11.10 Sexual Attraction and Sexual Relationships

Counselors must be keenly aware of any sexual dynamics at play in the counseling relationship. As human beings, counselors can expect to experience sexual attraction toward the people they work with. This does not mean they act on their attraction or impulses. If left unacknowledged, this could constitute boundary crossings that slip into boundary violations and cause harm to the client and counseling relationship. Instead, ethical counselors take specific actions to address their feelings and avoid letting them into the counseling relationship. They supervise and consult with trusted colleagues to determine how to proceed ethically (Zur, 2014). Clients may also experience sexual attraction/ romantic feelings toward their counselor. When these feelings arise, counselors hold space for them, normalize them, and explore them with openness and empathy as part of the counseling process (Moleski, 2005; Zur, 2014). They also hold clear boundaries that those feelings will never be acted upon or consummated to honor principles of autonomy and non-maleficence (Moleski, 2005). The abovementioned considerations also apply to supervisor-supervisee relationships, which have a clear power differential between participants and capacity for harm (Barnett, 2007).

It is essential to differentiate between romantic feelings/ sexual attraction and acting on them to pursue a dual sexual relationship with clients. Sexual relationships with clients are always unethical, always cause harm to clients, constitute a boundary violation, and are, in some states, illegal (Moleski, 2005; Zur, 2014). Clients cannot provide consent to practices that would cause them harm, which a dual sexual relationship does (Younggren, 2004). Counselor’s fiduciary duty means they actively promote healthy dynamics in the counseling relationship. They remain aware of their power and influence and avoid harm, exploitation, dependence, threatening behaviors, and intimidation (Moleski, 2005). They honor trust, well-being, and the sensitivity of the clients’ reports and act to protect this (Moleski, 2005). To meet all of these responsibilities, they must avoid sexual relationships with clients, as this would automatically become the primary one over a professional counseling one (Moleski, 2005). They are clear and firm regarding their therapeutic role and boundaries.

Additionally, all professional ethical codes prohibit sexual relationships with current clients and their family members (see below). Professional ethical codes also mandate that counselors cannot enter into counseling relationships with people they have had a previous sexual or romantic relationship with (see below). Doing so would impose significant risk and harm to the client, given the situation’s complexity and their power of knowledge, and go against all ethical counseling principles. Each code also specifies that sexual relationships cannot occur in person or via electronic interactions.

The ACA (2014) discusses this:

And

NAADAC (2021) also provides guidance in this area:

The same ethical codes, the ACA and NAADAC, introduce some nuance in counselors entering dual sexual relationships, again both in person and electronically, with former clients or their family members. Currently, the ACA and NAADAC ethical codes ban counselors from pursuing sexual or romantic relationships with former clients for a minimum of 5 years post-termination (Moleski, 2005). Other professional boards, such as the NAADAC code of ethics, prohibit any form of a sexual or romantic relationship from existing, regardless of the time since termination (NAADAC, 2021). These differences invite counselors to deeply consider sexual relationships with people whom they have counseled at any point in time and be mindful of harm to clients, power dynamics, their intentions, and best practices. As discussed above, many consider the statement “once a client, always a client” valid as the counseling relationship lives on, and the client’s cognitive picture of it does, too (Zur, 2014). Therefore, engaging in sexual relationships with clients at any point in time will cause harm (Moleski, 2005). Additionally, counselors have responsibilities to clients long after termination, such as maintaining client confidentiality and privacy and keeping safe records (Moleski, 2005). This further illustrates the arbitrary nature of defining former clients in terms of a time frame (Moleski, 2005). In cases like this, the ethical code of a counselor’s best practice and moral compass may not wholly align, and counselors use ethical decision-making models to define best practice.

The ACA (2014) offers suggestions about how to consider engaging with former clients:

Dual sexual relationships are rife with consequences for all parties involved. The universally negative impact on clients was discussed above. Dual sexual relationships destroy the therapeutic alliance, jeopardize trust toward professionals in the present and future, and can exacerbate symptoms that the client intended to address in counseling (Moleski, 2005). Counselors are subject to consequences. In some states, sexual relationships with clients are punishable by criminal law, felony, tort law, and malpractice suits. Additionally, their licensure is put at risk due to their disregard for fiduciary responsibilities and unethical and sometimes illegal behaviors. Their licenses can be suspended or revoked, they can lose the ability to accept certain kinds of insurance, can be removed from professional organizations, be terminated from their workplaces, be put on probation, or mandated to participate in psychotherapy/ ethics training/ supervised practice (Moleski, 2005). Counselors must report known or suspected unethical behavior of other professionals. Suppose colleagues or other professionals notice suspicious behaviors that indicate inappropriate client boundaries. In that case, they are ethically responsible for addressing them with appropriate parties and may have to consider reports to licensure or certification boards, ethics committees, or state authorities (Moleski, 2005).