I respond to the wide-ranging commentaries by Joshua Durban, Mitchell Wilson, and Sarah Schoen on the dark side of the frame. I agree with Durban’s evocation of the aliveness, in person, needed to reach people’s earliest wounds, sensory in nature, and needed to waken repair through embodied, affective co-presence. I share the importance of the analyst’s establishment of the frame, especially with patients denied early holding due to caregivers’ abandonment, neglect, or absence, and I outline my concept of the frame. I differ from Wilson’s emphasis on the verbal dimension in my inclination to invite the transference with patients bearing unprocessed trauma to live the experience anew with them. Similarly, with such patients, I uphold my emphasis on experience in its interconnection with learning. I embrace Schoen’s focus on transitionality, and detail different ways such space might open. I address the temporal discontinuities that Schoen calls attention to as consequences of trauma, which may arise on the dark side of the frame.