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 (77426)	10/12/2003 3:04:33 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

Excellent! Excellent! It is our Thanksgiving weekend I there is much to do. Catch up to you later.

To: one_less who wrote (77426)	10/13/2003 1:27:39 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

So you would accept that no harm is no harm. Unless a client has some sort of hang-up about getting sexually aroused, he/she will not feel damaged or injured by the happenstance of arousal. As to being sexually exploited. That happens in life; but our discussion has made it clear that Moho is an upright man who will not exploit another sexually. So, I come in to see Moho. Again, this is hypothetical. I do not consider sexual arousal to be harmful as it is just a part of my human nature. There may be a sensuous picture on the clinic wall...or the picture may just be in my mind (I do like to let my mind dance with the finer things of life). In any case, I might inadvertently get warm loins when Moho is getting a little too close to my genital area. That (as we have agreed) would not cause me to experience any harm (and it certainly would not be the responsibility of the therapist if he was operating in a professional and ethical manner). But Moho agrees to massage me after making sure that I am not a woman and after ascertaining in some fashion that I am not a homosexual. Unforunately for Moho--I am a bi-sexual (remember, dear readers, this is a hypothetical), and I get slightly aroused (not because of my bisexuality) but because of testosterone. I don't experience any harm from this, but Moho believes I was aroused because he was keen enough to notice a slight erection, and he tells me that he will never see me again. I ask him why and he tells me that I was inappropriately "sexualized". We have established that Moho's problem with massaging homosexuals is not their orientation. We have established that Moho's problem with massaging homosexuals is the risk of injury. We have established that the purported risk of injury (as it relates to our discussion of this upright man who will not injure a client) is to Moho himself--not to the homosexuals. Every person has the right to know for himself whether he is injured, or whether he is not. We have established that clients' may be aroused or feel sensuous and comfortable when having a massage without being harmed. You had no problem with that assertion. You have said that: "If someone has been sexualized inappropriately in this situation, injury has occurred." So the claim of injury is from Moho and for Moho--correct? Moho respects the autonomy and freedom of conscience of others not to claim that they were injured--correct?