I’ve known several psychologists who either had sex with or started a romance with former supervisees. This is not unethical or illegal, but it creates a performance problem for the psychologist.
More than other fields, clinical psychology frowns upon sex or romance with supervisees because of the nature of psychotherapy supervision, which often involves discussion of personal matters. This makes the relationship susceptible to exploitation by supervisors—they get the supervisee vulnerable in the course of supervision and then pounce. Of course, the students don’t feel exploited, they feel special; and the supervisors don’t feel like predators, they feel like lovers. Indeed, one of the many things I love about Janna is the image of me I see in her eyes. An equally positive (but less realistic and therefore less satisfying) image of me can be found in the eyes of many of my students. (Also, of course, almost all the other aspects of our marriage benefit from our being equals, in conversation, in bed, in making decisions, and in combat.) Still, the long list of famous clinicians who slept with or got romantically involved with patients and students gives us an idea of how big a problem this is.
Another reason psychology frowns upon sex in supervision and therapy, besides protection of vulnerable people, has to do with the role of the psychologist. The clinician is invited into the inner workings of the patient’s life and mind, and this position of intimacy can be sustained only if there are certain guarantees that the clinician is there as a guide, not as a tourist. It’s a performance of professionalism that must be thorough to be effective. Much as the proverbial banker could not act licentiously or drunkenly and expect people to ask him to safeguard their funds, the clinician cannot act impulsively and expect people to ask her to safeguard their secrets. That’s why the Hippocratic Oath states, “In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they free or slaves.”
Goffman teaches us that the great story of life involves our performance of roles and our concern about whether our performance will be discredited. The way you present yourself as a supervisor dictates your performance problems. If you claim wisdom, then foolishness and stupidity undermine you. If you claim to be expert in intimate, authentic conversation, then stiffness and caution give your performance the lie. If you claim to have transcended your own psychology, then any emotion at all, instead of enriching the supervision, will mock it.
One performance of supervisor that is especially susceptible to discreditation by sexual behavior is that of the charismatic leader. One wants to devote oneself to Skinner because of the clarity and brilliance of his ideas, and his absolute repudiation of any cultlike behaviors satisfies the devotee’s anxiety that Skinner might be after admiration and not truth. If you look at actual cults, you tend to find leaders (a shout out here to feminism for providing the world with women who are as bad as men) who exploit devotion for lust, greed, political power, and admiration. When supervisors do the same, only emotional cripples stay with them. The charismatic leader is the best positioned to exploit followers and the one whose entire performance is cast in cultish and narcissistic terms by any sexual, financial, or devotional agenda. If you want followers of the sort you want, then you have to be above suspicion when it comes to lust.
It’s empathy that levees and diverts supervisory lust. I meet young women who are both worried and perhaps a little relieved by the idea that they can make their way in psychology on their looks, with the crushing disappointment (whenever it turns out to be true) that Irene Cara’s character displays in Fame when she thinks her singing voice has earned her a major opportunity and she is told to take off her shirt. And even if a student wanted to be seen sexually, I can’t believe it would be good for her. For this reason, I don’t have an opinion about supervisory romance between people who are fundamentally equals and only happen to find themselves in a supervision together. Like so much else, it’s the function of the romance that matters, not its topography. But even then, the charismatic supervisor will find himself with a discredited performance that might not be salvageable.
Michael Karson, Ph.D. 
Well said Michael. I think power differentials are typically exploited by those who are a) insecure about themselves and therefore need to consciously control their sources of validation, or b) those who lack enough awareness of their insecurities and/or immature ego defenses (i.e., naive hedonism or conformity with the hegemony of -isms). The first kind are predatorial individuals and don’t differ all that much from the “charismatic leaders” you described. They are far more dangerous than the second typology who are no better than Skinner’s pigeons.
But as much as we like to argue mens rea and morality, the consequences of ignorance and premeditation are not all that different for the disinclined. We tend to lose track of this little truth. We also forget or have our blinders on (because the mental health field is inherently ‘therapeutic’ and therefore biased toward progress and growth) when we respond with pardon or variance when swift justice is needed. Attempting to “treat” those who can’t be treated is iatrogenic. Our best efforts to mitigate risk sometimes end up aggravating it. This is just common type II error, but it baffles me how much we have lowered our alpha levels as a discipline (or society).
I believe that a lifetime ban must be imposed on the first typology from all helping professions, at the first (or second, but definitely not third!) sign of ethical faux pas, depending on the relative gravity of that faux pas and/or any uncovered history of more fautes pas following investigation of the one that crossed the threshold in the first place. But in reality, judging by how a recent ethical violation between a supervisor and supervisee (that I am personally well aware of) was handled by our distorted systems, I have been utterly disgusted by the politics that condone the behaviors of the hegemons. Conformism to abuse is as worst as that yucky, slimy, feeling of being objectified or abused by the powers at be. I want to yell, “Are you kidding me?” and “Wake up!” but then I would probably be classified as histrionic (or worse), so I ll just say my piece over here to vent while validating and supporting the righteous ones close to me (silently and humbly). Hope karma take care of the rest.
As for the second typology (the naive ones), I recommend an ascend of Kohlberg’s ladder of moral development. But the guy holding the ladder underneath (i.e., grad school, mental health boards) should be shaking it abruptly every once in a while (or leave a banana peel here and there) instead of providing more than necessary scaffolding. That way those fixated somewhere in Justin Bieber-land may elevate themselves (through discovering their own internal resources – i.e., humility) or otherwise fall off. They can try some other ladder that is better suited for their developmental needs but should leave our ladder (and our clients and supervisees) be. Its the best solution for everyone.
This new dogma of acceptance of mediocrity for the sake of tolerance (our friend Mr. Curious misinterpreting maturity for quarter-life crisis!) is really rubbing me the wrong way. Its permeating everything lately. But through our work and process here I have decided to laugh more about it instead of be upset. Louis CK’s spiel on 20 year old’s describes this situation best. Click below and enjoy!
Shame on you, Michael, for coming across to me (just a voyeur of lovely words on this world wide web that has become our world), as another narcissistic purveyor of pretend sensitivity and empathy to both your clients and supervisees. And how dare you thank feminism for (“a shout out here to feminism for providing the world with women who are as bad as men”) providing the world with women who are as bad as men. Feminism has nothing to do with that, my dear. Sounds to me like you are a misogynist dressed up in sensitive mans clothing. Beat a drum with Iron John much? What you psychologists don’t realize because most of you have not navigated real life or dealt with real people in the real world, is that the intention is the act. When you say, “An equally positive (but less realistic and therefore less satisfying) image of me can be found in the eyes of many of my students,” means to me, the reader between the lines, is that you sexualize and fantasize all interactions with your students. Is that what you really want? Is that why you make a big deal of writing about this? Because it’s you who are struggling with this dilemma? You go on to say, “It’s empathy that levees and diverts supervisory lust. I meet young women who are both worried and perhaps a little relieved by the idea that they can make their way in psychology on their looks…” So are you saying you really just lust after all your good looking female supervisees (and clients, I assume), but because of your capacity for empathy, you just go jerk off in the bathroom instead? Do you supervise males? How do they fit into all this? Or are all the males in your “profession” only in it to lust after good looking young women? How about you “Ioannis?” Just want to spew theory or do you really have any real life experience? Lusting after Michael’s “new” theories? You people are why I don’t believe in therapy………………
@ Ioannis Thanks as always for your thoughtful, stimulating comment.
@ Salacious I don’t detect in your comment any interest in dialogue, so I have nothing to say to you.
Salacious (or selatious), you are just a few letters away from sagacious, but what a difference does that make.. Perhaps it’s about the same as the one between good and bad therapy. I believe in the first!
I have responses for all y’all.
Michael Karson–I agree with everything you said except one thing, and I think it’s actually a key point here: “almost all the other aspects from our marriage benefit from being equals… in bed…” I’ve personally never had sex with a professor, but the good sweet lord baby Jesus knows I’ve thought about it (while jerking off in the bathroom, but we’ll get to you in a minute, Selatious). And you know, I don’t think it would have been a disappointment had I done it, either.
My point is, just like with doing heroin or robbing a bank, there are genuinely good reasons to have sex with one’s supervisees, outside of fueling the fire of narcissism. For example, some people don’t have game. So when a hot young thang throws herself at Dr. Crusty, it’s harder for him to say no than it is for Dr. Karson, who undoubtedly has some grade A prime cut waiting at home for him. Or what if the young woman isn’t so suave herself? The cute guys in her grade might all be going for the cute girls–you can get a serious upgrade in attractiveness and successfulness in your partner if you’re willing to add 30 years and look up to them.
My point is, that while recognizing these genuinely good motives for supervisory sex might seem dangerous, I think it’s kind of imperative if we’re going to solve the problem. Because demonizing Dr. Crusty won’t help, it’ll just shame him into doing something else.
Ioannis – Do you think if you had a different name, you would still use the word “iatrogenic?” No, you would not.
The end of my comment to Dr. Karson kind of leads me into my main response to you… who the hell wants to climb a ladder of morality covered in banana peels? That sounds like it would attract a narcissist who just wants to say they climbed the ladder. And I’m assuming the banana peels in your metaphor would be, like, if the university hired prostitutes to pose as students and try to sleep with the professors? And then tell them they’re fired right when they orgasm?
While that might very well increase morality in the faculty, I think it would be better to admit we all like bananas, and try to find other ways for troublesome professors to get their needs met. Because, come on, if you honestly couldn’t get laid, and then your adoring ex-supervisee tells you she wants to blow you, would you really care about the rule you’re not even breaking? I wouldn’t.
So while I genuinely appreciate your outrage, I don’t think it’s all that productive in terms of solving the problem, because you simply can’t get people to do things by appealing to their better angels. Look what happened to that motherfucker.
Selatious – If you’ve read my whole comment then you’ll know by now that I’m happy to sink to whatever scummy (or cummy) depths you’d like to bring this conversation to.
Um, what’s wrong with jerking off in the bathroom while thinking about your students? Or your sister? Or your kids? Or your dog? Isn’t that why the bathroom door has a lock on it? Anyone who spends their days around sexy young people who want to sleep with them is a misogynist if they jerk off in the bathroom afterwards?! Your standards are a tad unrealistic, and I don’t even see why you care what your therapist thinks about when he jerks off. But I can see why a preoccupation with that would make therapy difficult for you.
Anyway, if jerking off in the bathroom makes the difference between people behaving ethically and unethically, then there’s the solution right there. Otherwise I recommend legalizing prostitution, destigmatizing it, and making it affordable.
And one last thing–if Dr. Karson’s denouncement of sleeping with students is a reflection of his own lust, what am I to make of your denouncement of Dr. Karson jerking off in the bathroom? Methinks someone has a woody for teacher. Or is it a wettie?
I just want to add that there IS something wrong with jerking off to your students, patients, or children in the bathroom. I don’t know if it’s “morally” wrong: I’ll leave that to people who think they know what God wants us to do. But I think it’s psychologically wrong. That was my point about empathy (healthy sex is good for the other person), but I should have also said something about object relations or the role relationship. If you are turned on by real (rather than pretend role-play) subordinates, I don’t think clinical psychology is for you. The essential relationship (I’m talking supervision, not teaching) is enough like parenting to make it clear why sex is not expected or welcome. I don’t wrestle with sexual feelings for my children, patients, or supervisees. I just don’t have them. It’s not a rule, it’s a role.