Men and therapy have carried a complicated relationship ever since. Not because men run emotionally deficient. Not because vulnerability equals weakness. Because the dominant model of psychological treatment got engineered for a different user, and nobody labeled the box.
The Event: The DSM-III and the Architecture of Talk Therapy
The DSM-III, published in 1980, was the document defining modern psychiatry. Robert Spitzer at Columbia University led the revision, and the changes ran seismic: out went Freudian theory and its untestable constructs, in came symptom-based diagnostic criteria that could actually be measured. The profession modernized overnight. What didn’t change was the underlying research base the criteria got drawn from.
The National Institute of Mental Health, which funded most psychiatric research through the 1970s and 1980s, held a standing policy of using female subjects in studies involving mood and anxiety disorders on the grounds that women made more cooperative research participants, ran more verbally fluent describing symptoms, and stayed more reliably compliant with treatment protocols. No secret. Administrative convention. By the time the DSM-III reached clinicians, the diagnostic criteria for the most common psychological conditions — depression, anxiety, PTSD, personality disorders — had gotten calibrated to a female symptom profile. Male depression, presenting primarily as irritability, aggression, risk-taking, substance use, and social withdrawal rather than tearfulness and verbal anguish, didn’t fit the criteria cleanly. Men got underdiagnosed, or received accurate diagnoses and then entered a treatment system built around methods — talk therapy, group processing, emotional verbalization, therapeutic alliance through disclosure — aligning poorly with how they actually process and regulate internal states.
Not malicious. A blind spot in the data. But blind spots in medicine carry consequences outlasting their causes, and this one’s been running forty years.
The first systematic effort addressing it came from Ronald Levant at Fordham University in 1995, who coined “normative male alexithymia” — not a pathology, but a cultural and developmental condition where men get trained, from early childhood, to suppress emotional awareness and lack vocabulary for interior experience. Levant’s work wasn’t a political statement. A clinical observation: most men sitting across from a therapist saying “I don’t know what I’m feeling” weren’t being evasive. They genuinely lacked the internal map the therapeutic format assumed they’d arrived with. The format required a language fluency most men had been systematically discouraged from developing.
That’s the event. Not a single policy decision or dramatic cultural moment. A quiet, decades-long mismatch between a population needing help and a system built for someone else. The men who fell through the gap are still falling. The number, as we’ll get into, isn’t small.
The Pattern: Fifty Years of Building the Wrong Room
The standard framing goes: men skip therapy because of toxic masculinity, because of emotional suppression, because of cultural conditioning teaching them vulnerability is weakness. Fix the cultural conditioning and the men will come. Not exactly wrong. Just stops thirty percent of the way to the actual answer, which is more useful and less flattering to the therapeutic profession.
Consider what standard talk therapy actually asks of a male client in a typical first session. Sit in a room with a stranger, describe his most painful interior experiences, tolerate uncertainty about the outcome, demonstrate emotional vulnerability responding to probing questions, trust a therapeutic process whose mechanism of change never gets explained and whose timeline stays indefinite. For many men, this violates every survival instinct the culture spent twenty-plus years installing. Not a character failure. A format mismatch. Asking a man trained to process difficulty through action, problem-solving, physical output to instead process it through verbal self-disclosure in a static environment resembles expecting someone to run a marathon in a swimming pool. The capacity might be there. The medium works against it.
Therapists themselves have noted this. A 2019 American Psychological Association survey found male clients rated their therapeutic alliance — the working relationship quality with a therapist — significantly lower than female clients after the same number of sessions, even controlling for diagnosis and presenting complaint. Male clients more often described their therapist as “not understanding how I process” or “expecting me to respond in ways that don’t feel natural.” Not abstract. The specific feedback of men telling the system something it’s been slow to hear.
What’s changed in fifty years is the problem’s visibility. The rise of men’s mental health as a distinct clinical and cultural topic — through organizations like the Movember Foundation, through researchers like Gary Brooks and Terry Real, through the slow accumulation of outcome data showing the standard model underperforms with male populations — has created enough pressure that the profession’s beginning to respond. Whether the responses run substantive or cosmetic depends on which corner of the field gets examined. The answer’s both.
The substantive responses are real and important: development of action-oriented therapeutic modalities working with male processing styles rather than against them; the rise of men’s group therapy as an evidence-based alternative to one-on-one talk; integration of physical movement and somatic work into treatment protocols; the emergence of sports-based, occupation-based, activity-based counseling giving men a functional context for emotional processing. These approaches work because they meet men where they actually are instead of where a textbook assumed they’d be.
The cosmetic responses are also real, worth naming: therapy practices adding blue color schemes and barbershop partnerships to marketing without changing clinical methods; wellness campaigns telling men “it’s okay to ask for help” without addressing why asking within the standard format often doesn’t help; cultural pressure on men to adopt more feminine processing styles as the solution to a problem that’s, at least partly, about the system rather than the men. A product that doesn’t work for half the potential customers, telling those customers to want different things — that’s a marketing strategy, not a solution. The question of whether talk therapy is actually strengthening men deserves a straight answer rather than a rebranding campaign.
The deeper pattern, running beneath the clinical debates, concerns what institutions do when the population they were designed to serve starts diverging from the population their design actually works for. Historically, they protect the design. Adjust the marketing. Suggest the problem is cultural rather than structural. Produce studies showing the treatment works under controlled conditions while dropout and non-engagement data piles up in the real world. Not a conspiracy. How institutions behave. And it’s why the men who most need help — those experiencing the loneliness epidemic, those navigating the wreckage of divorce, those carrying trauma from military service or childhood or workplace violence — remain, in 2026, underserved by the mental health system at a rate that would be a national scandal applied to any other demographic.
The Data: What the Numbers Actually Say About Men and Mental Health
If awareness campaigns and access expansions were working, that number should be moving. It is moving — the wrong direction.
The treatment gap data fills in the picture. Per the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s 2023 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 22.8% of women received mental health treatment in the past year, versus 13.7% of men — a gap of roughly nine percentage points holding steady for the past decade despite significant public health investment aimed at closing it. Not a function of lower need: the same survey found men and women report diagnosable mental health conditions at similar rates measured by symptom criteria rather than self-report. Men carry the need. They’re not entering treatment anywhere near parity.
The research on why men avoid therapy runs more detailed than the cultural narrative suggests. A landmark 2018 meta-analysis in the Journal of Counseling Psychology by Matthew Vogel and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin analyzed 25 studies covering over 7,000 participants and found help-seeking stigma — fear of being seen as weak for attending therapy — was a significant but not dominant barrier. The stronger predictor of non-engagement was what Vogel’s team called “treatment credibility beliefs”: whether the man believed therapy would actually work for his specific type of problem. Men expecting therapy to be effective attended at rates statistically indistinguishable from women. Men with low expectations of effectiveness — often based on prior experience, on conversations with other men who’d attended and found it unproductive, or on an accurate read of therapy’s cultural presentation as a female-coded space — didn’t attend regardless of stigma levels.
The treatment credibility finding is the most important number in the literature almost nobody discusses. It reframes the entire public health problem. The dominant intervention’s been stigma reduction: tell men asking for help signals strength, normalize the image of men in therapy, remove cultural shame. This addresses a real barrier for a subset of the non-attending population. But for the larger subset whose primary barrier is rational skepticism about product effectiveness, stigma reduction runs irrelevant. They’re not ashamed to go. They just don’t believe it’ll work. And given the evidence that standard talk therapy runs genuinely less effective for men than for women — demonstrated across multiple randomized controlled trials — that skepticism is, to a significant degree, empirically justified.
The outcome data bears this out. A 2021 systematic review in Psychotherapy Research by Doris Behrens and colleagues found male clients showed significantly smaller symptom reductions than female clients across six common therapeutic modalities, with the gap largest in insight-oriented and relationship-focused approaches and smallest in behavioral and skill-based approaches. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy showed the smallest gender gap in outcomes. Psychodynamic therapy showed the largest. Not because men run less capable of psychological growth. Because the modalities asking the least of a man’s pre-existing emotional processing vocabulary, giving him the most concrete tools instead, are the ones producing results he can actually use.
The economic data adds a layer the clinical literature underweights. The average cost of untreated male depression and anxiety isn’t borne only by the men themselves. A 2019 National Alliance on Mental Illness report estimated the annual economic cost of untreated mental illness in the United States at $193 billion in lost earnings alone. Men, representing 94% of occupational fatalities, 78% of homeless adults, and 93% of the prison population, carry a disproportionate share of the downstream cost of a mental health system that doesn’t serve them well. The diagnostic trap — where men receive labels that don’t fit their experience and prescriptions managing symptoms without addressing causes — isn’t a minor inconvenience. It’s a structural failure with a nine-figure annual price tag.
The Position: What Has Changed, What Hasn’t, and What Men Actually Need
The honest accounting starts with what’s genuinely improved. More male-specific mental health resources exist in 2026 than at any point in history. Evidence-based modalities work well for male populations: CBT, focused on identifying and changing thought patterns through structured practice; ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), orienting men toward values-based action rather than interior processing; EMDR, addressing trauma through bilateral stimulation rather than verbal reconstruction; somatic experiencing, working through the body; peer support groups, using the social bonding structures men actually use. The research base for each has grown substantially over the past decade. Practitioners specializing in male mental health are easier to find than in 2010, though still far less common than the need warrants.
The cultural conversation’s also shifted in meaningful ways. The Movember Foundation has raised over $1 billion for men’s health programs globally since 2003, including significant investment in suicide prevention and therapy access. The male loneliness epidemic has become a mainstream topic rather than a fringe concern. Veterans’ mental health, once almost entirely ignored in the civilian mental health system, has received major research investment and produced treatment innovations (particularly around PTSD) benefiting both male veterans and male civilians. Acknowledgment that men process differently — not worse, differently — has moved from clinical literature into general conversation.
What hasn’t changed is the structural architecture of who delivers mental health care and how. The APA reported in 2022 that 76.6% of licensed psychologists in the United States are female, up from 60% in 2000 and still rising. Not a complaint about women therapists — the evidence doesn’t show a gender-of-therapist effect on outcomes, and some research suggests men prefer female therapists for specific issues. But it’s a data point about the profession’s cultural center of gravity, shaping training, research priorities, modality preferences, and the lived experience of entering a therapeutic space. A man walking into most therapy practices in America enters an environment that is, in its aesthetics, its norms, its implicit assumptions about what healing looks like, and its dominant theoretical frameworks, a female-coded space. Not a microaggression. An observable institutional reality, and it matters for the treatment credibility problem.
What also hasn’t changed is the fundamental metric that should be the target: male suicide rates. Prevention programs have proliferated. Awareness has increased. The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline launched in 2022. And men are still dying at nearly four times the rate of women, with middle-aged men leading the count. Public health approaches focused on the population most at risk — men in their 40s and 50s, men navigating divorce and financial collapse and social isolation simultaneously, men who never developed a vocabulary for interior experience and are now in crisis without the tools to work through it — require clinical models working for that population. The models working best aren’t the models currently dominating the profession.
The position: therapy works. The evidence for psychological treatment of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and relationship dysfunction runs strong and decades-long. The problem isn’t therapy as a concept. The problem is that the dominant delivery model got built on female research populations, delivered in a female-coded cultural context, through a verbal processing format aligning poorly with male psychological architecture, evaluated by a profession that’s demographically female and has responded to male non-engagement primarily by suggesting men should change rather than by changing the model. The system needs to fix the room before telling more men they’re broken for not wanting to be in it.
What actually works for men — and the evidence stays consistent across multiple research programs — shares a common structure: concrete skill development rather than open-ended processing; a clear framework for what progress looks like and how it gets measured; a connection between interior work and external action; a peer structure normalizing the work rather than isolating it; a format respecting male communication norms (less verbal self-disclosure, more problem-orientation) rather than requiring men to adopt a different communication style as a prerequisite for receiving help.
Men’s group therapy, run well, delivers most of these elements. Research from the Group Therapy Association published in Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice in 2020 found men in structured group therapy showed treatment outcomes comparable to individual therapy for depression and anxiety, at lower cost and significantly lower dropout rates. The mechanism runs straightforward: men regulate through co-regulation with other men, learn more readily from watching other men work through difficulty than from analyzing their own interior states in isolation, and the group context reduces the performance anxiety a one-on-one therapeutic relationship with a stranger can trigger. Groups organized around a specific purpose — addiction recovery, divorce adjustment, military transition, brotherhood and accountability — outperform generic support groups because they give men a concrete identity and purpose within the therapeutic context rather than asking them to process for processing’s sake.
Physical work’s role in men’s psychological health is another area where the data converges on one conclusion and the standard clinical model’s been slow to respond. A 2021 meta-analysis in JAMA Psychiatry found exercise interventions for depression produced effect sizes comparable to antidepressant medication in adults under 65, strongest in men. Exercise isn’t an adjunct to the real work. For a substantial portion of the male population, it’s the real work — the primary mechanism through which they regulate their nervous system, process emotional material, build the self-efficacy generating behavioral change, access a felt sense of competence and agency interior-focused talk therapy may never produce. A nervous system regulation approach ignoring the body in favor of the verbal mind isn’t a comprehensive model. It’s a model for one type of person applied universally, which is how the whole problem started.
The men doing the work — managing their emotional intelligence with precision, building capacity for intimacy without sacrificing identity, processing difficulty without being consumed by it — are largely not doing it through standard fifty-minute talk therapy sessions. They’re doing it through structured peer accountability, physical training combined with intentional reflection, modalities giving them a skill set rather than a diagnostic label, and the gradual, unglamorous, daily practice of noticing what they feel and choosing their response rather than having it chosen for them. The discipline of emotional regulation isn’t softer than physical discipline. For most men, it’s significantly harder. It just requires a different gym.
On whether the male-female therapy gap will close: it’ll narrow. The forces driving the narrowing run real — increased male-specific resources, better modality matching, younger generations of men carrying slightly less stigma and slightly more emotional vocabulary than their fathers. But the gap won’t close to parity under the current model, because the current model wasn’t designed for the population that’s not showing up. Until the profession decides the treatment credibility problem is a system design problem rather than a male attitude problem, the crisis line keeps ringing and the statistics keep telling a story the field’s self-assessment hasn’t fully caught up to.
Not pessimism. A design specification. Fix the format. Meet men where they actually are. Stop expecting them to want what the system offers and start offering what they actually need. The work’s worth doing, and the men who need it are capable of doing it. The room just needs building for them.
What Works: The Evidence-Based Approaches That Actually Fit Male Psychology
There’s a practical question underneath the cultural and structural analysis, deserving a direct answer: if standard talk therapy underperforms for male populations, what does work? The literature runs clear enough for a real answer rather than a hedge.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. CBT carries the smallest gender gap in outcomes of any major therapeutic modality, and the reason is structural: it focuses on identifying specific thought patterns, testing them against evidence, replacing them with more accurate ones. It has homework. Measurable progress. It operates like problem-solving with a professional, a format men respond to. A 2017 randomized controlled trial in Behaviour Research and Therapy found male clients receiving CBT for depression showed outcome improvements comparable to female clients, in contrast to psychodynamic and interpersonal therapy where the gender gap in outcomes ran significant. Starting somewhere means starting here.
EMDR for trauma. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing works through bilateral stimulation to process traumatic memory, reducing its emotional charge without requiring extensive verbal reconstruction of the event. For men carrying combat trauma, childhood abuse, loss, or other experiences never approached verbally, EMDR often bypasses the processing style mismatch entirely. Less talking, more processing — for many men, the difference between tolerating the work and actually doing it. The research base, including multiple VA-funded randomized trials, runs strong.
Men’s group therapy. As described above, the evidence supports structured groups as equally effective to individual therapy for common male presentations, at lower dropout rates. The key word is structured. Unstructured support groups often stall; men do well in groups with a clear facilitator, a defined purpose, a norm of both accountability and confidentiality. The men’s group format — run by someone who knows what they’re doing — can produce depth of processing many men never achieve one-on-one, because the horizontal accountability of peers lands differently than the vertical accountability of a therapist.
ACT for avoidance patterns. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy runs particularly useful for men managing internal experience through avoidance — overwork, substance use, emotional withdrawal — because it doesn’t ask them to feel their feelings more intensely. It asks them to identify their values and move toward them despite discomfort. That distinction matters enormously for men trained to view emotional processing as self-indulgent. ACT reframes the work as a values-driven project rather than an emotional excavation, aligning better with how many men understand purposeful action.
Physical and somatic approaches. Exercise prescription, somatic experiencing, yoga-based interventions, martial arts-adjacent trauma work all use the body as the primary processing medium. For men whose interior emotional experience lives in the body as tension, restlessness, or physical aggression rather than in verbal awareness, these approaches access the material directly rather than routing it through a language-based system creating a second processing step. The evidence base runs younger than CBT’s but growing rapidly.
The practical takeaway: a man looking for a therapist should ask directly about their experience with male clients and familiarity with CBT, ACT, or EMDR. Ask what progress looks like in their framework and how it gets measured. A vague answer, or a consultation feeling like the start of indefinite verbal exploration with no defined destination, means finding a different practitioner. The best therapy for most men isn’t therapy that makes someone feel heard. It’s therapy giving a skill set, a framework for understanding what’s happening inside, and a concrete practice for changing how one responds. Men who don’t want to talk about their feelings aren’t avoiding growth. They’re describing the format they actually need.
The Silent Variable: What Men Bring to Therapy That the System Misses
There’s a dimension of this conversation the clinical literature handles poorly and the cultural conversation handles worse: men often present in therapy with a kind of practical competence and functional capacity the therapeutic model treats as a defense mechanism rather than a resource.
The man saying, “I’m not good at talking about feelings, but I’m excellent at identifying a problem and building a plan to fix it” isn’t describing a deficit. He’s describing a processing style that can anchor highly effective psychological work — if the therapist knows what to do with it. Most don’t, because their training taught them to work with verbal-emotional expression as the primary modality and to view action-orientation as avoidance. The result is a therapeutic encounter starting by asking the client to abandon his greatest strength (structured problem-solving) and develop a capacity he lacks (verbal emotional fluency) before any useful work can begin. Like hiring a master carpenter and starting the job by asking him to put down his tools and learn watercolors.
The men making the most progress in therapeutic work — coming out the other side with a genuinely transformed relationship to their interior experience — aren’t usually, per case study literature and clinical observation, the ones who became more verbally expressive. They’re the ones who applied their existing processing strengths to the material. They built a system for monitoring and managing their emotional state the way they’d build a system for monitoring and managing anything that mattered. They used their capacity for discipline and structure to practice new responses in high-stakes situations. They treated the emotional discipline work the same way they’d treat physical training: progressive overload, tracked progress, honest assessment of results, willingness to be a beginner at something that matters.
What that looks like in practice: a man with a pattern of emotional withdrawal in close relationships doesn’t need to become a different kind of person. He needs to build a specific skill set — noticing when he’s shutting down, naming what triggered it, staying present for sixty more seconds than his nervous system’s demanding — then practicing that skill set until it becomes reflexive. Not fundamentally different from learning to shoot under pressure, or close a deal in a high-stakes negotiation, or perform under stress in any context where a man’s built reliable competence. The content differs. The structure of skill acquisition stays identical. Therapeutic models using this — treating interior work as a skill-building project rather than an excavation project — produce results in men the standard model doesn’t come close to matching.
The stonewalling pattern in relationships, which Gottman’s research identifies as one of the Four Horsemen of relationship dissolution, illustrates this perfectly. Stonewalling isn’t men being cruel. Gottman’s physiology research showed men who stonewall during conflict typically sit in a state of physiological flooding — heart rate above 100 BPM, cortisol elevated, cognitive function narrowed — and the withdrawal functions as a survival response to unbearable overwhelm. The therapeutic intervention that works isn’t asking men to stop withdrawing and feel more. It’s teaching them to recognize the physiological flooding signature before it becomes complete shutdown, call a structured timeout, use the timeout for genuine physiological deregulation (not fuming), and return to the conversation from a regulated baseline. A concrete skill. Practicable. Measurable. Producing exactly the kind of relationship-protective outcomes that the insight-based approach to the same problem rarely achieves, because insight without skill is an observation about a problem rather than a solution to it.
Sources & Further Reading
Men Therapy Whats: Your Questions Answered: Men and Therapy
Why don’t men go to therapy? The most common answer — stigma and cultural pressure to appear strong — is real but incomplete. Research by Matthew Vogel and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin found the stronger predictor of male non-engagement is treatment credibility: men not believing therapy will work for their specific situation don’t attend, regardless of stigma levels. Given that standard talk therapy shows measurably lower outcomes for male populations than female populations across multiple modalities, this skepticism is partially empirically justified. The solution involves both reducing stigma and improving the actual effectiveness of treatment offered to men.
Does therapy actually work differently for men and women? Yes, across multiple modalities and multiple studies. A 2021 systematic review in Psychotherapy Research found male clients showed smaller symptom reductions than female clients across six common therapeutic modalities, with the largest gaps in psychodynamic and relationship-focused approaches. Behavioral and skill-based approaches (CBT, ACT) showed the smallest gender gaps. Not because men run less capable of growth — because the dominant therapeutic format developed primarily from research on female populations and aligns better with female processing styles.
What type of therapy is best for men? The evidence consistently favors approaches providing concrete skill development over open-ended processing. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy shows the smallest gender gap in outcomes and gives men a structured, measurable framework. EMDR runs particularly effective for men with trauma histories who struggle with verbal reconstruction of the event. Men’s group therapy shows comparable outcomes to individual therapy with lower dropout rates. ACT works well for men with avoidance patterns because it’s values-based rather than feelings-based. The common thread: a clear framework, measurable progress, skill development over disclosure.
Is male suicide really that much higher than female suicide? Yes, and the gap runs larger than most people realize. The CDC’s 2022 mortality data shows men dying by suicide at 3.9 times the rate of women in the United States — 39,255 male deaths versus 10,194 female deaths. Middle-aged men (45-64) carry the highest rate of any demographic group. This number has risen over the past twenty years despite significant expansion of mental health awareness and access programs, suggesting awareness campaigns alone aren’t sufficient without improvements to the clinical models available to the highest-risk population.
How is male depression different from female depression? Male depression frequently presents with symptoms not matching the diagnostic criteria calibrated to female presentations. Where female depression tends toward tearfulness, verbal anguish, expressed hopelessness, male depression more commonly presents as irritability, aggression, risk-taking behavior, increased substance use, social withdrawal, and physical complaints (chronic pain, fatigue) without acknowledged emotional distress. Ronald Levant’s research on “normative male alexithymia” — reduced emotional awareness and vocabulary developed through cultural conditioning — helps explain why men often report feeling “nothing wrong” while exhibiting the behavioral markers of significant depression. Accurate diagnosis requires practitioners familiar with male-specific presentation patterns.
Should men look for a male therapist? The research doesn’t consistently show a therapist gender effect on outcomes, and some studies find men prefer female therapists for specific issues (relationship problems, emotional processing) while preferring male therapists for others (performance-related concerns, career, identity). More important than therapist gender is therapist experience with male clients, familiarity with male-adapted therapeutic modalities, and what Vogel’s research identified as the key predictor: whether the man believes the therapist’s approach will actually work for his situation. Ask about this directly in the initial consultation rather than relying on demographic inference.
Can men’s groups replace individual therapy? For many presentations, yes — and the research supports this. A 2020 study in Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice found men in structured group therapy showed outcomes comparable to individual therapy for depression and anxiety at lower cost and significantly lower dropout rates. Structured groups work better than unstructured ones; the key elements are a skilled facilitator, a defined purpose, norms of both accountability and confidentiality. Groups organized around a specific life context — divorce recovery, addiction, military transition, intentional brotherhood — tend to outperform generic support groups because they give men a concrete identity and purpose within the group structure. Group and individual work aren’t mutually exclusive and often complement each other well.
How do you talk a man into going to therapy? Don’t frame it as talking about feelings. Frame it as developing a skill set. The men engaging with psychological work most productively approach it as capability-building: what tools are missing that I need? For a man struggling with relationship conflict, the pitch isn’t “you need to process your emotions” — it’s “you’re getting flooded in these conversations and it’s costing you. There’s a specific technique that stops the flooding. Want to learn it?” The difference between these framings is the difference between asking a man to become someone else and offering him a tool he can use to be better at being who he already is. The second pitch converts significantly better, and it’s also more accurate about what good therapy for men actually delivers.
Related: Dating Advice for Men: The Only Guide That Doesn't Insult Your Intelligence
Related: The Therapy-Industrial Complex: When Therapeutic Language Becomes Avoidance