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 (75853)	9/29/2003 4:49:09 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Professional ethical guidelines are always distinct from criminal liability. I indicated that I did think the masseur was liable to professional sanction when I said she should take that path if she cares to. Since it was her initiative, I think it is a judgment call. I think that the requirements are realistic. That does not mean that temptations will never arise, merely that they would rarely and should be manageable. Situations are different, of course. It makes a difference if the masseur attempted seduction, or the woman initiated, or if she were 16 or 18. Any factor which might present itself as qualifying the judgment about the severity of the breach is in play. I still think that one should not have sex in a professional context. However, I am not going to pretend that it is as egregious as a psychiatrist taking advantage of emotional vulnerability to manipulate a client into bed, for example. I have no evidence about the pervasiveness of such encounters. Less than 10% certainly does not qualify as pervasive, even if there may be under- reporting. I have lost track of what is being promoted here. If we are still on Mojo's right to determine his own clientele, I would agree that it is better to leave him be. If we are positing a defence against public policy disallowing discrimination, I do not think that Mojo has a leg to stand on. Whether or not it would be wise to carve out an exemption for the free- lance masseur, I do not think, as presented, there is a freedom of conscience issue raising constitutional concerns.

To: one_less who wrote (75853)	9/30/2003 3:23:22 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"not 100% as the sex gods solon, charleymane, etc. have testified but at least common." Oh, stop this idiotic snideness. When did I ever say that harmful encounters were 100%b pervasive? I said the opposite...that massage therapy had a decent record compared to other professions--and compared to ordinary social encounters. "The 18 year old was competent to make a choice and did make a choice" It is not her choice to make. It is up to the therapist to decide whether he is a criminal or a qualified person. A qualified therapist does not engage in misconduct. "Should there be sexually charged sessions in a massage therapy setting" It sounds like you are talking about storage batteries--not people! Just hook up this brainless negative to this idiotic positive and watch the sparks fly!!