- Post starter
- #37
Hi ScaredOfLonely, do you think 'deeper feeling' are necessarily sexual? Is that not what is wrong with the fear of physical contact? Please read Michelle Webster's thesis - link posted elsewhere in this thread.
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
Touch / Physical Holding
- Post starter Pencil
- Start date
- Status
- Post starter
- #39
Let me try
amethist
VIP Member
Smushroom if you click on the arrow it will take you to the original post, which is why it is not necessary to quote the whole post.
If all posts where quoted in full it would take up so much room on the forum.
If all posts where quoted in full it would take up so much room on the forum.
Loveneverfails
Diamond Member
I have read (psychology today online article) that studies show when a trauma patient or BPD patient has asked for a hug that it actually can cause new trauma/emotional distress to the patient if the therapist refuses. Mine hugged me after I had said in the last session I just wanted someone to hold me. I honestly hadn't realized he thought I meant him and felt I needed to make it clear I didn't want those sorts of things. But I think it's perfectly alright for a therapist to hug their patient and it can cause serious healing under the right conditions. He was the first adult in over a year to give me a hug, it felt very therapeutic, but for me hugging and touching isn't something I want from my therapist and he responded to my somewhat cold and rigid reaction the next session really kindly. Which is how a therapist should react, whether the patient is asking for touch, or to not be. Not shocked, which just makes the patient feel worse.
Personally I think where a patient has a support base, the touch therapy should come from those people. Family, friends, SO and so on. If not, therapeutic massage would be a good place to get yourself acclimated to healthy touch. Most masseuses in that area are very kind and understanding to the situation of trauma and will only do what you are comfortable with. I have several acquaintances in the field who act like I've seen doctors handle their job, they truly want to help people heal. Best of all it's their job to touch, so you don't have to worry as much about blurred lines.
But thats just me. I would never want another man or woman to touch me in a situation that might put their own integrity at risk. Especially in a field where a reputation can get ruined by one misunderstanding in that area.
Personally I think where a patient has a support base, the touch therapy should come from those people. Family, friends, SO and so on. If not, therapeutic massage would be a good place to get yourself acclimated to healthy touch. Most masseuses in that area are very kind and understanding to the situation of trauma and will only do what you are comfortable with. I have several acquaintances in the field who act like I've seen doctors handle their job, they truly want to help people heal. Best of all it's their job to touch, so you don't have to worry as much about blurred lines.
But thats just me. I would never want another man or woman to touch me in a situation that might put their own integrity at risk. Especially in a field where a reputation can get ruined by one misunderstanding in that area.
D
Deleted member 1860
It doesn't matter if those "deeper feelings" I referred to are sexual or not. At the end of the day my therapist is NOT my friend. I pay him/her to provide me with a service. It is unhealthy to have these feelings, sexual or not, for your therapist. Trust is important, and I am not talking about trusting your therapist. I was once told to put my faith in the process, not necessarily the therapist, and this advice has served me well. If you haven't been sexually abused as a child, you may not be able to know why I'm so adamant about not getting touchy/feely with a therapist.
D
Deleted member 1860
Sorry pencil, there is no link.
Anyone else know what she is referring to? I hate wild goose chases.
Anyone else know what she is referring to? I hate wild goose chases.
D
Deleted member 1860
Ok, I read PART of an article on the Zur Institute site... (it was really long and I don't have the time, lol)
It was arguing that touch is healing, blah blah blah. I'm not disputing this. The issue is that if you have someone you tell anything and everything, and then you throw physical touch in, it's VERY easy for the client to develop inappropriate feelings. And probably the same for the therapist. Massage therapy....isn't that different? I mean a massage therapist can rub you up and down, but the boundary there is that they don't know the inner workings of your brain.
No offense to any Californians, but I wasn't surprised to see that the Zur Institute is in California. Take that as you will.
Not everything is meant to be solved in therapy. It's a mistake to think that everything should.
I don't know you, but I can't help but feel that you need to foster healthy relationships outside of therapy. If that's too scary, start with a pet?
It was arguing that touch is healing, blah blah blah. I'm not disputing this. The issue is that if you have someone you tell anything and everything, and then you throw physical touch in, it's VERY easy for the client to develop inappropriate feelings. And probably the same for the therapist. Massage therapy....isn't that different? I mean a massage therapist can rub you up and down, but the boundary there is that they don't know the inner workings of your brain.
No offense to any Californians, but I wasn't surprised to see that the Zur Institute is in California. Take that as you will.
Not everything is meant to be solved in therapy. It's a mistake to think that everything should.
I don't know you, but I can't help but feel that you need to foster healthy relationships outside of therapy. If that's too scary, start with a pet?
Loveneverfails
Diamond Member
Yes and that's exactly my point. It gets you used to being touched in a healthy way and you don't have to worry about inappropriate emotional attachment. Attachment in longterm therapy is unavoidable. It will happen. And it isn't wrong, plenty of books about sexual abuse and recovery say that the first healthy relationship a survivor will have is likely with their therapist. My own T constantly reminds me that it is a relationship(to which I try not to roll my eyes). But like you, I don't believe it should ever cross into the physical or be mistaken for a friendship. Not for me anyway. I'm sure some people benefit from that, I don't. I like structure. Especially when discussing traumatic memories and admitting flaws.
Touch in my opinion just would confuse a person already deeply scarred and desperate to be loved. It would likely cause pain, rather than fix it. But that is how my head works, I'm confident that other people react differently than I do to it.
- Post starter
- #47
LoveNeverfails and ScaredOfLonely
There are different issues here, and none of them have to do with seeing your therapist as a friend or anything other than a professional doing a professional job.
1. There are two 'traditions' or 'strands' in psychology - the one starting with Freud (oedipal), which became mainstream, and the other starting with Janet (attachment), which is now beginning to get the recognition it deserves, with theorists like Winnicot, Ferenczi, Balint, etc. It is the Janet tradition that recognizes the importance of treating the WHOLE person. (Freud did recognize the importance at first, but somehow changed his mind - and not only did he stop touching his patients, he moved his chair to a spot where they could not even see him. Interestingly enough, there was no therapeutic reason for this, he stated clearly that he hated being 'stared at' for so many hours a day. For many years afterwards, analysts would sit out of sight, for reasons they believed to be therapeutic. Funny, really.)
2. I think the point is that there are people with different issues - those that don't want to be touched and should therefore not be touched. There are those whose particular issues actually require the integration of the body into the whole process. In the same way that touching a person who does not want it can re-traumatise, there are theorists who strongly argue that NOT touching when the moment or the client requires it, also re-traumatises. This is what happens in my case.
I am most definitely not advocating 'affection', but something else altogether. Some can't regress or process without a 'physical anchor', or who experienced in their trauma someone watching instead of rescuing (in which case the T 'watching' is all too reminiscent) and so on.
So, I think it depends on the person, the particular circumstances in therapy and the nature of the trauma. We can't make hard and fast rules about what 'works' and what doesn't, about whether therapists should include physical contact in therapy or not based on our particular psychological make-up, and neither should therapists make hard and fast rules about to touch or not to touch. Even those therapists in the Janet tradition who advocate physical touch in therapy are highly selective and careful in who they choose to touch, when and why.
Pencil
There are different issues here, and none of them have to do with seeing your therapist as a friend or anything other than a professional doing a professional job.
1. There are two 'traditions' or 'strands' in psychology - the one starting with Freud (oedipal), which became mainstream, and the other starting with Janet (attachment), which is now beginning to get the recognition it deserves, with theorists like Winnicot, Ferenczi, Balint, etc. It is the Janet tradition that recognizes the importance of treating the WHOLE person. (Freud did recognize the importance at first, but somehow changed his mind - and not only did he stop touching his patients, he moved his chair to a spot where they could not even see him. Interestingly enough, there was no therapeutic reason for this, he stated clearly that he hated being 'stared at' for so many hours a day. For many years afterwards, analysts would sit out of sight, for reasons they believed to be therapeutic. Funny, really.)
2. I think the point is that there are people with different issues - those that don't want to be touched and should therefore not be touched. There are those whose particular issues actually require the integration of the body into the whole process. In the same way that touching a person who does not want it can re-traumatise, there are theorists who strongly argue that NOT touching when the moment or the client requires it, also re-traumatises. This is what happens in my case.
I am most definitely not advocating 'affection', but something else altogether. Some can't regress or process without a 'physical anchor', or who experienced in their trauma someone watching instead of rescuing (in which case the T 'watching' is all too reminiscent) and so on.
So, I think it depends on the person, the particular circumstances in therapy and the nature of the trauma. We can't make hard and fast rules about what 'works' and what doesn't, about whether therapists should include physical contact in therapy or not based on our particular psychological make-up, and neither should therapists make hard and fast rules about to touch or not to touch. Even those therapists in the Janet tradition who advocate physical touch in therapy are highly selective and careful in who they choose to touch, when and why.
Pencil
- Post starter
- #48
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
