In this article, the authors respond to Dr. Amada's comment on their paper. They feel that several of his points, though related to their topic, go beyond the scope of their paper, for example, reflecting on the potential for legal involvement when the intensity of the obsessive relationship warrants urgent intervention. In the latter case the authors agree that it is "abundantly clear" that practitioners do what is necessary to prevent harm. This point strikes them as quite obvious. However, one area of Amada's consideration compels their comment. Amada makes the point that the primary function of the dean's restraining order is to send a message to the rejected and less stable member of the couple that to continue his pursuit of his rejecting paramour would be to jeopardize his college career. Few would argue that the potentially punitive nature of a restraining order is an important reality of its strategic use. However, the authors hope they have shown that a fuller appreciation of the story is a bit more complicated than this. In essence the authors are saying that the "restraining order" might be thought of as more than only a legally or administratively appropriate intervention. It might also be viewed as a developmentally appropriate intervention. The restraining order might also in some sense be sustaining. The authors are not wondering "if" a restraining order can work (they have experienced that it can.) What they are more interested in is "how" it works, with a specific focus on the internal worlds and developmental needs of lovers in this kind of difficult situation.