Having read many of the responses to the case of Laura, I am inclined to agree with Steve Kusch. Many of the earlier formulations seem to be informed by object-relations theory (fears of merger, etc.) and are, ironically, not "deep" enough. Why would someone abhor closeness? Intimacy is a normal developmental goal. There has been little theorizing about why Laura would relinquish her goals. The concept of omnipotence provides a reasonable explanation. If someone feels omnipotent, then closeness is dangerous.
In the vignette about the argument with Tom, Laura develops a symptom when he concedes. Whether or not this concession was genuine it may have made Laura feel too powerful. Tom could not be direct and simply say, "Sorry, I blew it" and then let go of it. His defensiveness confirmed Laura's fear that she causes men to behave a certain way. It appeared that Laura went on to test the therapist to see if she agreed that Laura should hold on to being angry. The therapist responded by bringing up a different topic, (mother), which may have relieved Laura because it suggested that the fight with Tom wasn't all that important.
The therapist also helped Laura a great deal in regard to her talking to her employer. Laura was afraid to be direct and suggested covert behavior, which the therapist did not endorse. This response disconfirmed Laura's fear that being direct was dangerous and she was able to approach the situation with less anxiety.
The concept of omnipotence offered by Dr. Kusch goes a long way in explaining her anxiety about being close to men and also her guilt about being separate from her mother.