In his critique of J. M. Natterson's (2003) article, the author applauds Natterson's willingness to lay bare aspects of his own subjectivity, his willingness to tolerate uncertainty as a valid way of doing therapy, and his courage in raising the issues of the curative aspects of love in the therapeutic dyad. The author questions whether narcissistically organized therapists might find Natterson's method congenial in order to legitimize their unanalyzed needs to be idealized by their patients; he disagrees with Natterson's overly optimistic view of early childhood and posits that many patients experience trauma and emotional deprivation—quite the opposite of adequate provision of love by parents. Natterson's article, because of its rich texture, clinical provocativeness, and intellectual honesty, is a valuable addition to the psychoanalytic literature on love.