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: Solon who wrote (75247)	9/22/2003 12:42:23 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Since you have thoroughly reviewed the discussion, you will recall these excerpts that have been broadly reported on the industry. Information that describes a seriously harmful circumstance that is increasing at an alarming rate. ”This is from the same article in which 70% of therapists stated that clients had reported direct sexual contact with a previous therapist....NOTE: IT ALSO STATES "Only four to eight percent of victims ever report the sexual contact." “….Injuries include sexual dysfunction, anxiety disorders, psychiatric hospitalizations, increased risk of suicide, depression, dissociative behavior, internalized feelings of guilt, shame, anger, confusion, hatred, inability to trust and feelings of worthlessness. Other effects of the sexual contact included anger, shame, humiliation, depression, and anxiety. In addition, for many victims, realizing that they are harmed and that the therapist was the cause of their harm takes years. Only four to eight percent of victims ever report the sexual contact. Is it your position that the above should simply be dismissed out of hand? If yes then we really aren’t having the same discussion. Do you think anyone who would object to being involved in this type of scenario is sexually hung up or immature. You have stated that you believe training and an improvement in professional awareness of ethical behavior “should” correct the problem. However, the professionals in question have had professional training and the problem not only persists but is increasing at an alarming rate. So, do we dismiss the problem as one that “should” be taken care of in the light of currently reported “increasing at an alarming rate” information. It is a mistake to make the term “should” equivalent to “does”. People participate in massage therapy for a variety of reasons. However, the typical participant (not granny with bursitis) is expecting to be envigorated through a relaxing and sensual deep stimulation of skin, muscular and circulartory systems. So, the general population of practitioners and participating clients may be more sensually inclined than the mainstream of non-massage participants. The possibility mojo has proposed is that it isn’t the science of massage therapy or the ethics of practice that is a problem. The problem comes from the circumstances under which it is practiced that can and obviously often does (not always) contribute to a sexually charged intimate encounter that the therapist or the client may or may not have intended. Often enough in fact that it is causing great personal harm at too great of numbers in this profession in contrast to say; the produce girl scenario (you said if someone got excited watching a produce girl wash carrots, it would be the same thing). Enough so, that it is worthy of being considered a special case. ”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.” He is consciencious about this belief and expects to be afforded the liberty to operate according to his conscience. The ethics code has been referred to now on several occasions. Mojo understands the ethics code. He was aware of it before it was referred to on the first occasion. He agrees with it. So, the question is not whether or not the “ethics” code is adequate, good, or solidly in place. Mojo’s personal sexual maturity has been challenged. He is apparently a normal heterosexual male who carries on in the typical way in his marriage. He admires women sexually and has married to have a typical heterosexual and monogamous relationship. He harbors no ill will toward persons of a different sexual orientation and wishes that people have comfort and success in their comings and goings in life. He refers females to his cousin Myrna when they request his massage therapy services. Myrna has earned several prestigious awards for her contributions to the practice and holds a similar believe about putting people into risky intimate situations unnecessarily. Now mojo has been accused of prejudice and analogous comparisons have been made to him regarding hateful treatment of blacks and women. His own view of healthy sexuality has been mocked and derided as the worst form of discrimination. Terminology (paternalistic) has been brought out of the blue because it was found that his birth name was Mohammed, even though he described himself as not religious. ”A therapist should try to overcome sexual hang-ups … A mature person does not feel threatened by sexuality … sarcasm…”It seems I am always turning all the other kind on in spite of all my training. Even when I dress down and wear my little red shorts from that week in Jamaica...they still seem to wanna come on to me because of my sensitive fingers and my extremely refined sense of touch.” ”"...wicked fantasies that woman and homosexuals will be simply helpless to resist the arousal of his therapeutic touching..." Oh Yeah and here is a cute one that appears to dove tail your view point from your buddy chris …”Believes, even, that it is evil and unnatural and deviant and antisocial and anything else you want to toss into the pot.” "It is the violation of this fundamental principle which has disappointed myself, Karen, and CH. Retreating to snide and contemptuous ... The snideness and contemptuousness was from the beginning and directed at mojo...he is clean...my comments of late have been to stomp in those puddles .... and look what splashes up...hmmmm Now, you want to discuss mojo's case or go off on one of the other tangents...up to you.