I Was Told Several Times By My Female Psychologist That I Was Very Seductive.
Question: I was told several times by my female psychologist that I was "very seductive." However she continually refused to tell me exactly what "seductive" in psychological terms meant. I felt very unhappy and confused over this. Could you please explain to me what "seductive" means in psychologist/client language?
Answer (1) Your unhappiness and confusion with your psychologist's behavior, is much as I felt when a counsellor told me I was 'manipulative'. I remember going red in the face and when I asked him what he meant, he had the courage and decency to explain in concrete detail without patronizing me, the things he had observed me doing and saying in our session and with my girlfriend in an earlier joint session, in a way that I could recognize and own the behaviors he described. His detailed recall told me a lot about the gift of attention, care and respect he gave me (that until that moment I had not taken in). The discussion which followed enabled me to change how I asked for what I wanted from my girlfriend. Rather than set it up so that she would read my mind I asked her directly.
Your psychologist has failed in her duty to you in that most essential, basic tool of our trade - to speak in plain, accessible language, without mystification, psycho-babble, or jargon so that our clients (and ourselves as well since we tend to teach what we need to learn) are given 'eye opening' information, the 'ahha I finally get it' experience and thus power to choose change or not to change. You can't become a better person when you are given something you don't understand.
Put crap in get crap out. In families the very act of labeling our kids, for example 'you careless idiot' tends to become an injunction to become the very thing we're labeled. Her repeatedly labeling you as 'very seductive' and refusing to explain what any reasonable person would have experienced as criticism and a toxic put down, is in breach of our professional code of ethics (available at the APS web site) and of her duty of care. Labeling without being called to account for it, is particularly destructive of the respect and trust that therapy depends on for its good effect. She blew it damagingly but I hope not to your wish for seeking help from another therapist. I hope you have fired her and have found effective help elsewhere. If not, please email me and I will assist you to locate a competent person in your area. There has been a lively discussion of labeling therapists as 'fuzzy seducers' on another forum.
Answer provided by Peter Fox, Clinical Psychologist
Answer (2) I would not presume to guess what your psychologist means by this but personally, I might use the term as an inference that some one was trying to draw me off the important issues as I see them, by being evasive and distracting in a charming and entertaining manner.
Answer provided by David White, Psychotherapist
Answer (3) Whilst I agree that your psychologist's labelling and refusing to clarify what she means is unhelpful and potentially harmful, I also want to encourage you to read the responses to the forum question about "emotional rescuers" and "fuzzy seducers".
As in all relationships, it can be very productive to confront issues and work things through where this is possible, as even if you finally decide to part company you could learn a lot in the process of working through a difficult and painful situation. There are times, however, when it is wiser and even essential that you walk away, especially if you are being damaged or abused. So by all means work through the situation if you can both be honest and respectful of each other, but walk away when this is not possible.
I think it is also important that we do not fall into the same trap that your psychologist appears to be in by labelling her a bad therapist. All we can say here is that it may be in your best interests to go elsewhere.
In my opinion, the use of jargon and labelling is often a defensive strategy on the part of practitioners, and what I mean by this is that it is fear-based and serves to protect practitioners from having to answer questions and face issues that they find threatening and would rather avoid. Of course practitioners are human and even the best and most experienced practitioners can feel threatened, and this is why I think that it is so important that therapists have adequate therapy and supervision themselves, so that when this happens we are able to get help in dealing with our own issues so we can grow and learn through this process.
My concern is that some training courses in counselling and psychotherapy do not require students to undergo personal therapy themselves, or have a requirement for a very small and inadequate number of sessions, and that some students then find themselves trapped in a situation where they are paying so much for their training that they are unable to afford to pay for their own therapy. I refer here to courses that are accredited, some even to university standards, and I'll stick my neck out here by saying that in my opinion the process of seeking accreditation has been one of the most unwise and damaging steps that psychotherapists have taken in recent years.
The reason I'm bringing this up, as you may well ask what this has to do with your question, is that I think that in the process of seeking accreditation, the emphasis has moved away from developing the personal qualities of the therapist to satisfying certain academic requirements, and it can also be deceptive because it gives the impression that people with recognised qualifications are competent, and again at the risk of being attacked for saying this - but what the hell - I've been attacked many times and I'm still alive and practicing - I doubt that academic qualifications have much relevance to one's competence as a counsellor or psychotherapist, as these are hands-on skills which involve interacting in ways that trigger deep feelings which cannot be resolved academically.
Of course a certain level of theoretical knowledge is important and even essential, but it is of no value in cases where our emotional and mental states prevent us from accurately perceiving our current reality. To quote from a motorola brochure(!!): "All the technology in the world means nothing if you don't know what to do with it", and unresolved mental and emotional issues can cloud our perception and judgement and block access to or distort information.
Hence the importance, emphasised by some already in this forum, of getting away from jargon and talking in ways that everyone is able to understand. That makes us more vulnerable and accountable, and whilst this may be scary, I think it will be highly rewarding to all of us especially in the longer term.
Go well - thank you for asking this very important question and I hope that our responses are helpful.
Answer provided by Donald Marmara, Somatic Psychotherapist
Answer (4) Donald has raised important concerns about training, supervision and accreditation that are at issue in this and the related forum he refers to. These issues include some of the implications of Carl Roger's own theory developed in the 1950's that are often over-looked and for which he was attacked at the time "1. much of the training which psychotherapists received in university professional programs would be irrelevant; 2. that a great deal in therapy depended upon the therapist having his 'heart in the right place' rather than on technical expertise; 3. the enormous amount of professional time and resources expended on assessment and diagnosis may be a waste of time; and 4. there may be no essential difference between what constitutes a good psychotherapeutic relationship and what constitutes a good helping relationship in many other settings such as education, social work, child rearing or even management consultancy."
I highly recommend the this page from which the above was quoted and where the post-rogerian Robert Carkhuff's research is also discussed. It shows that Carkhuff's thinking was going in the same direction as Rogers' but was tending to go even further: '1. the relationship is all important in human growth and development; 2. constructive relationships can be defined in terms of a list of factors; 3. these factors are, at least to a reasonably workable degree, observable and measurable; 4. the absence of these factors produces relationships which can cause people to deteriorate, just as their presence helps people grow. The people who provide the necessary conditions may be professional helpers: counsellors, psychotherapists, social workers, teachers or other members of the helping professions. They might also be members of the individual's indigenous community. In many ways, members of the indigenous community are better placed to offer the necessary conditions because, sharing the "client's" culture, they are more readily able to empathize.' Level five of those necessary factors are described in the following way, 'Therapist is freely and deeply him/herself in the relationship. Therapist is open to experiences and feelings both pleasant and hurtful without defensiveness or retreat into professionalism. Therapist accepts and recognizes contradictory feelings. Therapist is clearly being him/herself in all his/her responses whether personally meaningful or trite. Therapist need not express personal feelings but whether he is giving advice, reflecting, interpreting or sharing experiences, it is clear that he is being very much him/herself so that verbalizations match inner experiences.'
Rogers portrays empathy as a way of sharing power within relationships and that is the issue with your psychologist who refused to discuss her labeling. Empathy is explored here. I am not as convinced as Donald that receiving psychotherapy as a requirement would solve the concerns he raises, since if you take on board the above research, then some psychotherapy (and supervision) is going to cause trainees to deteriorate because of the low level of the 'necessary factors' provided by some mandated therapists/supervisors.
Answer provided by Peter Fox, Clinical Psychologist
Answer (5) I agree with Peter that receiving psychotherapy and supervision as a requirement for training in psychotherapy would not solve these concerns unless the practitioner providing these services possessed the desired qualities, and that if the supervisor/therapist does not possess these qualities it would make things worse. So thank you Peter for pointing this out - I don't have the answer to this and my only comment is that my observation over the years - not documented or proven - is that trainers who run courses that emphasise the therapists' own development are much more likely to have these qualities than those that emphasise only academic requirements, which in a way keeps us going around in circles, except perhaps to recommend that potential clients/students look out more for the personal qualities of a therapist/trainer than just their qualifications. I'm reminded here of a quote I once heard from Billy Connolly: "Be wary of those who say they have the answers. Seek instead the company of those who are trying to understand the questions!"
Answer provided by Donald Marmara, Somatic Psychotherapist
