SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (77586)10/16/2003 12:48:36 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
"How or why Moho failed to discriminate to his standards is irrelevant. Just relax. "

It would be relevant to Mojo. He has implemented a more extreme standard of ethics for his service delivery system. If he fails to manage that properly he can be held liable for upholding this standard where as a more typical service provider would not be.

"Your previous statements made it clear that sexual arousal was what harms Moho...

Actually, it can be looked at in a couple of lights. He is not harmed by persons thinking about sex nor is he even concerned about that inevitable occurance. He is responsible for managing his service so that inappropriate sexualization does not occur.

That would be an arousal or sexual interaction that involves client and service provider. If this type of event occures he has failed in his responsibility to manage his service properly. He is not harmed by an incident in which a client becomes aroused by some unexpected object of desire that is either a fantasy or a shoe in the corner, while on mojo's table. This has already been discussed as no more than an awkward moment with no harm done that is regarding mojo's service.

The harm is done when his belief statement is violated, and he is responsible for ensuring that it wont be. He is responsible to and for him self and for providing a safe situation for the clients who come to him.