|
|
Pardon me, but did I dedect a bit of amorous feeling from Gina to Paul? I mean she was all dressed up and I do not think she was going anywhere! I felt a transference occurring and Paul was oblivous to it.
Very interesting energy and how Paul kept saying everyone wanted to get Gina - we worshipped you! Very interesting energy there.
Paul needs an outside life - he has none - duh! He has been to into his patients to feed his ego - he needs to take a break from patients and come back later - too much of this stuff is not good for anybody!
I feel so for Oliver, and all the patients this year as well as last year - very well done - await next season's patients.
--
Live Deep in Love and Peace
Miss Desmond
|
Posts:
631
Registered:
2/26/08
|
|
(24 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 31, 2009 11:29 PM
|
> To me. Paul's constant desire to be with Laura,
> Paul's fantasizing about Laura, Paul's rationalizing
> with Gina about the possibility of having a
> relationship with Laura (after they stop being
> patient/therapist), Paul's revelation of his love
> for Laura to his wife and his therapist, Paul's
> weekly arguments over his love for Laura, Paul's
> slamming another patient against the wall over his
> jealousy of Laura, Paul's calling Laura on the phone
> for a week, begging her to meet with him and Paul's
> final decision to go to Laura's house and tell her he
> loved her, and perhaps to be with her, suggests he
> was going against his own desires,wants and values
> when he finally walked away from her.
>
> To me it suggests he allowed societal norms to
> supercede his own desires and his own needs in this
> situation.
I appreciate the response, Touched.
Your take differs from Gina's, which is that Paul's response was a manifestation of Paul's values. "You won" she tells Paul. "You know, this panic attack . . . . It's yours! . . . the very best part of you."
Your take also differs from Paul's, which is that it wasn't about any values -- his own or society's: not about his marriage, not his children, not professional ethics, not what Gina had impressed upon him. Rather, Paul was afraid of "losing control." He was afraid he would be "swallowed up."
Paul was scared of unleashing his passion -- as with his biology teacher as a young teen; as with the "hot" Doris from the Institute who "had a thing" for Paul "back in the day, but who Paul was afraid might "use it against me somehow."
And, perhaps, with Tammy as a teen, when his mother reacted to his going to Tammy's, up to her bedroom, with her first attempt at suicide -- taking from him his glorious evening, as Gina rightly remarks. Tammy told Paul that he suddenly tore from her bedroom, I believe rushing back to his apartment, to find his mother had ingested a slew of pills or whatever.
Paul's take resonated with me a whole lot more than Gina's. I agree with Paul that moral choices aren't made subconsicously.
You say what we saw leading up to the Season 1 finale
>"suggests he was going against his own desires,wants and values when he finally walked away from her.
> To me it suggests he allowed societal norms to
> supercede his own desires and his own needs in this situation.
So, like Gina, you believe Paul made a moral decision. But unlike Gina, you believe it wasn't Pauls's own values that won out, but "societal norms"?
As best I recall, neither Paul nor Gina says a word about "societal norms" in that finale.
As I've said, Paul's take is what resonates with me. But even if one were to swallow Gina's take that the panic attack preventing Paul from acting on some of his desires reflected a moral decision, why chalk it up to "societal norms" rather than to Paul's own values?
After all, as MissPDX underscored, Paul's values have very much encompassed concern for what's ultimately best for his patients, and concern for his children. Gina tells him his panic attack kept him from hurting a patient he cared deeply about. Maybe so. If we swallow that the subsconsious can make moral choices, why do we need look beyond Paul's own values -- his determination not to repeat the sins, the selfishness of his father; not to betray and harm Laura by being another "David". These values are insufficient without invoking "societal norms" that Paul doesn't subscribe to and doesn't mention. Why?
> My problem is that he fought the societal norms
> of one situation for 8 weeks and finally yielded to
> it, in spite of how much he wanted to do
> otherwise,...
Again, I don't see why you're saying Paul fought "the societal norms" for 8 weeks. What I saw and heard him struggling with were his own values, including not wanting to hurt people he cared about. Paul finally answered Gina's question why he came to her specifically by revealing that he wanted to face, to hear the strongest case for not proceeding to romance Laura. Paul says, very touchingly -- to me very convincingly -- that he wants to be sure he's not taking advantage of his postion vis-a-vis Laura in a way that would be harmful to her, and so forth. In other words, Paul is struggling with his values, and expects Gina will help ensure Paul won't miss anything of consequence in Paul's moral universe.
When Paul rebuffs Laura, he expresses concern for how he can effectively proceed as her therapist, about not betraying and hurting Laura as David did, about not behaving selfishly with no regard for the impact on his family as his father did. Aren't these Paul's values? What suggests we need to look beyond these and contend Paul was struggling instead with "societal norms"?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,426
Registered:
7/24/08
|
|
(23 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 31, 2009 5:07 PM
|
|
AMEN and A-MEN, Touched...it was so obvious, but even though you had to overstate the obvious, it begs the question, "What was he thinking?"
|
|
|
Posts:
2,571
Registered:
3/19/08
|
|
(22 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 31, 2009 10:49 AM
|
> &> As for "societal norms", what suggests that these
> weighed on Paul with respect to Laura?
>
To me. Paul's constant desire to be with Laura, Paul's fantasizing about Laura, Paul's rationalizing with Gina about the possibility of having a relationship with Laura (after they stop being patient/therapist), Paul's revelation of his love for Laura to his wife and his therapist, Paul's weekly arguments over his love for Laura, Paul's slamming another patient against the wall over his jealousy of Laura, Paul's calling Laura on the phone for a week, begging her to meet with him and Paul's final decision to go to Laura's house and tell her he loved her, and perhaps to be with her, suggests he was going against his own desires,wants and values when he finally walked away from her.
To me it suggests he allowed societal norms to supercede his own desires and his own needs in this situation.
> I understand people here may subscribe to societal
> norms and accord these moral status, but I don't see
> that it's fair or accurate to project these onto Paul
> and regard him as a hypocrite for not following
> someone else's morality.
My problem is that he fought the societal norms of one situation for 8 weeks and finally yielded to it, in spite of how much he wanted to do otherwise,...
yet he didn't feel the slightest hesitation in the other, even after going through his own pain upon being the husband of a woman having an affair, even after having his heart ripped out (or perhaps his pride ripped out) over Kate's affair, even after screaming at Kate over coming home all" wet and flooshed and Hawny" and feeding dinner to her children, even after feeling so disgusted about that situation, even after seeing his own marriage crumble apart, even after having to move out and see his own children only on weekends, even after feeling like such a failure over the whole dissolution of his marriage...he just goes out and helps re-create that situation (maybe) in someone else's household without the slightest questioning of that decision???
yes, that does seem very hypocritical to me and terribly out of character for Paul Weston.
--
TouchedByThPoet
http://sites.google.com/site/touchedbythpoet/Home
|
|
|
Posts:
631
Registered:
2/26/08
|
|
(21 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 31, 2009 4:36 AM
|
> he certainly had cause to be upset with his wife. I
> think it's tempting to blame or demonize the 'other'
> man/woman, but Paul didn't do this. He did call
> Edward an "insurance salesman" a couple times, but I
> think that was more to belittle Kate.
Right, Katie, to Paul, Kate was the person accountable to him, not Edward.
So, too, I don't see Paul as acccountable to Mark.
As for "societal norms", what suggests that these weighed on Paul with respect to Laura?
Or again, that he blamed Kate (or Edward) for violating "societal norms". He blamed Kate for betraying him, and (I believe somewhat unfairly) for the impact on the children.
I understand people here may subscribe to societal norms and accord these moral status, but I don't see that it's fair or accurate to project these onto Paul and regard him as a hypocrite for not following someone else's morality.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,590
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(20 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 30, 2009 12:43 AM
|
> Interesting discussion. I think Paul's professional
> ethics are a different animal than his personal
> morality. The former is more black and white, while
> the latter is shaded by different schools of thought.
> I believe Paul is graduate of the "Having sex with
> h married consenting adults is morally acceptable"
> group.
Good point on the black and white of the rules of business vs. the heart
Nobody can know more than Paul, a therapist, all sides of the affair argument, consequences, reasons, needs, excuses, denials, acting out, and epiphanies of love. A whole slew of complicaterd individual circumstances can lead to taking a lover who is not your wife, or is somebody elses wife. I bet Paul felt a little more reserved in his judgement of Kate after he bedded Tammy Kent. Perhaps he felt first hand the emptiness of their coupling.
--
Edited by MissPDX at 05/29/2009 9:46 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,771
Registered:
3/6/07
|
|
(19 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 9:34 PM
|
|
It does seem hypocritical, and we can all agree that he certainly had cause to be upset with his wife. I think it's tempting to blame or demonize the 'other' man/woman, but Paul didn't do this. He did call Edward an "insurance salesman" a couple times, but I think that was more to belittle Kate.
|
|
|
Posts:
296
Registered:
3/24/08
|
|
(18 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 8:58 PM
|
|
I agree, too. How could Paul, who was so upset about Kate's affair with Edward, have a fling with a married woman and have no qualms about it? Seemed very out of character to me.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,321
Registered:
6/4/07
|
|
(17 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 8:45 PM
|
I guess I'm never going to see this the way some others do. It seems out of character to me. I will leave it at that.
I happen to agree with you on this too
|
|
|
Posts:
1,771
Registered:
3/6/07
|
|
(16 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 8:12 PM
|
|
Interesting discussion. I think Paul's professional ethics are a different animal than his personal morality. The former is more black and white, while the latter is shaded by different schools of thought. I believe Paul is graduate of the "Having sex with married consenting adults is morally acceptable" group.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,571
Registered:
3/19/08
|
|
(15 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 2:43 PM
|
&
> Touched, I can't speak for MissPDX of course, but I
> understood her to mean by "free" that Tammy was
> competent to make her own choices, uncolored by the
> dynamic, the vulnerability, of being Paul's patient.
>
> It sounds like you buy Gina's take on Paul panic
> attack hook, line, and sinker. I didn't and don't.
> Paul didn't maintain his panic attack
> k manifested soul-searching, reflection, morality. I
> agree with Paul's take: "Who's the coward now?" and
> that "moral decisons aren't made in the
> subconscious."
>
> This has been discussed already, but I don't see what
> responsibility Paul has for Tammy's marriage. Paul
> never suggested he thought Edward betrayed him
> somehow; only Kate.
>
> We don't know Paul didn't question anything before
> sleeping wth Tammy. We know what we saw, what was
> said.
Tammy is indeed capable of making her own choices uncolored by the patient/doctor dynamic but I cant quite agree that there is no moral dilemma in the Tammy/Paul hook-up just because its different than the Laura/Paul relationship. I also dont agree that just because Paul isnt THE responsible party for Tammy's marriage, Ithat he bears no responsibility for any complications that arise from his participation in an affair with Tammy.
In both cases society has decided there are norms and boundaries that are right and wrong. (Please note here they are not my boundaries, I am speaking of societal norms).
In the first case Paul struggles with the boundary and frankly tries a lot of ways around the boundary, really wants to talk himself out of honoring the boundary by rationalizing that since Laura is no longer his patient, he can have her as a love interest, but ultimately he is unable to talk himself out of it...or at least we are lead to believe does not cross it because his body just wont let him.
In the second case, he simply says "fuck it, boundaries? what boundaries? not my problem" and his body doesnt protest, we have no panic...we just see him eating breakfast with a smug look the next day.
I guess I'm never going to see this the way some others do. It seems out of character to me. I will leave it at that.
--
TouchedByThPoet
http://sites.google.com/site/touchedbythpoet/Home
|
|
|
Posts:
631
Registered:
2/26/08
|
|
(14 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
|
> > His decision to sleep with Tammy was made
> > with Tammy, a free acting adult.
> > Laura and Mia were patients under his care.
> > Different story.
>
> Tammy wasnt a FREE and acting adult, she was a
> MARRIED and acting adult. I have never ever
> insinuated that the situation was the same, only
> that both situations are heavy with moral
> questions and dilemmas and it makes no sense > to me that one would disturb him so much that > he runs screaming from the house and collapse > in a panic on the hood of his car and the other > wouldnt even make him bat an eye.
> Suddenly the deeply reflective, searching,
> questioning, Paul becomes the guy who jumps > into bed with an old married girlfriend, without
> questioning what that might do to her marriage, > what it might do to his own fragile state, what it > might do to his therapist-patient relationship with
> Gina...
Touched, I can't speak for MissPDX of course, but I understood her to mean by "free" that Tammy was competent to make her own choices, uncolored by the dynamic, the vulnerability, of being Paul's patient.
It sounds like you buy Gina's take on Paul panic attack hook, line, and sinker. I didn't and don't. Paul didn't maintain his panic attack manifested soul-searching, reflection, morality. I agree with Paul's take: "Who's the coward now?" and that "moral decisons aren't made in the subconscious."
This has been discussed already, but I don't see what responsibility Paul has for Tammy's marriage. Paul never suggested he thought Edward betrayed him somehow; only Kate.
We don't know Paul didn't question anything before sleeping wth Tammy. We know what we saw, what was said.
|
|
|
Posts:
631
Registered:
2/26/08
|
|
(13 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 9:37 AM
|
> > Well, from my perspective, you're not taking
> > Gina Week 8, at her word.
>
> I am not going strictly by what she said so if we
> e can soften that a bit, I will agree. But I also
> think to take Gina at her word in week 8 means
> you cant really take her at her word in weeks > 2,3,4,5,6
I agree. Gina essentially revealed in Week 8 that she'd been lying about Charlie to Paul all these weeks, that she'd left Charlie and Paul for years with a lie.
> Sometimes, when pushed to the brink of
> emotion and anger and sadness people blurt out > things that may or may not be full truths. I do > not doubt Gina's love or that it kept her from > ever straying with anyone but I feel like earlier > weeks of Season 1
> make a very strong case for Gina's opinion on the
> topic of "crossing boundaries" regardless of her
> emotional outburst in the last session.
A strong case in terms of what Gina had earlier espoused to Paul. Yes, Gina is usually most eloquent. In week 8, she eloquently made the case that "Love beng bigger than any rules." She didn't just espouse something different from before -- she declared very specifically that what she'd long maintained was not "the real reason" for her not sleeping with Charlie.
> > Even when Gina closes with "I'm sorry he
> > got hurt. But I didn't love [Charlie]. Not
> > not even for a day." Again, if she truly
> > adhered to 'No sleeping with
> > patients' -- no way, no how; then wouldn't
> > every other reason be superfluous.
> >
> Yes perhaps but the "no sleeping with patients"
> reason was never powerful enough to shut Paul > up. He had goaded her for weeks about the > issue both in relation to his own situation with > Laura and then in relation to her situation with > Charlie. And he had basically accused her of > having no heart, being made only of scruples > and rules, having no feeling. This
> particular reason may not have been the
> only reason for her but it was the only
> reason that would make Paul see her in a
> different light.
Well, didn't Gina end up telling Paul he wasn't cowardly with Laura, that Paul had enormous feelings for her, which made letting Laura go all the more difficult and admirable? I don't buy this, but not because it's illogical. Couldn't Gina have stressed she had enormous feelings for David; how standing by the rules enriched her life and her ultimate comfort with who she was, how she lived?
> > I hardly blame Gina for "losing it" with Paul
> > so to speak at times. As Pauls
> > acknowledges and apologizes profusely in > > the finale, it must have been exhausting to > > bear the brunt of all that Paul threw
> > at her. Still, why should Gina's response
> > include declaractions strikingly at odds with
> > moral positons, ethical obligations, she > > genuinely purports to hold dear?
> I have felt this way, so I get this. Sometimes
> arguing just wears you out and you have to say
> "ok, do it your way", even if you dont agree.
OK, but I still don't understand why this need entail lying, or how it justifies Gina lying about what her principles have been and what's genuinely guided her life with David, and in the face of Charlie.
> > I hear you, and I regard this as requiring
> > that we not take Gina at her word in last > > seasons's penultimate session. I'm loathe >> to do this.
> why? Other people on this show say things that
> you cannot completely believe or they couch half
> truths in their statements. Paul does it
> constantly.
Constantly?
> To believe that Gina would never do it is to
> believe Gina is infallible.
No. I hardly think that steadfast candor leaves nothing for a person to be fallible about.
>I just think that he allowed himself to consider
> the ramifications of sleeping with Laura,
> someone he really really really really wanted to > sleep with and ultimately, he just couldnt do
> it...ultimately his body REFUSED to let him do > it...but he didnt appear to even break a sweat > lover the ramifications of sleeping with Tammy. > A. she is married and while it wont ruin his own > marriage, it might ruin hers, it might cause him > some embarassment, some scandal, might
> become sordid..who knows,
????? No point repeating what I and MissPDX have said.
> He had expressly told Gina he would not do it
> only a few hours earlier and did not seem to
> bat an eye about going back on his word.
> And he seemed so genuine when he said it. Yet > another example of characters saying things > they do not fully mean.
I believe it was a couple weeks, and Paul may have geuninely meant to stand by his promise. Be that as it may, I don't condone Paul's deceit towards Gina --not only breaking his promise but initiially concealing this from Gina.
> It just seemed to me
> he was parsing his morality there.
I don't know what you mean by parsing his morality. Paul didn't defend himself that I recall. I thought he ultimately apologized to Gina for acting like a bad kid, for breaking his promise, for being deceitful.
> I have written on a few threads about how I
> think several characters seem to go from one > pole to the other in very short order this Season, > Walter, Mia,
> Oliver's parents...that's a whole new discussion.
Agreed. The acting of GB, Dianne Wiest, Hope Davis, Allison Pill is strong enough, along with much stellar diaglogue, to pull me along. The other episodes airing on Monday on the other hand . . . .
And it's hard for me to swallow Paul's supposed transformation in the last week vis-a-vis Gina. I could understand him saying he wants a break from therapy now that the lawsuit isn't hanging over his head, or that he should see someone besides Gina. But he barely avoided making atrotious choices, throwing his life's work away, but for Gina's masterful intervention and Rosie's timely weighing in.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,571
Registered:
3/19/08
|
|
(12 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 9:30 AM
|
> Still, I don't see how, for Paul, his decisions of
>
> > how to proceed wth Tammy nvolve ethical dilemmas he
>
> > faced with Laura, with Mia. I suppose this has
> > already been the subject of considerate disussion
> on
> > oher thread's
>
> His decision to sleep with Tammy was made with Tammy,
> a free acting adult.
>
> Laura and Mia were patients under his care. Different
> story.
Tammy wasnt a FREE and acting adult, she was a MARRIED and acting adult. I have never ever insinuated that the situation was the same, only that both situations are heavy with moral questions and dilemmas and it makes no sense to me that one would disturb him so much that he runs screaming from the house and collapse in a panic on the hood of his car and the other wouldnt even make him bat an eye. Suddenly the deeply reflective, searching, questioning, Paul becomes the guy who jumps into bed with an old married girlfriend, without questioning what that might do to her marriage, what it might do to his own fragile state, what it might do to his therapist-patient relationship with Gina...
I dont get it.
--
TouchedByThPoet
http://sites.google.com/site/touchedbythpoet/Home
|
|
|
Posts:
1,590
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(11 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 1:50 AM
|
Pardon me, but did I dedect a bit of amorous feeling from Gina to Paul? I mean she was all dressed up and I do not think she was going anywhere! I felt a transference occurring and Paul was oblivous to it.
Very interesting energy and how Paul kept saying everyone wanted to get Gina - we worshipped you! Very interesting energy there.
There was intimacy there, but I would not mistake it for romance. Transference is a natural part of therapy, it is expected. These two have mutual respect and admiration for one another. There is real intimacy there.
They know full well that boundaries were broken due to their dual roles (teacher/student), but they also knew that they ultimately did allright by one another. But I think that the last outbreak between the two brought home to them the importance of those boundaries, and thrust to the forefront all those questions on just exactly how to define their relationship???
I think Gina did have a hot date.
--
Edited by MissPDX at 05/28/2009 11:12 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,590
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(10 of 24)
Re: Gina's Secret Seduction
May 29, 2009 1:31 AM
|
Still, I don't see how, for Paul, his decisions of
> how to proceed wth Tammy nvolve ethical dilemmas he
> faced with Laura, with Mia. I suppose this has
> already been the subject of considerate disussion on
> oher thread's
His decision to sleep with Tammy was made with Tammy, a free acting adult.
Laura and Mia were patients under his care. Different story.
|
|
|
|
|
