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 (77452)	10/13/2003 12:02:13 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"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 thought it was perfectly clear that it was testosterone that gave me some slight tumescence and not a consequence of my bisexuality. "and I get slightly aroused (not because of my bisexuality) but because of testosterone. "This would have to be due to some misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding the ethics of service delivery on which mojo’s service is founded." All I know is that 5 years ago, I went to see Moho on the recommendation of another. During intake he asked me if I was a homosexual. I was exremely offended and almost smashed him one. I considered it extremely intrusive and personal and none of his damn businesss. But I counted to 10 and answered truthfully, "no". For the last 5 years I have seen him weekly in regards to a personal muscular condition. Last week (as mentioned) I became slightly aroused due to testosterone and the natural consequence of skin stimulation. Moho was masssaging me professionally and ethically, and was in no way responsible for my arousal. "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." Let us not confuse our progress. The harm is NEVER to me. I am not harmed by arousal, and an upright person like Moho would never initiate sexual misconduct. I only wanted to separate these issues so that we can discuss Moho's problem without dragging in tangential irrelevencies. So we have agreed that I have seen Moho for 5 years. The only time he experienced harm in those 260 sessions was last week when my testosterone level was high (it was unusually early in the morning for our session). I am sure you agree, that even where there is a "risk" of sexual arousal (I am sure you will agree there is always a risk), Moho is not harmed by the potential for harm but only by the actuality of harm. I do not mean that Moho (in his value system) will not continue to segregate people on the basis of the potential for harm (honosexuals to the left, women to the right, and so forth)...but only that there is nothing intrinsically harmful about the homosexual. You have stated so previously and have made it clear that sexual orientation and gender are not the harm; Rather...that Moho is harmed when others get aroused around him if he is the reason. And even if he is not the reason, he finds it embarassing enough to avert his eyes from their eyes. To make it clearer: If a homosexual becomes incapable of arousal due to a brain tumour which affects the entire pathways of arousal, I would assume from all you have said (and we can, of course, revisit any previous remarks) that Moho has no ethical basis for not massaging the homosexual. I say this on the basis that you have stated clearly that sexual orientation or gender is not a basis. So will Moho massage the homosexual referred to him by a specialist who is counting on Moho's advanced training? On request from Moho the specialist has supplied CAT scans and a 77 page report detailing the absolute impossibility of the client experiencing sexual arousal.