SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (77385)10/11/2003 2:02:15 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (2) of 82486
 
"nor does it carry it any higher risk factor than walking down the street would be."

We keep coming back to this. You obviously think it is at the core of his reason(s) for segregation. But when I have tried to get you to specify the risk in concrete terms, my attempts have not met with success.

I think it goes without saying that there is no risk of sexual misconduct given the ethics and the interpersonal skills of Moho. If there is a risk that Moho will breach the fiduciary trust then please tell me so that both of us can avoid contaminating the question of risk with the question of conduct.

"but only in regards to whether or not there could be a risk of these thoughts leading to arousal or a sexually compromising encounter with him being the object of that arousal while the person is on his massage table."

Now this is getting closer to straight language and upfront presentation that can be dealt with. Leaving aside the question of sexual arousal for the time being, is part of moho's scruples based on a fear that he might allow a sexual encounter in breach of client trust? I'm not suggesting that it is. I am trying to hone in precisely on the scruple and the risk. And because you created Moho it is you who must help us to understand the precise nature of his thoughts. I had assumed there was no risk of sexual misconduct given what you had previously said, but if there is could you tell me now? I am not asking if there is a risk of sexual arousal (you have indicated something in that direction, and we can come to it later). I am asking for the record if there is a risk of sexual misconduct, and if that risk is the scruple?

"mojo is not taking his stand on whether or not people might think about sex but only in regards to whether or not there could be a risk of these thoughts leading to arousal"

For the record, you have indicated that sexual thoughts are only pertinent to the "risk" insofar as they may lead to arousal--is that correct?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News