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?
When I was trying to make the point to Jewel yesterday that the least-harm approach would be for Mojo to massage the most vulnerable clients, the women, as many as he can, to protect them from the less ethical masseurs to whom they would otherwise go, I was stunned that he couldn't get the simple logic of that. As I was scratching my head over that wondering if it were humanly possible for anyone to be quite that stupid, I finally remembered that Mojo's standard was lust in the heart, not what the industry would consider sexual misconduct. We hadn't discussed it from that angle for a long time. What with this red herring about concern for the victims of the 70 percent statistics, I was distracted into losing focus on his notion that, in Mojo's eyes, the harm was in the lust, not just sexual misconduct. Once I refocused, it cleared up. Do you know that we've spent a month on this? I had it pinned down at the beginning but allowed myself to be distracted. I just hate it when that happens. <g>
So if this discrimination is for the benefit of the client
Well, obviously, it isn't. So we have the harm to Mojo of potentially experiencing lust in his heart weighed against the harm to others of his discrimination. That's no contest, IMO. The embellishment of the conscience claim with concerns about victims of unethical therapists was a red herring.
Since my words tend to inflame, I will quote Neo instead, complete with dot string: "I would not say that becoming a masseur was a wise choice if one were too sensitive. But I do not think that having such a sensitivity should be automatically stigmatized......."
That quote was from September 12, pre-distraction time. Shoulda quit then. |
