I'm only halfway through season one so my opinion isn't fully formed yet.
I wouldn't say Laura is a likable characternor do I think she was meant to be. As others have pointed out on this thread, her neuroses and disorders were a very effective tool for the writers to highlight Paul's own foibles. I think in certain moments she can be charming and very attractive, but most of the time she is indeed manipulative and entitled. She is a sympathetic (in my opinion anyway) portrait of women who have these same issuesit's easy to judge people and cast aspersions on them for their behavior, but it's important to understand that there is a real human being there who is dealing with what can be a suffocating illness. She needs help and Paul doesn't seem to be capable of giving it to her, since he's going through his own crises in Season 1.
The idea that anyone could watch their episodes and think Paul and Laura could actually get together in a healthy relationship is quite alarming, and speaks volumes about what some people think love ought to be.
"People either loved us or they hated usor they thought we were okay."

I agree with you 100%, always hated their relationship and found it contrived.

So glad to hear someone else post this. To me, she is the most annoying character!!

I tried but she was just too charismatic to hate and plus she was very easy on eyes.
"Beauty is the means which we use to measure our own vanity."

Of all the characters in all the shows I liked Laura the least. What did Paul
see in her? Perhaps she was miscast.
Marge

This message has been deleted.

Laura and Alex were "like each other," in the sense that they were both self centered and Narcisssistic (NPD is also often a part of one being HPD).
But they weren't "made for each other," because what a "Self centered Narcissistic" type needs is someone to "worship" and "adore" them (like the Gay Doc did Alex and like Andrew did Laura).
That's also why the relationship between Alex and Laura didn't work out - due to the way they both needed someone else to pamper them (like Kate did Paul and like the wife of Alex did him).
That's also why a relationship between Laura and Paul wouldn't work out - due to the way Paul is also the type who needs someone to be his nurse maid for him (or someone to fix the toliet, make his dinner, and clean the blood off the couch for him like his wife Kate did).
"Pampered Princess" Laura isn't the type who would ever be happy doing things like this for Paul. Alex also complains about the "instant rice" that she used to make dinner for him for seducing him?
Alex, Laura, and Paul all need the type of a person who is willing to wait on them hand and foot.
Alex complains about Laura's cooking and Paul not having a nice enough coffee machine. Paul complains about Gina not having any soap in her bathroom and there being no groceries in the fridge when Kate went to Rome.
Since the 3 of them are so much alike, as a couple they could never be in a long term relationship together.
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.

you're not. I'm in the middle of season 2 and can't help hating her and Alex still, particularly whenever the lawsuit comes up.
these two were made for each other.
they are demanding, spoilt and seriously need more than a therapist to deal with their issues.
I know I am talking about Alex as if he didn't die, but doesn't it feel like he is still alive and on a mission to ruin Paul's life. and Laura, she just won't go away!

The question one could ask on the nature of love -
Didn't the philosopher's also ask the same question? Did they ever come up with a satisfactory answer?
I found Laura's behavior to be overly dramatic (the character, not the actress who I think did a really spectacular job), cloying, difficult and immature.
Her psychology was so transparent and it frustrated me that Paul, who is clearly an intelligent man, was so blinded to it. Though, I suppose, considering that we're always blind to our own behavior, that made a lot of sense.
She just bothered me. Her histrionic behavior - her entitled attitude - her clumsy, immature sexuality. She's a little girl in a woman's body.
Bravo Zinnober!
I agree!
Very well put.
Gina to Paul: You begin by questioning your value as a therapist - you end by questioning mine.

I agree completely. Her story with Paul has been romanticized by so many people on these boards - something that continues to baffle me. These two people weren't really in love - they were each acting out of their own mutual pathologies.
Personally, I found Laura to be rather boring. The ideas behind their relationship were interesting, I suppose. The question one could ask on the nature of love - is it merely a reaction to one's past and present identity, or is it something else - a reaction that occurs between two people. But these were questions I personally had to pull from their sessions. In each episode, I found Laura's behavior to be overly dramatic (the character, not the actress who I think did a really spectacular job), cloying, difficult and immature.
Her psychology was so transparent and it frustrated me that Paul, who is clearly an intelligent man, was so blinded to it. Though, I suppose, considering that we're always blind to our own behavior, that made a lot of sense.
She just bothered me. Her histrionic behavior - her entitled attitude - her clumsy, immature sexuality. She's a little girl in a woman's body.
http://eugenicsbeginswithyou.wordpress.com/

I thought, like many men, she was a very beautiful woman. But as a character on this show, I never really cared for her or looked forward to her episodes. If anything, I'm surprised so many seem to like her. But to each their own.

This message has been deleted.

I love (love looooved) her character! She was my favourite 'patient' from season. one. The tension they had made me sit on the edge of my seat and look forward to the following week/episode.
But I guess we all have our favourites.
I don't agree she was immature, though. Maybe a bit dramatic but that was due to the fact she wanted something she couldn't have (and wasn't used to that) Again: I loved Laura - and especially loved Laura + Paul.
I carry your heart; I carry it in my heart.

They were attracted to each other because each represented issues the other was working on.

I liked her a lot. The story around her was far more engaging for me than all the other characters except Sophie. Obviously she is gorgeous but also a very interesting woman.
I am only half-way through season 2 but so far it is nowhere near as good as the people involved in season 1.

by tooncesaaa
They were attracted to each other because each represented issues the other was working on.
Nicely put tooncesaaa. I agree.
by machman3000
Did anyone else think She could have BPD? She seemed to fit the criteria.
by Zinnober
You mean Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-Polar? Because if it's the former then yeah absolutely. Chick is toootally a borderline personality.
While he was in Treatment with Gina, and asked to describe Laura, didn't Paul say Laura was HPD (Histrionic Personality Disorder)?
Perhaps she's also Co- Morbid (meaning she may have more than just one Personality Disorder)?
Links discussing Comorbidity say this:
NPD has high overlap with other disorders (HPD/BPD) rates often exceed 50%
Most patients (80%) meeting criteria for NPD also meet criteria for BPD.
Axis II
Disorder Percentage
of Co-Occurrence
Histrionic Personality Disorder 53%
Borderline Personality Disorder 47%
In other words, 53% of HPD's are also NPD (Comorbid)?
And 47% of BPD's are also NPD (Comorbid)?
Since Alex also seems to fit into the criteria for being NPD, that makes the situation that much more interesting.
It's as if these three characters "Mirror" or "Reflect" back to each other symptoms of having the same kind of a "psychic Virus" that the "Jung at Heart" therapist mentions at her link?
If all three of these characters (Laura/Alex/Paul) are NPD's - are characters who 'Infect" one another with their "Virus" - their "Psychic Illness"

• or with symtoms of their Personality Disorders - should we be surprised at the unfortunate kind of "consequences" that follow from their interacting with one another?
  by ChuckyCheesePlease
  Sophie > Laura
  Interesting idea ChuckyCheese. Great insight. I think you might be right.
  Didn't Sophie also come to Paul's office wearing a pair of "Attention Seeking" "High Heel Shoes?" Wasn't she also "Acting Out" sexually at that time (the same way as we've seen Paul and Laura (and Mia) doing on the show)?
  Since "dressing provacatively" is a symptom of having HPD - showing us Mia's High Heel Shoes - and Paul's wife Kate saying Laura - who wore High Heels at 10 am - reminded her of Tammy Kent - perhaps the writers/directors show Paul looking at Mia's High Heeled shoes to show us a connection between these 3 women - or to Mia's also being a HPD like Laura?
  Perhaps Sophie's wearing those other provacative looking "High Heel" Shoes was suppose to "Mirror" or illustrate the "connection" between Sophie's behavior with that of Laura/Mia/Tammy?
  Didn't Sophie also have sex with some other Gymnast she'd just met at a party (same way as Mia has sex with two strangers she meets in a bar - and Laura had sex with Alex - and in the "Bathroom Stall" with the other stranger she meets in a bar)?
  So Laura has a Disorder - "Acts Out" sexually' - isn't able to be "In Love" or have a realationship - due to the "psychic damage" at age 15 - with older man named David.
  Gina also says Mia isn't capabable of having a relationship - or of being "In Love" - due to "Patterns" of behavior she keeps repeating (patterns involving damage done by Mia's realationship with her father)?
  Therefore, if Sophie (who has a sexual encounter with an older man like Laura) hadn't been "In Treatment," perhaps by the time Sophie was the same age as Laura (or Mia), Sophie would also be "Infected" with the same kind of a "Psychic Virus?"
  By the time Sophie was in her 20's - perhaps Sophie would also be
  HPD/BPD/NPD
• or a person who isn't really capable of being "In Love" - or of having a healthy romantic relationship with anyone?
  According to the symptoms described for HPD, one can also understand the reason why Kate didn't seem to like or approve of Laura's behavior:
  Histrionics sexualize every situation. They constantly act flirtatious, provocative, and seductive, even when such behavior is not warranted
  by circumstances or, worse still, is proscribed and highly inappropriate (for instance in professional and occupational settings).
  Such conduct is often ill-received. People usually find this unabashed directness and undisguised hunger for approval annoying, or outright repulsive. Consequently, histrionics are sometimes subject to social censure and ostracism.
  The histrionic leverages this libidinous excess and overt emotionality to gain the attention she craves. But the
  histrionics' intensity and unpredictability are exhausting. The histrionic's nearest and dearest are often embarrassed by her unbridled display of emotions:
  hugging casual acquaintances, uncontrollable sobbing in public, or having temper tantrums.
  The histrionic's behavior is so off-color that
  she is typically accused of being
  a fake.
  "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. Concerned only with the

by - lordjames-1
At one point Paul asks Laura what she really knows about him.
she had already deduced and told Paul exactly what his life is like
I do not believe a human male could resist that kind of connection
Like other posters here on this topic, I also disagree with this assessment.
Alex, who checked into Paul's background, obviously knew much more about what Paul's "life was like" than Laura did.
Alex knew, for example, that Paul's wife had gone to Rome with her lover. He also knew that his daughter was dating a drug addict, that Paul's father was being kept in a cheap nursing home, that Paul was lusting for Laura, etc.
On the other hand, Laura doesn't "really" know enough about Paul to tell him anything of substance.
After being asked what she "knows" about him, Laura's reply back to Paul is a very superficial one:
She says he has children. That once or twice he hasn't worn his wedding ring.
Where's the substance in Laura's reply in comparison to what Alex "knows" about Paul?
Since photos of Paul's children also sit inside his office, how difficult is it to "deduce" that he's married and has children?
Laura's "deduction" wasn't anything special. Anyone who saw the photo of his daughter Rosie sitting there - or took a look the wedding ring on Paul's finger - would have been able to "deduce" the same thing.
The so called "connection" that you say you see between Paul and Laura was merely an "Illusion." There simply was no "Real" connection there between them.
The therapist at Jung at Heart explains the situation this way:
If Paul's marriage and home life were working better, or even if he had a solid therapeutic relationship with his own therapist, he likely would be better equipped to handle Laura's strong erotic transference. It is the weakening of his professional defenses and his failure to develop, either with Gina or someone else, a working therapeutic/clinical supervision relationship that renders him vulnerable so that
he falls prey to his fantasies about Laura. And like Laura, these fantasies are all tied up in a pretty big father complex.
Falling prey to an erotic counter-transference has been one of the great bugaboos in psychotherapy. It is never ethical to have sexual relations with a patient and most consider it unethical to develop a romantic relationship with a patient, even after the therapy has ended.
Laura is a "Fantasy."
Since Paul's relationship with his wife (and children) wasn't working, Dr. Weston sits there in his office (inside of his protective Bubble) "Day Dreaming."
He basically creates a "Fantasy" about this other young woman - who says she desires him - simply as a form of escapism - or as a way to boost his deflated ego.
At "Jung at Heart" the seduction scene at the end of Season One is also described this way:
If we watch carefully,
we can see in the awkwardness between Laura and Paul that they don't really know each other, that they have far less upon which to build anything than either of them wanted to believe.
Her house, very modern and in neutral colors, stands in contrast to the richness and homey clutter of his own. They can't connect over art.
Look at Paul's relationship with Kate - how she waits on him hand and foot - cleans the stain off the couch for him - cooks his meals for him - takes care of the clogged up toliet, etc.
Laura isn't Kate. She would never do these things for Paul, because Laura also had her fiance Andrew who did things for Laura like Kate did for Paul.
Andrew, for example, makes all of the plans for the wedding ceremony. He also covers the chair cushions in Laura's home. And he also makes soup for Laura when she has a cold - even after they've broken off their relationship and engagment.
After his divorce, in Season Two, Paul also tells Kate he wants to resume their marriage again.
So why would a man who's suppose to be "In Love" with one woman beg another woman (his former wife) to take him back again?
Perhaps this was because Paul also realized Laura was merely a "Fantasy" and wasn't what he "really" wanted or needed afterall?
The irony of course is how Kate - the woman who did know Paul much more intimately than Laura did - didn't want him back again.
C'est la vie?

pubbly^
Wow! You ask SO many interesting and thoughtful questions!!
"Laura was window dressing - a pretty dummy - something else for Paul and Alex to fight over"
At first, the imagery your creative sentence above evoked made me laugh
It also made me think: In this 'fight', one wonders what it would mean to truly 'win'?
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

Opps!
Sorry jem.
Looks like he didn't win afterall:
http://www.imdb.com/board/20005516/awards
Someone else posted a message saying he'd won an award for IT, but according to the link above it says he's won 4 other awards but otherwise was only nominated.
2009 Nominated Golden Globe Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
for: "In Treatment" (2008)
After this discovery, I also checked out Melissa's Award history and found this:
http://www.imdb.com/board/20313534/awards
Year Result Award Category/Recipient(s)
2009 Nominated Golden Globe Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
for: "In Treatment" (2008)
So apparently both Blair (Alex) and Melissa (Laura) were nominated for their performance in IT?
Since we never meet Andrew or Laura's father - whereas we meet the Father, Wife, kids, and step mother of Alex - it feels as if we hardly knew Laura.
So even though both actors were nominated, the claim that the absense of Laura's character was responsible for what the other poster calls a "less interesting" second Season, still seems absurd.
Imo, Alex was a much better "Antagonistic" character for Paul than the "Flaky" Laura.
If anything, it was the lack of having another character with a personality as "Abrasive" as Alex had that made Season 2 feel less interesting.
What does one do to "Outshine" or "Compete" with the scene where Alex upsets Paul enough that Paul shoves Alex into the bookcase?
Wasn't that scene also the "Highlight" of Season 1?
What does Laura say or do that was ever as exciting or as interesting as that "Bookcase" encounter Alex had with Paul?

This message has been deleted.

A Review of what having HPD involves:
shallowness is reflected in the histrionic's speech which is impressionistic, disjointed, and generalized
Females with HPD
they project their own
unrealistic, fantasied
intentions onto people with whom they are involved.
Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships
What I find a little puzzling, but apparently others agree with you, is that people can view human relationships in such black and white terms
You were previously asked to define what you mean by the term "Black and White."
Instead of a response - you ignore the request - and hurl the same "unfounded" accusation at Denise you formerly hurled my way?
Denise isn't one who views Dr. Weston's relationship with Laura "incorrectly."
You do.
She's also posted abundant "evidence" to this topic to back up the claims she's made.
You have not.
Instead, what you do is express an opinion that has "no merit" whatsoever.
Therefore, to suggest the "well thought out" responses Denise has presented to us "lack insight" or "depth" is ridiculous.
You (not Densise) are the one who seems to view Dr. Weston's relationship with Laura in terms that are
"Romantic," "Simplistic," and "Unrealistic."
What's even more puzzeling is how someone who has actually read what she's said could make such an "unfounded" accusation.
The analysis Densie presented to us was "Not" given to us in "Black and White" terms.
Unlike your replys - which lack "substance" - her replies cover the Weston/Laura relationship "In Depth."
Anyone can see why her replies have "insight" into the relationship that your replies do not.
The reason why you were asked if you were from another planet was also based upon the previous claim you made that relationships are not based upon "Standards of Behavior" or upon a "Set of "Rules" to follow.
'love' seldom has much to do with logic, rules or standards of behavior.
After making this "absurd" claim - you were also asked why the residents of Earth take "Vows" - to Love/Honor/Cherish/Obey - "Forsaking all others."
Because don't those "Vows" they take also involve the promise to follow certain "Standards of Behavior" that you claim do not exist here on this planet?
As for this claim that there are what you call:
thousands of strong realtionships based on similar starts AND thousands of doomed relationship where none of these apparent problems ever existed
I ask you this:
Where are these "thousands of strong realtionships?"
Where's the stats or the proof to back up this claim?
Unless you present us with "Facts" to back up such a claim, then once again what you've said is merely an opinion that has "No Merit" whatsoever.
Since its also "highly unlikely" there are "Thousands" of therapists like Dr. Weston - who have chosen to seduce their patients - the claim is also a ludicrous one to have made (even without posting stats or facts as proof to try and back up this ridiculous claim).
Thus, once again, this claim also gives one the impression you must come from another different planet?
Perhaps you've fallen into a "wormhole" and into another "different dimension" or a "parallel universe?"
Like I said before, it was also
the relationship between Alex and Paul that drove the entire "First Season."
Laura was merely "window dressing" or a pretty "Dummy" who helped to further the animosity between Paul and Alex.
Alex also won an Award for his performance.
Laura did not.
Therefore, once again, the "Consensus" of opinion is also on my side - as opposed to its being on your side.
Laura's character was "Boring." The nature of her disorder (HPD) is also what made listening to her "Whine" at Paul such a "Snoozefest."
The content of her speech was also "Impressionistic" and "Lacked Substance."
Since her dialogue with Paul had no "Depth," this is also why Laura's character
"Did Not"
drive the narrative forwards - in the same way as the much more interesting and flamboyant character of Alex did.
Alex was exciting to watch.
Laura the hollow window "Dummy" was not.
It wasn't just the realationship that was doomed, it was also the fact that Laura was a "Shallow" and "Hollow" person inside (which is also what the pretty dressing up on the outside - such as wearing seductive "High Heel" shoes" - tries to cover up and hide).
She's a "Wounded" Soul who's been "Infected" with a "Psychic Virus" that prevents her from having a "Healthy" realationship with anyone (especially with her therapist who suffers from a "Psychic Virus" as well).
So by hurling "unfounded" accusations at Denise - when you imply she doesn't see the situation "In Depth" - (if that's what you mean by Black and White) - that also places you into the situation of "Projecting" onto Denise a description that mostly seems to apply more to "You" yourself - rather than to her.
In other words, since you continue to stick to these "Romantic" and "Unrealistic" notions you have, that a relationship between Laura and Dr. Weston could work (inspite of the ample reasons and eviden

"Mindlessly cheering on these two in this sickness would be like watching a train heading for a washed out bridge, but either not wanting to admit the bridge was washed out or not caring about what they are headed for."
If you are saying that the Paul and Laura's doctor patient relationship was doomed to failure because of the very nature of it's beginning, you might have a point. What I find a little puzzling, but apparently others agree with you, is that people can view human relationships in such
black and white terms
. As if only
purely established
relationships (however you define that) stand a good chance of averting that 'washed out bridge'.
Someone asked me what planet I am from to consider the Paul and Laura relationship as an example of a good relationship? My answer to that is planet Earth. If you look around you you will see thousands of strong realtionships based on similar starts AND thousands of doomed relationship where none of these apparent problems
ever
existed.
My main point however was that even if you win the 'professional appropriateness' and 'suitability' argument, the Paul and Laura relationship, as flawed and doomed as you clearly see it, this relationship was what drove the entire first season of In Treatment. Also, imo it was the absence of a similar dynamic that caused the 2nd season to flounder. This leads me to the conclusion that
the idea
of a 'possibly' successful doctor patient relationship such as described in 'In Treatment' season 1, is not such a far out ideaat least not to most people.
I think concluding that this relationship is permanently and irrevocably doomed entirely because of the "circumstances" of its participants is missing the very salient
human
factor in all relationships.
"The only 'coercion' I seek is that brought about by reason. "

Denise,
When the "length" of a post contains outstanding observations like yours does, imo, it also deserves much applause.
So here's still another "Big Bravo" for you!
At least you've also made the attempt to "back up" and "support" the claims you've made - whereas certain other posters here seem to think merely "stating an opinion" that they have - regarding Paul's "so called" love for Laura - has the same amount of "validity?"
And even after one supplies a poster with ample "evidence" and "reasons" why the Laura/Paul relationship is a "doomed" one, the facts you've presented to them are ignored? And the reply you get back from them tells you they still don't see why -
"professional ethics" aside

• the relationship couldn't work?
  WTF?!?!?
  No matter how long the message may be - having a discussion with you - someone who acutally takes time to "read" and "think" though the issues at hand - is certainly preferable to having a debate with what amounts to having one with a thick Brick wall?
  Please also note how most of the analyses that's been presented (including being "Infected" with a "Psychic Virus") comes from the other wonderful therapist at the "Jung at Heart" website. So let's also give "her" the credit she's due for the "thoughtful" and "insightful" things she's said.
  Yes the "Cheerleaders" and "Well Wishers" for the "doomed" Laura/Paul relationship are also enough to give one ulcers.
  Thanks for sharing the details about the other therapist, and what happened after they broke the professional "code of ethics." What a sad situation for everyone. Yes no one seems to have "Won" anything in the end. Did they? If anything, it seems like the "Curse" of the situation gets passed on along to the "next generation" (as Paul himself also seems to be under the same kind of an "Evil Spell" with a pretty young patient that his father was before him)?
  Doesn't Paul's daughter Rosie also seem to have become "Infected" with, or to have "Inherited" the same kind of "Victim/Rescue" pattern as her Dad?
  Wasn't "Rosie to the Rescue" also dating and attempting to "Save" what Alex described as a "Drug addict?"
  Wasn't Kate also working at the same place as Rosie and attempting to "Rescue" others there?
  Wish they'd gone into more details about Kate's past - so that we'd have a better idea what it was about her background that triggered Paul's need to "Rescue" and "Save" Kate.
  Do you think Mia was also HPD? Do you recall when Paul tells Gina Mia was "his type," and that he'd be interested in her if it wasn't for "her issues?" That remark made it abudantly clear how "little insight" Paul has into "His" own issues.
  That's also the most amazing thing about the situation - how a doctor - who supposedly studies - and is suppose to "know" the signs and symptoms and "Consequences" of having a "Disorder" like HPD - could let themselves become the willing "Victim" and "participant" of such a "Disorder."
  Does Paul also have some kind of a "Sadistic" inclination?
  Is the attraction to women like Laura (and Mia) based upon the need for having emotional "knives" thrown at him (the same way as Paul says his "Bi Polar" and Disordered Mother threw "knives" into the wall)?
  Poor Paul.
  Hopefully this "New Therapist" will also be able to help him to overcome this "Fatal Attraction" that he seems to have for "Disordered" women like his mother?
  Yes the "Infection" or "Family Curse" does seem to "Boomerang" all over the place. Doesn't it?
  Great analogy!
  And yes Paul should also have "Taken a Break" from his work as well
  But like Alex running the marathon - (that leads to the heart attack that nearly kills him) - instead of taking a much needed vacation - Paul takes on still more new patients - (Sophie and Alex) - perhaps for the same reason as Alex - as a way to try to prove to himself he's still "The Best?"
  Neither Alex nor Paul seemed very interested in "Getting Well." Did they?
  Alex wanted a letter from Paul saying he was mentally "Fit" enough to return back to work again.
  Paul probably wanted Gina's deposition to be a "favorable" one for him? And once the threat of the lawsuit ends - Paul dumps Gina - the same way as Alex discards Paul?
  After Paul and Alex got what they wanted, then to hell with working through their issues and "Getting Better?"
  So were they ever really intrested in "Getting Well" in the first place? Or were they mostly "manipulating" their therapist?
  Poor Gina.
  She comes "out of retirement" for this? To be "Manipulated," "Used" and "Abused" by Paul?
  As much as I will miss Gina, thank goodness she also "dumped" Paul at the end of last season - by telling him her door is no longer "Open" to him anymore!
  At least Gina seems to have "Gotten Well" from being treated "Sadistically" by Paul?
  Perhaps in some of the "blows" that Paul throws at her Gina was able to recognize some parallels between Paul and the other stormy realationship she had with her cheating husband?
  So at least this was a case where two pathologies (attraction to S

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