Am I the only one who friggin hates Laura?
-
Zinnober — 15 years ago(July 09, 2010 05:25 PM)
You mean Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-Polar? Because if it's the former then yeah absolutely. Chick is toootally a borderline personality.
http://eugenicsbeginswithyou.wordpress.com/ -
Zinnober — 15 years ago(July 09, 2010 05:23 PM)
Did you even WATCH the show? She's anything but strong. She's broken. She filters every interaction with men through a sexual lens - this is not an act of bravery nor is it somehow empowering. It's the sign of someone who's terribly wounded.
Alex pointed it out after their first night together. It's all an orchestration - the sushi, the sex. All of it was a guise developed to dupe Alex and enrage Paul.
And this nonsense that she saw who he really was by sniffing the tiniest crumbs of his life. Please. She saw a man who wanted her like all men have probably wanted her. Because she knows how to make them want her. And once they do she has control.
I'm a straight, 29 year old man and I, for one, think she's a broken, borderline, nightmare. But that's just me.
http://eugenicsbeginswithyou.wordpress.com/ -
lordjames-1 — 15 years ago(July 14, 2010 10:33 AM)
I just finished watching season 1 for the second time. I stand by my assessment. Laura had issues. Everyone has issues. But, she was far more aware, and in control, of them than the average person.
I guess what you see as a weakness I see as a strength. -
denise1234 — 15 years ago(August 04, 2010 03:42 PM)
I think the creators of this show wanted to present someone who could credibly test the Paul character. Thus, they came up with the lovely, husky-whispering voiced, seemingly vulnerable, sensual-but-childlike and inviting Laura.
Lauras character definitely is NOT strong. She continues to 'test' her therapist (Paul) to ensure that she has a 'safe' place to truly start therapy. Her therapy really does not 'get off the ground' because Paul has lost objectivity. He tries to withstand her tests and at times mumbles out the 'right' words to her, but he is not actually 'treating' her because he is blinded by his own wants and needs. Instead of seeing the words that come out of her mouth as tests and symptoms, he instead falls in love with them (as he says in an episode with Gina). Gina pegged this early on in her treatment of Paul. Laura was a textbook case of this kind of behavior.
Why didn't Paul realize, or realize sooner, that Laura exhibited as a probable victim of childhood sexual abuse? Because he already was too emotionally involved to see what should have been obvious to any good therapist.
Laura would have had sex with him, maybe would have had a brief relationship with him, would have then destroyed him, and she would have gone on as the emotional wreck she was until she got real help.
Laura was crying out for safe, professional help, but Paul was not emotionally healthy enough to see that, and the longer he treated her while he was in this state, the worse for her. Paul was supposed to withstand everything she threw at him and remain professional. He failed her.
Laura was a very weak person, but was someone who had been very successful staying sick because of how young, beautiful and engaging she was. She was not in love with Paul. She was testing him. She needed him to rebuff these 'tests' and move on with her so that she could finally get the help she so badly needed.
To use a medical analogy: Lets say that instead Laura has a bleeding condition and she goes to a doctor to seek treatment for it. However, instead of believing that her bleeding is from hemophilia, which might be too frightening for her to admit, she instead insists that it comes from watching too many movies per day. She wants a real cure, but is too scared of the true diagnosis and treatment, so she does everything she can to convince the doctor that movie watching is causing her suffering; however, deep down inside, she hopes that the doctor will really help her. However, her doctor becomes biased, he goes along with, and reinforces, her self-diagnosis, and even prescribes that she watches fewer movies per day. Maybe he gets so involved that he instead takes her out to play soccer every week as a replacement for her watching too many movies. Soccer injuries can be very serious for a severe hemophiliac, especially one that is not getting other adequate treatment. And, all the while the patient and the doctor are engaging in this delusion, the patient is not getting the treatment she needs. The doctor is guilty of malpractice. A good doctor would diagnose and treat the real illness the best to his ability, and not let the patient guide his diagnosis or hoodwink him into thinking it was, or caused by, something else.
Paul was not being a good doctor and, in fact, was making Laura worse.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois -
Thespear — 15 years ago(August 24, 2010 05:46 PM)
I tend to agree with lordjames. Laura is not perfect, indeed she is a patient for good reason. Dr Weston himself is not perfect, though I think he tried hard to be a worthy doctor. Those who poo poo the Laura/Dr Weston relationship and say how unprofessional it was, appear to discount the possibility that these two imperfect people
might well
have actually been in love.
At any rate, the success of the 1st season was due, in large part, to the dynamic between the Dr and his attractive young patient. Added to his marital situation and her sexual insecurities, it made for very compelling drama, imo. Their conversations were smart and powerful and whether or not it was love or was professional, I think it made for some of the most riveting dialogue I have heard on tv.
The second season lacked a similar punch imo because they overplayed the Mr Prince Snr lawsuit idea thereby ruining a great character, and Mia could never
rival
Laura's intensity. She always felt like a distant second in my view, though to be fair to the actress playing Mia, the show could simply
not
go there again.
I hope they find a couple of characters between whom to anchor another similarly interesting and yes, titillating human relationship. That was the key to the success of season one and it will be the key to the success of any future seasons.
"The only 'coercion' I seek is that brought about by reason. " -
pubbly — 15 years ago(August 27, 2010 11:55 PM)
I agree with the other posters who say Paul and Laura were not in love.
For those who disagree, the link below also contains a professional evaluation of the Paul/Laura situation.
Emotionally speaking, it explains how both Laura and Paul remain "Wounded Children." They are both prone to "Acting Out" - in the same way as a 2 year old child does - whenever they throw a "Temper Tantrum:
http://www.jung-at-heart.com/jung_at_heart/hbos_in_treatment/in_treatm ent_week_2/
Paul's feelings about Laura are what we call
counter-transference
This phenomenon is one of
the chief occupational hazards
of psychotherapy
Paul, because he has not sufficiently dealt with the issues in his life his marriage, his father complex,
his need to be wanted and to feel he can care for and nurture a woman,
falls prey to this common hazard and
counter-transferentially believes he is in love
with Laura as she believes she is with him.
It is his fantasy
of her, that she would adore him and make him feel good as a man, which his wife does not, at least not now.
Laura and Paul become infected with the same fantasy, the same psychic virus.
The problem between Laura and Paul is not that Laura fell in love with Paul or that Paul developed feelings for her.
The problem is that Paul failed to be conscious of the issues in himself
that meshed so perfectly with Laura and her problems that he became blind and caught in a kind of possession so that what he felt became not a tool for helping Laura, but instead an occasion for
acting out.
Gina confronts Paul on his evasion, that he tells her he is there to talk about Laura but keeps mentioning Kate, his wife.
Paul is angry and defensive when he believes that Gina suspects him of acting out in the transference. He is prickly, argumentative, defensive.
He is actually quite like Alex was with him in his efforts to control the session and keep her away from any points of vulnerability.
fighting with Gina
is part of the reason he is back, that the
sparring
is important to him as a way of
defending against
what he calls her pet
theories, about his father and how he is replicating his father's pattern and still struggling against his own unresolved childhood issues.
Paul thought he could avoid being like his father by taking pride in how he was different, by being better than him. But these efforts usually fail, because the shadow lurks there and brings him to having to see how he is just like his father, his father who ran off with a patient,
not acting out with Laura is the only way to move through this, for him and for Laura.
Unfortunately, under the
"Illusion"
of this absurd
"Fantasy"
(that he's "In Love" with Laura), Dr. Paul isn't able to resist the temptation to "Act Out."
Thus also leading to his attempt to seduce Laura at the end of Season One.
When we first meet Laura, she's had sex in a bathroom stall with stranger that she meets in the Bar. Later on, she also screws Paul's patient Alex (still another stranger that she meets in the street - as she exits her therapy session).
What's the difference between this behavior, and that of Mia (who also screws two strange guys that she meets in a bar)?
Weren't both women (Laura and Mia) also "Acting Out" at the time of their sexual encounters?
Are there any Six Feet Under fans here?
Isn't this also the same kind of behavior that we witnessed in the case of The
Borderline Brenda Chenowith
character - who also used "Sex" as a form of escapism? Instead of popping pills, using or abusing drugs, doesn't using sex also become the source of addiction for a
BPD patient
?
Rachel Griffiths won a Golden Globe for her performance as Brenda in SFU.
Didn't the actor who portrayed Alex in IT also win an Emmy for his perfomance?
Melissa George didn't win an award. Did she?
Since the intro to the first episode of IT (Season 1/Episode 1) began with the performance of Laura, I almost didn't watch the show, because the character was too boring, too stereotypical, and a "Major Snoozefest."
On the other hand, Alex was a wonderful character to watch. His performance (like that of Rachel Griffiths) kept me glued to the screen.
Therefore, imo, it was also this performance (along with that of Paul and Gina) that leads to the success of the show's First Season.
The character of Paul's wife, and that of Sophie, were also much more interesting to watch than that of the "One Dimensional," Stereotypical, "High Heel" wearing Laura.
Didn't Mia also have a collection of attention seeking "High Heel" shoes?
While in Treatment with Gina, didn't Paul's wife also call attention to the fact that Laura was wearing her "High Heel" shoes at 10 am in the morning?
The dialogue between Paul and Laura was anything but riveting. It was all one could do to remain awake.
Alex, however, kept one awake (even without the help of the contents of his expensive coffee machine). -
pubbly — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 03:22 PM)
Lets's review what the therapist said:
Laura and Paul become infected with the same fantasy, the same psychic virus.
Paul failed to be conscious of the issues in himself
he became
blind
and caught in a kind of
possession
an occasion for
acting out
Paul is angry and defensive when
Gina suspects him of acting out in the transference. He is prickly, argumentative, defensive.
He is actually quite
like Alex
was with him
in his efforts to control the session and keep her away from any points of vulnerability.
fighting with Gina
sparring
defending against what he calls her pet theories, about his father
how he is replicating his father's pattern
Paul thought he could avoid being like his father
But these efforts usually fail
because the shadow lurks there
he is just like his father, his father who ran off with a patient
Do you disagree with this?
If so, why?
What precisely is it you disagree with?
How can two sick people - who are under the same
"illusion" or "fantasy -
" who are
"infected with the same psychic virus"- have a healthy relationship?
Dr. Weston is
possessed
.
He's under the same spell or curse as his father was before him (a situation which also parallels/mirrors/reflects the relationship Alex had with his father).
Dr. Weston is also
blind
to the fact that he's caught up or trapped within this state of
possession.
When Gina confronts him - Dr. Weston also
"Acts Out."
He tries to deny he's possessed by the
"Shadow"
of his father, the monster that lurks there inside of his psyche.
Instead of dealing with his "sick psyche," or defeating this "Ghost" that hides within him and haunts him, Dr. Paul fights with Gina (as Alex also fought with Dr. Weston when Paul confronts Alex with the Ghost of his father).
The result is both Paul and Alex replicate the
"patterns of their fathers"
to become like their fathers.
Instead of facing these hidden demons that haunt them, they both remain possessed by them.
As long as the psyche of these three characters (Laura/Alex/Dr. Weston) remains "infected" with this "virus," won't they also continue to keep infecting others with it?
Laura "infects" Andrew.
Alex "infects" Laura.
Dr. Weston "infects" Tammy.
Sophie's father "infects" her.
The "infected" Dr. Weston also enjoys the book with the "disembodied breats" that was published by Sophie's father.
How could anyone - who isn't blind to the sick situation that they saw taking place between Laura and Dr. Paul - possibly like what they saw?
- have a healthy relationship?
-
Thespear — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 03:43 PM)
"What precisely is it you disagree with? "
Not sure I would use the word disagree. All the points you bring up were discussed extensively between Paul and his therapist (forget her name). The issue was also thoroughly discussed during Laura's session with Paul as well. I just don't see this issue as black and white as you appear to. I don't see why two wounded people, therapist and patient, can't fall in love, professional ethics nothwithstandiong. Even more importantly, my point was that
it was this dynamic
(as flawed as you see it) that caused the tension that drove the entire first season. Laura's affair with Alex was meaningful
only
in regards to the effect in had on Paul Weston etc. I don't think I was arguing for the validity of their relationship, as much as the
dramatic
effect in had on the entire series. I repeat, they may have been talking hogwash, but I found the arguments between Laura and her doctor about the appropriateness or whatever of their 'possible relationship' to be riveting drama.
You don't have to feel the same way.
"The only 'coercion' I seek is that brought about by reason. " -
pubbly — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 04:21 PM)
If disagree isn't the word you would use, what word would you use?
Do you think the therapist at "Jung at Heart" is wrong?
Do you think Gina (Paul's therapist) was wrong regarding her evaluation of Paul and the issues he has with his father?
What do you mean by using the expression "Black and White?"
The main colors used are "Red" and "Bold Black."
The problem is the way these "Wounded" people keep
"Infecting"
and "Polluting" other people with their sickness.
How can you see "Infecting" others with the same illness as you have as being "In Love?"
Was Sophie "In Love" with her Coach?
Was Laura "In Love" with Alex?
Was Alex "In Love" with Laura?
Was Laura "In Love" with Andrew (her finace)?
Do people (like Laura) who are "In Love" with their therapist usually get engaged to someone else?
How could she be "In Love" with Andrew and Dr. Weston at the same time?
If Paul was "In Love" with Laura, why does he mostly talk about his wife Kate?
IMO, the tension that drove Season One was the outstanding performance of Alex - who was a "Mirror" image of Dr. Paul Weston.
Did you notice how both men were obsessed with "Being the Best?"
Alex runs the marathon that leads to his heart attack. Two months later he's back at the base "in competion" again with guys half his age.
Paul was "in competition" with others to become head of the institute.
This is what drives the narrative forwards. The relationship between Alex and Paul.
Laura was window dressing - a pretty dummy - something else for Paul and Alex to fight over.
When Laura humps the leg of Alex that also sums up the situation pretty well.
All three of these characters are more interested in themselves than they are in each other or in others.
Laura neglects the needs of Andrew (her husband to be).
Paul and Alex neglect the needs of their wives and children - in pursuit of this other "Illusion" or "Fantasy" that they have of Laura.
All three characters are "Self Absorbed" to the point where they're not capable of having a successful relationship with anyone else.
Laura breaks off her engagement with Andrew.
Alex leaves his wife.
Paul's marriage ends in divorce.
If you chose to buy into the "Illusion" or the "Lie" that Laura and Dr. Weston were "In Love," that's up to you.
The consensus of opinion here, however, also seems to disagree with you and that kind of an "illogical" assessment of the situation between them. -
Thespear — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 06:25 PM)
"How can you see "Infecting" others with the same illness as you have as being "In Love?" "
This question kind of crystallizes the disagreement we are having. Somehow, I don't see the purpose of even asking such a question. Surely we can have different opinions about a tv show without becoming disagreeable.
"The consensus of opinion here, however, also seems to disagree with you and that kind of an "illogical" assessment of the situation between them. "
Look, if
the consensus of opinion here
is so important to you fine then you make sure you have it all, okay? I was merely expressing my opinion. My experience is that 'love' seldom has much to do with
logic, rules or standards of behavior
. I simply believe the presentation of their relationship was realistic. You obviously don't. That's completely fine.
"The only 'coercion' I seek is that brought about by reason. " -
pubbly — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 07:34 PM)
Are we having a disagreement?
How is that possible when you haven't addressed or answered any of the questions you were asked?
In order to disagree, one first needs to discuss the issues at hand - such as why you do or do not think the professional opinion expressed by the "Jung at Heart" therapist is wrong.
Do you think the professional therapist is wrong?
If so, why?
How about the opinions of other posters like Denise who said this:
Paul was supposed to remain professional.
He failed her.
Laura was someone who had been very successful staying sick
She was not in love with Paul. She was testing him.
She needed him to rebuff these 'tests'
Paul was not being a good doctor and, in fact, was making Laura worse.
Do people who are "In Love" with someone "make them worse?"
Why would someone who truley "Loves" someone do something to harm them or worsen their condition?
Isn't "making Laura worse" more about Paul's "Fantasy" and his obsession with her rather than his being "In Love" with her?
Denise said this as well:
Laura would have had sex with him, maybe would have had a brief relationship with him, would have then destroyed him, and she would have gone on as the emotional wreck she was until she got real help.
Once again Denise offers us an illustration of the way in which these two delusional characters
"Infect"
one another with the sickness and contagion of the illness or the psychic "Virus" that they carry deep down inside of themselves.
Yet you still insist these two "Wounded" souls would be better off being together rather than being apart?
Zinnober said this:
They clearly weren't actually in love
with one another. Their "chemistry" was always transparently contrived and well just wrong.
she's such
a petulant child. A sixteen year old girl pretending to be a 30 year old.
She's broken. She filters every interaction with men through a sexual lens
It's
the sign of someone who's terribly wounded.
Alex pointed it out after their first night together. It's all an orchestration - the sushi, the sex.
She saw a man who wanted her like all men have probably wanted her. Because she knows how to make them want her. And once they do she has control.
she's a broken, borderline, nightmare
Yet you still chose to romanticise this sick relationship between Dr. Weston and Laura and turn it into some kind of a "Fairy Tale" with a "Happily Ever After" ending?
And if "Love" has nothing to do with "logic, rules or standards of behavior" - then why do people apply for a marriage "license," and stand before witnesses where they take "Vows" -
to "love, honor, cherish, and obey" each other - "forsaking all others?"
Surely these "Vows" that they take - and these "standards of behavior" that they agree to follow - which also involve "Consequences" if they break them - also involves a set of "Rules" that they promise to follow?
Perhaps you also come from another planet?
Another Solar System?
One where the inhabitants there don't believe in or follow the same "set of standards" or "Rules" of behavior that we have here on Earth? -
denise1234 — 15 years ago(September 02, 2010 01:54 PM)
Besides some people having a kneejerk response to the Awwwhhhh.Laura loves Paul and Paul loves Laura aint that sweet?? and aside from all the other quite informed and well-argued responses on this message board about transference/counter-transferences issues and assorted diagnoses, I am wondering if some of the differences in opinion that have cropped up in these discussions have more to do with what people think and believe LOVE truly is.
I dont think it is too off-track to say that Paul was attracted to Laura, and Laura to Paul. Also, that in addition to the overall beauty of Laura, that Paul was also attracted to (what he inferred as and what she at times emphasized) her helplessness that he would somehow save her.
So, if we were to allow Paul and Lauras love to stem from 1) Mutual Attraction, and 2) Victim/Savior roles, despite all the other harms detailed on other posts, what could be inferred to happen?
1)Attraction: Obviously, Laura doesnt care about the age difference or what that portends for Paul, so his aging probably would not matter to her or diminish her love (or whatever you would want to term it) for him. Conversely, I dont think Lauras aging (or if she lost a leg or got her face scarred or whatever) would diminish Pauls love for her, primarily due to #2:
2)Victim/Savior: Regardless of all the other valid harms mentioned, this to me remains the crux of the problem in regard to what true love would or would not be given the context. To wit: Laura would have to stay sick or otherwise dependent on Paul in order for Paul to stay in his savior role in relation to her and to their relationship. Would THAT benefit Laura? After all, she IS the patient the person who originally came in for therapy mainly FOR THIS VERY ISSUE or, at least, this was the blinking light clinical issue that presented. Despite some well-wishers wanting Laura and Paul to have each other, this major point cannot be overlooked: Laura is the patient and Paul is the doctor. His expertise is supposed to be helping people like Laura with emotional issues, and issues such as what is driving her attraction to him in the first place. What each of them is now calling love IS the disease process.
Some may see value in the shallow, external qualities of it and may even be attracted to this illusion, but supporting this relationship is like supporting a doctor who does not want to help a patient who has cancer, and, who in fact, is contributing to the cancer.
Paul certainly has HIS issues, too, but my first allegiance is to Laura because she is the identified patient and Paul is the identified doctor. Laura is thereby allowed to be sick, no matter how attracted or repulsed any of us are by her. However, Paul, in his therapeutic role, is NOT allowed to be sick in his treatment of Laura, nor is he allowed to abdicate his role as doctor. Paul certainly can refer Laura to another doctor (which he really should have done), but that does not leave him in the clear to pursue his fantasy with Laura anymore than a medical doctor who has referred away a patient because he can no longer provide adequate treatment (and, in fact, is at risk for making the patient worse) be allowed to continue the inadequate/harmful treatment after the fact. Just because Paul is no longer taking money from Laura does NOT mean that she is no longer sick and that he no longer has ethical obligations to her their relationship only started because she sought him out as a professional to treat her and her problems in the first place this professional relationship is the only reason that Paul has access to Laura and her problems. She should have been safe to let herself be known in this way because that is the explicit and implicit contract upon which their relationship is based. If Laura had met Paul on the street, the most he would have gotten from her might have been a quick bang in the bathroom. It was the fact that Paul WAS her doctor (and had his own issues, too) that Laura may have felt any attraction in this way to him.
In addition to this, there should be something noted about Victim/Savior roles. People often mistake who truly has the power, most of the time, in this dynamic. Most assume that it is the savior, when, in reality, many times the savior is dancing to the tune played by the victim.
Laura keeps herself sick by treating all relationships the same she is frightened to lose this measure of control much as a drug addict is frightened to face life and reality without drugs. This probably stems from her being victimized at a young age, when she most probably had control wrenched away from her in a very awful way, and deep down she feels that losing this control will again make her utterly vulnerable to attack. What better way to feel empowered, if only temporarily, then to seduce the one person who is supposed to be un-seduceable? This could give her a temporary fix, but will not ultimately HELP her and will in fact cement even -
pubbly — 15 years ago(September 02, 2010 06:49 PM)
Hi Denise
Great question!
Yes other than "heartache" and lots of other trouble, what does one "Win" in the end if they do end up in a relationship with Laura?" What does Andrew get? What did Alex get from having a relationship with her?
The terrific things you've said about Paul and Laura were wonderful. Everything you say is certainly full of much more insight than certain other posters seem to have here on this topic.
Imo, you have "hit the nail" on its head (so to speak), with the outstanding way that you've summed up the situation.
It was such a pleasure to read the contents of your messages - especially in comparison to some of the other more shallow responses - that have a lack of depth and content. The replies of some others seem to concentrate mostly on the "surface" appearance of Laura - rather than upon the reality of her being "damaged goods" under that pretty looking exterior?
Doesn't some of the other imagery listed in the symtoms of HPD also seem to sum up the "dummy" analogy pretty well?
Such as where it says an HPD is:
Concerned only with the latest conquest, the histrionic uses her physical appearance and attire as a kind of conscious bait
Isn't that also the purpose of using a "dummy" in a store window? To "bait" you into being attracted to it (inspite of its having no "depth" under that pretty exterior)?
Doesn't this description also seem to sum up the situation with Laura:
"As the histrionic depletes one source of narcissistic supply after another, she glides from one relationship to the next, experiencing a range of shallow feelings and commitments in the process. This shallowness is reflected in the histrionic's speech which is impressionistic, disjointed, and generalized
After he asks her to marry him, Laura runs away from Andrew and into having a sleazy sexual encounter with a stranger in the bathroom stall of a bar.
Next she makes a pass a Paul. After he rejects her, the next week she's engaged to Andrew. The week after this she picks up still another strange man (Alex) as she leaves her threapy session.
Thus the
"shallow"
Laura "Glides" from one relationship to the next and we can also hear the kind of "shallowness" of these "hollow" relationships being reflected in the "impressionistic" way that she describes these encounters to Paul?
Laura's character also reminds me of of "7 of 9" from the Star Trek series - who wears the tight, form-fitting, cat suit - with the "fake" boobs sticking out of it.
Apparently Laura's role is also suppose to seduce the male viewer in the same way?
Laura is probably also there to be the same kind of "Eye Candy" for them as "7 of 9" was in ST?
At least the "7" character had some "depth- and was interesting to watch - which is more than one can say about the "shallow" Laura - who's character lacks depth and substance.
in addition to the overall beauty of Laura, that Paul was also attracted to (what he inferred as and what she at times emphasized) her helplessness that he would somehow save her.
Isn't this also another symptom or sign of someone having HPD?
Check this out:
Women with HPD are described as
self-centered, self-indulgent, and
intensely dependent
on others.
They are emotionally labile and
cling
to others in the context of immature relationships. Females with HPD over-identify with others; they project their own
unrealistic, fantasied
intentions onto people with whom they are involved.
Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships
So if the "helpless" and "dependent" Laura keep "clinging" to Paul - who allowed and encouraged the unrealistic romantic "Fantasy" to continue - then the "Pathological" situation would have also "increased" - as their relationship became more intimate?
Obviously, Laura doesnt care about the age difference or what that portends for Paul,
Perhaps that's because she's looking for a "Father Figure" in Paul (such as the way she also seemed to desire David for the same reason)? Didn't she also want David and his wife to "Adopt" her? But instead of seeing her as the "Child" she was, both David and Paul see her as some kind of a "Sex" object?
Wasn't the rescue "Fantasy" Laura has of Paul also shattered by what Paul said at the Funeral?
Isn't the reason why Laura "runs away" from Paul at the Funeral (like she previously did Andrew) also because she recognized the parallel of the situation of her also being like a "Trophy" for Paul (like Paul also describes his young Step Mom being a "Trophy Wife" for his Father)?
So Laura "runs away" when she realized Paul wanted a relationship with her for the same reason as Paul's Father was in a relationship the other young woman? Because the "Aging" Dr. Paul basically needed a pretty "Ornament" (like Laura) to dangle off of his arm - as a way to make him look more pretty?
Isn't this also what the "Middle Age Crisis" situation is all about? Men buy a flashy car and date younger women thinking these "superficial" things will fool others into not being able to notice the -
denise1234 — 15 years ago(September 05, 2010 04:28 PM)
pubbly^
WARNING TO OTHERS: LENGTHY POST AHEAD
I must say, you have managed to connect more dots than I have with Paul and all his relationships as portrayed, and in an absolutely thoughtful and very insightful way. Tis very enjoyable reading your analyses
Sigh It makes my stomach hurt when I read posts from people who want the Laura/Paul relationship to continue, to even cheer it on, when I am sitting there watching it, shaking my head, and thinking No, No, No I label these posters well-wishers when in fact they are inadvertently supporting a disease unconscious ill-wishers in a sense
Some of my opinions (aside from knowing something about the professional ethics involved here, including why these ethical codes exist in the first place) in part stem from my knowing of a very good clinical therapist who was a Paul to a patient Laura. However, this Paul DID go forward with a sexual relationship with his Laura and for several months. When he finally did arrive at some kind of sense while in the midst of this mess, he then tried to refer the patient away (still in a fog, he tried to tell the patient THEN that he could not be in both roles of therapist and lover it did not help that he, like Paul, was also married), and with that real/perceived rejection, the patients illness manifested out at this otherwise brilliant therapist in full force. She immediately told his wife of their affair; she reported him to his professional board; she sued him. He ended up losing his license to practice for years, had to move out of the area (in fact, out of the state), and his transgressions were published in a trade journal for all to read. The woman ex-patient was relentless. On paper, professionally, with peers, and monetarily, this therapist lost a heckuva lot, but this woman lost too, as she did not get the treatment she needed in the first place and in fact she became much worse. To add insult to injury, the machinery of the system that kicked in contributed by reinforcing her illness (monetarily, etc.) A tragic situation all the way around, but also one that anyone the least bit wise to this dynamic could have seen coming a long time prior. There was no real win in this situation. As an aside, this therapists wife did deem to stay with him and kudos to her (at least, unless that was pathology on her part, too, which I do not have enough information about her to know). I do know that this therapist grew up helping to take care of a sickly sibling, who died in her mid 30's and whose death preceded the therapists affair by about a year.
People at first blush (especially men infatuated with the Laura dummy, and young women who would like to be a Laura physically, sexually and/or professionally) will look at Laura and will think nothing of Paul having a relationship with her. Others will listen to Paul and might be seduced into thinking that why not? maybe love CAN bloom in a therapists office (to quote Gina). Maybe, oh maybe, this time will be different (like, maybe the sun will rise in the West tomorrow?) To me, these feelings say more about the posters than it does about the characters of Paul and Laura.
You are very astute in pointing out how Paul and his problems are infecting (your words very apt!) his other relationships, whether they be personal or professional, and you also are a very good epidemiologist, tracking the levels and trajectories of the infection as it boomerangs all over the place. Paul should have taken a break from his work a long time ago and sought professional help (for the right reasons) long before knocking on Ginas door. He does search out Gina, who is kind enough to take him as a patient although she is now retired, but its not long before he is attacking HER with every dysfunctional blow and weapon he has at his disposal.
Your question (in regards to characteristics of women with HPD you described): So if the "helpless" and "dependent" Laura kept "clinging" to Paul - who allowed and encouraged the unrealistic romantic "Fantasy" to continue - then the "Pathological" situation would have also "increased" - as their relationship became more intimate?
As in the case of the therapist above, I think yes. However, I would think we would also need to define intimacy in the context of an HPD, as what most consider true intimacy they are fairly unable to engage in. Intimacy in this context I would assume to mean that the relationship becomes closer as in when a relationship goes from friend to lover, or from therapist to lover, etc. The pathology would increase, I believe: 1) Because you have two people intertwined now with separate, distinct pathologies that are feeding off each other, this results in an emergence of these two pathologies greater than the sum of their parts; 2) Unhealthy relationships cannot continue to function on dysfunction unless they are allowed to remain static, in a vacuum. However, all relationships exist within greater contexts, and ev