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: Lane3 who wrote (74399)	9/11/2003 12:33:28 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"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..." OK. You like the status quo where: "And this is the point. We are conditioned by our cultures to react in certain ways...women reacting sexually ...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. 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. "Talk about slippery slopes..." hmmm...well, we should at least be able to agree that women who don't want to have their sexuality switched off and on should have a choice. And men who don't buy the switching system concept should have a choice.