Is therapy necessary?

[Zapbasket]

I've been thinking a lot about what kind of traits / values / experiences I should hold out for in a romantic partner. Now that I'm in my late 30's, I'm tempted to include in the list a preference for guys who have been in some form of regular psychotherapy, at some point in their adult lives, lasting at least a couple of months or more. To me, this indicates that they have received an "emotional education," take some measure of responsibility for their feelings and circumstances, have a desire to better understand their role in what happens to them, understand that feelings and motivations are complex and deep-seated, and possess the humility to recognize, and act on the recognition, that you can't always go it alone and sometimes a third party can help give you new perspective on things.

 

Do you think this is a reasonable requirement? Why or why not? Do you believe that psychotherapy is the only / most effective way to achieve any real personal insight and change? Do you think a thirty-something who has never had any kind of therapy can have the same degree of self-knowledge as one who has?

[iiiii]

Interesting idea - but no, sorry, I don't really agree.

 

I think when people have their lives together, the proof is in the pudding - you can see it in the way they talk, the way they act, and the fact that nearly everyone who knows them respects them.

 

I've met some really messed up and superficial people who have been through psychotherapy. Some people seem to just love going to talk about their problems - attending psychotherapy doesn't mean you necessarily gain insight or have the motivation to live with integrity after counseling stops.

[TXGuy]

So getting through life without needing therapy is now a character flaw?

 

That's an interesting perspective. But I suspect it might be an attemp to spin the potential stigma of being in therapy into some type of badge of honor.

 

You can set whatever criteria you want for your dating partners, including having had ongoing therapy. I would be interested to know how you plan to go about asking such a question of people without putting them off. That information might come in handy for people who would like to screen out people who required regular therapy.

[Quiet Storm]

Most of what we know about coping and relationships comes from our family of origin. If we have good models, then we should be well prepared for life. Good models teach us to be introspective and self aware.

 

Good parents teach kids how to cope in healthy ways. They show you how to handle anger, sadness, jealousy, grief, etc. So a person raised with good models for coping will be so much more equipped than someone who was raised with an alcoholic parent, for example. That parent showed their child that they cope by escaping or avoiding the problem. Instead of dealing with the issue in a healthy way, they numb themselves. This child will not know how to cope with stress because they don't have the tools.

 

People from functional, intact families often have a good relationship model to learn from. A child from this household may see their parents disagree, but discuss the problem in a fair & rational way. They see their how their parents honor & respect marriage & commitment. A person from a dysfunctional home, however, may see disrespectful arguments or even violence. They may see Dad cheat, or Mom sobbing in her room because Dad ran off to the bar instead of communicating.

 

Kids with abusive or addicted parents often learn to lie to protect themselves. The problem is, it becomes a hard habit to break.

 

So I think it depends on the person and their history.

 

And people can be in therapy for years and still be a very messed up person. Counseling cannot cure all issues, not by a long shot. I know lots of people who have been in therapy at some point, and who would not be good relationship partners for anyone.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Quiet Storm

[Andy_K]

Great idea. From now on, I'll only date girls who have been on suicide watch or spent time in a padded cell. After all, they'll be more self aware, emotionally mature, and mentally stable, right?

[Zapbasket]

Hmm. Not sure what in my original post is eliciting such sarcasm from some of you. Pretty sure I made clear I'm not talking about psychotherapy as a REQUIREMENT in a man I'd date. Also intrigued by what seems to be this automatic correlation of psychotherapy with "having issues" like suicidality or having to be in a "padded cell." QUITE SURE that in my original post, I listed the actual attributes of dealing with emotions that I'm looking for in a partner, that I suggested MAY or MAY NOT come about through some exposure to psychotherapy.

 

So how about we cut the sarcasm, and focus on the content and spirit of my question?

 

The reason I asked it in the first place is because my dating experience has included mostly, or entirely, people who lack self-awareness and struggle to talk about their feelings, to a degree that seriously impedes healthy communication. In my own, personal experience, psychotherapy has been a real eye-opener to patterns in my work and relationships and has helped me grow into a person who is comfortable discussing feelings and brings a healthy degree of self-awareness to the table. Of course, I'm always working to improve in these areas; I have blind spots; but psychotherapy has given me tools like nothing else has, especially given I come from a very emotionally tight-lipped family.

 

I know that just because someone goes to psychotherapy does not mean they are any more pleasant to have a relationship with. In fact, I dated a man who had spent the bulk of his adult life in weekly psychotherapy, was himself a clinical psychologist, and he was by far the most f'ed up person I have ever known (full-blown NPD).

 

So I suppose my question really is, how do I, or is there a way, where I can suss out whether someone has the relationship to feelings that I mention in my original post:

 

"...indicates that they have received an "emotional education," take some measure of responsibility for their feelings and circumstances, have a desire to better understand their role in what happens to them, understand that feelings and motivations are complex and deep-seated, and possess the humility to recognize, and act on the recognition, that you can't always go it alone and sometimes a third party can help give you new perspective on things."

[KathyM]

I think therapy can be very beneficial for a person, and lead to greater functioning and better knowledge of oneself. But to decide that a person has to have had therapy in order to be a good relationship partner is going overboard IMO. Some people don't need therapy and are functioning well, and with healthy attitudes and behaviors on their own. Some people do already have a good understanding of themselves and what motivates their behavior. So although I think a person can benefit from therapy even if there are no major issues, I wouldn't suggest having that as a strict requirement if the person is already functioning well.

[2sunny]

Just because a person went to therapy doesn't indicate they were willing to see their part in any situation - and doesn't mean they became willing to better themselves.

 

It's no indication that they benefitted from a professional.

 

Look for evidence that they've become a good person doing good things in the world, whether it was required - or not.

[KathyM]

For those you are dating who you find to be dysfunctional, I think it's probably best to just end the relationship, if you are only dating them. Trying to change a person through therapy is usually a relatively long process, and some things are very difficult to change and are very engrained, such as a personality disorder. It's probably best to cut your losses and end the relationship if you are not married to the person.

[KathyM]

Just because a person went to therapy doesn't indicate they were willing to see their part in any situation - and doesn't mean they became willing to better themselves.

 

It's no indication that they benefitted from a professional.

 

Look for evidence that they've become a good person doing good things in the world, whether it was required - or not.

True. Just because a person went to therapy doesn't mean he is now healthy or would make a good relationship partner. Some people are very resistant to a therapist's intervention, and are unwilling to change or to accept any insight. A person's behavior and functioning/mindset is what should be the determining factor of his ability to be a good relationship partner. Not whether or not he went to therapy.

[carhill]

I've been thinking a lot about what kind of traits / values / experiences I should hold out for in a romantic partner. Now that I'm in my late 30's, I'm tempted to include in the list a preference for guys who have been in some form of regular psychotherapy, at some point in their adult lives, lasting at least a couple of months or more.

To me it would be hard to pin down and verify this. Instead, I'd select for those who present themselves in a compatible emotional/psychological style.

To me, this indicates that they have received an "emotional education," take some measure of responsibility for their feelings and circumstances, have a desire to better understand their role in what happens to them, understand that feelings and motivations are complex and deep-seated, and possess the humility to recognize, and act on the recognition, that you can't always go it alone and sometimes a third party can help give you new perspective on things.

 

People can go to school and learn nothing. They can learn a lot. They can self-teach and never attend school. Facing essentially a stranger, IMO it's really impossible to select for this. People don't get degrees or 'graduate' from psychological therapy, at least IME, and we did it for quite a long while.

 

Do you think this is a reasonable requirement? Why or why not?

If it was verifiable, as reasonable as any other 'requirement'.

Do you believe that psychotherapy is the only / most effective way to achieve any real personal insight and change?

It's one way.

Do you think a thirty-something who has never had any kind of therapy can have the same degree of self-knowledge as one who has?

Sure, definitely. People experience life in their own unique ways and process that life in their own individual manner.

 

Amongst my circle of male friends, amongst which only one other one is unmarried, I'm the only man who's admitted to having psychological counseling, in my case MC. The general stated opinion has been that 'I'd never do that'. Yet all the men, save for the one, have been married for decades. So, regardless of how I may feel about what I observe or of the value of therapy, the votes are cast. That's how it goes!

[Zapbasket]

For those you are dating who you find to be dysfunctional, I think it's probably best to just end the relationship, if you are only dating them. Trying to change a person through therapy is usually a relatively long process, and some things are very difficult to change and are very engrained, such as a personality disorder. It's probably best to cut your losses and end the relationship if you are not married to the person.

 

Well, so here's a related question to my original one: how (as a layperson trying to identify worthwhile dating prospects) do you determine whether someone is dysfunctional, beyond garden-variety neuroses? All the guys I had long-term relationships with were high-functioning (well, except this most recent one, who really fell into a major inertia / depression / not-sure-what), and it made it difficult to recognize some very destructive patterns they had.

[KathyM]

Well, so here's a related question to my original one: how (as a layperson trying to identify worthwhile dating prospects) do you determine whether someone is dysfunctional, beyond garden-variety neuroses? All the guys I had long-term relationships with were high-functioning (well, except this most recent one, who really fell into a major inertia / depression / not-sure-what), and it made it difficult to recognize some very destructive patterns they had.

I think there are a lot of ways you can evaluate for compatibility.

 

 

How does he resolve conflict? Does he lose his temper, resort to nastiness or name calling, or refuse to talk about issues? That would be a red flag.

 

 

Does he have anger management issues and blow up over many things?

 

 

Does he treat you with respect and care about your feelings and wishes, or does he insist on having his own way most of the time and want you to do things his way? Does he respect you as a person and show respect?

 

 

Does he get along with people in general, or is he often having falling outs with people?

 

 

Does he manage his life and his money well, or is he poorly functioning?

 

 

Does he have attitudes that are compatible with you?

 

 

Does he enjoy life and seem to be a happy person in general, or does he often wallow in self pity or negativity?

 

 

You evaluate based on behaviors and attitudes that he expresses. Some people are pretty good at covering who they really are, but eventually, there will be signs of a person's dysfunctional behaviors or attitudes. Some people dismiss a dating partner's dysfunctional attitudes or behaviors because they want the relationship to work, but that usually ends up blowing up in a person's face sooner or later.

[d0nnivain]

Wanting a stable emotionally healthy partner is fine. Adding a litmus test that requires everyone to have been through therapy is a problem.

[alwayshere]

Great idea. From now on, I'll only date girls who have been on suicide watch or spent time in a padded cell. After all, they'll be more self aware, emotionally mature, and mentally stable, right?

 

You do realize that the whole "therapy is only for crazy people" (or even the term crazy people) is just.....no

 

I think having "been to therapy" as a dating requirement is kind of silly, but there's no need to be offensive.

[alwayshere]

If every person I have ever dated is dysfunctional, then the common denominator is me, and I should probably figure out WHY I keep choosing dysfunctional men.

[Zapbasket]

If every person I have ever dated is dysfunctional, then the common denominator is me, and I should probably figure out WHY I keep choosing dysfunctional men.

 

Indeed. I am in the thick of just such an investigation--with the help of a therapist. And I want to be sure I don't make the same mistake again--far too painful of an experience to repeat.

[Zapbasket]

I think there are a lot of ways you can evaluate for compatibility.

 

 

How does he resolve conflict? Does he lose his temper, resort to nastiness or name calling, or refuse to talk about issues? That would be a red flag.

 

 

Does he have anger management issues and blow up over many things?

 

 

Does he treat you with respect and care about your feelings and wishes, or does he insist on having his own way most of the time and want you to do things his way? Does he respect you as a person and show respect?

 

 

Does he get along with people in general, or is he often having falling outs with people?

 

 

Does he manage his life and his money well, or is he poorly functioning?

 

 

Does he have attitudes that are compatible with you?

 

 

Does he enjoy life and seem to be a happy person in general, or does he often wallow in self pity or negativity?

 

 

You evaluate based on behaviors and attitudes that he expresses. Some people are pretty good at covering who they really are, but eventually, there will be signs of a person's dysfunctional behaviors or attitudes. Some people dismiss a dating partner's dysfunctional attitudes or behaviors because they want the relationship to work, but that usually ends up blowing up in a person's face sooner or later.

 

Thanks. These questions are really helpful. I bolded one of them because in particular this applied to all of my long-term exes. They all had negative attitudes that pervaded everything, and I thought maybe they just needed cheering up.

 

I wish there were a concrete checklist you could use to evaluate potential partners. Then any tendency for denial or rationalization you might have would carry much less weight.

[KathyM]

Thanks. These questions are really helpful. I bolded one of them because in particular this applied to all of my long-term exes. They all had negative attitudes that pervaded everything, and I thought maybe they just needed cheering up.

 

I wish there were a concrete checklist you could use to evaluate potential partners. Then any tendency for denial or rationalization you might have would carry much less weight.

Maybe you could make your own checklist of what is important to you in a relationship partner. Maybe you could do a little research as to qualities of a good relationship partner that you could use when making the list. I often encourage my clients to make these kinds of lists, if they have a history of dysfunctional relationships, so that they keep in mind what is important to them and don't just get caught up in the infatuation stage, and can think more clearly about long term compatibility.

[todreaminblue]

Great idea. From now on, I'll only date girls who have been on suicide watch or spent time in a padded cell. After all, they'll be more self aware, emotionally mature, and mentally stable, right?

 

 

no you shouldnt date those girls, it is obvious that you have little respect for those "types" of girls by the tone of your post.....

 

that's who people should date is people for whom they hold respect for, with therapy or without therapy and they should have respect because of how they are now not what what they attended yesterday or were watched for,.....therapy or not....respect.....

 

posted from the perspective of deb the padded cell girl

[Zapbasket]

Maybe you could make your own checklist of what is important to you in a relationship partner. Maybe you could do a little research as to qualities of a good relationship partner that you could use when making the list. I often encourage my clients to make these kinds of lists, if they have a history of dysfunctional relationships, so that they keep in mind what is important to them and don't just get caught up in the infatuation stage, and can think more clearly about long term compatibility.

 

This is a great idea. There are all kinds of lists and tools you can use to diagnose all kinds of personality and behavioral elements / problems...so why not have a metric or checklist whereby you can "diagnose" a bad potential romantic partner?

 

I know there are all kinds of generic checklists out there--is there a good, comprehensive one you'd recommend, that I could use as a springboard?

 

Thanks.

 

To go back to my original question, like QuietStorm and others have said, someone can be well balanced in their self-awareness and communication of emotions and never have been to a therapy session; likewise, someone can have been to tons of therapy sessions throughout their adulthood and still, well, be a schm*ck. Is there ANYTHING about having been through psychotherapy that makes it easier for romantic partners to discuss their feelings? Or is it completely a moot point, whether someone has been to psychotherapy or not? Based on the responses to this thread, it seems it's the latter. I'm really glad I started this thread because it has made me think a little differently about this subject. Thanks, everyone.

[Tayla]

To the OP: its wise to want to be with someone who is humble enough to seek

Help for whatever affliction they may have. Therepy can be for an array of concerns. I do not begrudge anyone from seeking such. I personally have gone and its been ALOT of applying to move forward. Pt being some folks fair thru it and others do it to plactate someone else.

It takes conventional wisdom to understand that our person of interest may not need therepy as a source of adjustment. I think what you might really be seeking on your checklist is someone that is stable in mind and spirit and willing to be humble in seeking treatment should it come to that.

[KathyM]

This is a great idea. There are all kinds of lists and tools you can use to diagnose all kinds of personality and behavioral elements / problems...so why not have a metric or checklist whereby you can "diagnose" a bad potential romantic partner?

 

I know there are all kinds of generic checklists out there--is there a good, comprehensive one you'd recommend, that I could use as a springboard?

 

Thanks.

 

To go back to my original question, like QuietStorm and others have said, someone can be well balanced in their self-awareness and communication of emotions and never have been to a therapy session; likewise, someone can have been to tons of therapy sessions throughout their adulthood and still, well, be a schm*ck. Is there ANYTHING about having been through psychotherapy that makes it easier for romantic partners to discuss their feelings? Or is it completely a moot point, whether someone has been to psychotherapy or not? Based on the responses to this thread, it seems it's the latter. I'm really glad I started this thread because it has made me think a little differently about this subject. Thanks, everyone.

I would suggest you google "Qualities of a good relationship partner", and comprise your own list of what is important to you.

 

 

As far as benefits of going through psychotherapy, a lot of people (I think it's something like 85%) benefit from having been in therapy, and have improved functioning and understanding of themselves because they went to therapy. That doesn't mean that they would make a good relationship partner, since they may still have some amount of dysfunction which makes it difficult to be in a relationship with them, but they are improved over what they were when they entered counseling. So you'll have to scrutinize for yourself. Just because they went to therapy doesn't mean they'll be a good relationship partner.

[thefooloftheyear]

Many "therapists" have lives of their own that are 10X more fcked up than the majority of their patients/clients....Yes, even MD's/PhD's....

 

Measure twice and cut once...

 

TFY

[KathyM]

It's definately a good idea to carefully select a therapist for those thinking of having therapy, and interview the therapist in the first session to make sure their philosophy is compatible with you, and their form of therapy is something you can accept.