More reflection regarding the Hypnotists Facing Tighter Scrutiny…. post (also posted here).

In the Omnigrads group associated with this blog, the question was asked . . . "Just a thought. I wonder how may other professional have had sex with their clients?"

A lot. There are also some very profound examples of this. One of which that just amzazed me when it came out is the doctor who asked his patients to undress and crawl around the floor naked while he took ditigal photos as part of a "medical procedure" . . . see http://tinyurl.com/4d5o9 . . . while it’s not strictly therapist-patient, psychologists have a high percentage of teacher-student sex as well . . . see http://tinyurl.com/5zuzg.

However, whether or not "they" do it too, is not truly the point. Most doctors and most psychologists and most priests and most teachers and most coaches do not abuse their position. Certainly, there are many examples of folks who do, but they are exceptions to a general rule of conduct. Hypnotists should not be doing it with therapy clients . . . and most do not.

It is a no-brainer that hypnotists should not be abusing their position in regard to client welfare. You would be hard-pressed to find many folks who would push for the opposite position . . . in so far as a therapeutic relationship goes.

Albeit, currently, the code of ethics for most hypnosis organizations does not strictly prohibit consensual adult sex between member hypnotists and clients in professional therapeutic relationships go (it would be inappropriate to restrict hypnosis and sexual conduct in recreational or entertainment relationships between consenting adults where the hypnosis is used to enhance their consensual activities . . . although, I am aware of a whole lot of folks who disagree with that contention). Most codes of ethics regulate "abuse" and "harassment" in regard to sex, but not consensual sex. This would inclued the NGH code of ethics (as pointed out by Thomas in an earlier comment, this guy’s training is NGH-approved, albeit it is not clear if he is a member of the guild). The multiple affairs this guy had would not have qualified as either or those as they were consensual . . . the secret videos of them having sex with him in his office and of them in the toilets qualifies as abuse as well as clearly breaks the law. Even without the ethics violation, he broke the law making a new regulation moot for this case.

One problem with the case that has everyone all riled up is that his original defense (before the videotaping came out) was that he was not covered by the laws regulating sexual consensual conduct between therapists and clients as he is a "lay hypnotist" and unlicensed. It was a very weak defense and based upon legal maneuvering rather than any sort of ethical stance. However, technically correct at that time. The stronger case against him was made when the videotapes came to light. My contention is that it is an easier and more effective fix to strengthen current laws either through amendments or administrative guidelines than to create a new licensing law and regulatory oversight for hypnotists. I could be wrong.

As to the question of why is the media picking up on this case rather than all the doctors or psychologists or priests or coaches or teachers? Well, the media does pick up on those cases. However, this particular case is of particular interest because the guy is a hypnotist. Hypnotists are perceived to have special power over others in ways no "normal mortal" can have. Remember Jerry’s story of the local grocery clerk not looking into his eyes? The media reinforces these myths about our preternatural abilities and feeds the misconceptions. Heck, some hypnotists feed these myths as well . . . I once had to take a good fifty minutes of one of my extension courses (unrelated to hypnosis) for government senior staff to sit down and clearly explain that I don’t have supernatural powers as they knew I was a hypnotist and because in the past few months a woman has been appearing on local television here (well, national TV) demonstrating her supernatural powers via hypnosis (casting out demons, curing cancer, and the like, forcing folks to obey her will, the whole shebang). The media loves to portray hypnotists in this light as it is exciting (none of this boring "mind-body-connection" and "everyone can do it" stuff) and sells copy of captures viewership. Hypnotists are scary and as long as they are portrayed that way, they’ll sell magazines or get viewers for a show.

Up until they discovered he was having multiple affairs with other women, these women were having consensual affairs with their therapist. Even the woman who had sex while hypnotized was engaged in a consensual affair. However, once the multiple affairs came out, the ladies regretted the affairs. They felt lied to and cheated and used . . . which they were . . . but it had nothing to do with the hypnosis. However, the media is focusing on the hypnotist aspect as the idea that they were forced via some sort of mind control sells more copy than the fact that he’s just another guy who lied to get sex . . . something guys have been doing for thousands of generations without the use of hypnosis. The fact that he videotaped them without their knowledge or consent, shows he broke the law and shoots him way up there on the "creep-o-meter" but it doesn’t have anything to do with his profession . . . licensed or otherwise.

All the best,
Brian

Brian David Phillips, PhD, CH [phillips@nccu.edu.tw]Certified Hypnotherapist
Associate Professor, NCCU, Taipei, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
http://www.briandavidphillips.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HypnosisTechniqueExchange