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 (75093)	9/19/2003 10:51:54 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

"His belief is that it is wrong to put people into a situation where there is a reasonable possibility that they could become sexualized inapropriately. I thought we agreed that it is always inapropriate in this setting. Why he, you, I think it is inapropriate is not the issue." If there is reason to believe that with a given individual there is a reasonable possibility that they could become sexualized inappropriately, that's fine. What he's saying is that EVERY woman and EVERY homosexual man has a "reasonable possibility" that they could become sexualized inappropriately. That's called prejudice -- prejudgment. It's like saying that you won't hire any black people because statistically they are more likely to commit crimes and thus steal from you than white people. No can do. He has to have some basis other than simply gender or sexual preference to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that this particular client coud become sexualized inappropriately (every 90 year old woman with arthritis who comes in to get their joints massged to relieve the pain is reasonably likely to become sexualized inappropriately? Yeah, right. And how about six year old girls who are not yet at puberty but have medical needs for massage? Any inappropriate sexualization is going to be on his part, not theirs.) Basically, you originally presented a case of a man who on religious grounds didn't want to treat ANY women or ANY homosexual men. Then you found that wouldn't fly and started positing the case on the sexual grounds. But still you can't make the blanked assumption that ALL women are reasonably likely to be inappropriately sexualized by a massage. Unless you are prepared to state here that it's your belief that there's a reasonable possibility that Karen and X would both respond that way to a massage. You want to make that claim? If not, they're fully entitled to get massages from your guy.) BTW, if that's really his criteria -- then he must accept lesbian women as clients because there is no reasonable possibility that a man will inappropriately sexualize them. If he objects to homosexual men, then he can't object to lesbian women.