I've always been confused about the concept of attachment in therapy, if I'm honest...from my frequent google searches, I always get the impression that using attachment in therapy on purpose is not something that has been extensively researched or applied. google searches (such as they are) always give me the impression that attachment is more something that has been used to understand what helps developmentally in childhood, not used for adults.(would love to be corrected on this) My old "guru T" supposedly accepted my attachment to him. new cowboy T, would not, if I were, except in the sense of...accepting where a patient is at. the other thing that I'm confused on, is the idea that there are such things as "attachment therapists." I live in a large city, and have researched pretty much every therapist available, and have yet to come across one who bills themselves as attachment oriented in any way. My T bills himself on his website among other things, as a C who can help to deal with "unresolved attachment issues" -and yet his primary focus is CBT and SFT. He does not accept attachment, as such. In fact, when I told him that I was not particularly attached to him, his response recently was "good, that means the realtionship is healthy." I'm still real confused on the issue! Real confused! I've been struggling, big time, with therapy, and I just don't know if it is for me, but rather, just drugs.

T says he is good with being my "safety net." But clearly he is not ok being an "attachment figure in that sense. What I am sondering is, what if the whole question is really one of semantics? What if none of our T's *really* understands what attachment means for us emotionally? and, all of this being said- it still makes sense to me based on my stubborn cling to the books fo Conrad Baars. yarg.