| Abstract: | The author argues that sexual misconduct is better referred to as ethical or sexual misconduct rather than combining a fragile metaphoric construct—boundary—with forensic jargon. His argument rests on a few points that intersect. One objection to the term “boundary violation” involves a matter of scale in which the notion of exploring psychic boundaries, the essential context for psychoanalysis, is obliterated by sexual misconduct. The enormous scale of sexual misconduct is better labeled with behavioral referents rather than a moniker that combines forensic violation and the subtleties of analytic process. The author would reserve the term boundary difficulties for analytic process related to more subtle problems in analysis and the use of boundaries embedded in the work. Another objection relates to our responsibility to those outside our community to refrain from using our sophisticated understanding of the play of boundaries in analytic work in ways that are too often unintentionally confusing and mystifying. |
