Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 15:50:47
In reply to Re: Lifetime Therapy » alexandra_k, posted by daisym on December 26, 2004, at 19:42:12
> disagree strongly with your comparisons.
Ah. Okay, perhaps I should say that I probably take a much more liberal line on drug pushing and prostitution than most. I mean, if I hadn't gone to varsity they pretty much were the sum total of my viable career options :-) I used to push drugs (at school mostly) and at the risk of people reading more into this... well... some of my best friends were pro's. What I mean is that I was not trying to degrade or demean (either therapists, drug pushers, or pros) when I made those comparisons. I was just trying to convey the points of similarity that I noted. Drugs are addictive - therapy may be similarly addictive for some. Prostitutes are paid to listen sympathetically (well, if you want regular customers and its nicer to be paid to listen than it is to be paid for sex acts).
>But I can see why it would be valuable with regards to ongoing support. There is something important about being able to explore your feelings about things without always having to be careful.
But why can't we achieve this with real world relationships? Perhaps going to therapy actually PREVENTS us from doing this because the need is met in therapy.
>Those occupations are about making money>Something that always occurs to me is that people seek out therapy and therapists...it isn't like they go trolling for clients. They aren't enticing folks into therapy, nor are they coercing them into staying.
One would need a certain amount of business smarts to succeed in private practice, I would have thought. Everyone has to eat. All occupations are about making enough money to at least meet ones fairly basic needs. Thats why it is an occupation. It is a job. Work. Surely the idea would be to build up enough 'regulars' to eat and meet ones basic needs. Unless one has a constant flow of new clients, of course...
>and they are illegal if not immoral.
>Would you compare a doctor
Prostitution is legal in NZ. If we wanted to talk about legal drug pushing I could get started on doctors working in pain clinics, morphene and benzo's and so on - but I won't go there. I suppose that I was attempting to convey that there may be something ethically / morally questionable about a therapists encouraging dependance...
>we want someone who genuinely likes kids and grows fond of OUR kids. That connection makes for a relationship, above and beyond the money. I don't want my kids to just be interchangeable with any old kid...
Now my point here is that sure we want someone who genuinely likes kids! And being fond of kids just means being fond of many particular kids. But if the teacher wanted to keep a kid in her class forever and perhaps even purposely (though maybe unconsciously) held the kid back so that they wouldn't move on to a new class with a new teacher, well then there would be something wrong. They are interchangable to the extent that kids move on and each year you get more kids. They come, they go and while you may miss them you get reattached to the new lot.
> I do hear the concern about encouraging dependency. But what if we reframe it as attachment, mutual respect and interdependency, instead of something prejorative?
I think that some of each may go on in therapy. I am just worried about the former. I don't think interdependency is good though, given the (ideal) nature of the theraputic relationship.
>I think like most things in life, one-size does NOT fit all.
Sure, and some therapists may be better suited to some clients and not others.
> I hope you find what you are looking for.
Yes. I hope we all find what we are looking for.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:432629
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041218/msgs/434605.html