Introduction

Literature within systemic family and marital therapy on sexual attraction in therapy is limited. Two studies from the 1990s make a mention of the subject of sexual attraction in marital and family therapy (Brock & Coufal, 1994; Nickell, Hecker, Ray, & Bercik, 1995). Harris (2001) discusses teaching family and marital therapists about sexual attraction in therapy, stating that this is an under-researched area and that little has been written about it. A long-standing absence of systematic research on the topic and the importance of addressing it in supervision and training have been acknowledged to an extent (Farris, 2002). However, there still exists a gap in literature, research and clinical practice, and reference to these issues in the training of systemic therapists is minimal.

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the findings of a research study on systemic family therapists’ accounts of instances of sexual attraction in their practice and the meaning they ascribe to these instances as well as the course of action they decided to take. In addition, my hope was to open up discussion on this taboo subject in therapy and to generate ideas and suggestions for improving practice. Clinical strategies are proposed based on the key findings of the research analysis.

Research Method

I interviewed 14 participants recruited through networking within the community of professionally registered systemic family and couple psychotherapists in the United Kingdom. Post-qualifying experience ranged from 5 to 30 years. Many have been supervising and teaching for a number of years. All but one completed training in the United Kingdom. This was a diverse group originating from five continents with a mixture of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation, with an age range of 40–65. Ethical permission was obtained to use excerpts from research interviews under pseudonyms for publication.

I applied narrative analysis as an appropriate method for eliciting rich narratives and detailed accounts of therapists’ thoughts, dilemmas and feelings. Working with narrative material requires dialogic listening (Bakhtin, 1981) to three voices: the voice of the participant narrator, the theoretical framework, and a reflexive monitoring of reading and interpretation. Hypotheses were generated while reading and analyzing the narratives, enriching an ‘ever growing circle of understanding’ (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998). Interviews evolved in a conversational manner, coherent with the open and flexible nature of narrative analysis, aiming to generate reflection and to facilitate the telling of lived experiences as well as of constructed meanings through imagining hypothetical scenarios. In the final shaping of the results, equal attention was paid to the unique, idiosyncratic meanings and to the shared patterns and commonalities of the themes. Results are a set of storied meanings representing a variety of constructions situated in professional, social, cultural, familial and institutional discourses.

Discursive Themes: A Spectrum

This section summarizes the outcome of narrative analysis relating to the discursive themes that transpired from the accounts. The themes reflect a diverse range of ideas, practices, meanings and emotions rather than generalizations.

A variety of narratives emerged on a ‘spectrum of attraction’ as one participant phrased it, about the instances of sexual attraction in therapists’ clinical practice. Within this spectrum, a range from complete absence of such instances to stories and experiences of strong attraction were described. This reflected both the diversity of systemic practice and consistency, in that examples of attraction were presented as exceptional rather than a regular situation. Discursive themes are summarized as follows.

Sexual Attraction Does Not Occur in Systemic Therapy

Many therapists were certain that sexual attraction never occurred in their clinical sessions. A range of explanations was given for this, such as age difference between therapists and clients; for example, a middle-aged male therapist said, ‘Given my age and that most of my clients are children it’s not unusual there is no sexual attraction. I think I’m attractive to clients in other ways’ (Brian).

Furthermore, typical systemic working contexts such as child and adolescent family services were constructed as not allowing for sexual feelings to occur: ‘The family service context with the child in focus may filter out certain clients who might be more flirtatious’ (Vera). Often groups of colleagues are observing sessions, thus ‘witnessing the relationship’ (Olga). In addition, sessions are frequently video recorded which ‘may make both parties feel contained by that’ (Mia). A strong narrative emerged that ‘individual work lends itself more to moments of intimacy than group work’ (Tom). Some therapists constructed their position within the family context as ‘feeling parental’ rather than sexually attracted. Therapists in private practice also confirmed the importance of the environment and stressed that ‘private milieu can help such feelings develop’ (Robert). Adam stated, ‘Something about working from home allows for such expression and fantasy. There is no receptionist, no formality, it’s very personal’. Some concerns were expressed that within the current economic pressures in the British National Health Service (NHS) context, conversations on the intricacies of the therapeutic relationship are getting lost: ‘and while it is so important to have that reflective space, it is considered as a luxury rather than necessity’ (Dina).

A pattern of narratives suggested that a relatively rare and irregular occurrence of such a phenomenon directly relates to the nature of the systemic approach. Fascinating stories of comparisons and contrasts between systemic and psychodynamic approaches all pointed in the same direction in that these occurrences would be typical for psychodynamic ways of working as opposed to systemic practice. Olga, who works both psychoanalytically and systemically in different settings, commented, ‘In my individual psychodynamic work I can think of many examples but in my systemic work I can’t think of any’. Striking hypotheses developed about how therapists’ positioning in the therapeutic relationship determines sexual attraction. Tim’s comment, ‘Perhaps I haven’t been on a lookout for it’, alongside Emma’s, ‘Perhaps because I haven’t encouraged that talk very much’, suggested that therapists’ chosen focus shapes or even creates occurrence of this phenomenon. Petra’s narrative further developed such thoughts in a compelling reflection on her past psychoanalysis:

Emma expressed that systemic therapy is about ‘real lives and real sexual communication’, whereas when working within a psychoanalytic framework, it is ‘about dreams, distant memories, and unconscious material which encourages building on fantasy’. Another angle to this hypothesis was that perhaps systemic therapists being transparent about themselves and demystifying their ‘persona’ makes them become ‘less of an intriguing mystery figure inviting fantasy and desire’ (Mia).

Within the context of contemplating the impact of the therapist’s position on the occurrence of this phenomenon, another perspective was offered: that a systemic ‘lack of vocabulary’ for these situations relates to the focus on the world of a client where therapists are not a central figure.

A wider context’s impact on limiting conversations about sexual attraction was considered and a narrative transpired about the suppressive nature of family and cultural upbringing, which constrains talking about sexual issues openly:

Robert hypothesized that the professional practice framework describing sexual relationships with clients as unethical closes down conversations about it: ‘To discuss sexual attraction would be tantamount to unethical behaviour, almost regarded in itself as unethical as to do the deed’. He went on to speak of how legal and ethical contexts constrained therapists’ language:

Trust and safety in supervision were regarded as major factors in conversations about sexual attraction. Some therapists did not feel supported enough in a supervision context to discuss sensitive subjects such as sex. Brian, a systemic supervisor, felt ‘interrogated’ in group supervision:

Opposing narratives developed in relation to how sex as a topic influences sexual feelings. Therapists who reported an absence of discussions on the topic of sex in their sessions believed that talking about sex is more likely to evoke sexual feelings: ‘If you enter into the field of sexual intimacy, passion, attraction and so on, you start to perceive the person as a sexual being and as a partner’ (Dina). This was a hypothetical construction, contrasted to the lived experience of others who reflected that talking about sex in therapy desexualizes it: ‘Talking about sex from a professional position in a boundaried and sometimes technical way takes out the mystique and the sexy elements’ (Robert).

Attraction in Therapy Is Not Sexual and Forms Part of Therapy

Therapists seemed to find it relatively easy to recall experiences of attraction but queried its sexual nature. They questioned the definition of sexual attraction and how it differs from other forms of attraction. For example, Dan recounted:

Many emphasized the difference between noticing and feeling attraction. Some clients’ stories about unusual sexual practices and fantasies were so intriguing that it raised a question of another distinction, being sexually attracted by the clients’ stories or the clients themselves.

Therapists’ questioning of the meaning of sexual attraction drew attention to the complexity and the multifaceted characteristics of both sexual attraction and the interpersonal quality of the therapeutic relationship. Many therapists spoke of feeling attracted to clients in a variety of nonsexual ways. Expressions involved admiration, mind attractiveness and being in tune with a client, the latter described in the following story:

Some therapists indicated an overlap between sexual feelings and feelings of closeness and intimacy, stating the difficulty of separating them out. Sonia hypothesized on clients’ experiences in general: ‘I imagine clients often have such feelings, a sense of gratitude or gentleness towards therapists’. A narrative that warm personal feelings equal good therapeutic experience was developed: ‘If it was a positive relationship and if there were elements of flirting I wouldn’t associate it with a sexualised context’ (Tim). ‘Therapy generates certain unique intimacy’ (Olga). ‘Therapy is a kind of special closeness’ (Adam).