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 (77451)	10/13/2003 2:37:16 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| 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.” “Hang-up,” is a values laden judgmental term that either side of that equation could levy toward the other. ”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?” Correct. There were a couple of things that were unclear in your hypothetical. You said that you are not a homo-sexual male but a bi-sexual male. A bi-sexual male involved sexually with another male is participating in homosexuality. Are you suggesting this is some sort of loop hole? It is of course functionally not. The other thing that was unclear is that you said you became aroused while on the massage table receiving services from mojo. You did not make it clear whether mojo was the object of your sexual interest or whether it was a fantasy about some third party. I assume it was not mojo but if so, yes, harm is attributed to and for mojo ... If you are claiming that it is no problem for you, then your ethics are not violated and I can see no reason to attribute harm to or for you. We have already discussed that the only issue mojo has is when the arousal involves the two people in the session, one being the object of sexual interest of the other. In addition we discussed the possibility of arousal that was a passing fantasy that did not involve mojo. In this situation mojo would consider it an awkward moment and manage the session toward a non-sexual therapeutic outcome, or if that did not seem practical, end the session. However, saying you are a bi-sexual means that you involve yourself sexually with other men in homo-sexual experiences. That is enough to violate mojo’s issue of conscience and that should have been apparent via the earlier discussion. In the event that mojo is involved with sexualizing someone inappropriately his ethic is violated. ”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? Mojo’s operation is designed to serve persons who hold the same moral ethic regarding sexualized services that he does. You apparently do not, yet you ended up on the massage table anyway. This would have to be due to some misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding the ethics of service delivery on which mojo’s service is founded. In this unique and rare circumstance, if the object of the sexual arousal was mojo, the harm would be attributed to and for mojo and as you say not to or for you. He failed in his responsibility to adequately select appropriate clients and had become implicit in an innapropriately sexualized session while the client was on his table.

To: Solon who wrote (77451)	10/13/2003 11:35:12 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

One thing that has not been discussed much is the basis for mojo's claim. Neocon suggested that it would have to reference some religious doctrine, even if mojo had renounced religion. I don't think that is necessary. I was thinking that it has to be referenced to some existing and pervasive human ethic but at a more conservative level than is the status quo for society. A chaste religious person might have an even more conservative level of ethics in this area than mojo, who is a monogomous hetero-sexual male. I see no philosophical reason why this idea would be objectionable to humanists or atheists. You?