of the word "fragile." If I was so "fragile," I wouldn't be able to do this type of work with him. I'm sure a lot of people like to describe themselves, or the situations that they are in, as fragile, but I prefer not to.

And in answer to Kim, no he is not training at a psychoanalytic institute. He used to work out of there, but he no longer does.

[seeker1950]

Pinksoil,
You are intelligent and educated in Psychology. I'm not sure what you mean by entitling this thread "Sexual Healing."
I know you will not like what I have to say here, but is expressing erotic feelings toward the T and having it reciprocated, in some way going to promote sexual healing? From what do you need healing?
Or are you looking for an emotional, sexual, erotic entanglement with this man, who may be vulnerable himself, or who may be putting himself in a position to manipulate you. Be careful, as others have said here.
My opinion and approach to the idea of therapy may be primitive and even naive by your standards, but it sounds like you are playing with fire here, and that broaching these kinds of issues could be unethical for a therapist.
Patty

Geez, no one gets my sense of humor. The title of this post is a Marvin Gaye song.

[little*rhino]

Pinky, you and i discussed this at length in chat - fab convo i might add, open, direct and interesting i thought. i have always appreciated your openness to well thought out points of view. So, i'm not going into it here as well. But this caught my eye
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
your false belief that sexual feelings pave the way to intimacy

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
i have never ever heard you say that you have such a belief.. at least not in the way this seems to imply. What i have gotten from what you have said is that you feel that the pathway to intimacy may include feelings that we experience as sexual... and that the appearance of sexual feelings should be faced, and not suppressed, ignored or rejected.. that the appearance of erotic transference is often a cue, and some say necessary but i cannot speak for you there, that there is a deepening intimacy.

i dont think that says the same thing as "paving the way" for intimacy.

judging someone else's beliefs as false seems a fair bit narcissistic in itself imo.

[Simcha]

Let me ask your opinion Pinksoil:
Do you think it is proper or helpful to have a therapist reciprocate the patient feelings of eroticism toward him?

As a professional, a personal relationship can never come to fruition with a patient, which is why I can't see anything other than the patient getting hurt. The American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct might be a good reference

American Psychological Association Ethical Principles-Code of Conduct

The code of ethics talks about behavior.

I'm not sure if you took the time to read the parts from that interview that I posted in one of my previous replies, but if you did, you would see that I agree with Dr. Rosiello's view of the therapist taking some risks in the relationship.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a personal relationship results from emotional disclosure.

I'm not sure that I see the terrible harm in a therapist using emotional honesty in regards to feelings-- remember, feelings, dreams, and fantasies are not against the code of ethics-- it is what the therapist chooses to do with those things that matters.

I am very open to the idea of emotinal disclosure by the therapist-- with appropriate discretion, of course. It should not be done in every relationship.

It is one thing if you want to disagree, or have your opposing opinions to what I posted-- believe me, I expected that. But it really isn't necessary to post a link to the code of ethics-- careful and honest emotional disclosure is not unethical-- so let's not confuse things.

[skeksi]

How do you interpret your T's disclosure? That is, what did he emotionally disclose to you? I wonder if a difference in how you interpreted it and how others are interpreting it is contributing here.

[kim_johnson]

I could be a bit confused... But I thought there was a thread before on your realizing that you *hadn't* had sexual feelings about your therapist for a bit. And so then... You started to think of him sexually *intentionally* once you had realized that you hadn't had sexual feelings about your therapist for a bit.

That stood out for me. I wondered why you would *intentionally* think sexual thoughts / feelings about your therapist in the face of realizing that you hadn't naturally done that for a time. I thought that that could come from beliefs such as 'sexual feelings are what promotes an intense bond / connection / intimacy that simply can't be had without the presence of sexual feelings'. I'm not saying that you ever came out and explicitly said that that is what you believe - but I am saying that I find it interesting that you *intentionally* fostered sexual feelings for your therapist once you noticed that they hadn't simply occurred to you for a time.

And then I got to thinking: Maybe you do (implicitly) think that sexual feelings / thoughts enable a degree of intimacy that simply can't be had by any other way. And then I got to wondering whether that might be true. And then I thought that there ARE examples of deep bonds and intimacy that (arguably admittedly) aren't accompanied or facilitated by sexual thoughts / feelings (such as parenthood, childhood, sisterhood, brotherhood, same sex and opposite sex friendships and so on).

I find it really very interesting indeed that you felt the need / desire to intentionally foster sexual feelings upon noticing their absence from your end. Best I can figure... That is due to some implicitly held beliefs about the role of sexual feelings / thoughts in intimate relationships.

What worries me about your therapist... Is whether he is happy to deal with the fact that you didn't have sexual thoughts / feelings about him for a time... Or whether your disclosing this to him (have you disclosed this to him?) would be taken by him to be some kind of narcissistic insult / injury to himself. Because if he would take it as an insult / injury then... He hasn't sufficiently worked through his issues around this to help you work through and transcend those feelings.

I understand that sexual transference CAN be used for good - and CAN be used to facilitate intimacy. What I'm worrying about is whether... He is as capable of dealing with their absence as he is capable of dealing with their presence. And if not... If he also believes that sexual feelings simply ARE a part of intimacy - then he simply isn't in the position to assist you in working THROUGH your transference feelings.

[little*rhino]

i again, can't speak for pink, nor would i want to.. she's extremely capable and eloquent. And kim, i hope you understand I'm not being critical, you don't seem to be taking it that way, but i wanted to clarify.

i could be mistaken, but from what i understand of the psychological approach pink seem to engage in... the idea of sexual feelings being present or not are indicators rather than facilitators. In psychoanalysis there seems ( and god, i am NO expert on this) to be a strong interest in exploring self through exploration of the stages of psycho-social, or psycho-sexual development. One moves through the stages seeking the problem areas. Am i wrong on this? If I am correct, then the development or absence of sexual feelings would indicate a deeper progression. I hope pink can clarify this.

also.. i am reminded, due to my own beliefs, of tantric practices... not tantric sex, which tangential really. The joining of two minds is a powerful and awareness-bringing experience. The reason it is used sexually is because it can awaken sexual feelings as the mind grapples (spell?) with the degree of depth it faces. It can be very scary and very rewarding mentally. i see sexual feelings as so secondary and incidental to the larger process.

OTOH, yes, BOTH need awareness and great care. Particularly considering the power dynamic. My caution to them both is to not fall into the trap of the sexual feeling aspect at all.. it's not really important or helpful. It's a distraction of the mind... the same is true in deep meditation practice, one can become extremely aroused or angry or just about anything.. during long practice i mean... but one must move through that.

Should a T disclose personal feelings? Sexual ones? I think that answer is as varied as the relationships themselves. i prefer it and have told my T that... we talk about what it means for me when he tells me he is frustrated, for example. i get to work through a real interaction, not just a one-sided one. He has said I am one of maybe two clients with whom he can be that open (and swear if he feels the need ). We have a pretty open working relationship and it is healing for me.

i'm editing because i thought of one other thing... please consider the factor that pink has expressed that she has a deep-seeded fear that her T would be afraid of her and her feelings.. and the expression i read is that the fear of rejection based on sexual feelings is being equated to an overall rejection of her entire being as a whole. It would mean confirmation that she is somehow defective. I think it's a powerful thing to work through.

i'm more interested in pink's feeling surrounding the interaction, etc, than whether it should or should not have occurred.

cheers

I think that saying that I didn't have any sexual feeling for a period of time was a misperception on my part. Rather, the feelings were not as conscious as they had been. I think that may have been because other levels of intimacy and connection were growing-- so while the sexual feelings were still there, they became sort of buried for a little while, while I allowed the other parts of the connection to foster.

[Dinah]

I've felt the sexual energy of your sessions through your posts, even when you weren't explicitly discussing it. I'm not a very sexual person, but I think that some of the dialog you've shared would arouse sexual feelings in me with any reasonably attractive male. The fact that he admitted it isn't all that much of a difference.

Maybe because I'm not a very sexual person, it doesn't seem inevitable to me that it would lead to physical intimacy. I've certainly been in friendships that weren't going anywhere, but that got a slight extra charge from small levels of attraction. I don't think that's a bad thing in general. I think it may be more problematic in therapy.

But I am also very aware that any relationship with attraction on both sides, and where the attraction is frankly admitted and discussed, can become foreplay. Whether it leads to actual physical intimacy or not, whether the tension buildup leads to masturbation or fantasies during sex with a partner, prolonged arousal in a relationship, even without a release, can be very pleasurable. Just look how many TV shows are built on that concept, not to mention the number of movies where it plays a part. "I really want to have you, but I can't because of circumstances" can be more arousing and enjoyable than "I really want to have you. Ok, now I have."

There is a fine, but distinct line, between discussing an attraction and acting out on it, even if the acting out doesn't involve physical contact. It takes a certain amount of detachment on the part of the therapist not to get caught up in the whole thing.

I hope that he is checking in with himself to discover if he's gaining gratification and pleasure from the arousal. Or if he's truly able to take a therapeutic stance.

I have no real idea whether he can or not. And it is his responsibility not yours. But my experience is that when therapists come out of the spell of any sort of intimacy, and realize that they've gone too far with the boundaries, it's the client who pays the price. That's not just true of sexual boundaries, but any sort of boundaries.

Sigh. I think therapy in its purest form is similar enough to the romantic mating dance programmed in our deepest brains that it can lead to sexual attraction. If you add mutual attraction and discussion of mutual attraction... Sounds scary to me. Which may just be my own issues cropping up.

[gardenergirl]

Great post, Dinah. It got me to thinking about intimacy and how it can be physical, emotional, spiritual, and/or any combination. Emotional intimacy can have a similar build-up and sort of climax to it, too, as can spiritual intimacy. I think it can be easy to get them all tangled up or confused as the feelings can feel so similar and can occur in the mind and the body (and soul, I guess) for any and all three "types".

Expressions of emotion from a therapist can contribute towards a move towards feelings of intimacy of any kind, I think. Warmer or more tender feelings, erotic feelings, a sense of shared "moment" or "gift", something transcendent...all of these have an effect on us. Personally, I tend to retreat after times of increased or growing intimacy of any kind. I guess I kind of need to go back and re-group and try to deal with all the stuff it stirs up in me, most of which has to do with an intense fear of rejection. I guess that the more intimate I am with someone, in any form, the more rejection will hurt, or maybe the more I think it's likely. I don't know. I've seen this in my therapy. I've seen it in personal relationships. I've seen it in my marriage. Probably at online forums, too.

Therapy is definitely a place where one can explore these dynamics. Safety is so important for it, though, to feel okay with intimacy and identifying our own boundaries, how to express and enforce them, when to modify them, etc. But boy, oh boy, what a load of trust has to be in place, because we are making ourselves more and more vulnerable to the one we are becoming more intimate with, regardless of the type of intimacy.

Okay, done rambling now, I think.

gg

[Dinah]

I guess that's the issue. How much safety there is.

I agree that it's not solely an issue related to sex. Any sort of mutual intimacy would be similar. But the therapist has to be able to keep the therapy space safe by holding those boundaries.

At times it occurs to me that my therapist gets more than my money in my sessions. That our relationship and the emotional intimacy are rewarding to him as well. That I am important to him. It feels good of course. But it also makes me nervous. At times he seems to do an internal boundary check and draws in a bit, and I get hurt a bit. If the emotional intimacy ever gets too scary to him, I'll be hurt a lot.

I do the boundary check too. Sometimes I notice that he's trying to protect me, or doesn't want me to feel bad, and I remind him that we can't do therapy if he's trying to keep me from feeling bad. Sometimes he has to delve into things, even if they cause me pain.

He's got really good boundaries in some ways, so I don't worry about it too much. He may be fond of me, and our relationship may be rewarding to him. But he still watches those boundaries. Our sessions end on time, I doubt he thinks of me between sessions. There is never any question of friendship between us.

But I still watch the boundaries myself as well. Because sooner or later they're likely to regret something or feel guilty about something or nervous about something. And when they do, we get hurt.

Sexual intimacy has a greater potential for regret. So there is a greater chance of being hurt.

It would be nice if therapy was always safe. It would be nice if licenses came with guarantees. But I know we've all seen enough to know it's not always safe. Clients do get hurt. That may be true in all relationships, but with the power differential, it seems more true in therapy.

I don't know. I always call for reciprocity. But if there is true reciprocity then the therapist is not minding the boundaries. If there's true therapy, there can't be true reciprocity. Therapy requires a space. Space requires a certain detachment.

I just like to be careful. I *don't* trust my therapist to take care of everything.

Mind you, I trust him completely. But I trust, and tie up the camel anyway.

It's a difficult thing, this therapy relationship.

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

But my experience is that when therapists come out of the spell of any sort of intimacy, and realize that they've gone too far with the boundaries, it's the client who pays the price. That's not just true of sexual boundaries, but any sort of boundaries.


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

This is the one thing that would scare me if I was in a similar situation. I may be overly sensitive to this because I ended up in the bed of a minister who was acting as my counselor when I was in high school....and the repurcussions from that were pretty deep and long lasting. My current T is very, very available to me - I absolutely trust his boundaries, so I'm not worried about that, but we do have a lot of contact outside of session through e-mails and phone calls. Not in a friendship way - I'm just at a point where I need extra support and he's at a point where he can give it. But EVERY time our relationship makes any sort of shift towards more intimacy or even more comfort, I panic a bit, worrying that I will be abandoned the way I was when things went way too far with the minister in high school (he put a stop to the therapeutic relationship after he brought me to his apartment and his bed).

So, I guess this is a long way of saying that I would be scared of the boundaries being redrawn after that type of disclosure. I don't think that will happen with you, pink. I really think your T knows what he's doing.

Just came back from session.

Want a refund.

Grrrr.

More later...

[kim_johnson]

> i hope you understand I'm not being critical...

Sure. We are having a discussion... Different opinions are fine (life would be pretty boring if nobody ever disagreed / had a different perspective).

> the idea of sexual feelings being present or not are indicators rather than facilitators.

Indicators of what? That is the million dollar question, really...

> In psychoanalysis there seems ( and god, i am NO expert on this) to be a strong interest in exploring self through exploration of the stages of psycho-social, or psycho-sexual development.

Freudian / ego psychology is focused on sexual development because Freud focused on Oedipal conflict as the source of psychopathology. The majority of other approaches focus on conflicts that were thought to have occurred PRIOR to the Oedipal stage, however, so they typically aren't focused on sexual feelings in the way that Freud was focused on sexual feelings.

Freud and ego psychology more generally has a tendency to sexualize ALL relationships. Little kids (around 2 or 3) are thought to have sexual feelings for their parents. Brothers and sisters are thought to have sexual feelings for each other. Freud basically proceeded to sexualize ALL relationships.

There has been much controversy over whether Freud was right to have done so even if we limit his claims to apply to repressed upper middle class viennese female jews living in victorian society. Even if we grant him that there has been much much much much MUCH more controversy over whether Freud is right about ALL (read 'our') present society's relationships being like that.

Other psychoanalytic theorists don't accept Freud's sexualization of relationships / intimacy in general. They consider that there are relationships that can be DEEPLY intimate that are not inherently sexual. The majority of people think that little kids do not typically have sexual longings / thoughts for their parents. The majority of people think that parents do not typically have sexual longings / thoughts for their infant children. The majority of people think that uncles and aunties and sisters and brothers and grandmothers and grandfathers and friends... do not typically have sexual longings / thoughts for their friends and relations.

The absence of sexual longings / thoughts for friends and relations is NOT supposed to signify any lack of intimacy or closeness or liking or attachment. Thus... Why think that the PRESENCE of sexual longings / thoughts signifies intimacy or closeness or liking or attachment? There are many examples of sexualization in our culture that divorce sexual longings / thoughts from any genuine intimacy (think of the objectification of sexuality in soft and hard porn including movies and music videos and books where they attempt to foster sexual feeling in response to an object that is not responsive to you at all).

So... Why should a therapist-patient relationship be experienced as sexual rather than as fatherly or brotherly or uncle-like or friendlike? Why should sexual longings / thoughts signify intense depth of intimacy when 1) sexual longings / thoughts do not signify that in general and when 2) it is (arguably - unless one is Freudian / ego psychological) possible to have far deeper and more intimate bonds and attachments in the absence of sexual longings / thoughts?

I don't see that deep intimacy inevitably or typically leads to sexual feelings / thoughts...

And I don't see that sexual feelings / thoughts inevitably or typically leads to deep intimacy...