OK. trying not to be ridiculous about this but I really feel like I've done something terribly wrong.
No-one else has expressed that view. I certainly don't think it. My concern is your therapist's approach, and that you're understandably relying on your therapist.
What I'm questioning is your therapist's approach, overall.
I'm going to leave this thread after this because I don't think I can be in tune with it. I don't think safety is a therapist making themselves available to help with awful fall out from a session with them doing exposure therapy that throws us off balance (for however long). I think safety is building up our own skills, so that a) the fallout is not so bad in the first place, and b) we have learnt to depend on ourselves as much as anyone else.
I'm really uncomfortable with an approach of feeling brutalised (for whatever length of time) then depending on someone else to help me cope with that. I have to question what's happening if that's the case - why would a therapist want to "be there for you" rather than helping you to be there for yourself, however long that takes, before doing therapy work that they're expecting to provoke a crisis (expecting to the point of making themselves available for several days afterwards)? It seems to be encouraging a dependency on the therapist that I don't think is healthy or sustainable.
If it works for you, then it works for you. It wouldn't work for me, and it seriously concerns me, and I don't think this is the only way to do therapy. I don't think you've done anything wrong, I'm questioning what your therapist is doing. I'm going to leave it at that.