I saw such an excellent summary you did earlier (and I had meant to tell you so, but it disappeared in a subsequent string of postings when I was distracted), that I thought to give a final summary of my own.
Jewels wants to defend MOHO's discrimination on the basis that he is discriminating for a noble reason rather than as a put-down. Now you have explained to him why that doesn't fly even if it is true. That is clear enough.
But is it indeed true that this perceived put-down is more akin to folks on the Titanic tossing babies into the lifeboats? Why does MOHO wish to send women and homosexuals to a special fountain, as it were?
In trying to cut through his endless distortions and evasions, and to pluck an odd assertion out from amongst the ad hominems which predominate in most of his posts--I find a couple of repetitive notions: 1). That statistics show that sexual misconduct exists, and that it causes harm, and 2). That massaging homosexuals may lead to sexual misconduct and thus harm.
Now, this exposes a terrible problem. We have been assured over and over again that MOHO is above reproach--successful, and morally worthy. Can we not assume then that Moho will not violate the trust of the homosexual who has paid out his money for a professional massage? Indeed, Jewels has asserted repeatedly that the client is not at risk from MOHO who is (as said) a praiseworthy human being. So who then is he at risk from? He is not at risk from Mona. Mona is also decent and above board.
Jewels has referred to some mysterious presence of something sexually charged. Well, massage tables don't have a sexual charge, oils don't, towels and sheets do not. The only place where a sexual charge may exist is in a living creature. I think we can safely assume he does not refer to mice or germs or such--after all, he could easily have said so, if he did.
So we are left with a therapist and a client--both of whom are sexual beings and whom carry that sexuality with them wherever they go until death. So the harm or danger can only be implied as coming from one or both of those two principles.
Now the fundamental premise is that the therpist is sending the client to the Mona fountain out of concern for the client's safety. And this WOULD be an act of decency if there WERE a risk of harm from the therapist. But we are assured by Jewels that there is no risk from this PARTICULAR therapist (although there may be risks from others, such would be irrelevant to why MOHO sends them to the street). And although there may be risk from germs and mice and such...it surely cannot be claimed that there is a sexual risk from these creatures--can it??
So if this discrimination is for the benefit of the client (which might at least serve to justify it in an individual instance), then why will Jewels not inform us why a homosexual is in danger from a qualified therapist like MOHO (who is a decent person), and why that danger is eliminated by having Mona work on him??
There seems to be an insinuation that MOHO feels uncertain of his ability to be moral and upright when massaging a homosexual. He feels he may place homosexuals and women at risk. I can appreciate his frankness, but I have said that the ability to set aside sexual interest is necessary and expected of all practioners in a professional capacity. Just as MOHO must control urges when he shops at the grocery store, so he must control his urges even more so in a position of professional trust.
It is true that Jewels has given some evidence that all clients are potentially at risk from some therapists in all fields of care. But this is not unexpected. This is not sufficient justification for systemic discrimination against innocent groups of people, and, in any event, we are ASSSURED by Jewels that this sexual violation would never occur with the upright Mr. MOHO.
So we are left with the enigma. We are left with the sense that the argument is all pretense, and in bad faith. I, too, have pretty much had enough of the endless searching for pebbles of fact between pellets of cheap insults. |
