From the author: Continuation of the translation of chapter 8 from the book “Group as an Object of Desire” by Maurice Nitzun. Morris Nitsun. The Group as an Object of Desire. Exploring Sexuality in Group Therapy - Routledge (2006). Chapter 8. Pages 163-176.Adult GroupThe group is a twice-weekly analytic psychotherapy group in private practice, consisting of three men and four women, with a male therapist. This is a relatively mature 'slow open' group that has been meeting for three and a half years. The case study focuses on the relationship that develops between two people, Melvin and Imelda, in the overall context of a group. Melvin (38 years old), an anxious, depressed lawyer whose traumatic event was his wife suddenly leaving him eight months after marriage. Even though it happened almost ten years ago, he was still overwhelmed by the event. He lost confidence, was unable to form a relationship with another woman, and, worse, experienced erectile dysfunction. He was afraid to engage in sexual relations for fear of impotence. A feature of his presentation to the group was a feeling of guilt; he felt that he was to blame for the failure of his marriage. He believed that he was too involved in difficult work at the beginning of the marriage and did not take into account that his wife needed his attention. No wonder he felt his wife had gone astray. Along with this, he showed an idealized idea of ​​his wife: how attractive, smart and lively she was. In his opinion, he had lost the love of his life. The group questioned his perception of his failure in marriage and his idealization of his wife. She failed him, and in the end, she betrayed him and left him. What was good about this? If anything, it was her fault and he should be angry with her, not the other way around. Where was his anger? The therapist and other group members tried repeatedly to convince Melvin of this point of view, but he continued to stand his ground. When the group members expressed irritation with his rigid interpretation of his marriage and his resistance to any alternative point of view, he replied that he could see their arguments on an intellectual level, but that did not change his feelings. Imelda (42 years old) striking dark-haired woman, successful real estate agent, joined the group because of problems managing conflict in her relationships, including her marriage. She felt that she could not assert herself without becoming angry and exploding, and this was causing significant friction and instability in her relationships. In the group, members commented on her barbness and how quickly she got offended when she could have shown compassion and understanding when it came to other people's problems. She argued with some of the group members, and, as a rule, reacted negatively to the therapist's intervention. She became known in the group as the "commanding, bossy woman", and this was said to her with a mixture of humor and annoyance. Melvin and Imelda were together in the group for about a year, their relationship was no more noticeable than that of the two band members who gradually getting to know each other. This changed in a series of group meetings shortly before the holiday break. The atmosphere in the group was tense, with outbreaks of irritable bickering between the participants. The therapist interpreted this as anger at him about the upcoming break, but most of the group denied the connection and one or two participants chided the therapist for his predictable interpretations about breaks. Melvin, however, stated that he was worried about the break. He had been feeling isolated lately and was worried about being alone for a few weeks. When he was single, he would think back to the time he lost his wife, reliving the good times in their relationship and regretting what had happened. The band members began to criticize his ongoingobsession. One participant, June (46), tried to defend him, saying that it was understandable that when he was alone, his thoughts went back to his wife. Imelda began to criticize June, as was typical of her, saying that she was playing the "good guy." June objected to being called a boyfriend and such insinuations from Imelda, and Melvin came to June's defense, stating that she was the most sensitive person in the group and she was the only one who truly understood him. Imelda flared up and attacked Melvin, saying that she was sick and tired of his whining and completely refused to deal with his problems. She hadn't seen the slightest hint of him changing since they were in the group together. It's no surprise that June liked him, since she was just as sentimental as he was. He then, to the group's surprise, vehemently denied this, saying that Imelda was the type who was always being nasty in the group and showed no intention of dealing with her own problems. She was “shit.” In the remaining sessions until the break, the quarrel between Melvin and Imelda simmered like a slow fire, flaring up again in the last session. The band members expressed surprise at Melvin's change. There was a general feeling that this was a positive development. They had never seen him as assertive as this time. There was less support for Imelda, who stuck to her guns to the bitter end, but at the same time said she felt unappreciated in the group. She complained that she was only saying what everyone felt, but was then attacked by them for saying it. In the second session after the break, Melvin said that he had a dream that night and woke up with an erection. He could not remember the contents of the dream. When the participants examined the dream by asking him if anything came to mind, he suggested that he thought the dream might have something to do with Imelda. At the beginning there was some giggling in the group with an exclamation of surprise from Imelda. During this and the next few sessions, Melvin's feelings for Imelda came under the group's scrutiny. The group quickly interpreted his erection as a result of his self-confidence, literally being able to “stand up for himself.” There was some humor and pleasure in the exchange of analogies. The group was not so quick to make the obvious connection: Melvin fantasized about Imelda. When the therapist pointed this out to them, the group generally agreed, but there was no response from Melvin, and the group moved on to another topic. The therapist, himself caught up in the group's feelings, nevertheless pointed out that the group, including Melvin, managed to avoid talking about sexual feelings. They were more comfortable talking about Melvin's assertiveness than about his sexual attraction to Imelda and the fact that one of the group members had erotic fantasies about another. In subsequent sessions, talk about sex in the group became more open. There have been some changes in Imelda, who for the first time spoke about the deterioration of her sexual relationship with her husband. At first, sex was lively and satisfying for her in the early years of their marriage, but gradually became less exciting. Imelda felt that her husband had become indifferent and depressed, and her own sexual sensitivity had weakened significantly. Sex between them was now rare and difficult, and they couldn't talk about it. Melvin, encouraged by the therapist and the group, spoke about his feelings for Imelda. He found her very attractive from the moment he first saw her in the group. He thought her looks and her personality were great. Even the image of a “powerful woman” was attractive to him. In addition, he made a connection between Imelda and his aunt, his mother's younger sister, whom he adored when he was a boy. Unlike her withdrawn mother, her aunt was lively, warm-hearted and sexy. He admitted with some difficulty that he had sexual fantasies about this aunt: in fact, she was the subject of his masturbatoryfantasies. The therapist, feeling that this was an area of ​​particular importance and that the group could easily slip off topic, suggested that he talk about it. This revealed his guilt for his fantasies with his aunt. He could not take his eyes off his aunt in public places, particularly her breasts, and he was ashamed of his fantasies and the intense and frequent masturbations that accompanied them. The therapist interpreted his guilt: it was as if he was actually having sex with his aunt. In parallel, his attitude towards Imelda in the group was implied in this conversation. The recognition of incestuous desires made it possible to talk about the naturalness of sexual curiosity and fantasy in the context of the family. At first these topics were touched upon cautiously. The therapist played an active role in supporting this discussion by noticing when participants attempted to divert attention away from sexual material and calling attention to it. There was a significant sense of connection within the group during these discussions, a feeling of real closeness. The relationship between Melvin and Imelda faded into the background and then came back into focus. During this time, they were able to talk completely honestly about their perceptions of each other, not just sexually, but as people in general. The group noted that in these discussions Imelda seemed very different, softer, softer than the domineering woman who would dominate the group. When members commented on how much more attractive she was in these moments and how this previously unknown side of her was represented in the group, she cried. She admitted that Melvin's interest in her meant a lot to her. After she got over her embarrassment and anxiety about it, she said it made her feel valued as a woman, in a way she hadn't felt for years. This intense period in the group heralded changes in several participants. Imelda became less tense and prickly and reported that she and her husband began to talk about their sexual problems and decided to seek help. Melvin started going to the gym, felt healthier and less depressed, and began dating women after a long period of abstinence. He felt more confident sexually. The group as a whole continued to be in a period of intimacy. This group differs from the children's group in that the libidinal connection was primarily between two members, Melvin and Imelda, rather than being extrapolated to the group. However, the support and participation of the group and the impact of the pair formation on other members reflects the general libidinization and deepening of feelings of the group. In addition, the group differs from the children's group in the lack of physical contact. While children were free to play together to touch, kiss and hold each other, adults were expected to explore feelings and desires on a symbolic or verbal level. That they were able to do so without coercion and in a way that was easy to place in the group, to experience the safety created by the group boundaries and the therapist's close attention to the communication process. Pair Formation Some observations about the process of pair formation in this group deserve comment. The erotic connection between Melvin and Imelda is more clearly reflected in the creation of a separate couple. Comment is required here given the interest shown in couple formation in the group therapy literature. This is embodied in the tradition of Bion, in which pair formation is seen as one of the three basic assumptions and interpreted as a defense and collusion of the group against anxiety. A specific interpretation is that the pair's formation enacts the unconscious fantasy of the birth of the messiah as the fruit of sexual intercourse (Bion 1961). While pairing can be a dysfunctional collusion in a group - and these aspects are discussed in more detail in Chapter 12 - I would argue that it can also be a genuinecreative and developmental, excluding regressive and destructive reinforcements, group contribution rather than collusion, in the nature of supporting healthy and natural development that can make a difference for the couple and the group as a whole. An erotic coupling in a group is in any case more likely to occur between two people than between everyone in the group and the question is more whether the group can tolerate such a development without unnecessary envy or rivalry. It is clear that the group as a whole played an important role in this development. Of course, they benefited from the libidinal process, which energized the group, but their presence, support and encouragement was made possible primarily by the “game” of the two main players. In this sense, the connection that grows in a group can be seen as circular and interactive, rather than coming from just two individuals in isolation. This is likely where the erotic connection is influenced by the group process, holding and supporting the more specific dyadic connection represented here by Melvin and Imelda. In this book, I argue for the importance of the social group in promoting and maintaining couple intimacy—a point that has implications for both group psychotherapy and the community at large outside the office. Incest Another theme that emerged was that of incestuous desire. The connection between Melvin and Imelda sparked said theme when Melvin connected Imelda with his aunt. Group members then explored this issue by expressing feelings about sexuality in a family setting. Moreover, Melvin's expressed sexual attraction to Imelda represented a form of incestuous desire within the group. Being able to talk about it openly helped develop conversations about sexuality in the group to validate the erotic connection and reduce the anxiety and shame that accompanies it. The topic of incest is very relevant to group psychotherapy, given the analogy of the group as a family, and is the subject of a more complete study in Chapter 9. The Role of the Therapist This example illustrates the importance of the therapist's active participation in the discussion of the topic of sexuality. Without being dominant or particularly directive, the therapist guides the group in their exploration of desire and sexuality. In particular, he observes and comments on the group's avoidance of the topic. For example, if the group initially focuses on the outside of Melvin's erection, he indicates that this is their avoidance of erotic connection. When they begin to change the subject in a discussion about incestuous fantasy, he also brings them back. It is quite possible that very little sexual exploration could have occurred in the group if the therapist had not been attuned to this topic and actively commented on the communication process. Summarizing and Reflection The child psychotherapy group and the adult group are presented in parallel, highlighting the libidinal connection in each that enlivens and deepens the group process. It (the libidinal connection) brought a spirit of intimacy to each of the groups. In the children's group this was expressed in physical contact and play, excitement on a walk to the sea, acting both as a real event and as a symbolic mediator of a new life. In the adult group, where physical contact was inappropriate, connection was mediated verbally. In this group, couple formation occurred during the life of the group, and this formation was constructive and supported by the group. There is another parallel in the role of the therapists in the two groups. At first glance, these were very different therapists. The therapist in the children's group went beyond the boundaries of the group and organized a walk to the sea, and in the adult group he actively included the topic of sexuality and monitored messages about it. In the first group, the therapist changed the external boundary by taking the children outside the office. In the second, the therapist kept the group boundaries intact but pushed the internal boundary, which was necessary for open discourse in the group. They have in general an intuitive understanding of the libidinal subject in their.