
Erotic transference always involves the patient’s desire for the therapist. The complexity jumps when the counselor reciprocates the craving.
It is in the client’s interest to guide the patient in resolving her feelings while the therapist contains his own. When he cannot accomplish the latter, even after consultation and supervision from another professional, the danger of malpractice becomes enormous.
The first principle governing all helping professionals is to “Do no harm,” which includes prohibitions against physical intimacy with clients, present and past.
Today, I will present relevant sections of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association. I’ve added a few comments along the way:*
**10.05 Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy Clients/Patients
Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current therapy clients/patients.
Comment: Patients often feel gratitude toward the person helping them through a difficult patch. Sometimes, their psychologist might have been the first to “see” and understand their essence, carry their secrets, and not betray them. Whether accurate or not, these observations and emotions in the client can give the counselor unequal influence in the dyad and the power of one who stands on a pedestal.
**10.06 Sexual Intimacies with Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/Patients.
Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with individuals they know to be close relatives, guardians, or significant others of current clients/patients. Psychologists do not terminate therapy to circumvent this standard.
Comment: The reasoning is simple. Involvement with other family members can disrupt and injure the client.
For example, imagine the client’s sister becomes the lover of her sibling’s psychoanalyst. Fear of the counselor sharing details of conversations with the relative might occur. Jealousy and friction between the sisters can’t be ruled out. Anger at the doctor and feelings of betrayal in more than one direction might also erupt.
**10.07 Therapy with Former Sexual Partners
Psychologists do not accept as therapy clients/patients with whom they have engaged in sexual intimacies.
Comment: Ex-lovers, where one wants to become the healer’s client, involve two people who might carry a torch for the other. Office counseling sessions can reignite the flame. Everyone knows how many complications occur in the ordinary course of a relationship. In the dual role of lover/therapist, the counselor unintentionally invites harm to the person his profession tells him he must protect.

**10.08 Sexual Intimacies with Former Therapy Clients/Patients.
(a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessation or termination of therapy.
(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client’s/patient’s personal history; (5) the client’s/patient’s current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a post-termination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships .)
Comment: The essential point here is more than the time-designated prohibition of an affair. Even when the two-year post-treatment “ban” has elapsed, the ethical guidelines suggest the counselor and client should still not have a carnal liaison.
Imagine an ardor-filled mutual attraction that is unresolved during professional contact.
Perhaps one party suggests waiting for the other until the two-year prohibition has expired. If they agree to start the clock, they might terminate the psychotherapeutic element of their connection and count the days.
The ethical guidelines focus on the professional’s responsibility because of the power imbalance in the relationship and the possibility of harming the now previous patient. They put “the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation” entirely on the psychologist.
Some years ago, I heard the answer to a crucial question in a required educational seminar on professional ethics. The question was obvious but necessary:
Is there ever an adequate legal defense against a malpractice claim due to sexual intimacy occuring after the termination of treatment?

The wise presenter offered an imaginary defensible scenario similar to this:
The doctor and patient, both married to others, concluded a substantial period of psychotherapy. About five years later, they recognized each other on the same flight across the Pacific Ocean. They each traveled alone.
The plane crashes, and the pair find themselves the only survivors on a deserted island. Of course, they both hoped to be rescued and had no sexual contact during this time. After two more years, they gave up the hope of rescue.
Then they began to have sex.
More time went by, and they were rescued and returned to their waiting spouses.
In this hypothetical example, the woman eventually sued for malpractice, and the psychoanalyst had a reasonable chance of acquittal—or so the presenter believed would happen if the story were real.
As you can understand, the seminar leader was saying that only under extreme and unusual conditions might there be an adequate defense for a sexual relationship between the counselor and his previous patient.
Translate that into this implicit guidance within the code of conduct: Never, never, never do it.

================
*Therapists who are not psychologists typically follow other, not necessarily identical, guidelines.
The four paintings in order: Man and Woman, Embrace by Egon Schiele, 1917, sourced from Wikimedia Commons. The Lovers by Rene Magritte, 1928. Blue Lovers by Marc Chagall, 1914. Green Lovers, also by Chagall, 1915. The final three images are sourced from Wikiart.org/
























