Three arguments come up in the first sections of Unhjem’s article: How do dating applications work, who uses them, and why do they use them (Unhjem et al., 2021). The obvious means of indulging in dating applications is by first downloading the app, creating login credentials, and by simply following the prompts that are unique and different from every other dating app, one easily gets hooked up with their “significant other” (Unhjem et al., 2021). Most of the apps encourage privacy in the initial dating moments, and users can hide their private information from their matches. Such an approach is encouraging since it allows both parties to gradually learn each other and their feelings to develop beyond physical appearances. Furthermore, in the case where one’s match is a stalker or with malicious motives, then the other person gets some room to wade him or her off. On the part of the target audience, Unhjem argues that anyone can be a consumer of dating applications because most have been wired to accommodate individuals of all ages, sexual orientations, and gender (Unhjem et al., 2021). While the reason for their use would appear different according to one’s gender, the end goal is always the same, personal gratification.
With the rise of dating applications among a wide array of social circles, clinicians and supervisors have also found themselves caught up in this web. However, to most of them, the question of moral and ethical behavior comes to play as far as their profession is concerned. This scenario is brought about by the fact that their ethical code tends to betray their involvement in dating apps. Their dating behavior is somehow limited to the rules set by The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) and the American Psychological Association (APA) (Unhjem et al., 2021). These bodies have clear regulations that govern clinicians’ and therapists’ relations with their clients. Nevertheless, I am more convinced that the privacy and discreteness offered by most dating apps is what seduces therapists to seek them. Because how else would they manage these platforms while avoiding discovery by their clients? It is the self-validation, thrill of excitement, casual sex, friendship hookups that keep them oblivious of the risks involved with engaging in dating apps amidst their occupations.
Another major argument that comes forth from Unhjem’s article in connection to these regulations is that the dating space of a clinician is so squeezed and limited (Unhjem et al., 2021). How are clinicians and therapists then expected to have a normal dating life like the rest of individuals in other professions when their governing bodies have prohibited even a hint of any sexual intimacy with their current and future clients? This moral code puts clinicians in a dilemmatic and ambiguous situation where they are forced to choose either their career or have a normal life. With the undefined answers on how they can conduct themselves in such dating apps and other online dating forums, the situation gets more blurry for them. Therefore, there is a need for a clear set of rules that openly describe client-clinician association, especially where there are mutual emotional feelings between the two (Unhjem et al., 2021). Because failure to enact and address such issues only exposes clinicians who want to embrace closure in this area. They will more often than not face negative criticism. Moreover, they would not know how to handle the associated stigma encompassing dating applications and the discomfort that emerges with self-disclose. The eventual result is a human violation that cuts across ethics, morals, and the legal framework.
The view of a therapist from the eyes of a client who has gone through their profile would be unwelcoming. The bias and stigma coming from clients who have discovered the use of dating apps by their clinicians are even worse. With the undefined boundaries by AAMFT and APA on what mode of clothing is too sexual, revealing, or inappropriate, then therapists can supersede their moral expectations and go to any lengths in search of suitable partners (Unhjem et al., 2021). The consequences can be rewarding or devastating in equal measure. Previous studies have shown that some individuals have been faced with negative outcomes that touch on their self-esteem (Unhjem et al., 2021). Most are left lacking a sense of authenticity with life and defeat. Alternatively, the rewards can prove the risks are worthwhile. Therapists can come out with expansive knowledge and heightened awareness in this industry and hence use the gained info to catapult their clients.
Though Unhjem’s article establishes that clinicians and therapists should not view the challenges associated with subscribing to dating apps as a reason to exit these platforms entirely, it does not give a clear roadmap for the affected parties to follow (Unhjem et al., 2021). Caution is what lingers in their mind. Caution on the level of immorality displayed in their profiles and whether it is something that they can be willing to sell their names on outrightly. Consequently, it then begs therapists to embrace bold conversations of self-disclosure whenever their professionalism is put in doubt by their clients and supervisor (Unhjem et al., 2021). In their therapeutic sessions, therapists can spare such moments to openly talk about the societal stigma around online dating as well as foster transparency with their clients on this matter.
In conclusion, dealings of therapists and clients do not necessarily need to amount to any chaos since clear, objective, and intentional boundaries can be actualized from the moment of interaction. What can and can’t be done in therapy emphasizes the professionalism of the therapist, especially where the client has full information and understanding on why things are the way they are or ought to be. Therefore, for everyone to be happy, feel loved, and appreciated while keeping up with their occupation, then, it is paramount that they are allowed to indulge in self-exploratory ventures as long as discretion and moderation are kept in check.
Reference
Unhjem, L., Hoss, L., Roberts, B., & VanderTuin, S. (2021). Swipe right for… my therapist? Ethical considerations for therapists using dating apps. Contemporary Family Therapy, 43(2), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-020-09561-7
