Firstly, I have never been a party to the "freedom of conscience" issue. I did not think it salient from the beginning as being inappropriately invoked. It was an interest pursued by Karen. It was of little interest to me.
Let us look at what I have said--because you see Jewels, I don't mind in the least being quoted or referenced to what I have ACTUALLY said.
First of all there is a default assumption that someone coming for massage therapy to a qualified therapist is coming for the purpose of therapy. There are practitioners around who specialize in sexual arousal using the massage as a front for the trade of sexual favours for money. A person wanting this would presumably choose this.
So the intent of both the client and the therapist is honourable and strictly a business/health matter.
Now it is accepted that sexual arousal in all areas of human interaction is always something that can and from time to time will occur. The point of all civilized and socially acceptable behaviour is to ACT on sexual arousal only in appropriate circumstances and acceptable ways. One does not, for instance, masturbate in the grocery store even if one is smitten by the girl rinsing the carrots.
In fiduciary relationships with particular established ethical norms, acceptable and professional conduct has been defined and explicated over time.
Now, in regards to your hypothetical therapist who discriminates against clients because of gender or sexual orientation there can be only two reasons related to sexual arousal which explains his motive or his fear: 1). To avoid his own sexual arousal, or 2). To avoid sexual arousal in a client.
Let us look at the former. Why would a qualified therapist take such mechanical measures to avoid an arousal which training (proper attention, focus, and so forth) already has dealt with? As I said many many times, I think it is correct for him to discriminate if he fears that he will violate clear sexual standards and breach the trust with a client. My point was that there is an expectation (which is realized in thousands of therapists) that they are trustworthy to deal with clients without the artificial mechanism of exclusion and discrimination. We have no disagreement on the fact that many of them do indeed lack the requisite training and character to be trustworthy therapists. But let us be clear which camp your hypothetical therapist has placed himself into.
But perhaps it was the latter which he feared? Perhaps he felt no insecurity in his training and his capacity to avoid violation of sexual ethics and breach of trust. Instead, he fears that to avoid sexual arousal in his client he must exclude them. Now there is an important point here: People have every right to feel sexually aroused if they so choose. It is no business of the therapist. the therapist is being paid to do a job--not to tell people what they may or may not feel or think. The therapist is trained to prevent sexual acts from taking place, and he is trained to not provoke or encourage a sexual response and to terminate the session when the client acts in an inappropriate manner. So the therapist has the training and the character and the backing of society to control the session such that no breach of trust will occur and that no sexual misconduct will occur. He does not need to discriminate against people UNLESS his ability to guarantee a safe environment is questionable.
So as I said: IF he is like one of those therapists who have violated the trust of their clients then I applaud him for choosing to discriminate...but I would advise him to train so that he can be like the thousands of therapists who have never engaged, and never would engage, in sexual misconduct.
Again, exclusion gives one of two messages: 1). The therapist feels and believes that HE is untrustworthy to work with homosexuals or women, or 2). That homosexuals and women are untrustworthy. The fault of the former is obvious and has been addressed previously. As to the second, it is unfair to assume anyone is untrustworthy on the basis of a prejudgment (prejudice) based on sexual orientation or gender, and it is unfair to exclude untrustworthy people from treatment unless they have acted in such as manner as to deserve exclusion. The therapist is trained to prevent sexual misconduct in his work environment. He does not need to prejudge his clients and to set himself up as a little god.
Nor does he have any authority against arousal other than his own. His duty is not to encourage arousal and not to permit misconduct. Having hot blood or burning loins is neither a sin nor an impropriety in a client. And if they wish to fantasize during a massage, a breast exam, or a teacher's quiz...it is no business of anyone but the person who owns his/her thoughts. The job of a teacher is to teach...not to exclude adolescent boys from attending class because of the possibility that they will aroused by the curvature of her doe-like breasts and the pink flush of her skin. |
