Hitting Pay Dirt: Comment on ‘‘Money: A Therapeutic Tool for Couples Therapy’’ SCOTT M. STANLEYw LINDSEYA. EINHORNw Keywords: Money, Couples, Therapy, Finances, Relationships, Identity, Trust, Couple Dynamics Fam Proc 46:293–299, 2007 I f there is a royal road to understanding the dynamics of couples, Margaret Shapiro (2007) makes the case to put money prominently on the map. In ‘‘Money: A Ther- apeutic Tool for Couples Therapy,’’ she argues that money is so imbued with meaning in couple dynamics that it is among the most powerful tools a therapist can use. Shapiro makes her case by delineating a range of dynamic themes that money can represent. She goes on to provide a tool that therapists can use (sample, probing questions) and a range of examples across stages of relationship life. We agree with the essence of Shapiro’s argument. There are three subjects on the short list of those avoided in ‘‘polite’’ society: sex, religion, and money. In this frame, Shapiro would most likely say that therapists are too polite. Among these three taboo subjects, we think that there is fair attention to one, some to the other, and almost none at all to the last one in our field. Specifically, although many couples therapists are trained to deal effectively with sexual issues, we believe that it is far less likely that the average therapist has been trained to explore and exploit (for the benefit of cou- ples) themes related to religion. We think it is even less likely to have received training or encouragement in making therapeutic use of the true currency of money in helping couples grow and change. If the essence of her argument holds, what is the basis of the clinical utility of money? Shapiro constructs a list of themes reflected in money and notes how dis- cussing the topic can reveal deeper issues about boundaries, families of origin, trust, conflict, and power. We will take a look at a few of those major themes here. At the Family Process, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2007 r FPI, Inc. 293 This research was supported by two grants from the National Institutes of Health: 1RO1HD48780-1A1 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and 9-RO1-HD053314-20AI from The National Institute of Mental Health. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott M. Stanley at the Center for Marital and Family Studies, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2155 S. Race Street, Denver, CO, 80208. E-mail: scott@stanleyemail.com wUniversity of Denver.