quote:

It is why I do not and never will agree with the blanket ' no touch' school of therapy. I know people here have therapists who are like that, and I know they want to defend their therapists to the hilt and back. But sometimes it is possible to see that there are situations where that school of thought, that 'modality' or 'ideology' is actually damaging. I would hope a truly noble and wise therapist would have what it takes to stop being rigid to his contrived boundary and do the right thing rather than simply abide by his rigid rulings.

You have every right to express your opinion on this topic and you are also completely entitled to never agree with the "blanket 'no touch' school of therapy." Nor would I argue with the importance of touch to human beings, it is a powerful way that human beings use to communicate. I also would not wish to gainsay how healing you have felt touch has been for you.

I have stated over and over and over that touch can be used for healing in therapy and that many people have, and their therapists have, used touch effectively in healing. Shrinklady is a big proponent of touch in therapy. I strongly believe and have stated on numerous occasions that if a client believes that touch is absolutely necessary to their healing, then they should find a practitioner who uses touch in their work. I would be a fool to do otherwise, with so much evidence to the contrary just in the small sample of people who post on this forum.

So to make it extremely, undeniably clear, I believe that touch can be healing.

What I do have a problem with is your insistence that a therapist MUST use touch to be considered "noble and wise" by you and considered "rigid" and "contrived" if they don't agree with you. I believe it is wrong to dogmatically insist that ANY one approach to therapy is the only way. There are a lot of different people out there looking for help, and there are a lot of therapists practicing in a lot of modalities. Not all approaches work for all clients, nor are all therapists good for all clients. Part of effective therapy is seeking out a therapist who is effective for you. Studies have proven time and again that it is the strength of the alliance which predicts effective outcomes, not the modality practiced.

The ONLY reason I am responding to this is that I find your assertions potentially damaging for two reasons.

The withholding of touch is not necessarily damaging in a therapeutic relationship. I am not saying this to defend my therapist "to the hilt;" after 33 years of practice and a highly respected reputation, he has no need of my defense. I am saying it because his withholding of touch proved to be very effective for ME. I am not the only one that has found this to be true. I am more than willing to concede that what is healing for me will not be healing for everyone. I would appreciate if you would do the same. Just as you fear damage from someone getting attached to a therapist with a "no touch" boundary, I fear the damage that could be done by someone walking away from an effective, healing relationship because they have been told that a therapist MUST use touch to be effective. Especially since based on some people's experiences, they may need to not act out with touch in order to heal, with the same depth of need you are insisting exists for you to have touch in your relationship.

The second reason I worry is that we have no right to DEMAND anything out of our therapists. Just as they have no right to keep us as their patient. Boundaries are how we know where one person begins and the other ends. Most, if not all, trauma victims struggle with boundaries, because our trauma involved systemic violation of our boundaries. So part of healing is learning that we have boundaries and that they need to be respected. But we cannot learn that by insisting that we can set our own boundaries but the other person cannot. We can only decide, in therapy as in real life, whether we want to continue in relationship with someone who sets a boundary in a place we find uncomfortable. That discomfort can spring from a lot of places. In some cases, mine being a case in point, it can come from a wish to avoid facing some things. So insisting that any given boundary MUST be damaging can provide an excuse to walk away when what is really necessary is to stay and work through the feelings that arise.

It can be difficult to discern between a therapist's actions being damaging in a therapeutic relationship versus pain that arises from our own maladaptive coping strategies being brought to light. Each person has to work through and decide that for themselves. One of the reasons that this forum can provide guidance is by allowing so many to speak of their own experiences so that others can use that information to decide which is going on for themselves. I think each of us should tread lightly and not be too quick to insist what someone else's therapy should be.

quote:

they have been told that a therapist MUST use touch to be effective.

and where exactly did I say that, AG?

You will find that I don't.

You were simply reacting.

Just thought I'd join in and say that I'm really on the fence with this one. And it's based on my own experience of course.

I have craved for touch from my T for probably close to 9 months now. I've been seeing him for a little over four years now and we had never touched at all, not even a handshake, until a month or two ago. We did have some accidental touching "incidents" as we walked out of his office but suddenly he put a foot of distance between us, which of course made me feel repulsive.

However, now that he IS incorporating touch into my therapy, it's bringing up other issues for me. I had craved it so deeply and thought for sure it was the way to my healing. And I had myself convinced that I only wanted physical comforting and now I'm having to deal with wanting more than that from him and then questioning if I really do want more or if that is some old stuff from the past, that when I've really wanted comfort, I just had sex and got the two things confused. The whole thing has been incredibly painful and I'm dealing with this stuff on my own right now because I haven't had the courage yet to broach the issue with T. I'm also dealing with some anger issues that I wrote about on another thread and feelings of powerlessness. And so while it did not turn out to be the healing experience I thought it would, at least not yet, it has led to other issues being brought to the surface that probably needed to see the light of day.

I do think it really is a very individual thing and unique to every therapeutic dyad. The therapist has every right to have a no touch boundary as much as the client has every right to have a no touch boundary. On the other hand, touch is such a deep and human need that no one should ever be made to feel ashamed for wanting it. I think a good therapist would help a client navigate through these issues and get to the bottom of it, hopefully all the while leaving self-respect intact. Unfortunately there are bad and unscrupulous therapists out there.

But I do also understand on a deep level how hard it would be to leave a therapist when you are in the throes of attachment. When I was absolutely convinced that touch would be healing for me but also very attached to my T, I found myself in a bit of a quandry. I finally decided that I needed to respect T's boundaries because we are all entitled to our boundaries. I left open the possibility that if I got to the point where I really felt that I couldn't heal without it that I might have to consider getting it from another source, maybe as an adjunct to my therapy. I had never talked to my T about all this. Just worked this out on my own.

Good luck to everyone struggling with it regardless of whether or not you get it from your T.

Liese

Liese

quote:

I finally decided that I needed to respect T's boundaries because we are all entitled to our boundaries. I left open the possibility that if I got to the point where I really felt that I couldn't heal without it that I might have to consider getting it from another source, maybe as an adjunct to my therapy.

I was going to write something here but you have just taken the words out of my mouth . I have one T that will hug and another that doesn't and I feel comfortable with both. I would never want anybody to do anything that they felt uncomfortable with, especially in the realms of touch, having experienced what that was like to be on the receiving end of that I know it's hard if you are wanting for something that's not possible, but I agree a T being true to themself and their beliefs is much better I think in the long run. Just my opinion of course ....

starfishy

my t is a fan of hugs in therapy i on the other hand am not the first hug was a mistake on both our parts when she asked if she could have one more for her sake after a intense session,it took me 8 months of a hug after every session to say i felt uncomfortable. looking at t through transference goggles made it all the more painful and harder to see her role for what it is and look at therapy objectively. T's sometimes have the best intentions but it needs to be discussed in depth by both parties.

I get end-of-sessions hug and they don't feel comforting....they feel more like a commitment, like I will be back again and she will be there waiting. That probably sounds weird, but not sure how else to say it.

During session, only one time in 18 months, did she lean in towards me, while still sitting on her chair, when I said I was scared. This was a few weeks ago. I remember when she did that, I felt more all of a sudden, and felt close to her and like I could tell her more. Thinking back, I'm glad she didn't touch me, but I'm glad she leaned in like that. It meant a lot to me. I want to tell her that. Lately she has been sitting in a chair really far away from me....I think she thinks it would be better for me and my anxiety. I don't know. Worth her and I talking about I guess.

hmmm...hugs in therapy/from your T...
I have been thinking about this one for almost a year after I saw a client and another T in my T's building hug after they finished a session. Last spring I was going to bring it up to my T or ask her if she hugged, but I didn't. I realized that maybe I would like to be hugged, but was afraid to ask. The only time she has ever touched me in session is when she made some sort of comment about my ex husband that made me fearful. She touched my forearm and told me it was ok and she was just kidding. Over the summer I saw T and a community event and we said hi and she gave me a side hug (arm around the shoulder type). About two months ago I ran into T outside of therapy and we were both not having a great night. We hugged each other and it felt wonderful to me! Our session after that was great. The session after that one wasn't the best though. I go to therapy again this week to work on the termination phase. I'm debating whether or not to ask for a hug in her office or in the hallway before I leave. I'll see what I feel like on that day.

Anyway, I guess my feelings on hugs in therapy is that it has to be up to the T and the client.
If the T has a no touch policy, then that's the way it is. If client doesn't agree, then that particular client hopefully will find a T that will do touch. From what I've heard and read it's up to the T to set the boundaries. Obviously, I believe the client has a right to not be touched if they don't want that.

deleted

(((((((TN))))))

I know this is so painful for you. It's all very hard to understand. There is no easy answer.

Just keep chipping away at those feelings and talking about them with T and maybe eventually, you and he will work something out that you are both comfortable with. I have to give you tons of credit for being brave enough to ask in the first place because I never would have been so brave. I know it doesn't feel brave now or feel good now. But you were and You are. Small consolation. But you've also seen my t do a spontaneous 180 on the topic. So you really never know.

Xoxoxo

Love
Liese

Sadly,

Your therapist sounds really lovely, and it feels warm to read about how your therapist uses touch in your sessions.

I just don't think there are 2 sides of a coin, and that it isn't necessarily a 'victory' to get a therapist to change his/her boundary.

My beliefs are that therapy should be individualized for each patient as well as the dynamics of the patient-therapist relationship. There are therapists with firm beliefs about certain things, and while it is true less psychodynamic therapists use touch than those of humanistic orientations, the dogma you speak of is more relegated to the past (Fruedian) than it is the present. I don't think schools of thought are either or, at least not these days.

Much of what you say reminds me of this article, which imo, is a modern view of touch in therapy. I thought it would be useful to put this link here due to the discussion that ensued. It sounds like you would agree with this article too; however, it is analytic-it describes many facets of the topic, rather than the points you've brough up here and in other posts.

To Touch Or Not To Touch: Exploring the Myth of Prohibition On Touch In Psychotherapy And Counseling

Here are some key reasons why touch such as you describe isn't a black and white (2-sided coin) dilemma:

The meaning of touch can be only understood within the context of the client, the therapeutic relationship, and the therapeutic setting (Zur, 2007a, 2007b). Accordingly, the employment of touch must be carefully considered in its context. Touch can have radically different contextual meanings amongst different clients, therapists, and settings (Hilton, 1997; Horton, et al, 1988, Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998; Smith et al., 1998). What is highly appropriate and effective with one client in a certain situation may be inappropriate and even damaging with another.

In large part, clients' individual factors constitute the context of touch and therefore are of extreme importance. They include presenting problem, diagnosis, personality, history, and in particular, history of abuse, culture and gender. Timing is as important. While a handshake may be appropriate at the beginning of treatment, other forms of touch, such as a hug or a kiss on the cheek may not be. It is essential for the therapist to have explored his or her own relationship to touch issues as well.

Systematic touch should be employed in therapy only when it is well thought out and is likely to have positive clinical effects. Touch must be approached with caution with borderline or acutely paranoid clients. Special sensitivity is also required when working with people who tend to sexualize relationships and/or have been abused, molested or raped. There is also a growing body of knowledge that shows the damage done by the systematic and rigid avoidance of all forms of touch in therapy.

What you said here reminds me of something I wrote in regard to this topic:

quote:

Some people view hugs as somehow stopping the pain by being comforted and because of that we do not feel the pain and so do not heal.

Some people DO need to explore the feelings behind the wants and longings rather than being comforted-it depends on the context. Although we can all have opinions, none of us can judge what is right or wrong in the given situation. That is up to the patient and therapist.

Even Pope and Vasquez (1998), with their major concerns about boundaries and dual relationships, have articulated the potential benefits of touch in psychotherapy: If the therapist is personally comfortable engaging in physical contact with a patient, maintains a theoretical orientation for which therapist-client contact is not antithetical, and has competence (education, training and supervised experience) in the use of touch, then the decision of whether or not to make physical contact with a particular client must be based on a careful evaluation of the clinical needs of the client at that moment. When solidly based upon clinical needs and a clinical rationale, touch can be exceptionally caring, comforting, reassuring, or healing (p. 170).


Sometimes people want touch for non-clinical needs. This could be someone who unknowingly feels loved from pushing boundaries, or it could be someone like my ex-bf who used me as an object of gratification, someone with a sense of entitlement, or even someone trying to seduce their therapist (it happens). Such examples can lead to serious re-enactments, victimization, or even to the erosion and eventual destruction of the therapeutic alliance because the therapist did not hold his/her boundaries. That is why it's important to explore the feelings behind what/why a patient is asking for touch. And this takes time for some patient-therapist relationships to get to this understanding. And if it ends up being something other than a clinical need, then yes, i believe a patient might need to work through this pain if it points to something maladaptive like the examples I mentioned.

I can relate to what you said here:

quote:

I guess I feel passionately about this, because I fear that other people like me will end up attached to the 'no touch' therapist and then suffer over and over and over again needlessly unless they have the strength to walk away (very hard when you are feeling deeply attached and have abandonment issues). Or have the long uphill struggle of working on accommodating one's therapists inflexible boundaries and trying very hard to work with them respecting their 'no touch' boundary - until breaking point occurs and common sense kicks in and the client realizes they are being MORE retraumatized than ever and has to walk away. In an ideal situation this is where the therapist really starts to be able to hear and understand the clients problem and adjust accordingly.

And I admire your passion in wanting to get your point across and have felt that way here too, then subsequently expressed my opinions (and sometimes they have not been well recepted by others).

quote:

Unfortunately I think this is only ONE side of the coin. Just one. It leaves out a big side of the coin that I feel is much neglected by the 'no touch' therapy school.

So what is the 'no touch' therapy school??


p.s.

quote:

My adult cognitive mind is thinking what I think you Americans would articulate as: WHF?!

LOL-I think it's WTF?!

quote:

My beliefs are that therapy should be individualized for each patient as well as the dynamics of the patient-therapist relationship

Exactly this for me.

Definitely an individual thing..

I would love to hug my therapist but I refuse to simply because I'm scared anyway, but also, it will become sexual for me. There's a part of me that cannot quite understand or grasp the boundary between attachment and attraction. If I hug her I will start to think that I could seduce her etc. LOL. Yes, that is my other part of my mind I seem to like the challenge of attaining what I cannot get in these respects and I think this has something to do with living with emotionally unobtainable parents and my Mum having left when I was 1.

T and I briefly discussed about the whole attachment turning into sexual confusion. I think Freud had some credibility on this. Plus I've always yearned to be in an intimate relationship, a union, like mother and daughter should have been.

So touch, if she initiated would be great for me, but it could turn into desires that would be difficult for me to handle and respond to.

Either that or I actually am attracted to her. Which would make obvious why touch would be bad. Lol. Even in this relationship with T and I, I cannot tell the difference between whether I am attracted to her sexually or just attached to her as a compassionate person who mimicks a mother-like figure..Darn.

Just ma two cents!

deleted

All,
Just my observations...it seems every situation is represented in all of your different comments. As someone said everyone is different and basically what works for one doesn't work for another.
Hopeful

Lotsof discussion which I am glad I provoked. It is a discussion we come back to again and again. It is also a discussion that I have with many of the psychologists and psychiatrists that I am training the moment, so it is will endlessly probably entertain.

thank you for all your posts. I appreciated that most of you are kindly aware that the situation I write about is MY situation. That what I need are MY needs. I have never said that a therapist HAS to touch. (Not ever.) I have never said that all clients NEED touch. (not ever.) I have said that it is a topic that requires open minded debate. We can get stuck in what works for us being a 'this is what must work for us all' but I don't think any of us here does go that far - we have full awareness that we have each got different emotional hurts requiring different responses from our therapists.

I was talking about it to a woman who fosters adult women - unusual I know. She fostered kids for over 20 years and then people began to ask her to help out some really troubled hurting adult women and she has more or less emotionally adopted about six. (And before you jump in for her phone number, LOL she is taken, I am nudging in to be number 7.LOL some more.)

She wrote to me:

quote:

where ever does the idea come from that the experience of pain brings healing. physical pain alerts us that something is wrong.emotional pain is the same.pain in itself it does not heal. it is the body processes that work to heal.

emotional relief comes from connecting with someone who understands. for a secure adult to have a concerned listening ear might be enough....even if they have experienced something traumatic. for early childhood trauma then it cannot be enough because an adult sat in a chair with a concerned face is not going to connect emotionally with the pain of the child.

as well as that it is not simply about recovery from trauma but about what essential things were missed in childhood that contribute to identity and sense of self and affect regulation. all the things a good mother imparts to her child without consciously doing so

how does a person without these inner resources, get them from talk therapy ? they were never 'taught' in the first place.....

there is not enough distinction between different types of trauma. there is a difference between the trauma of a child who nearly drowns at the age of 6 and the trauma of an abandoned unloved 2 year old. there is a difference between a middle aged woman who has had a life with a strong support system, who is assaulted and the same aged woman in the same circumstances that has an inadequate childhood.

one method is not going to fit all.

i have been through some terrible experiences as an adult and would never need a therapist to hug me. i could get by without. that would not have been true for any of the adults i have supported who were traumatized as children th.rough lack of love and care and abuse. all of them have thrived on being hugged and held.


your point about holding the hand of the dying is excellent.



i think those who believe in no touch and see it as a hindrance, are confusing a concept. for example. if a child is disabled physically. it might be harmful to their development is you help with everything. it is perhaps kinder to stand back and let them struggle. i say perhaps because if you don't take into account the emotional state of the child or the severity of their disability, you might end up being cruel by withdrawing help.


anyway i am preaching to the converted. well done for speaking up. sad that it is such a battle.

I really like it that she understands one of the basics, that not all traumas hurts can be grouped up into a few simple catagories. Like trauma. the trauma of a six month old in life threatening pain and the trauma of a four year old in a car accident with loving parents around them are obviously different.

Incidentally, I saw the military burn pain specialist yesterday, which is why I was off line - I had to travel a way to get to see him. He had some illuminating comments to make.
(and remember guys, this is about ME, not about 'people in general'.)

1. the nerve damage I have is severe which is why the physical pain is so severe.
2. BEcause of the nerve damage, it is not pain that normal pain killers can reach. It is a different sort of pain as it is nerves sending messages across to each other, from damaged nerves to other nerves, not through the synapses. Anti convulsives could help. (which I wont take as i don't take any medication ).
3. the damage in the fMRI scans of my brain show that as a six month old the pain area of my brain that is lighting up is damaged, which is why I am catapulted so easily into six month old burning pain again. THat part of the brain triggers if I am very upset, frightened, other traumas flash or are triggered. ETC.
4. He found that love and holding and caring and physical touch make all the difference to a burn patient who has this nerve damage. He liked what he heard of my T and admired my T for allowing himself to re assess his 'no touch' policy (finding that he was not a hugging type and very uncomfortable with touch and more or less letting me 'teach' him how to be at ease with touch and hugs) and that the pain consultant agreed that the empathy and care from my T would and could make all the difference, when surgery and pills wont.


XOXO
I have always found that article you linked to, very helpful and my T read it too and found it very helpful. He admitted he had to do a lot of work on himself to be able to get to the point where touch was okay.

I do appreciate those of you who read this initial post in the light it was written : What is helpful FOR ME>

If it is read as : 'This is What therapist SHOULD do,'
then they are unwittingly distorting what I am saying and I am very glad that most of you don't do that.
AG:

quote:

we have no right to DEMAND anything out of our therapists

On this I beg to differ. We have every right to demand so much from our therapist. We have a right to demand ethical conduct, appropriate boundaries, professional conduct, punctuality, supervision, being a member of a professional body, the ability to reflect on their own reactive patterns and boundaries, we have a right to demand quite a lot actually and if they cannot abide by very simple guidelines, then we accept that we cannot change them and we leave.

WE also have the right to recognize a therapist's inadequacies and walk away.

Thank god.

quote:

So insisting that any given boundary MUST be damaging can provide an excuse to walk away when what is really necessary is to stay and work through the feelings that arise.

It can indeed provide an excuse but I have walked away twice from therapists. One who sexually abused me and that boundary (or lack of) was incredibly damaging to me and there was no way I was going to stay and work through the feelings.

The second therapist, as some of you know, was an incompetent counsellor who was deeply madly out of her depth, deeply into countertransference whilst denying that she was and many of you here, including you AG, helped me to see what dreadful boundary problems were going on there and again I managed to limp away ( I cannot say walk, as it felt more like I crawled away, it was that painful to leave.) Again it was damaging and it was not necessary to stay and work through the feelings that arise.

I can see very clearly that your T was up to the mark with you and knew what you needed to do, which was look at the needs and the pain underlying them and not touch you. You obviously did need to work through the feelings that arose. But often you (probably inadvertantly) bring this experience of yours, up for others to reflect on, including myself, when actually, my experience and situation and difficulties and therapy dynamic is very different from yours. I do appreciate reading about it, I find your stories about your own therapy to be articulate and insightful. But you sometimes mis read me and think I am criticising your beloved (Much beloved by us too) T when in fact I am not. I am still (and probably will keep doing) warning all clients that sometimes we do indeed have a valid reason to challenge our T on the no touch policy. How many of those will be valid is unknown. some will not be. But I still, truly, personally prefer T's who do not have rigid rules, 'one policy fits all' and that is ME. It is no comment on your T, AG, it is no comment on anyone's T. It is how I feel about T's. i like T's who ponder, consider and reflect and sometimes see they need to adjust. And for those of you who may think I just like breaking boundaries, there are LOTS if rules with my T that are just solid and are not important enough for me to challenge. (no making of tea in session for example - not a serious thing but I did leave one T because I went into shock and she asked me three times if I wanted anything and eventually I managed to stammer though the teeth chattering that a cup of tea with sugar in would be just brilliant and she said "I don't give clients hot drinks." It was my first session with her and she has every right to have that sort of boundary, bless her, but I did not end up being her client.

Note: with my present T I bring in a thermal mug of lapsong souchong and sip it throughout the session. He is fine with this. It comforts me and I checked it out with him first.

quote:

What I do have a problem with is your insistence that a therapist MUST use touch to be considered "noble and wise" by you and considered "rigid" and "contrived" if they don't agree with you. I believe it is wrong to dogmatically insist that ANY one approach to therapy is the only way.

Ag - I think this is misquoting me. I like wisdom in a therapist and there are wise therapists who do not touch, but I would still stand my ground that I would consider a therapist wise who ponders all the different angles and implications of touch and even challenges their own 'ideology ' or even 'dogma' on it, as wise. S/he may still choose not to use touch, but as long as they have spent some considerable time looking at themselve and lookings at the different issues and implications FOR THAT CLIENT (so just spending three years on training on it does not cut the mustard) then I would be happier with their title as a 'wise-ish kind of therapist'. But I would walk away myself. Each time I say that AG, you seem to consider it a personal attack on you ie why did you know walk away. I am not asking that, it is not a personal statement about you and your therapy and your therapist. It is a statement about my experience and what I need. Not about what you need. that is all. Can you simply try to understand that without feeling the need to defend your T all over again? I would appreciate that. I love it when you defend your T, I love the relationship you two have. but reading things that I say as a slight on your T is slightly clouding your perspective on the topic I think/ And I am saying that gently and softly and kindly, not agressively or confrontationally in any way. These posts don't give tone. I imagine you and I would have an animated discussion about this if we ever met and you would be able to see that I am not being argumentative or personal here, I am simply pondering the very real experience that *I* have which is obviously very different to what you have.

Anyway, writing all this is exhausting. thank you again for each of you who has responded, sorry I have not thanked and commented on each of your posts in turn, my rudeness and I do apologise. thank you. And I am sorry this is SO LONG!!


A note: almost an aside:
Personally I would think if client is sexually attracted to the T, then touch is a dangerous area. I have been attracted to my T, strongly so, but have not been for about four months, and am strongly attracted to my husband as usual. If I was working with a client, I would not feel comfortable touching or hugging if I could sense that the client had sexual feelings for me and was attracted to me.

Sadly,

I also interpreted your first post as an indictment of T's who do not touch. I'm open to the notion that I need to review my reading comprehension skills.

In other threads on touch in therapy you have made clear your position. I don't see anything new in your posts on this specific thread. Certainly, an interesting discussion would cover the merits of touch AND no-touch therapy because surely both work. Perhaps that was your aim?

While I don't post here much at all (I'm marinating in emotional hell and striving for a world record in isolating), I read every day and feel very protective of forum members. Frankly, when I read your first post I cringed for those precious members (and lurkers) who are struggling with painful emotions aroused by working with T's who do not offer touch. And, my gut reaction was that you are pot stirring. Perhaps it's a cultural communications issue -- I'm American and tend to be more emotive and fluffy ( ) when expressing my point of view even when it's a contrary one. Some cultures communicate in a more efficiently direct, if not strident, manner without meaning any harm.

Anyway, not sure where I'm going with this but I strongly felt it important to add my voice to others who interpreted your position as a blanket condemnation of therapists who don't touch.

For the record, my T does touch but I'm one of those who has a significant aversion to touch so we are discussing some sort of incremental exposure therapy within the boundaries of safe touch. I'm all kinds of scared.

Sadly, I saw your beginning this thread as a defensive reaction to a post AG made on another thread, where SHE was presenting HER own experience with no touch in therapy. It is YOU who is being "reactive" and "defensive" and "attacking". What is really, really interesting, is how you do it first, then when someone else reacts to that, you are so quick to call them on it. I am sorry for the pain you have endured. But I do happen to think you are rather toxic. And I'm sure you will pass everything I say off as the words of one of AG's "posse" or some such nonsense. But personally I really don't give a crap.

BG and Hemlock and Echoes, thank you so much for posting. I've been feeling terrible about how this is affecting AG, too, but have not been sure about how to defend her. VERY difficult to defend someone who is being attacked in such a twisted manner. But you made it look rather easy, and also gave me the courage to do the same. Thank you.

And regarding hugs in therapy, thank you to everyone who posted that every therapeutic dyad should decide for themselves what works. After reading all these posts, I really don't even think that's really what's at issue here. Everyone seems to think that.

p.s. And Echoes, if either you or AG leave, then I'm gone too.

((((Echoes))))

In my post, when I typed the term "pot stirring", the entirety of your post was represented in that short sentiment. It's how I feel too.

quote:

Everyone seems to think that.

Actually I am not sure at all what 'everyone' thinks. I do know that many people here are too scared to post here because of the extremely stridant posts that can come back. I was not attacking AG in any way, I still think that I prefer therapists who will consider touch IF IT IS APPROPRIATE. How many times do I have to say that is my personal opinion and not an indictment of therapists. How come people just want to vent at me when I say that?
It is quite extraordinary.


I can only conclude that quite often each of us is quite rushed and only glancing through posts and then reacting. So the post above about me attacking AG does not accurately reflect what I am actually saying and somehow I get the very uncomfortable feeling that I am not allowed to say THAT either, that my posts are not being read thoroughly. If people do read that post thoroughly I am making some kind and sensitive points about AG's post to me.

I can understand why people get het up about this topic, I feel pretty passionate about it myself, but to ban a thread because you don't like me saying that I personally prefer therapists who are open to touch if it is appropriate and that I find it hard when that is misconstrued as ' wise therapists are the ones who use touch and if they don't they are not wise' (which I never said) is not really logical for a forum about stories of therapy.

Actually it is usually the Americans who are blamed for being too straightforward and the British for being too polite so that was very gracious of somebody to assume it might be very English of me to be straight forward in my talking about this issue.

I don't know. Maybe I listen to the people who are too scared to comment on my thread, knowing the flack one can get here, and so they email me saying they understand but that it feels unsafe to be that honest about a topic on this forum. I don't know. I have not said anything awful about anyone, I have not been disrespectful to anyone, I am simply talking about something that feels rather taboo here.

This seems to be one of those instances where one sees either the fact or the vase- I can see valid points in all these posts.

When I first read sadly's post, I did not interpret it to mean that she was trying demand anything from her T, but was challenging current ways of thinking, "schools of thought", etc. Did I miss something? Perhaps.

I'm also glad that others pointed out contrasting points of view. I don't know much about this.

I'll make careful in the future about what I post as well, I think I talked about something controversial in regards to the aggressive techniques my T was using. I am beginning to understand the effects of even subtle changes in language can make a huge difference.

Peace

I am temporarily closing this thread to wait until Shrinklady has a chance to review it and decide how to handle it and/or to reopen it. I am for obvious reasons recusing myself from making those decisions. This is not an attempt to censor anyone but rather to prevent an out of control situation.

As a personal note: Thanks for the kind words and appreciation to those of you who offered such.