OY VEY. T tomorrow.

is this thread going to be locked any time soon?


just curious....

I don't think it should be locked... it was a little tense before, but I think that there is some good discussion going on now.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
happysappy said:
Just a question, didn't the hand holding session happen after your session were you confided in him that you had those feelings, the same thing with the special email?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> I can't really put an exacct time on this because, to be honest, although I confided my feelings, he already knew about them way back. I know that the hand holding occurred way before I delved into those feelings. The email, I'm not sure when.. But I do know that I directly asked for it.. it wasn't his idea at all. I can been sure, though, that the physical touch was before I deeply admitted those feelings-- that is not to say that he didn't know they existed.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
happysappy said:
Okay, what if the client, like Pink, who has an intense erotic transference for their T, decided to go for it and jump in the T's lap or something. Is the T suppose to just let them do it, or should their be some boundaries against doing that?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> I actually laughed out loud when I saw this-- not at you, but at the fact that I often have these funny fantasies that I walk into therapy and just into his lap. A) I would NEVER do such a thing because I respect boundaries both as a therapist and as a patient. B) T would freak the %#@&#! out because it has been made very clear what is safe, and where the relationship CANNOT go.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Maybe Pink's T trust that that won't happen and Pink's trusts her T won't cross that line.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Definitely.
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
But it can happen, it happens more than we know, most of this stuff doesn't get reported. I think it is good to be aware that some of this stuff can get kinda muddled in therapy.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
And definitely, again. I totally agree with that. It makes me sick to know that the very people we are supposed to trust to help heal our wounds, are causing further victimization and trauma.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
happysappy said:
Okay, what if the client, like Pink, who has an intense erotic transference for their T, decided to go for it and jump in the T's lap or something. Is the T suppose to just let them do it, or should their be some boundaries against doing that?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> I actually laughed out loud when I saw this-- not at you, but at the fact that I often have these funny fantasies that I walk into therapy and just into his lap. A) I would NEVER do such a thing because I respect boundaries both as a therapist and as a patient. B) T would freak the %#@&#! out because it has been made very clear what is safe, and where the relationship CANNOT go.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Maybe Pink's T trust that that won't happen and Pink's trusts her T won't cross that line.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Definitely.
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
But it can happen, it happens more than we know, most of this stuff doesn't get reported. I think it is good to be aware that some of this stuff can get kinda muddled in therapy.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
And definitely, again. I totally agree with that. It makes me sick to know that the very people we are supposed to trust to help heal our wounds, are causing further victimization and trauma.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
happysappy said:
I think we are having a good discussion here, I don't see the problem. Maybe some of you have heard Pink's story before, but I haven't. I think we all have the option of reading this thread or not. If Pink wants me to stop with my questions, I would respectfully do so.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I like the questions-- because questions mean that you want to learn and that you aren't making immediate judgements. Everyone learns from these threads, and I will literally answer any question asked of me (unless it is ridiculous like, "what is your T's full name?" or "what is your social security number? lol).

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I don't see this as going in circles, I see this as going more in depth. I am understanding more about Pink's relationship more, see where she is coming from, and her thoughts.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
At first, I was quite taken aback by some of the things that were said-- not just by you, but by another member. However, the more we have gotten to discuss, the more I am learning about why you believe the things that you do. I am glad that you are gaining a greater understanding of where you are coming from, and I am gaining the same about you. We are both opening our eyes to different perspectives.

I found it interesting what you said in regards to the timing of physical touch in relation to the admission of sexual feelings. Like I said in a previous post, the physical touch was there already-- and to be honest, the physical touch is symbolic of an intimacy and a closeness that already existed. So whether or not the physical touch was there, the meaings behind it were still present.

I find it interesting to consider the reasons for sexualized transference. i guess i see it as a defense against intimacy, rather than an extension of intimacy. sexualizing an object (in a self-object sense of object) is a way of gaining power over it, holding it paradoxically closer and yet further away, trying the boundaries etc etc.

there has been some discussion of working through sexualized transference feelings. not so much on this thread... and i know other people don't necessarily agree with me... i do tend to think indulging the feelings (in imagination or in reality) is a way of defending against considering the reasons why one is feeling that way... but everyone needs to walk their own path and take things in their own pace...

i am disappointed in him that he didn't follow up on what you both had agreed on with respect to the self-harm, though. makes it that much more likely that you will violate similar contracts in the future... but then nobody is perfect... life is a learning curve for us all, methinks.

I haven't SI'ed since that session in which I told him that I broke the contract...

and before that, hadn't SI'ed for five weeks after making the initial contract...

so I would say that things were probably handled pretty well; most importantly, it worked for me.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
most importantly, it worked for me.

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

YAY!!!

Bottom line, that is the most important thing.

Many warm fuzzies for you and your T -- may you keep finding the strength to love yourself!!

> I haven't SI'ed since that session in which I told him that I broke the contract...

That is great! I'm a bit wary of saying that... I know I certainly had mixed feelings around the time when I was stopping SI'ing.. Was very ambivalent about whether it was a good thing or not...

I do think that there is something to the idea that people respond to the way we reinforce them... But I also think that there is something to the idea that people are able to transcend reinforcement histories somewhat by rational reflection and deliberation.

I guess it is up to us whether we do (whether we can) use events for good or for ill. I am happy about the reduction in self-harm, though. Mostly because... A while after stopping (quite a while, typically) people say they feel better that they stopped and that they are glad they have. Hang in there...

It is curious to me that some words are invisible. If I were a linguist, I might do an extended research project on this...

such words that are invisible include the following:

"The point of the contract was that I hold on to him as long as I can rather than turn to SI"

"I just threw out a number - any number. The number wasn't important - it was never about the number. It was about maintaining that connection with him."

"T and I both talked through this together and made the choice together that I stay that session and not be sent home. It was more important for me to be there and deal with those day's issues."

Kiya, just so there is no more misunderstanding, here is a copy of what pink wrote about the contract back in June in the thread "have I got a deal for you"

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
T said, "I am going to propose a deal. You pick a number to limit your cutting. If you cannot limit your cutting to this number, then you will not be allowed your second session for the week." I immediately started laughing and snorting because I didn't believe him. I said, "Yeah, ok... what are you going to do? Kick me out if I come in and tell you that I have exceeded the limit?" T said, "If you come in and tell me you have exceeded the limit, I will tell you that you have to go. I will not charge you for the session." Then he told me that my other option was to call him beforehand and let him know that I could not keep my part of the deal and that I wouldn't be coming in. Laughter stopped. Random, nervous giggles punctuated the silence. "Oh, you're serious?" I asked. "I'm serious," T said. "Wow," I told him. "You can be a real %#@&#! when you want to!" He said, "Yeah, I know-- but this is your gift for bringing this up five minutes before the end of a session."

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

This is what was said. Do you understand why some of us had issues with the T going back on his word? Alot of us have been there and care, so we tend to remember the contract.

And here is the paragraph that followed, because that is pretty important, too:

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

T and I both agreed that we knew that I would never lie to him about the number of times I cut. I have never lied to him. I never would. He knows this. I know this. I told him that it was impossible for me to pick a number of cuts for in-between sessions. For me, it could be 99 or 14-- it's all the same because it never feels like enough. In order to shut him up, I yelled, "Okay!! 23!" (I know it sounds like a high number, but I can get pretty out of control with my SI). Anyway, we decided it wouldn't be me so much about the exact number as it would be about my process during the times in which I need to SI. We agreed that I would try really hard to ground myself by connected to the moments in which I am in the office with him-- moments in which I feel safe and connected. The basis of this is to be able to think back and connect to the times in which I am able to tolerate overwhelming emotions without hurting myself.

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

I think that maybe the point is to use situations for good rather than harm if at all possible. I guess it would be a fairly natural response for someone to feel like the contract wasn't important to the therapist since he didn't deliver on the consequences that he had promised. Or perhaps that he is unable to hold appropriate boundaries. Or unable to teach his clients about appropriate cause and effect relationships in social interactions. But then sometimes people %#@&#! up (therapists included). Whether his action is helpful or harmful largely depends on Pinksoils response to this, I guess...

I don't know. SOmetimes a fairly secure relationship (where trust and consequences for violations have already been fairly established) can survive such things unscathed. Or perhaps better off even.

Only time will tell...

So, i can conclude - in my linguistics study - that people only see what they want to see and not the whole thing.
Thanks for the clarification.
My study is complete.
White flag.
I give up.

i don't really follow...

people have a preference for single mindedness over completeness. that has been established in the psychological literature. here is one example:

you can present stimuli to the left eye then the right eye then the left eye then the right eye etc etc... in such a way that the stimuli is being presented to the right hemisphere of the brain then the left hemisphere then the right hemisphere etc etc.

when you ask people what they see they report rapidly switching or alternating percepts rather than integrating the information into a more unified whole or gestalt.

people have a preference for single mindedness over completeness (in general) and people tend to swing from one pole to another pole over synthesizing the polarities (in general). developing those capacities (to complete or to synthesize) is pretty hard going...

something EVERYONE could probably stand to get better at ;-)

sometimes it can be hard when people focus on what is wrong rather than assisting with developing a more unified / integrated understanding. often i find myself struggling with unification / integration... but i can't for the life of me figure out what to do?

one has to move forward from this point rather than getting hung up on grieving the past methinks. or at least... there is probably some kinda balance in the vicinity...

Interesting study.
Maybe sound is influential, too. When you consider that the right ear sends signals (sound) to the left hemisphere of the brain and the left ear sends to the right hemisphere, it's a wonder we can make sense out of anything !

Also, I think that we have such an overwhelming tendency to judge all things that we miss opportunities to just see things, without judgement.

Kiya, I've read the whole thread, back when it was originally posted and now. Perhaps you shouldn't do a linguistics study without a degree in psychology so you would know that clients often interpret words differently than they are stated. Like Kim said, if it doesn't cause harm in the long run for pink, then great. For many people, this would be very counterproductive to stopping SI, by letting the client know that she is free to SI without any real consequences. The whole point is to get a client to reach out for help BEFORE SI, to use more constructive skills instead. If I know my T won't see me if I SI over the limit, I am more motivated to stop.

Pink, I'm glad that you haven't SI'd since and can get back on track. In DBT, when I felt like SI'ing, I was instructed to call my therapist 24/7 to get help to use skills instead. That connection was crucial to stopping the urges and behavior because I knew that my T knew in the moment, and cared whether I did it or not. She was invested in me, and I didn't want to let her down. Her caring in the moment, the connection (because usually during SI there is a disconnect internally), was very important.

Sorry, Kim, I don't know what study you're referring to,but with flashing a llight in the dark, back and forth between two points, people DO integrate and see one movng light. Similar integration occurs with all of the optical illusions. Our visual perceptions, at least, tend to be gestaltish. I have no idea whether this generalizes to thought integration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_rivalry

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

Not sure whether there is a deeper moral in precisely when, or not...

and here it is applied to thought.

(i'm sorry - the link won't post correctly. search "thesis antithesis synthesis" in wikipedia and you will find it)

marsha linehan used that as the basis for her 'dialectics' approach to cognitive behavior therapy...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
pinksoil said:
Just to set the record straight here...

I am not 'in love" with my T, lol. I am in love with my husband. I have loving feelings towards my T, as well as sexual transference, and tons of other feelings.

The way that you described my session is in your words, Happy-- not mine. You wrote, "He held your hands, looked into your eyes, and created a special email." You make it sound like a romance novel, lol.

Let's break it down:

He holds my hand when I feel ungrounded. It is his way of using physical contact to help ground me and to help with connection. I use physical contact with my clients, as well. Just like my T, I ask my clients first, to make sure they are comfortable. My T also explained how hand holding can be a type of physical contact without any sexual feeling attached to it. I can honestly say that when my T touches my hand, sexual feelings are not there. Caring, protective, connected feelings take over.

He looks into my eyes because... um, pretty much any therapist witih half a brain makes eye contact.

He created an email account for me to write to... because I asked him for what I needed (didn't manipulate him-- I'm such a good borderline!) T and I both know that I aside from being a therapist, I am a writer. It is a way for me to express myself in a way that, verbally, I cannot.

Also, for those of you who are about to call the board of ethics because my T touched my hand... he doesn't hug. When I expressed feelings of wanting to be held/hugged, he explained how feelings can get really confused if that were to happen.

As to answer your question, if I would touch a patient who expressed loving/sexual feelings for me-- well, what is "a patient?" There are 990823673 types of patients. When I was interning at the psych hospital, I often used physical contact with patients. One man was quite sexually preoccupied with me. He was also completely psychotic. We had a good relationship, and he asked for a hug. No, I did not give him a hug. I told him, "Let's shake hands instead." This was a person who literally had no idea what was appropriate, and what was not. If it was a patient who expressed feelings of love/sexuality, but who also had significant insight and awareness into the relationship and the boundaries, then yes, I would use physical contact. Again, the type of physical contact depends on the individual. Hugs are only appropriate in certain situations. Some people-- I would not even hold hands. Perhaps I will just touch their arm as they are leaving.

My previous professor (who I know go to for supervision as a therapist) is like Yalom in the way that she uses physical contact, in some way, with every client. She taught me that some individuals have not been touched by anyone in years. Some individuals have never been told that they look great on a particular day, or that they have a beautiful smile. I am not a stuffy/blank screen type of therapist. I never will be. I am definitely more open than my T-- I use certain amounts of self disclosure. You also have to cater to your population and know who you are working with-- understand the culture. I have a caseload of around 150 people. Probably about 145 of them are African American. A lot are much older than I am. I am a white chick, originally from the suburbs of Manhattan. It is absolutely laughable to think that I could connect with these individuals if I wasn't willing to reveal certain parts of myself, and be open to physical closeness and touch.

I will never forget when I was working in the ICU of the psych hospital and a patient who I had worked with, who was around my age, was being discharged. As I said goodbye to him, he asked for a hug. I gave him a hug. Most often, you can tell by the body language what is meant by the hug. I didn't sense anything sexual about it. Later on, I spoke with the psychiatrist about it to ask him if he thought that what I did was appropriate. The psychiatrist was shocked-- not because I had hugged the man, but because the man had come into the hospital so severely paranoid, that he wouldn't even come near anyone. Both the psychiatrist and my supervisor felt that the hug was an important part of his therapy.

So I just illustrate all this to show that there are countless connections, meanings, situations, etc. Nothing in therapy is one way; nothing is prescribed.

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

You can be my T anyday Pinksoil... but if you grab my hands, your done!!
LOL jk

You're right, Kim, sometimes perceptions are integrated and sometimes not. I guess it's left to research to figure out when and why.