"Is it your position that the above should simply be dismissed out of hand?"
No. I think misconduct should be punished and that training for working with people should be refined to reflect any improvements which may be made. Naturally, there will always exist people who will engage in misconduct in spite of training.
In general, one "blames" the professional for a breach of trust and therefore gives consequences to the professional including re-training and punishment...or loss of license privileges.
"the typical participant (not granny with bursitis) is expecting to be envigorated through a relaxing and sensual deep stimulation of skin, muscular and circulartory systems. So, the general population of practitioners and participating clients are more sensual than the mainstream non-massage participants."
I don't know that that is "typical". People usually go for massages to address particular ailments or health concerns related to tension, stiffness, anxiety, and so forth. In any case...of course it involves (or may involve) the stimulation of the skin, muscles, and circulatory system.
"So, the general population of practitioners and participating clients are more sensual than the mainstream non-massage participants."
That doesn't follow. One does not need to take massage therapy to be a sensual person. And don't confuse the "sensual" massage which is practiced at home betwen sexual partners, with "therapeutic" massage which intends to avoid sexual stimulation and inappropriate sexual conduct.
"Enough so, that it is worthy of being considered a special case."
It is not representative of nearly the harm as obtains in other professions where breach of trust is more commonly encountered. Where a massage therapist breaches the trust he ought to be dealt with appropriately. Sexual touching is NOT a part of massage therapy--no more than it is of psychiatry, gynecology, or gym class.
"Terminology (paternalistic) has been brought out of the blue because it was found that his birth name was Mohammed, even though he described himself as not religious."
As you draw up your hypotheticals you often revert from third person to first, from abstract to personal. It makes it appear like you might be talking about yourself or someone you know. In any case the analogy has become wearisome. There is no need for a third person manner of speaking if you are speaking of yourself. And when did this "Mojo" stuff creep into the discussion? and is it necessary?? Why do you bring race or religion into this hypothetical??
”A therapist should try to overcome sexual hang-ups …
A mature person does not feel threatened by sexuality …"
This is what I believe. Those breaches of trust were caused by untrained or immature practioners.
"The snideness and contemptuousness was from the beginning and directed at mojo...he is clean...my comments of late have been to stomp in those puddles .... and look what splashes up...hmmmm"
I'm not going to play that game of calling a hypothetical "mojo". Somehow that sounds demeaning. It sounds like you are mocking someone. Please cut it out. Is "Mojo" some sort of slang for a disgusting person? Is it necessary to our discussion?
As to your puddle comments....again, you are veering off in your own direction and have apparently become lost in those puddles. You have not shown why a therapist should prejudge the intent or the ethics of someone on the basis of gender. To deny your services, for instance, to a homosexual is tantamount to accusing them in advance of being more likely to be unethical or to engage in misconduct than a woman or a heterosexual. This seems grossly elitist and judgmental--and entirely unfair. The fact (earlier referrred to) that there are unethical practitioners in the industry is irrelevant to this discrimination, and provides absolutely no justification for it. It is well and fine for you to state what we all agree on--that there are persons of dubious character or insufficient training in the industry. But this does not provide a leap to a legitimate rationalizing and the prejudgment of the character of potential clients. It is this arbitrary assignment of unearned guilt to potential clients which you will either address or not. For this is the crux of the matter, and the source of disagreement--not whether or not the industry includes those unfitted to occupy a position of trust. |
