The Ethical Slut

[MsTerry]

People in power are in a unique situation where they can choose to abuse or use their position, to help themselves or help others.
When they make decisions that involve other people's lives we can either pray they do the right thing or speak up as an individual and demand they do the right thing,
How many of you are willing to expose the powers that be???

Naming the Unnameable
Dr. Peter Rutter, author of the "bible" in this area, Sex in the Forbidden Zone:
When Men In Power - Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers, and Others - Betray
Women's Trust, states as follows:
"SEX IN THE FORBIDDEN ZONE: Sexual behavior between a man and a woman who
have a professional relationship based on trust, specifically when the man is the woman's
doctor, psychotherapist, pastor, lawyer, teacher, or workplace mentor.
* * * * *
The forbidden zone is a condition of relationship in which sexual behavior is
prohibited because a man holds in trust the intimate, wounded, vulnerable, or
undeveloped parts of a woman. The trust derives from the professional role of the man as
doctor, therapist, lawyer, clergy, teacher, or mentor, and it creates an expectation that
whatever parts of herself the woman entrusts to him (her property, body, mind, or spirit)
must be used solely to advance her interests and will not be used to his advantage, sexual
or otherwise.
Under these conditions, sexual behavior is always wrong, no matter who initiates
it, no matter how willing the participants say they are. In the forbidden zone, the factors
of power, trust, and dependency remove the possibility of a woman freely giving consent
to sexual contact. Put another way, the dynamics of the forbidden zone can render a
woman unable to withhold consent. And because the man has the greater power, the
responsibility is his to guard the forbidden boundary against sexual contact, no matter
how provocative the woman.
The forbidden zone always exists in the relationship between doctor and patient,
therapist and client, clergyman and congregant, lawyer and client, teacher and student.
All of these professions carry a special trust not to abuse the seen or unseen dependent
elements that inevitably develop. While therapists and pastors deal more overtly with
psychological or spiritual injuries, lawyers, teachers, and mentors often deal with the
same injuries expressed as outer rather than inner dilemmas. Because its definition rests
as much on inner qualities of relationship as on what is visible, the forbidden zone also
can arise in other contexts, such as in the workplace, whenever there is inequality of
power and the enforced dependency this inequality creates.
In its broadest sense, the sexual forbidden zone can exist in any human
relationship in which one person holds power over another, and the purpose of their
relating can only be undermined by sexual behavior between them. Many relationships
between men and women, even when there is no recognizable ethical barrier against sex,
contain hidden power dynamics through which men psychologically coerce women into
having sex."

[Braggi]

People in power are in a unique situation where they can choose to abuse or use their position, to help themselves or help others.
... Many relationships between men and women, even when there is no recognizable ethical barrier against sex, contain hidden power dynamics through which men psychologically coerce women into having sex."

... and through which women psychologically coerce men into having sex, and men coerce men into having sex and women coerce women into having sex.

There. That's more complete, isn't it?

-Jeff

[nurturetruth]

I just hope anyone who is giving/receiving/experiencing sexuality is at least enjoying it !
I feel sex is about pleasure and or connectivity and ritual, but I also along my journey have experienced unpleasant forms such as unwelcomed sexual harassment/advances from 'powers that be' (males and females).

It is an icky feeling and unfortunate to experience when a person 'in position' (manager, business owner, etc) uses their position to get what they want.
This is obviously not a healthy form of S & M to say the least!!!

Being present , having open and clear communication along with the process ofdeveloping healthy boundaries is what i feel are the 'keys' to avoiding unpleasant situations to begin with!
By taking responsibility and learning how I may have attracted an unpleasant experience to begin with (and then NEVER putting myself in that position again!) feels rather empowering .

Life has a way of throwing things out our way that we need to reflect, learn and grow from. And the experiences are not always pleasant or fun.
What we choose to do with those experiences is what matters most.

Speaking of the Ethical Slut, "The Ethical Slut": A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities, is actually a GREAT read.


:heart:

Below are some quotes:

"We measure the ethics of a good slut not by the number of his partners, but by the respect and care with which he treats them."

"Sex is for pleasure, a complete and worthwhile goal in and of itself. People have sex because it feels very good, and then they feel good about themselves. So we are proud to reclaim the word “slut” as a term of approval, even endearment. To us, a slut is a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you . "


... and through which women psychologically coerce men into having sex, and men coerce men into having sex and women coerce women into having sex.

There. That's more complete, isn't it?

-Jeff

[handy]

What a load of sexist cowshit. Dr. Peter Rutter sounds like he's desperate to get laid...


<snip

Naming the Unnameable
Dr. Peter Rutter, author of the "bible" in this area, Sex in the Forbidden Zone:
When Men In Power - Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers, and Others - Betray Women's Trust,
<snip>

[Braggi]

What a load of sexist cowshit. Dr. Peter Rutter sounds like he's desperate to get laid...

As the great ones say, "Projection is a wonderful thing."

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

I was afraid that this was over your head


What a load of sexist cowshit. Dr. Peter Rutter sounds like he's desperate to get laid...

[MsTerry]

It looks like all the boys are circling the wagons around their leader.
Should I be surprised that you have joint them?



As the great ones say, "Projection is a wonderful thing."

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

What a load of sexist cowshit. Dr. Peter Rutter sounds like he's desperate to get laid....

Selected Insurance Issues
Aetna v. McCabe, 556 F.Supp 1342, USDC, ED PA, 1983
Court held that malpractice may be negligence but it is also on occasion intentional
and held that the doctor's policy covered injuries arising out of the rendering, as
well as failure to render, professional services. "In a sense all rendering of service
is intentional and failure to render may be intentional or unintentional." Court held
that the doctor's malpractice, even if it was intentional, was covered by the
insurance policy.
Anclote Manor Foundation v. Wilkinson, Fla., 263 So.2d 256
This is an action for the patient of a psychiatrist who had a sexual relationship with
his patient. He told her that he was going to divorce his wife and that he wanted to
marry her.. The court held "each and every one of the expert witnesses testified
that the 'acting out' of the psychiatrist's feelings toward appellee's wife (known as
countertransference) was conduct below acceptable psychiatric and medical
standards." The court held that the evidence sustained the jury's findings that the
hospital who employed the psychiatrist was liable.
Cranford v. Allwest Ins. Co., 645 F.Supp 1440, USDC ND California, 1986
The court held that a psychiatrist who entered into a sexual relationship with a
patient committed professional "malpractice, error, negligence or mistake" within
the meaning of the professional liability policy. An expert testified that the
psychiatrist violated the standard of care by mishandling the transference process
and by discontinuing treatment at a time when the patient was still in need of
therapy. The court then looked to whether or not the policy's exclusion of claims
"involving sexual intimacy" applied to his malpractice, transference and
abandonment. The court held that the term "involving" though lacking precision,
has a common meaning and presented no difficulty in interpretation. The court
held that his mishandling of transference did "involve" sexual intimacy with the
plaintiff and therefore that claim was excluded. The court further held, however,
that his abandonment of the patient did not "involve" sexual intimacy and that the
doctor failed to take necessary steps to insure that his patient consult with another
psychiatrist. This abandonment was totally independent of the sexual intimacy and
was not excluded from coverage
Govar v. Chicago Ins Co., 879 F.2d 1581, 8th Cir 1989
The court held that although the plaintiff alleged malpractice outside of the sexual
activity, the sexual relationship between the plaintiff and the doctor was "so
intertwined" with the malpractice as to be inseparable and found that the policy did
not provide coverage. In fact however, the plaintiff's case was devoid of evidence
of non-sexual malpractice. The court stated: "With respect to Govar's claims that
the sexual acts were only one factor in Hiett's malpractice and that the jury could
have found Hiett negligent without depending on the sexual acts, we disagree.
Perhaps Govar could have presented her case without reference to sex, but she
chose not to do so. After our own review of the record, we agree with the district
court that Govar's entire case centered on sex. As the district court stated, the
sexual relationship between Govar and Hiett was 'so intertwined with Hiett's
malpractice as to be inseparable."


Hirst v. St. Paul, 683 P.2d 440, Idaho App. 1984
The court held that there was no coverage for a general practitioner who drugged
the patient and performed sexual acts on her against her will. The court held that
there was no specific showing in the record that the plaintiff was damaged in any
way simply from the administration of the drugs nor was there any showing that he
negligently treated the boy's injuries or illness. The court held that the scope of
"professional services" does not include all forms of a doctor's conduct simply
becuse he is a doctor. The cfound that there was no insurance coverage.
Horak v. Biris, 474 NE.2d 13, Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1985
The court held that malpractice as defined in Black's Law Dictionary is "any
professional misconduct, unreasonable, lack of skill or fidelity in professional or
fiduciary duties, evil practice, or illegal or immoral conduct." The court held that
the facts sufficiently established a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and a
subsequent breach of that duty by defendant. "His license placed him in a position
of trust, the violation of which would constitute a breach of the fiduciary
relationship. Such a breach has been held on several occasions to be an actionable
and independent tort . . . further we think that the very nature of the therapistpatient
relationship, . . . gives rise to a clear duty on the therapist's part to engage
only in activity or conduct which is calculated to improve the patient's mental or
emotional well-being, and to refrain from any activity or conduct which carries
with it a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of mental or emotional harm to the
patient."
Jure v. Raviotta, 612 So.2d 225 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992)
A patient sued her OB/GYN for exgaging in a sexual relationship with her. The
court held that the allegations of sexual misconduct fell outside of the definition of
malpractice. The court held that the Malpractice Act and jurisprudence
interpreting it indicates that the intent of the legislature is to exclude from its scope
conduct unrelated to the promotion of the patient's health or to the provider's
exercise of professional expertise or skill. and finds that the allegations of sexual
misconduct were not malpractice as defined by the Act. The court held that the
medical malpractice act would not cover an ob/gyn for having a sexual relationship
with his patient.
LL v. Medical Protective, 362 NW.2d 174 Court Appeals Wisconsin, 1984
Court held that medical authorities are nearly unnamimous in considering sexual
contact between therapist and patient to be malpractice quoting Davidson,
Psychiatry's Problem With No Name: Therapist Patient Sex, 37 American Journal
of Psychoanalysis 43: "It is generally agreed that therapist patient sex is
psychologically deleterious for the involved woman patient and is unethical
practice for the male practitioner . . . all such instances constitute misuse of the
transference."
Roy v. Hartogs, 381 NYS 2d 587
Patient brought an action for damages against her psychiatrist claiming that he had
had sexual intercourse with her over a period of 13 months as a part of her
prescribed therapy. The court held that the injury to the plaintiff was not merely
caused by the consumation of acts of sexual intercourse with the defendant, harm
was also caused by the defendant's failure to treat the plaintiff with professionally
acceptable procedures. The case also cites a letter from Sigmund Freud to another
collegue:
"You have not made a secret of the fact that you kiss your patients and let them
kiss you. Now I am assuredly not one of those who from prudishness or from
consideration of bourgeois convention would condemn little erotic gratifications of
this kind. But that does not alter the facts that with us a kiss signifies a certain
erotic intimacy. We have hitherto in our technique held to the conclusion that
patients are to be refused erotic gratifications. You know too that where more
extensive gratifications are not to be had. Milder caresses very easily take over
their role, in love affairs, on the stage, etc. Now picture what will be the result of
publishing your technique. There is no revolutionary who is not driven out of the
field by a still more radical one. A number of independent thinkers in matters of
technique will say to themselves: Why stop at a kiss? Certainly one gets further
when one adopts 'pawing' as well, which after all doesn't make a baby. And then
bolder ones will come along who will go further to peeping and showing - and
soon we shall have accepted in the technique of analysis the whole repertoire of
demiviergerie and petting parties, resulting in an enormous increase of interest in
psychoanalysis among both analysts and patients. The new adherent, however,
will easily claim too much of this interest for himself, the younger of our
colleagues will find it hard to stop at the point they originally intended, and God
the Father Ferenczi gazing at the lively scene he has created will perhaps say to
himself: May be after all I should have halted in my technique of motherly
affection before the kiss. Sentences like 'about the dangers of neocatharsis don't get
very far. One should obviously not let oneself get into the danger. I have purposely
not mentioned the increase of calumniouis resistances against analysis the kissing
technique would bring, although it seems to me a wanton act to pr provoke them."
Simmons v. United States, 805 F.2d 1363 9th Cir. 1986
The court held that when the therapist mishandles transference and becomes
sexually involved with a patient, medical authorities are nearly unamimous in
considering such conduct to be malpractice. The patient brought suit under the
Federal Tort Claims Act against an Indian health service counselor who wrongfully
engaged her in a sexual relationship. The court enters into an excellent discussion
of transference and states that "courts have uniformly regarded mishandling of
transference as malpractice or gross negligence.
The court further included a description of transference as follows: "What the
notion of transference assumes is that as therapy develops, and if therapy is
working, the client comes to either consciously or unconsciously, or both, regard
the therapist as a child might regard the parent. This is important because in order
for a therapist to have positive powerful impact in helping the client to change and
heal, the therapist has to have the same kind of authority power in a positive way
with the client that the parents once had, or the parental figures once had in a
negative way with the client while the client was growing up, and, so what happens
when therapy is working . . . is that this transference relationship grows so that the
client comes to experience the therapist as a powerful, benevolent, parent figure.
And, what that means is that you've got a symbolic, sometimes conscious,
sometimes not, parent-child relationship existing in the therapy setting, even
though you have two adults there." The court further stated, "The impacts of
sexual involvement with one's counselor are more severe than the impacts of
merely 'having an affair' for two major reasons: first, because the client's attraction
is based on transference, the sexual contact is ordinarily akin to engaging in sexual
activity with a parent, and carries with it the feelings of shame, guilt and anxiety
experienced by incest victims. Second, the client is usually suffering from all or
some of the psychological problems that brought him or her into therapy to begin
with. As a result, the client is especially vulnerable to the added stress created by
the feelings of shame, guilt and anxiety produced by the incestuous nature of the
relationship, and by the sense of betrayal that is felt when the client eventually
learns that she is not 'special' as she had been led to believe, and that her trust has
been violated."
Sisson v. Seneca Mental Health/Mental Retardation Council, Inc., 404 S.E.2d 425
(W.Va. 1991)
In this case the plaintiff was a patient at a mental health facility who brought a
medical malpractice claim for her counselor having sexual relations with her.
Court held that in a case called Weaver v. Union Carbide, 378 S.E.2d 105 an
employee went to a marriage counselor and during the therapy the counselor
engaged in a sexual relationship. The court held that since the wife was not a
patient of the therapist, the action was barred. "We acknowledged the potential
validity of a malpractice action where a counselor engages in sexual intimacy with
a patient during therapy." The court held there must be evidence presented of a
trust relationship. "The basis of the malpractice is the trust relationship that arisies
from such counseling services which are designed to improve the mental and
emotional well-being of the patient. In such a situation it is recognized that the
patient may become emotionally dependent on the counselor and be easily
manipulated by an unscrupulous counselor." The court then goes on to cite
numerous cases which reach the same conclusion in the professional counseling
area. The court held "whether a trust relationship exists and therapist counseling
depends on two primary facts, together with any other relevant circumstances.
First the therapy must have been conducted over a sufficient period of time to
establish a trust relationship. Second, there must be some reasonable semblence of
actual therapy sessions. Otherwise any casual encounter with a therapist that leads
to a consentual sexual relationship would give rise to a malpractice claim."
Society of Roman Catholic Church v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company 26
F.3d 1359 (5th Cir. 1994)
There was repeated sexual molestation of 31 children by 2 priests over a 7 year
period. The court held that there was an "occurence" in each policy period in
which each child was molested. Subsequently molestations within that policy
period were not separate occurences. The court held "what constitutes an
'occurence' is central to this appeal because each policy's limits of liability are on a
per occurence basis; the larger the number of 'occurences', the greater the loss born
by the primary insurers and the diocese. The Lloyd's policy is representative of the
other policies involved in both its scope of coverage and its definition of
'occurence': Underwriters hereby agree...to indemnify the insured for all sums
which the insured shall be obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon
the insured by law . . . for damages...on account of personal injuries . . . arising out
of any occurence happening during the period of the insurance. The term
occurence wherever used herein shall mean an accident or a happening or event or
a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which unexpectedly and
unintentionally result in personal injury, or damage to property during the policy
period. All such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at
or emanating from one location shall be deemed one occurence." The definition of
'occurence' affords little assistance because 'a continuous or repeated exposure to
conditions' and 'substantially the same general conditions' are malleable. An
'occurence' could be the church's continuous negligent supervision of a priest, the
negligent supervision of a priest with respect to each child, the negligent
supervision of a priest with respect to each molestation, or each time the diocese
became aware of a fact which should have led it to intervene, just to name a few
possibilities. The meaning of 'occurence' as used in the insurance policies can be
perplexing in application." The court quoted Lombard v. Sewerage and Water
Board of New Orleans, 284 So.2d 905 (La. 1973) where the ongoing construction
of a drainage canal damaged many adjacent property owners. The Louisiana
Supreme Court discussed the proper method for determining an "occurence" when
the cause of harm continues to injure different persons. The word "occurence" as
used in the policy must be construed from the point of view of the many persons
whose property was damaged. As to each of these plaintiffs, the cumulated
activities causing damage should be considered as one occurence although the
circumstances causing damage consist of a continous or repeated exposure to
conditions resulting in damage arising out of such exposure, thus when the separate
property of each plaintiff was damaged by a series of events, one occurence was
involved insofar as each property owner was concerned. The court held
"Following Lombard, 'the damage to each child is a separate occurence'. When a
priest molested a child during a policy year, there was both bodily injury and an
occurrence, triggering policy coverage. All further moletations of that child during
the policy period arose out of the same occurrence. When the priest molested the
same child during the succeeding policy year, again there was both bodily injury
and an occurrence. Thus each child suffered an 'occurrence' in each policy period
he was molested.
St. Paul v. Mitchell, 296 SE.2d 126, Court Appeal of Georgia, 1982
A doctor engaged in a sexual relationship with his patient. His insurer alleged that
the doctor's actions were outside the category of professional services for the
purpose of coverage. The court held that the actions of the doctor may be
considered to be malpractice by a psychiatrist. The Court, citing Zipkin v.
Freeman stated "what is perhaps regarded as the most significant concept in
psychoanalytical therapy, and one of the most important discoveries of Freud is the
emotional reaction of the patient toward the analyst known as transference."
St. Paul v. Love, 459 NW.2d 698 (Minn. 1990)
The court held that sexual conduct between licensed psychologist and his patient,
under circumtances in which transference and counter-transference occurred, gave
rise to a claim by the patient for damages resulting from professional services
provided or which should have been provided which were covered under the
therapist's professional liability policy. The court held "when the transference
phenomenon pervades the therapeutic alliance, we believe the sexual conduct
between therapist and patient arising from the phenomenon may be viewed as the
consequence of a failure to provide proper treatment of the transference."


Standlee vs St. Paul, 639 P.2d 1101, Idaho App. 1984
The court held that an office liability policy issued to the doctor which provided
coverage for "bodily injury, personal injury or damage to other people's property
caused by an accidental event" that happens in connection with the doctor's
"ownership, maintenance or use of a professional office" did not cover sexual
misconduct of the doctor. The court held that sexual molestation is not an
"accidental event." It did hold, however, that the insurer had a duty to defend the
doctor until those issues were resolved
Washington Insurance Guarantee Association v. Hicks,744 P.2d 625 1987
A chiropractor's insurer alleged that the patient's claim of sexual misconduct was
not covered by the chiropractor's malpractice policy. The doctor told the patient
that she needed a spinal adjustment and a good massage for her tight muscles. He
had her come in on a Saturday and, during his treatment of her, he gave her
massage and then made sexual advances toward her. After telling her that "if you
want to quit we'll quit right now" he had sexual intercourse with her. The court
held that "courts generally hold that medical malpractice insurance policies do not
cover the insured physician's sexual conduct with patients. Malpractice insurance
coverage has been allowed in certain cases where sexual contact takes place
between a patient and a physician; however, in those cases, the physician has been
a mental health therapist or psychiatrist who mishandles the "transference
phenomenon".
The court held that although the insurer of a psychiatrist should reasonably know
that the transference phenomenon is an important aspect of psychiatric treatment,
the same assumption cannot be made with respect to the insurer of a chirpractor.
Worsham v. U.S., 828 F.2d 1525 (C.A.11-Ga. 1987)
The court held that the United States was not liable for damages resulting from a
sexual relationship between a client and a drug abuse counselor employed by an
Army Medical Center. The court stated that the relationship did not constitute part
of any treatment plan but instead resulted from private, mutual consent and
attraction. The suit alleged both that the counselor committed malpractice and that
government personnel of the hospital failed to supervise the counselor properly.
Zipkin v. Freeman, 436 SW.2d 753, Supreme Court of Missouri
Court held that the gravamen of the patient's complaint was improper treatment not
sex and therefore the doctor's actions were covered
(Need to beef this one up)
2. Defenses
Cotton v. Kambly, 300 NW.2d 627, Court of Appeals of Michigan 1986
The doctor's insurer attempted to deny coverage because the insurance policy
stated that it would not cover the doctor for any activity which constituted a crime.
The court held that the fact that the doctor engaged in sexual relations with his
patient as part of her presribed therapy might also be subject to criminal and
professional sanctions for his conduct was no reason to deny the patient her right to
bring a civil action for malpractice against him. The court stated "we see no reason
for distinguishing between this type of malpractice and others, such as improper
administration of a drug or a defective operation. In each situation, the essence of
the claim is the doctor's departure from proper standards of medical practice . . . In
this proceeding the injury to the plaintiff was not merely caused by the
consumation of acts of sexual intercourse with the defendant. Harm was also
caused by the defendant's failure to treat the plaintiff with professionally
acceptable procedures."
Loveridge v. Chartier, 468 NW.2d 146 (Wis. 1991)
A court cannot infer intent to injure as a matter of law simply because the insured's
intentional act violated the criminal law. The court held that an insured's
conviction of a crime did not establish that the insured intended to injure or harm
as a matter of law, because intent to injure is not an element of that crime. The
court held that in Wisconsin the fact that a law is intended to prevent harm is
insufficient to support an inference that as a matter of law an insured intended to
harm to someone when the insured violated that law. The court held that
consensual sexual intercourse between an adult and an 16 year old does not create
a "substantial risk of injury or death" and therefore intent will not be inferred. The
court further held that sexual contact between an adult and a 16 year old is not
substantially certain to harm the psychological and emotional well being of the 16
year old.
Vigilant v. Kambly, 319 NW.2d 382, Michigan 1982
The court held that while it may be true that Dr. Kambly's conduct could be held to
constitute a violation of a criminal statute, many types of civil actions contained
elements of criminal offenses and allegations may often fall within criminal
statutes. However, the expenses incurred by Dr. Kambly were not incurred "due to
alleged criminal act" but due to alleged malpractice in a civil action. The court
held "furthermore coverage does not allow the wrongdoer unjustly to benefit from
his wrong. It is not the insured who will benefit but the innocent victim who will
be provided compensation for the injuries, therefore the public policy
considerations which allegedly prohibit insurability of criminal or intentional
tortious conduct are not present."
3. Amounts of Recovery
Bernick v. Diehm, 91-70666-NO, Ingham County Circuit Court, Michigan, 1993
$5.52 million; Grandfather sexually molested plaintiff for a period of 8 years.
Chapman v. McCabe, 21 ATLA Law Reporter 277, (E.D. Pa., 1977)
$665,000; Jury verdict (including $300,000 punitive damages) to woman for
permanent psychiatric damages which she sustained as a result of her therapist
engaging in sexual relations with her in the course of therapy over a six-year
period.
Combes v. Silverman, 25 ATLA Law Reporter 98, Richmond Circuit Court,
#LE596 2/5/92
$650,000; Verdict for 19-year-old woman who suffered continuing schizophrenia
after her psychiatrist engaged in sexual relations with her during the course of
therapy.
Daire v. Newman, Docket No. CV810059560 (Conn. Super. Ct., 1986);
$1 million; Settlement awarded to woman for permanent impairment of her
psychological condition, mental anguish, and pain and suffering, after her therapist
engaged in sexual relations with her over a two-year period during therapy.
Edwards v. Medoff, Superior Court of NJ, Law Division, Gergen County, No. 1-
012115-83, 1983
$800,000; Defendant sexually assaulted plaintiff nine times over 4-5 month period.
Plaintiff was a female medical technician who was also a patient of the defendant
and worked in the same building.
Ertel v. Kirsenbroch, San Diego, 1986
$3.388 million; Wife settles for $375,000 during trial; settlement of $850,000 for
husband after trial
Hall v. Stitch, NO. CV 87-07895, (Ariz, Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 21, 1989)
$2 million compensatory, $1 million punitive; Psychotherapist having sexual
relation with patient
Pass v. Dorsey , No. 821207541, (Ore. Cir. Ct., 1984)
$783,234; Verdict for both husband and wife (including $500,000 punitive
damages and 30 percent reduction for wife's responsibility) after doctor had sexual
relations with plaintiff during therapy.

[Braggi]

I do like this: "I like to provoke people. Barry suggests you ignore me"

Certainly good advice, but I wouldn't ignore you, MsTerry. You know that.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

.

Selected Insurance Issues
...

So, are you selling insurance now, MsTerry?

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

YES
insurance against abusive sexist pigs !



So, are you selling insurance now, MsTerry?

-Jeff
(should I be surprised that you didn't read all the court findings?)

[Braggi]

YES
insurance against abusive sexist pigs !

(should I be surprised that you didn't read all the court findings?)

Oh yes, we shouldn't have any of those pigs. Actually, I don't know any. And I did read most of them. I'm quick. Did you see the one where no foul was declared? Bet you missed that.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Did you see the one where no foul was declared? Bet you missed that.

-Jeff
Actually I did think of deleting it, but there is another one that raised my hair.

[MsTerry]

Jeff,

I know you like to stand up for your friends in times of trouble, and that is an admirable quality.
But do you really think it was a coincidence that Barry started to stigmatize after I made some "good points", (in your and my opinion) instead of when I slipped into less friendly Terry-Tory?
Does it strike you as odd, that someone like Royce, Barry's Buddy, supports Handy when he denigrates women who are sexually abused?
Do you really think it is a coincidence that some women come to me to tell their story of how intimidating and embarrassing it is to be sexually harassed by a local moderator?
They are afraid to speak out publicly, because as they point out correctly to me, look what happened to you!
And I am not talking one or two women, Jeff.
These are not unstable and/or attention seeking women.
You know them!
Why don't you talk to them if you don't believe me.
Barry would like everybody to ignore this, including MsWacco, but are you too???

I do like this: "I like to provoke people. Barry suggests you ignore me"

Certainly good advice, but I wouldn't ignore you, MsTerry. You know that.

-Jeff

[handy]

<snip>
Does it strike you as odd, that someone like Royce, Barry's Buddy, supports Handy when he denigrates women who are sexually abused?
<snip>


...Handy when he denigrates women who are sexually abused?

Excuse me, female? That accusation is WAY out of line. You don't know me, and you have no justification for that statement.

Where, exactly, in, "What a load of sexist cowshit. Dr. Peter Rutter sounds like he's desperate to get laid..." do You find "...denigrates women who are sexually abused?"

I think Jeff was spot on when he responded to, " ...contain hidden power dynamics through which men psychologically coerce women into having sex."
...with..
... and through which women psychologically coerce men into having sex, and men coerce men into having sex and women coerce women into having sex.
There. That's more complete, isn't it? (Thanks, Jeff)

Also, you speak of insurance...
YES
insurance against abusive sexist pigs !

Don't suppose there's insurance against abusive sexist sows...

I've enjoyed many of your posts in the past, but your mysandry is showing.
Please, don't let it drive.

[MsTerry]

When I quoted Dr Rutter, it was only a snippet of his essay.
He does mention men being used by women, even though the percentages are lower.
Your attempt to label it sexist is demeaning to women, you are off handedly implying that it can't be true because it is sexist.
And that is denigrating to me.

If you want to show how much sexual intimidation men have to go through, go ahead, I for one won't stop you!


...Handy when he denigrates women who are sexually abused?

Excuse me, female? That accusation is WAY out of line. You don't know me, and you have no justification for that statement.

Where, exactly, in, "What a load of sexist cowshit. Dr. Peter Rutter sounds like he's desperate to get laid..." do You find "...denigrates women who are sexually abused?"

I think Jeff was spot on when he responded to, " ...contain hidden power dynamics through which men psychologically coerce women into having sex."
...with..
... and through which women psychologically coerce men into having sex, and men coerce men into having sex and women coerce women into having sex.
There. That's more complete, isn't it? (Thanks, Jeff)

Also, you speak of insurance...
YES
insurance against abusive sexist pigs !

Don't suppose there's insurance against abusive sexist sows...

I've enjoyed many of your posts in the past, but your mysandry is showing.
Please, don't let it drive.

[shellebelle]

I think we have lost focus here.

I think the point is that "this harassment" is happening here in our own "conscious" community.

I think the point is we all need to be aware and make a shift.

I think the point is that in a community based on social responsibility many have forgotten that the first responsibility is to live by ethics that improve the community.

I think the point is that when we bring "attitude" (good or bad) to the community that "attitude"manifests and multiplies through out the community.

So what are you doing to day to improve your day, your neighbors day and the community?

I am learning to say "No"with confidence, be aware of predators (of all kinds but especially sexual - I was naive to think they weren't as prominent/dominant here) and to live without guilt and shame. Anyone want to join me? Anyone want to join in living a more ethical life style for everyone's sake?