|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
I see a therapist from time to time, do you? I can't imagine what you'd learn about me if you were a fly on the wall of that room. Imagine, they put cameras in your therapy session, would it change the way you act?
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
3/3/08
|
|
(150 of 150)
May 6, 2008 2:30 PM
|
Hi, all:
If I interrupted a discussion, I apologize, but I understand this is the only way I can make others on the IT forum aware of the new Quo Vadis thread on member created threads. The objective of this thread is to allow visitors to discuss problems of patients and methods for treating these problems for Paul to treat and use, respectively, on the second series of IT which hopefully will be shown.
For example:
Should Paul's new patients include a celebrity and a reformer, e.g., an attorney who defends the little guys on the bottom rung of society?
Should the forum offer criticism of IT, Paul and GB as well as praise?
What treatment regime would Paul use for a suicidal patient who is the head of a prostitution ring and resembles The D,C. Madam?
Which treatment regime should Paul use for Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)?
See you on the thread.
Thanks.
Sciwriter
P.S. Sciwriter stands for science writer.
|
|
|
Posts:
103
Registered:
2/21/08
|
|
(149 of 150)
Mar 24, 2008 1:27 PM
|
> I'm well enough not to hurt myself (not well enough
> to not want to, just well enough not to act on it)
> and to function pretty well - full-time job, happy
> marriage, but with all the traumas I've been through.
> I know I'll be on meds and therapy forever.
Are you sure you're not talking about me, NRACM? 
Seriously, apart from the F/T job (tho mine does feel like F/T, not P/T), that's me in a ginormous nutshell.
Glad to be able to share with people who understand... b/c in a lot of cases, I would think even our therapists don't quite know what it's like... or if they do, they're not sharing.
Has anyone had a therapist or doc who shared a similar experience w/depression/self-harm/hospitalization/whatever?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,112
Registered:
6/4/07
|
|
(148 of 150)
Mar 24, 2008 9:58 AM
|
I need therapy to deal with the day to day stuff as much as the stuff that has taken me where I am now. Also took me a long time to get the right therapist for me. I often say not so jokingly that it is so not easy being me.
Fortunately, I can deal with the day to day stuff after 20 years of therapy, but it took me eons to finally break down and take the meds.....I"m also sorry I didn't do it sooner....however at 58, this is the best it's been and I'm forever grateful .
During a crisis, a death, etc. I still have a very hard time, but I can manage now, thank God.
My heart goes out to you, I know how tough it can be and how little people understand about this. Or even want to know.
--
Edited by rubyjtcat at 03/24/2008 6:58 AM PDT
I'm glad you've survived, ruby... good to read your postings and to know someone else understands. Wishing you (and everyone who understands) peace.
Thank you Gael
--
Edited by rubyjtcat at 03/24/2008 7:01 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
62
Registered:
2/19/08
|
|
(147 of 150)
Mar 23, 2008 11:32 PM
|
> > Nightwind and Dame - have you read "eat pray
> love"? I
> > have recently started this book. Tonight I read
> this
> > passage. The author is writing this to herself
> one
> > night as she suffers from loneliness and
> depression.
> >
> >
> > I'm here. I love you. I don't care if you
> need to
> > stay up crying all night long, I will stay with
> you.
> > If you need the medication, go ahead and take
> it-I
> > will love you through that, as well. If you
> don't
> > need the medication, I will love you too.
> There's
> > nothing you can ever do to lose my love. I will
> > protect you until you die, and after your death,
> I
> > will still protect you. I am stronger
> than
> > Depression and I am braver than Loneliness and
> > nothing will ever exhaust me.
>
> That is so moving, solong...Thanks for
> sharing.
> Who is the author?
Great book...The author is Elizabeth Gilbert.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,534
Registered:
1/30/08
|
|
(146 of 150)
Mar 23, 2008 11:29 PM
|
> Nightwind and Dame - have you read "eat pray love"? I
> have recently started this book. Tonight I read this
> passage. The author is writing this to herself one
> night as she suffers from loneliness and depression.
>
>
> I'm here. I love you. I don't care if you need to
> stay up crying all night long, I will stay with you.
> If you need the medication, go ahead and take it-I
> will love you through that, as well. If you don't
> need the medication, I will love you too. There's
> nothing you can ever do to lose my love. I will
> protect you until you die, and after your death, I
> will still protect you. I am stronger than
> Depression and I am braver than Loneliness and
> nothing will ever exhaust me.
That is so moving, solong...Thanks for sharing.
Who is the author?
|
|
|
Posts:
8,234
Registered:
5/29/05
|
|
(145 of 150)
Mar 23, 2008 10:51 PM
|
Nightwind and Dame - have you read "eat pray love"? I have recently started this book. Tonight I read this passage. The author is writing this to herself one night as she suffers from loneliness and depression.
I'm here. I love you. I don't care if you need to stay up crying all night long, I will stay with you. If you need the medication, go ahead and take it-I will love you through that, as well. If you don't need the medication, I will love you too. There's nothing you can ever do to lose my love. I will protect you until you die, and after your death, I will still protect you. I am stronger than Depression and I am braver than Loneliness and nothing will ever exhaust me.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
12/23/01
|
|
(144 of 150)
Mar 23, 2008 7:54 PM
|
A show about two people talking toeach other. Who would have thought?
In this age of extreme tech and special effects its amazing that the human element is always the most powerful.
Conversations...how refreshing.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,534
Registered:
1/30/08
|
|
(143 of 150)
Mar 23, 2008 5:52 PM
|
> For those of you old enough to remember - the bad
> jokes about therapy in the 60's and 70's used to be
> about how after years of therapy you would finally
> realize that all your problems were Mommy's fault.
Now it's just somebody else's, anybody else's fault, but the individual's....
|
|
|
Posts:
83
Registered:
3/6/08
|
|
(142 of 150)
Mar 23, 2008 9:52 AM
|
|
For those of you old enough to remember - the bad jokes about therapy in the 60's and 70's used to be about how after years of therapy you would finally realize that all your problems were Mommy's fault. What gives with all the Daddy bashing here - everyone has a f***ed up father - from the absent (Sophie) to the oblivious (Laura) to the demanding (Alex and Jake). Other than being a lousy model for marital fidelity - I'm not quite sure how Paul's father fits into the spectrum yet. Lots of bad Y chromosomes out there!
|
|
|
Posts:
119
Registered:
2/16/08
|
|
(141 of 150)
Mar 22, 2008 8:03 PM
|
> I"ve lived all my life with crippling (at times)
> depression and always felt like an outsider. I still
> do, for the most part, for exactly that
> reason.......people just don't undertand.
>
> Because of that and other tramas, my life has been
> difficult and painful for the most part. I know I
> could not have made without the wonderful doctor I
> had who treated me for 20 odd years. And she
> convinced me to try anti depressants, which changed
> my life forever. I know deep in my heart if it
> weren't for those things, I"d by lying 6 feet under
> somehere. I owe my life to therapy and medications
> Thank God for them.
Ruby, I had to look twice to see that I hadn't written that - it describes me so accurately.
I have been on a three-meds "cocktail" now for several years and although I still am chronically moderately depressed at best and can be reduced to tears in seconds or go into o into a major depression, it's the best combination - and I've tried virtually all the meds these past 19 years. But I'm well enough not to hurt myself (not well enough to not want to, just well enough not to act on it) and to function pretty well - full-time job, happy marriage, but with all the traumas I've been through. I know I'll be on meds and therapy forever. And not only have I come to terms with that, I thank God that option exists. If only I'd had it earlier.
I need therapy to deal with the day to day stuff as much as the stuff that has taken me where I am now. Also took me a long time to get the right therapist for me. I often say not so jokingly that it is so not easy being me.
--
Edited by NRACM at 03/23/2008 10:14 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
2,534
Registered:
1/30/08
|
|
(140 of 150)
Mar 22, 2008 5:50 PM
|
> I think of therapy as a profession that requires high
> emotional intelligence, and yet the training is still
> mostly intellectual. What they can't teach in school
> is what makes a great therapist: endless patience,
> the ability to love your patients, be a highly
> skilled listener and observer, have a gift for
> empathy and insight, and sharing insights and
> self-disclosing when it benefits the patient and
> deepens trust in the therapeutic relationship.
Observation is so very important - recently it was KEY to IDENTIFYING a patient problem which then began the process to INTERVENE and TREAT and hopefully REPAIR and HEAL the patient
|
|
|
Posts:
103
Registered:
2/21/08
|
|
(139 of 150)
Mar 21, 2008 10:34 PM
|
> And, if Ihear one more quote from the Secret, I"ll spit > up a hairball.....Please!!! 
>
> convinced me to try anti depressants, which changed
> my life forever. I know deep in my heart if it
> weren't for those things, I"d by lying 6 feet under
> somehere. I owe my life to therapy and medications
> Thank God for them. AMEN! Not that they make us into Pollyannas, but they help us to survive.
I'm glad you've survived, ruby... good to read your postings and to know someone else understands. Wishing you (and everyone who understands) peace.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,112
Registered:
6/4/07
|
|
(138 of 150)
Mar 21, 2008 10:25 PM
|
> I see a therapist from time to time, do you? I can't
> imagine what you'd learn about me if you were a fly
> on the wall of that room. Imagine, they put cameras
> in your therapy session, would it change the way you
> act?
Thank you, VioletsBlues, from the bottom of my heart. You have spoken so eloquently for many of us.
People who haven't lived it just don't get it. They don't realize that at age 47, you could continue to have fairly regular dreams about sexual abuse in your childhood and pre-teens (the dreams that really get to me are where I get so aroused and turned on by the abuser). They don't get why your sex life can't really ever be as good as it could have been. They act as though if we could think about it cognitively, we could get over it, etc. Yeah, right. As if we want to feel this badly.
I have a very well-meaning friend, going on 25 years now, and I know she's just not the person to talk to when I get into my head. She once said it was time for me not to take myself so seriously and, referring to an ongoing struggle, that it was time for me to put on my grown-up panties and move on. She is a kind, loving person and thinks she's helping me. But she just doesn't get it. She doesn't understand.Thank you both so much for expressing those feelings so well.
I"ve lived all my life with crippling (at times) depression and always felt like an outsider. I still do, for the most part, for exactly that reason.......people just don't undertand. And, if I hear one more quote from the Secret, I"ll spit up a hairball.....Please!!!
Because of that and other tramas, my life has been difficult and painful for the most part. I know I could not have made without the wonderful doctor I had who treated me for 20 odd years. And she convinced me to try anti depressants, which changed my life forever. I know deep in my heart if it weren't for those things, I"d by lying 6 feet under somehere. I owe my life to therapy and medications Thank God for them.
|
|
|
Posts:
318
Registered:
2/26/08
|
|
(137 of 150)
Mar 21, 2008 10:00 PM
|
I posted this to the Paul/Gina group thread, before realizing there was this official thread now and that my email might be most appropos here.
I'm curious about reactions, particularly from therapists or others knowledgeable about psychoanalysis, to Paul's 'crisis' as expressed in his session with Gina tonight -- personal accounts, general reactions, remarks about particulars.
One particular of sorts: Paul mentions Sophie's breakthrough(s) this week as an example where he suspects the credit should go not to his training or "therapeutic process", but rather to his interpersonal bond/connection with Sophie. Not to discount the latter, but it seemed to me that Paul very much brought his training/psychanalytic theory to bear in treating Sophie, including this week.
Paul makes the connection with Alex's earlier impressing on Paul how important it was for a pilot to rely on his instruments when he goes into vertigo. Paul then tells Gina he thinks it's the opposite for therapists -- that their learning can lead them astray and they should rely less on this. What Paul doesn't mention in tonight's session -- despite all the recriminations/guilt/speculation about Alex's death, the discussions about vertigo and about psychotherapy, is Alex's later remark that relying on his instruments was what got him where he was: that Alex and his instruments were so proficient that he pushed the button and killed the Madrassa children. I don't recall how Paul responded at the time to this, but it strikes me, speculating myself, that Alex may have died not just because of his guilt but because he drew the wrong lesson about what he relied on: What led Alex astray wasn't his instruments: his instruments as Alex himself said were proficient -- deadly so. What led Alex astray -- the real blame for his becoming a "Madrassa murderer" -- was faulty intelligence/orders from his superiors. If Alex's guilt, combined with drawing the wrong lesson and blaming reliance on his instruments for the tragedy, led him to foolishly disregard the instruments in favor of his instincts when he went into vertigo . . . . ??? If nothing else, a pilot no longer dedicated to relying on his instruments as need be is manifestly unfit to fly -- or so I gather from what's unfolded on In Treatment.
Is Paul poised to make a similar mistake: blaming his training for tragedies/losses that weren't really his fault, even if Paul might have have had some opportunity to have prevented/mitigated them? Yes, it's important to bring one's judgment to bear, but as Gina explains most eloquently: training/instruments/expertise/analysis can be very helpful tools and shouldn't be blamed when with Alex, Paul, Gina, any of us, the decisions we make, the courses we take, turn out badly. No matter how much training, no matter the rules, we generally retain the free will to put these aside, or take from them only so much as we choose. Thank goodness, or we'd be robots; but it can be perilous to dismiss training/instruments/expertise as though our instincts can serve us better uninformed/unguided by these. Again, Gina was most eloquent, most incisive on this: looking to training/analysis for guidance doesn't mean we have to crush our hearts, our emotions, leading our lives true to these.
I was stunned, on the other hand, when Gina insists Paul's wrong to see himself battling "the forces of repression" with her, when in fact Gina is "an emotional person who has to reign herself in". If this isn't repression, what is? What would a person cold, unemotional through and through, have to repress? Can Gina, such an accomplished psychanalyst, be so ignorant, so deluded about something so basic? (Not that Paul called her on this -- perhaps because he was so chastened for repeatedly accusing Gina as being somewhat heartless.)
And what about Gina's earlier promise to Paul that no matter what he said, no matter what he did, she'd be there for him; that unlike what happened 10 years ago, she wouldn't abandon him; she'd remain committed to his care as a psychotherapist? Before Paul triggered her ultimate outburst, Paul said: "I don't want to upset you Gina", she sternly retorted: "You won't!" Yet she ends up tonight telling Paul to leave.
Another thing I'm wondering about is Paul saying he can't "shrink" Amy"; she's too complicated. Are we supposed to think most of us aren't so complicated? No knock on Amy, but does anyone think she's psychologically more complex than any other character on In Treatment, or everyone who's genuinely, manifestly helped by psychoanalysis? Could a psychoanalyst view a patient -- or one patient relative to others -- this way? Is there psychoanalytic literature, from Freud on, about patients "too complex" to be shrunk?
Finally, is there any good reason why Gina didn't come clean/clue Paul in as at the end of the session many weeks ago about herself, about David, about Charlie, about love being "bigger than any rules." In terms of serving Paul as a psychotherapist, that is, as opposed to Gina's own issues? She was adamant, categorical that dependency defines Laura's relationship to Paul. Categorical that if Paul stopped resisting Laura's advances, Laura would be shocked. "Rightly so. And she'll leave you." Adamant that Gina would continue to fight him every step of the way against doing something he'd forever regret. How does this square with her acknowledgement, finally, that she'd had slept with Charlie if she loved Charlie instead of David? How does this square with her now telling Paul:
"Now you decide. Maybe you're right. Maybe love can bloom in a psychotherapist's office. And you know . . . ethics and rules. Love is bigger than any rules. And what do I know. . Maybe she's your David. Maybe you can only be the Paul you want to be with her. So: Go to her. Find out."
I found this too plenty moving and eloquent. But does it square with what Gina's been saying for weeks? Is there a way to view this as other than Gina's issues long intruding on the sessions with Paul, even if he read her wrong in some profound respects as well as right in others? Any way to view this as not an epiphany for Gina; as not a breakthrough for her? If not in her self-awareness, at least in what she's willing to reveal; and in very basic positions?
Actually, I don't think it's the first time. Paul has had breakthroughs/epiphanies about himself in sessions with patients, and not just with Laura. Doesn't Gina, while previously criticizing Paul for thinking he can be a good therapist, or a better therapist, only by forming a personal bond with patients, do this very thing herself in impressing on Paul that she'd crossed lines with him in their sessions, and wanted Paul to appreciate this underscored how committed she was to his care as a psychotherapist -- how much he could and should trust her now; more than before?
I'm curious about reactions, particularly from therapists or others knowledgeable about psychoanalysis, to Paul's 'crisis' as expressed in his session with Gina tonight -- personal accounts, general reactions, remarks about particulars.
One particular of sorts: Paul mentions Sophie's breakthrough(s) this week as an example where he suspects the credit should go not to his training or "therapeutic process", but rather to his interpersonal bond/connection with Sophie. Not to discount the latter, but it seemed to me that Paul very much brought his training/psychanalytic theory to bear in treating Sophie, including this week.
Paul makes the connection with Alex's earlier impressing on Paul how important it was for a pilot to rely on his instruments when he goes into vertigo. Paul then tells Gina he thinks it's the opposite for therapists -- that their learning can lead them astray and they should rely less on this. What Paul doesn't mention in tonight's session -- despite all the recriminations/guilt/speculation about Alex's death, the discussions about vertigo and about psychotherapy, is Alex's later remark that relying on his instruments was what got him where he was: that Alex and his instruments were so proficient that he pushed the button and killed the Madrassa children. I don't recall how Paul responded at the time to this, but it strikes me, speculating myself, that Alex may have died not just because of his guilt but because he drew the wrong lesson about what he relied on: What led Alex astray wasn't his instruments: his instruments as Alex himself said were proficient -- deadly so. What led Alex astray -- the real blame for his becoming a "Madrassa murderer" -- was faulty intelligence/orders from his superiors. If Alex's guilt, combined with drawing the wrong lesson and blaming reliance on his instruments for the tragedy, led him to foolishly disregard the instruments in favor of his instincts when he went into vertigo . . . . ??? If nothing else, a pilot no longer dedicated to relying on his instruments as need be is manifestly unfit to fly -- or so I gather from what's unfolded on In Treatment.
Is Paul poised to make a similar mistake: blaming his training for tragedies/losses that weren't really his fault, even if Paul might have have had some opportunity to have prevented/mitigated them? Yes, it's important to bring one's judgment to bear, but as Gina explains most eloquently: training/instruments/expertise/analysis can be very helpful tools and shouldn't be blamed when with Alex, Paul, Gina, any of us, the decisions we make, the courses we take, turn out badly. No matter how much training, no matter the rules, we generally retain the free will to put these aside, or take from them only so much as we choose. Thank goodness, or we'd be robots; but it can be perilous to dismiss training/instruments/expertise as though our instincts can serve us better uninformed/unguided by these. Again, Gina was most eloquent, most incisive on this: looking to training/analysis for guidance doesn't mean we have to crush our hearts, our emotions, leading our lives true to these.
I was stunned, on the other hand, when Gina insists Paul's wrong to see himself battling "the forces of repression" with her, when in fact Gina is "an emotional person who has to reign herself in". If this isn't repression, what is? What would a person cold, unemotional through and through, have to repress? Can Gina, such an accomplished psychanalyst, be so ignorant, so deluded about something so basic? (Not that Paul called her on this -- perhaps because he was so chastened for repeatedly accusing Gina as being somewhat heartless.)
And what about Gina's earlier promise to Paul that no matter what he said, no matter what he did, she'd be there for him; that unlike what happened 10 years ago, she wouldn't abandon him; she'd remain committed to his care as a psychotherapist? Before Paul triggered her ultimate outburst, Paul said: "I don't want to upset you Gina", she sternly retorted: "You won't!" Yet she ends up tonight telling Paul to leave.
Another thing I'm wondering about is Paul saying he can't "shrink" Amy"; she's too complicated. Are we supposed to think most of us aren't so complicated? No knock on Amy, but does anyone think she's psychologically more complex than any other character on In Treatment, or everyone who's genuinely, manifestly helped by psychoanalysis? Could a psychoanalyst view a patient -- or one patient relative to others -- this way? Is there psychoanalytic literature, from Freud on, about patients "too complex" to be shrunk?
Finally, is there any good reason why Gina didn't come clean/clue Paul in as at the end of the session many weeks ago about herself, about David, about Charlie, about love being "bigger than any rules." In terms of serving Paul as a psychotherapist, that is, as opposed to Gina's own issues? She was adamant, categorical that dependency defines Laura's relationship to Paul. Categorical that if Paul stopped resisting Laura's advances, Laura would be shocked. "Rightly so. And she'll leave you." Adamant that Gina would continue to fight him every step of the way against doing something he'd forever regret. How does this square with her acknowledgement, finally, that she'd had slept with Charlie if she loved Charlie instead of David? How does this square with her now telling Paul:
"Now you decide. Maybe you're right. Maybe love can bloom in a psychotherapist's office. And you know . . . ethics and rules. Love is bigger than any rules. And what do I know. . Maybe she's your David. Maybe you can only be the Paul you want to be with her. So: Go to her. Find out."
I found this too plenty moving and eloquent. But does it square with what Gina's been saying for weeks? Is there a way to view this as other than Gina's issues long intruding on the sessions with Paul, even if he read her wrong in some profound respects as well as right in others? Any way to view this as not an epiphany for Gina; as not a breakthrough for her? If not in her self-awareness, at least in what she's willing to reveal; and in very basic positions?
Actually, I don't think it's the first time. Paul has had breakthroughs/epiphanies about himself in sessions with patients, and not just with Laura. Doesn't Gina, while previously criticizing Paul for thinking he can be a good therapist, or a better therapist, only by forming a personal bond with patients, do this very thing herself in impressing on Paul that she'd crossed lines with him in their sessions, and wanted Paul to appreciate this underscored how committed she was to his care as a psychotherapist -- how much he could and should trust her now; more than before?
I'm curious about reactions, particularly from therapists or others knowledgeable about psychoanalysis, to Paul's 'crisis' as expressed in his session with Gina tonight -- personal accounts, general reactions, remarks about particulars.
One particular of sorts: Paul mentions Sophie's breakthrough(s) this week as an example where he suspects the credit should go not to his training or "therapeutic process", but rather to his interpersonal bond/connection with Sophie. Not to discount the latter, but it seemed to me that Paul very much brought his training/psychanalytic theory to bear in treating Sophie, including this week.
Paul makes the connection with Alex's earlier impressing on Paul how important it was for a pilot to rely on his instruments when he goes into vertigo. Paul then tells Gina he thinks it's the opposite for therapists -- that their learning can lead them astray and they should rely less on this. What Paul doesn't mention in tonight's session -- despite all the recriminations/guilt/speculation about Alex's death, the discussions about vertigo and about psychotherapy, is Alex's later remark that relying on his instruments was what got him where he was: that Alex and his instruments were so proficient that he pushed the button and killed the Madrassa children. I don't recall how Paul responded at the time to this, but it strikes me, speculating myself, that Alex may have died not just because of his guilt but because he drew the wrong lesson about what he relied on: What led Alex astray wasn't his instruments: his instruments as Alex himself said were proficient -- deadly so. What led Alex astray -- the real blame for his becoming a "Madrassa murderer" -- was faulty intelligence/orders from his superiors. If Alex's guilt, combined with drawing the wrong lesson and blaming reliance on his instruments for the tragedy, led him to foolishly disregard the instruments in favor of his instincts when he went into vertigo . . . . ??? If nothing else, a pilot no longer dedicated to relying on his instruments as need be is manifestly unfit to fly -- or so I gather from what's unfolded on In Treatment.
Is Paul poised to make a similar mistake: blaming his training for tragedies/losses that weren't really his fault, even if Paul might have have had some opportunity to have prevented/mitigated them? Yes, it's important to bring one's judgment to bear, but as Gina explains most eloquently: training/instruments/expertise/analysis can be very helpful tools and shouldn't be blamed when with Alex, Paul, Gina, any of us, the decisions we make, the courses we take, turn out badly. No matter how much training, no matter the rules, we generally retain the free will to put these aside, or take from them only so much as we choose. Thank goodness, or we'd be robots; but it can be perilous to dismiss training/instruments/expertise as though our instincts can serve us better uninformed/unguided by these. Again, Gina was most eloquent, most incisive on this: looking to training/analysis for guidance doesn't mean we have to crush our hearts, our emotions, leading our lives true to these.
I was stunned, on the other hand, when Gina insists Paul's wrong to see himself battling "the forces of repression" with her, when in fact Gina is "an emotional person who has to reign herself in". If this isn't repression, what is? What would a person cold, unemotional through and through, have to repress? Can Gina, such an accomplished psychanalyst, be so ignorant, so deluded about something so basic? (Not that Paul called her on this -- perhaps because he was so chastened for repeatedly accusing Gina as being somewhat heartless.)
And what about Gina's earlier promise to Paul that no matter what he said, no matter what he did, she'd be there for him; that unlike what happened 10 years ago, she wouldn't abandon him; she'd remain committed to his care as a psychotherapist? Before Paul triggered her ultimate outburst, Paul said: "I don't want to upset you Gina", she sternly retorted: "You won't!" Yet she ends up tonight telling Paul to leave.
Another thing I'm wondering about is Paul saying he can't "shrink" Amy"; she's too complicated. Are we supposed to think most of us aren't so complicated? No knock on Amy, but does anyone think she's psychologically more complex than any other character on In Treatment, or everyone who's genuinely, manifestly helped by psychoanalysis? Could a psychoanalyst view a patient -- or one patient relative to others -- this way? Is there psychoanalytic literature, from Freud on, about patients "too complex" to be shrunk?
Finally, is there any good reason why Gina didn't come clean/clue Paul in as at the end of the session many weeks ago about herself, about David, about Charlie, about love being "bigger than any rules." In terms of serving Paul as a psychotherapist, that is, as opposed to Gina's own issues? She was adamant, categorical that dependency defines Laura's relationship to Paul. Categorical that if Paul stopped resisting Laura's advances, Laura would be shocked. "Rightly so. And she'll leave you." Adamant that Gina would continue to fight him every step of the way against doing something he'd forever regret. How does this square with her acknowledgement, finally, that she'd had slept with Charlie if she loved Charlie instead of David? How does this square with her now telling Paul:
"Now you decide. Maybe you're right. Maybe love can bloom in a psychotherapist's office. And you know . . . ethics and rules. Love is bigger than any rules. And what do I know. . Maybe she's your David. Maybe you can only be the Paul you want to be with her. So: Go to her. Find out."
I found this too plenty moving and eloquent. But does it square with what Gina's been saying for weeks? Is there a way to view this as other than Gina's issues long intruding on the sessions with Paul, even if he read her wrong in some profound respects as well as right in others? Any way to view this as not an epiphany for Gina; as not a breakthrough for her? If not in her self-awareness, at least in what she's willing to reveal; and in very basic positions?
Actually, I don't think it's the first time. Paul has had breakthroughs/epiphanies about himself in sessions with patients, and not just with Laura. Doesn't Gina, while previously criticizing Paul for thinking he can be a good therapist, or a better therapist, only by forming a personal bond with patients, do this very thing herself in impressing on Paul that she'd crossed lines with him in their sessions, and wanted Paul to appreciate this underscored how committed she was to his care as a psychotherapist -- how much he could and should trust her now; more than before?
Unfortunately, since I'm avoiding exposure to trailers or discussion about episodes not yet aired, I won't be reading discussion until after I've seen the remaining episodes next week.
Paul (to Jake on betrayal/falling out of love): "There's a huge sadness there. Because you sense the loss. And you begin to lose the desire to connect."
Paul: "This is therapy: we don't believe in accidents here."
(I might not have these verbatim.)
|
|
|
Posts:
119
Registered:
2/16/08
|
|
(136 of 150)
Mar 21, 2008 9:18 PM
|
Thank you, VioletsBlues, from the bottom of my heart. You have spoken so eloquently for many of us.
People who haven't lived it just don't get it. They don't realize that at age 47, you could continue to have fairly regular dreams about sexual abuse in your childhood and pre-teens (the dreams that really get to me are where I get so aroused and turned on by the abuser). They don't get why your sex life can't really ever be as good as it could have been. They act as though if we could think about it cognitively, we could get over it, etc. Yeah, right. As if we want to feel this badly.
I have a very well-meaning friend, going on 25 years now, and I know she's just not the person to talk to when I get into my head. She once said it was time for me not to take myself so seriously and, referring to an ongoing struggle, that it was time for me to put on my grown-up panties and move on. She is a kind, loving person and thinks she's helping me. But she just doesn't get it. She doesn't understand.
From VioletsBlues:
> If people could talk easily and freely about things
> that have caused them great pain perhaps you'd have a
> point. But most people don't come into therapy
> understanding how something that happened when they
> were ten shaped their lives. A therapist doesn't
> just listen, they help the patient put the pieces of
> the puzzle together and use what they learn to change
> their lives.
>
> Try and imagine, truly imagine how you'd feel talking
> about one of your parents sexually abusing you when
> you were six. For starters believe it or not,
> children don't know it's wrong. They may not figure
> out that what their parent did was wrong until
> they're much much older, maybe into their teens or
> twenties. Or they may bury the memory to protect
> themselves. Then imagine the shame and anger when
> you figure it out. Then imagine the amazement when
> you realize that moment has colored every choice
> you've ever made in your life. There's a whole range
> of emotions people go through when they start to
> examine their lives and anger is a big part for most
> people.
>
> What part of that is hard to understand?
>
> From RoDann:
> > I don't understand the mentally distressed.
> The
> > clients that Paul sees; I want to slap them
> senseless
> > or shake them or scream at them.
> >
> > I want to say "Hey, you are in therapy. What do
> think
> > is supposed to happen in here. Just sit around
> and
> > eat pizza, drink coffee, or flirt. No, we are
> > supposed to broach those issues that make you
> examine
> > yourself and your behaviour no matter how
> > uncomfortable they make you feel."
> >
> > I just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
