You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I think this is an extremely interesting, stimulating, thought-provoking and relevant paper. It is written primarily from the perspective of the female therapist and male patient relationship, and with the premise that sexual difference in therapy makes a difference.
Particular difficulties and problems when an erotic (sexual) transference arises between patient and therapist are explored. The focus is not just on the subtle dynamics this creates in the transference, but also on the demands this makes on the therapist in terms of understanding and validating her own, in particular sexual, countertransference feelings. The author highlights how disruptive these feelings can be to the therapeutic relationship and how they may contribute to a premature ending of the therapy. She reflects in a very frank and open way on how this might come about and what may be the therapist's conscious or unconscious contribution to it. She points out that when a sexual impulse between patient and therapist can become conscious without being acted out, this will enrich the therapeutic relationship and the relationship of the patient with himself.
The author focuses on some key issues for female therapists in this area. Sexual themes in the countertransference seem to give rise to ‘unspecified guilt’, if not shame. This may have to do with a fear of being ‘blamed’ for the patient's arousal, of being seen as provoking it by being needy and seductive herself. This contributes to the inhibition of discussing these issues openly in supervision or with other colleagues. To overcome this the female therapist would have to admit to her own sexuality within the therapeutic relationship, and therefore the possibility of mutuality. The risk otherwise would be to interpret erotic and sexual material from a purely maternal perspective.
The author describes two distinct archetypal patterns which she has observed in the transference. First, the ‘hero’ who denies his own vulnerability and projects it ont