Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (74382)	9/11/2003 7:15:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You understand that the guy is good at his job, likes his job, has ample clientele to be considered a professional success You added this information well into the discussion. At the point I chimed in, the discussion was about the impact of certain legal requirements on him and I had the impression he must be having trouble working at his chosen profession. As I said quite clearly earlier--you may have missed it--if he can be successful given the constraints, good for him. In which case there is no meaningful problem of legal requirements, is there? He was raised in a culture that believes men putting there hands on women in isolation brings erotic risks that inevitably surface as emotional involvement. His experience has confirmed the belief. And this is the point. We are conditioned by our cultures to react in certain ways. If our culture tells us that men and women cannot touch without titillation, then that's how we react. If, however, our culture teaches us that the context of the physical contact is significant, then we react accordingly, at least beyond the raging hormones and lack of sophistication of our teen years. I recall some discussion hereabouts a long time ago, perhaps you weren't around then, about women reacting sexually to gynecologists and priests. Some do. For them, this little "tabu" switch doesn't go off like it does for the rest of us. For the most part, though, your masseur would be protected from triggering a sexual reaction by his female client's context switch, particularly if he conducted himself in a purely professional way. So, it seems to me that, to the extent that your masseur doesn't want to provoke in his clients any sexual reaction to his therapy, the candidates to screen out would most effectively be two categories. The first is those brought up in his culture where people are conditioned to consider therapy sexual. The second is those who, for whatever psychological reason, have a broken switch. Targeting women and gays is overly broad and missing the target. To the extent that your masseur doesn't want to have a sexual reaction to his clients, OTOH, given his cultural orientation, then it is necessary and reasonable for him to reject female clients. If he is not at risk of being sexually stimulated by a gay client, though, there's no reason to exclude them. Your only qualifier is that he does not accept female clients as a matter of conscience. I'm not buying your attempt to establish a new category of "conscientious objectors" for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to or do not wish to differentiate sexual context. Talk about slippery slopes...

To: one_less who wrote (74382)	9/11/2003 9:04:12 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It occurred to me while I was working out that you might misconstrue my comment about conscientious objectors and I should elaborate. I said: <<I'm not buying your attempt to establish a new category of "conscientious objectors" for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to or do not wish to differentiate sexual context. Talk about slippery slopes...>> My reasoning is that "conscience" is an amorphous thing. People can make all sorts of claims for conscience. Some of them would resonate with most people, others would be considered bizarre. For conscientious objector legal status, the claim would need to clearly resonate with people and represent an ideal higher that the general cultural ideal. Your ideal, while I understand it, is not one that would be widely regarded as higher than our cultural ideal of non-discrimination, I don't think. So, as long as your therapist is able to exclude clients he doesn't want to service and still be successful, it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie. If he is challenged, however, I submit that he would be on firmer ground claiming a religious exemption than one of conscience. I'm assuming that his conscience is based on Islam so he could argue either point. Religious exemptions are more easily granted. People need to appreciate the higher value of an objection based on the more secular notion of conscience. But a religious exemption does not need to resonate--it need only be documentable and not unreasonable. That would be my recommendation.

To: one_less who wrote (74382)	9/11/2003 10:11:46 AM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

an amusing debate I would think if he prefers to only massage men, is successful, good at what he does, has a large client base, there is really no issue I can't imagine any woman demanding he massage her or making an issue of it - there is an abundance of masseurs or a male saying, by god, you have to massage women too, it's not fair [can you do my left shoulder again?] of course there is always that one person who sticks their nose in anothers business - who might try and make an issue out of it - but I doubt if they'd get any where with it one self employed masseuse, who prefers to massage men no big deal in the world I wonder if he advertises, Men Only he might get some interesting inquiries