You are right about one thing (well, more than one, that sounds like only one -- let's say one thing you are right about is): times and social dynamics change.
But Mojo is on the back end of change. In the 1800s, I agree, it would have been unthinkable for a man to massage a woman's body.
But that social more has been replaced, at least in our society, with a more of equality.
It would not surprise most people if women were excluded from a public bath house where men are bathing and the servants (towel people or whatever are men). You might demand additional facilities for women but would not likely insist that men serve women in the bath house or that women are included in the men's bathing facility.
We had very much that argument what, twenty years or so ago?, when the issue of women reporters being allowed in professional team locker rooms emerged as a major factor. The guys didn't want them there while they -- the guys -- were in various states of undress. Things were worked into gradually, with an area set aside where guys would meet the women reporters after the game with towels or robes or whatever securely wrapped around them. But that, as I understand it (not having been in a professional locker room for quite a few years) has now disappeared, and both male and female reporters are treated equally and given equal access to the locker rooms.
Some people chose not to engage in thought. Some people just loaded up ole' nelly and let both barrels fly without giving much thought to any of it. Many a senseless feud has been levied with the same by-golly attitudes.
I agree, you are thinking that way. Hey, turnabout is fair play. But seriously, just as you think (wrongly) that I'm not thinking carefully about Mojo's issues, I think (I don't know whether rightly or wrongly, not being in your head) that you aren't appreciating the dangers to society of moving away from inclusion back toward exclusion, nor about the parameters of what should be allowed under a hypothetical "mojo exception."
You have posed your hypothetical and expect people to address it on your terms, but have refused to consider my counter hypothetical of an evangalical Christian refusing service to jews. It's time you ponied up and came out specifically and clearly with an answer to that -- is the evangelical Christian who believes that Jews are inherently and absoltely evil because they killed Christ and who believes that any contact with Jews will taint his soul permitted to refuse to serve jews? Your answer, and your basis for it, please. |
