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 (77382)	10/11/2003 1:11:58 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"If the concern IS for the likelihood of sexual thoughts being aroused, then you can confirm that with me right now, and we can move along." A while back someone asked me (chris, I think) what sexualized referred to. I indicated that it was anything from arousal to active sexual interaction between the person providing the massage and the client. I did not clarify it at that time but thinking about sex with no physical presentation of being sexualized is so common and under no one's control that I didn't think that was a factor in the debate. I have objected to that notion a couple of times, although maybe not directly enough. I don't consider 'having a thought about sex,' as arousal for the sake of this scenario but I can see how that could be a messure that could be extrapolated for the sake of other arguments. As far as I know you are the only one that has pressed the issue of thinking about sex and I thought I had said that is not a problem for this scenario, but if not we should be clear on that now. "There is nothing intrinsic in gender to warrant discrimination. " Absolutely correct. In fact, mojo serves customers at his oils and condoments sales counter with no restrictions. It is possible that someone could find him attractive or vica versa and become aroused in the flirtatious sense but this is not a compromising situation nor does it carry it any higher risk factor than walking down the street would be. " If there are no sexual thoughts, and if there is no concern for sexual thoughts, then I do not see why he is segregating. In that case one can only assume the reason for segregation is merely capricious--in which case I am done with discusssing the matter. We can agree that sexual thoughts often precipitate physical arousal and definitely for sexual interaction between two people. However, it is also normal to have sexual thoughts when there is no cause to become aroused or actively involved sexually with another person. So, as previously stated, mojo is not taking his stand on whether or not people might think about sex but only in regards to whether or not there could be a risk of these thoughts leading to arousal or a sexually compromising encounter with him being the object of that arousal while the person is on his massage table. Since there is no doubt that sexual eroticism is common in this type of setting, his concerns are not without a basis.