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 (75254)	9/22/2003 1:03:57 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

”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." As Karen pointed out at the time, such "statistics" have to be taken with some care. There could in theory have been only one sexual contact and that one individual visited many therapists. But that's unlikely. Let's look more closely at this. I don't know how long a massage lasts, but presumably not more than an hour. Say a therapist can do eight a day. Assume some vacancies in the daily schedule, but allow 30 massages a week. I have no idea whether this is accurate, but it's presumably in the ball park for full time therapists, who would presumably be the ones joining therapists organizations. Assume 50 working weeks a year, that's 1,500 massages a year. Assume half of those are repeats, that's 750 clients a year. Or maybe fewer, there may be some multiple repeats, though there are also many therapists working in resort spas, on cruise ships, etc. who presumably have few repeat customers. So allow 500 clients a year average. And assume that some clients come on from year to year. Still, in a ten year period, an average full time therapist could certainly be assumed to see 1,000 separate clients, and in the case of spas, cruise ships, etc. perhaps as many as 15,000 separate clients. There don't have to be very many inappropriate touching incidents for 70% of those therapists to report that at least one client experienced one. The surprise may be that it's not closer to 100%. I suppose some therapists have been in business fewer than 10 years, though others will have been in it far longer than that, so it will balance out. Also, we don't know what "direct sexual contact" is defined as. Is it a therapist brushing the breast of a woman? Is it intercourse? Is it prolonged massaging of the sexual organs? We have no idea. Basically, then, all your statistic tells us is that direct sexual contact does happen on occasion, but we have no idea how often, and it could be a quite significant or a quite minimal problem. Statistics are often like that -- they sound ominous at first, but on evaluation turn out to be much less significant than they first appear.

To: one_less who wrote (75254)	9/22/2003 1:39:51 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Is it your position that the above should simply be dismissed out of hand?" No. I think misconduct should be punished and that training for working with people should be refined to reflect any improvements which may be made. Naturally, there will always exist people who will engage in misconduct in spite of training. In general, one "blames" the professional for a breach of trust and therefore gives consequences to the professional including re-training and punishment...or loss of license privileges. "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 are more sensual than the mainstream non-massage participants." I don't know that that is "typical". People usually go for massages to address particular ailments or health concerns related to tension, stiffness, anxiety, and so forth. In any case...of course it involves (or may involve) the stimulation of the skin, muscles, and circulatory system. "So, the general population of practitioners and participating clients are more sensual than the mainstream non-massage participants." That doesn't follow. One does not need to take massage therapy to be a sensual person. And don't confuse the "sensual" massage which is practiced at home betwen sexual partners, with "therapeutic" massage which intends to avoid sexual stimulation and inappropriate sexual conduct. "Enough so, that it is worthy of being considered a special case." It is not representative of nearly the harm as obtains in other professions where breach of trust is more commonly encountered. Where a massage therapist breaches the trust he ought to be dealt with appropriately. Sexual touching is NOT a part of massage therapy--no more than it is of psychiatry, gynecology, or gym class. "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." As you draw up your hypotheticals you often revert from third person to first, from abstract to personal. It makes it appear like you might be talking about yourself or someone you know. In any case the analogy has become wearisome. There is no need for a third person manner of speaking if you are speaking of yourself. And when did this "Mojo" stuff creep into the discussion? and is it necessary?? Why do you bring race or religion into this hypothetical?? ”A therapist should try to overcome sexual hang-ups … A mature person does not feel threatened by sexuality …" This is what I believe. Those breaches of trust were caused by untrained or immature practioners. "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" I'm not going to play that game of calling a hypothetical "mojo". Somehow that sounds demeaning. It sounds like you are mocking someone. Please cut it out. Is "Mojo" some sort of slang for a disgusting person? Is it necessary to our discussion? As to your puddle comments....again, you are veering off in your own direction and have apparently become lost in those puddles. You have not shown why a therapist should prejudge the intent or the ethics of someone on the basis of gender. To deny your services, for instance, to a homosexual is tantamount to accusing them in advance of being more likely to be unethical or to engage in misconduct than a woman or a heterosexual. This seems grossly elitist and judgmental--and entirely unfair. The fact (earlier referrred to) that there are unethical practitioners in the industry is irrelevant to this discrimination, and provides absolutely no justification for it. It is well and fine for you to state what we all agree on--that there are persons of dubious character or insufficient training in the industry. But this does not provide a leap to a legitimate rationalizing and the prejudgment of the character of potential clients. It is this arbitrary assignment of unearned guilt to potential clients which you will either address or not. For this is the crux of the matter, and the source of disagreement--not whether or not the industry includes those unfitted to occupy a position of trust.