Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (75015)	9/18/2003 3:27:58 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 82486

I did not use the word "partners." Here is what I said: "When they are in an intimate and sensual situation with someone that represents a potential source of sexual attraction they are and often do become sexualized in the experience (as the reports I supplied demonstrate)." ))Although maybe not because then he would be massaging lesbians without risk. So just what is the criterion? (( The discription I used does allow the potential for one of the participants to become sexualized even though the other isn't. I don't mean this as a put down Karen but you are an individual who takes way more precautions to ensure you have control over your circumstances and consequences that the typical person does. Most people are not prepared when they become turned on sexually. They tend to get caught up in the moment. I doubt that the typical situation is planned (like going to meat market bars). Harm can be done without the involvement of the other party. In marriage counselling there is a term called "emotional betrayal." That phenomenon can have devastating effects. However, I don't want to overly focus on that or you will "pick" it. The experience of becoming sexualized in the session is pervasive, inapropriate and need not be acted upon during the session to have a negative long term impact. "Based on this belief, then the stand he is taking is to broadly speak up and educate the world that it's harmful and get the common practice changed? Or is his stand confined to refusing inappropriate (per his belief) clients in his own practice? " Currently his stand is focused on his practice. He is not afraid to speak up and stand his ground if it were to become a Supreme Court issue, or if the public was in anyway open to hearing his views in an educational format. "The risk is both social opprobrium and legal, correct? Yes. And of course that is undeniably the case since his only social involvement so far is this thread...wherein he has received ample, nearly universal, social opprobrium and has been accused of ethical and legal violations. He has been compared to a Dr. who would allow a patient to die because of race and as someone who IS violenting discrimination laws based on gender and equal rights.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next