pageok
pageok
pageok
Sex and the Massage Therapist:

In re Fjellman, 2006 WL 3147575 (Minn. Off. Admin. Hrgs. Sept. 11), authorizes disciplinary action against a massage therapist for having a sexual relationship with an ex-client several months after she stopped treating him. (They married a year later.)

Minnesota law bars a wide range of "health care practitioner[s]" — including massage therapists (I mean the legit ones, not prostitutes claiming to be masseuses) — from "Engaging in sexual contact with a complementary and alternative health care client or former client," with "former client" covering any client who has gotten services from the practitioner "within the past two years." Fjellman raised a constitutional objection, but the administrative agency concluded that it "lacks authority to declare a statute unconstitutional on its face," and that Fjellman had to raise the question in court. I don't know whether Fjellman plans to litigate this further.

1. I understand why the government might want to bar sexual conduct between psychotherapists and patients or even former patients (especially recently former patients). But massage therapists seem pretty far removed from psychotherapists. They don't try to give advice about a person's life, they aren't generally privy to the patient's innermost secrets. They aren't trusted by the patient for guidance (other than perhaps guidance about specific maladies of the sort that massage can fix).

It's hard to see how a sexual relationship between a massage therapist and a former patient is especially likely to be improper. Sure, there's some risk of psychological manipulation and other unsavory behavior — but no more, I think, than in any relationship between two adults.

2. Likewise, I understand why the government might want to bar sexual conduct between doctors or lawyers and their clients: The client may be dependent on the doctor's or lawyer's services, and may fear very serious harms if the relationship sours (at least in certain situations). So it's possible that the professional might try to leverage this dependence into sexual favors, in situations where the client's ability to resist is limited. Yet dooes that seem terribly likely as to massage therapists? If you think your massage therapist is improperly pressuring you, how hard is it to just switch to another massage therapist?

(The possible concern about the sexual relationship distorting the professional's judgment strikes me as less significant, at least setting aside unusual cases such as serious surgery. This sort of distortion may happen even with preexisting sexual or family relationships, yet we generally don't bar lawyers from providing legal services for spouses or close family members, nor should we. Among other things, help from someone who's close with you may be especially effective, because you may have more reason to trust the person.)

3. One could certainly argue that it's more convenient for the government to lay down a flat rule barring all sexual contact between "health professionals" and clients or even former clients, rather than drawing distinctions between psychotherapists, surgeons, and massage therapists. But convenient as such a rule may be, is it really fair, given that a person's choice of romantic and sexual companion — or for that matter, spouse, as ultimately happened in this case — is pretty important in their lives, and is normally the sort of thing that the government ought not try to control? Wouldn't allowing more romantic, sexual, and marital freedom be reason enough to try to draw some finer distinctions?

4. Finally, so far I've talked only about the policy questions, but there is an important policy dimension here. Under Lawrence v. Texas, there are some limits on the government's authority to control people's sex lives; it's far from clear what test Lawrence announces, but it seems to me at least plausible that Lawrence does constrain this sort of interference with people's sexual autonomy, especially when it comes to relationships with ex-clients. (If the ban was only on relationships with current clients, the burden on sexual autonomy would be modest; you'd just have to terminate the professional relationship. But the ban on relationships with ex-clients can't be avoided this way; any possible sexual relationship will be suspended by two years, no matter what you do.)

But even if you disapprove of Lawrence, what about the right to marry? Set aside the same-sex marriage debate, and focus on the right to marry an adult of the opposite sex who's not your close relative — the right that the Court has largely uncontroversially recognized for four decades. This right has generally been understood as involving a right to actually consummate the marriage; yet this law bans even that — even if Ms. Fjelmman had abstained from sex before her marriage, sex on the wedding night, which happened 16 months after the end of the relationship, would have remained forbidden. (Yes, the ban only a total of lasts two years, but that's not exactly the blink of an eye.)

To justify such an interference with people's constitutional right to marry, shouldn't the government need some pretty serious evidence that the sex would lead to some harm, and not just a vague analogy between massage therapists and psychotherapists?

UPDATE: As I noted above, the law applies to a wide range of alternative health care practitioners, and not just massage therapists. In particular, it covers people who practice "(1) acupressure; (2) anthroposophy; (3) aroma therapy; (4) ayurveda; (5) cranial sacral therapy; (6) culturally traditional healing practices; (7) detoxification practices and therapies; (8) energetic healing; (9) polarity therapy; (10) folk practices; (11) healing practices utilizing food, food supplements, nutrients, and the physical forces of heat, cold, water, touch, and light; (12) Gerson therapy and colostrum therapy; (13) healing touch; (14) herbology or herbalism; (15) homeopathy; (16) nondiagnostic iridology; (17) body work, massage, and massage therapy; (18) meditation; (19) mind-body healing practices; (20) naturopathy; (21) noninvasive instrumentalities; and (22) traditional Oriental practices, such as Qi Gong energy healing." Minn. Stat. 146A.001. It thus seems not to be linked to the fact that some forms of massage are "therapeutic" in an, er, direct and not legal way.

J. F. Thomas (mail):
I can understand the prohibition while the patient is being treated, but for two years after the end of treatment? That seems ridiculously excessive. On its face, it seems overly restrictive and should fail on that part alone.
1.8.2007 8:47am
Ted Frank (www):
I imagine that this is a requirement lobbied for by massage therapists themselves to legitimize their profession and inhibit competition from those providing somewhat more than massage. It's a natural consequence of allowing government-licensed cartels. I presume that this is an IJ case, and they plan to win the case through public humiliation in lieu of finding courts willing to strike down economic legislation.
1.8.2007 8:54am
Gary McGath (www):
Ted Frank's scenario is one possibility. My guess is that the legislator who's responsible regards all massage therapy, at least when the therapist and patient are of opposite sexes, as prostitution and wanted to cast as broad a net as possible for going after the therapists.
1.8.2007 8:58am
Ted Frank (www):
Another plausible possibility, encompassed in part by EV's #3, is that the government regulated "health professional" sexual behavior in response to some scandal, and no one noticed that Minnesota defines "health professional" to include a wide array of things that aren't really within the risk of manipulation and abuse of trust.
1.8.2007 9:07am
Goobermunch:
Actually, it seems somewhat reasonable to me.

One major issue in the medical relationship is the issue of transferrence. It arises because the patient is in an inherently weakened condition, due to injury, illness, or medication. This can create a power imbalance in the treater-patient relationship (and this imbalance can extend to non-primary treaters, like massage therapists and nurses).

The purpose of the rule is to maintain a vulnerable patient's sexual autonomy, and to ensure that any sexual relationship is truly consensual.

--G
1.8.2007 9:18am
Nick (www):
"To justify such an interference with people's constitutional right to marry, shouldn't the government need some pretty serious evidence that the sex would lead to some harm, and not just a vague analogy between massage therapists and psychotherapists?"

You're assuming the real reason is that they believe there is a link between massage therapy and pschotherapy. I have a feeling that the law exists to draw a distinction between massage therapy and, what shall we all it... happy ending therapy? I don't think that link justifies the law any more, but I have a feeling that's the real reason.
1.8.2007 9:32am
abean:
Huh? These laws are common &for the purpose of targeting techniques that have been used to run brothels out of massage houses.

As you apparently do not know, the trouble arose from places wherein the massage therapists would voluntarily have sex with their clients during the session. I say voluntarily because that was the defense against prosecution for prostitution. "No your honor, my client's employees were not engaging in prostitution, they were in-love with some clients, and choose to have sex during their scheduled _massage_ sessions. My client had no knowledge that anything sexual was taking place..."

After this stopped working, there was a market innovation. Johns come in and pay a hefty fee for a message, and then sometime later, at another location, an employee will come to have sex with them. But you see... they are ex-clients...

The purpose of the law is to make illegal the flow of money from John to Prostitute that is being laundred through the massage house.
1.8.2007 10:20am
Edd (mail):
Not that I'm an expert, but I imagine there are different kinds of massages. Some are more therapeutic, some are more relaxing, and some are more sensual. The masseur may, in some cases, lean more toward the sensual in an attempt to seduce his patient.

This situation is bad for several reasons. First, the masseur may give poor treatment to his patient, e.g., sensual massage when the patient needs therapeutic. Second, it undermines the patient's confidence in the medical benefits of her treatment. Third, it may make patients uncomfortable (am I subject to an unwanted sexual advance, or is this just innocent therapy?) The law, by disallowing sexual relations between a masseur and his patients, eliminates motivations that could otherwise compromise the effectiveness of care.
1.8.2007 10:23am
PubliusFL:
"Sure, there's some risk of psychological manipulation and other unsavory behavior -- but no more, I think, than in any relationship between two adults."

Any relationship between two adults in which one is expected to touch the other's naked body for non-sexual purposes, you mean?
1.8.2007 10:27am
Adeez (mail):
"the trouble arose from places wherein the massage therapists would voluntarily have sex with their clients during the session. I say voluntarily because that was the defense against prosecution for prostitution. "No your honor, my client's employees were not engaging in prostitution, they were in-love with some clients, and choose to have sex during their scheduled _massage_ sessions. My client had no knowledge that anything sexual was taking place..."

Yet another reason why the war on prostitution is about as sensible as the war on marijuana. Problems will always arise when we try to enforce the unenforceable.
1.8.2007 10:42am
Elliot Reed:
You forgot to mention that doctors, lawyers, or psychotherapists may be in a position of power over their clients because of their knowledge of illegal or embarrassing facts about the client. The client is probably not in a very good position to know whether a blackmail threat by the doctor/lawyer/therapist is empty, since clients know little about professional ethics rules and their enforcement. This restriction adds another check on that type of abuse.

As for massage therapists, presumably the restriction is (as others have mentioned) to keep massage therapists from acting as prostitutes. Two years seems rather longer than necessary for that though.
1.8.2007 11:26am
donaldk2 (mail):
No reason - it's just their policy.
1.8.2007 12:13pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"One major issue in the medical relationship is the issue of transferrence. It arises because the patient is in an inherently weakened condition, due to injury, illness, or medication. This can create a power imbalance in the treater-patient relationship (and this imbalance can extend to non-primary treaters, like massage therapists and nurses). The purpose of the rule is to maintain a vulnerable patient's sexual autonomy, and to ensure that any sexual 'relationship is truly consensual."

This is very patronizing to the capability of people with disabilities to make their own judgements and free choices. Just because someone is in "an inherently weakened condition, due to injury, illness, or medication" does not mean they a somehow robbed of their abilities to resist unwanted advances. If the boundary line is cross, e.g. rape, I am sure a disabled person can find the District Attorney/State Attorney's Office or the police.

And so what if there is a "power imbalance" in the relationship? Or you simply perceive one to be. There are different ways to measure whether there really is a "power imbalance," and even if one exists, maybe both participants find thrills in this circumstance -- e.g., women who want men to be their fathers, women who like to live with adventure and danger, women and men who like an intellectual encounter, etc. And how do you know in every instance such a relationship would be a bad thing? It may wind up being very complimentary.

The purpose of the rule is unjustifiable patronization of people who may want to consent to a sexual relationship with a licensure regulated person -- and also has the effect of blocking married people from the best assistance they might receive from the one they trust the most, their spouse. In sum, such a rule suffers from being over- and under-inclusive.

"Some are more therapeutic, some are more relaxing, and some are more sensual. The masseur may, in some cases, lean more toward the sensual in an attempt to seduce his patient. This situation is bad for several reasons. First, the masseur may give poor treatment to his patient, e.g., sensual massage when the patient needs therapeutic. Second, it undermines the patient's confidence in the medical benefits of her treatment. Third, it may make patients uncomfortable (am I subject to an unwanted sexual advance, or is this just innocent therapy?) The law, by disallowing sexual relations between a masseur and his patients, eliminates motivations that could otherwise compromise the effectiveness of care."

Oh, I dunno, I would like a massage that is both therapuetic and sensual, assuming I freely chose the masseur for that service. My husband gives me just exactly this type of massage, which is quite nice. And I don't regard his performance sub-par at all. If I wanted a therapuetic-sensual massage, the fact I got one that delivered the benefits I wanted would not make me uncomfortable at all and I might even become a repeat massage seeker. And so what if the persons seeking and giving the massage have the same motivations, what is wrong with this and what business is it of those who would rain on their party? And how would this by itself "compromise the effectiveness of medical care?" One could seekout and achieve a great therepuetic-sensual massage and also receive extremely effective medical care.

If an unwanted sexual advance occurred, I do not see how my disability would stop me from complaining about it and changing masseurs -- one I liked better that produced the desired euforia in the therapuetic-sensual massage experience.

"You forgot to mention that doctors, lawyers, or psychotherapists may be in a position of power over their clients because of their knowledge of illegal or embarrassing facts about the client. The client is probably not in a very good position to know whether a blackmail threat by the doctor/lawyer/therapist is empty, since clients know little about professional ethics rules and their enforcement. This restriction adds another check on that type of abuse."

Ok, so what? I don't do illegal things, and if my disability-facts are "embarrasing" to someone else, that is their problem, not mine. And you really think (speaking for myself) that a JD'd disabled person would "not be in a very good position to know ... a blackmail threat" when they saw one? Or not know all the details about the professional rules of engagement? We spot issues and know rules, it is pretty simple. That's what I do for a living. And how is it someone would not be able to judge whether such a threat is or is not "empty?' If the professional is that untrustworthy that one could not ascertain that probability, then why would anyone want to hire that professional? Free market forces would prevail.

Oh, and I think I would know a person who would carry through on a threat. One cannot control the threat, but one can control his or her response to it -- that is where an indominitable spirit comes in. There are approximately four courses of action in this instance: (1) give in to the threat, (2) run, (3) stand and fight, or (4) disarm the threat and find common ground (what is really at issue). In sum, the threat-issue is blown way out of proportion, and a bad apple is a bad apple. Not all apples are bad.

Why should that small possibility ruin all the good productive enjoyable sexual relationships someone might want to have with a doctor/psychotheraspist/psychiatrist/ rehabilitation counselor/athletic trainer/lawyer/judge or anyone else subject to licensure and regulation? I would rather have a sexual relationship with just such a highly educated partner than someone who can offer no stimulation or thrills whatsoever.

As I said, the rule is over- and under-inclusive.
1.8.2007 12:34pm
Pete Freans (mail):
(They married a year later.)

At least there was a happy ending.

(Rim Shot)
1.8.2007 12:39pm
Visitor Again:
Generally the State has no business intruding into our personal lives, no business deciding who can have sexual relations with who and when or who can marry who and when. I would say it has no business prohibiting prostitution, although it might have a legitimate interest in regulating it by, for example, requiring protection against transmittable diseases.

There are, however, limited circumstances in which, because of the influence professionals have over others, the State may have a compelling interest in prohibiting sexual relations--during an active attorney-client or mental health professional or physician-patient relationship. But the prohibition must be narrowly drawn to serve the compelling interest, and it therefore ought not to extend to professionals who do not have such extraordinary influence over others--a masseuse, for example, or a barber or hairdresser, both of whom sometimes give at least shoulder massages--and it ought not to last beyond the existence of the relationship.

As Eugene points out, such a prohibition does no real harm to those who just can't wait to have a sexual relationship, for all you have to do to remove the effect of the prohibition is end the professional relationship--the client or patient simply gets a new attorney, a new psychiatrist, a new medical doctor.

Notwithstanding that most people are capable of taking care of themselves, even if they have some sort of disability, I do think the risks of coercion or undue influence and the appearance of things warrant a prohibition on sexual relations during the professional relationship between lawyers and clients and doctors and patients. A lawyer screwing his or her client just doesn't look good, and it sounds even worse.
1.8.2007 1:22pm
Sigivald (mail):
Abean: Two years seems a bit long for a period of delay to "break" that model of prostitution, though, does it not?

I'd think that, oh, 24 or 48 hours, at most, would suffice.

Plus, let's not forget, the law here (if I'm reading the post correctly) only authorizes disciplinary action from the State agency that regulates massage therapy, for people who violate the rule.

That's not going to stop prostitution, since I find it very, very, very hard to believe that prostitutes masquerading as massage therapists are actually legitimate LMTs (as in actually being licensed) - it's not like the education and certification process is all that fast and cheap.
1.8.2007 1:22pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The purpose of the rule is to maintain a vulnerable patient's sexual autonomy, and to ensure that any sexual relationship is truly consensual.
You've got to love someone who says with a straight face that the government outlawing consensual behavior "maintains autonomy."
1.8.2007 1:27pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"There are, however, limited circumstances in which, because of the influence professionals have over others, the State may have a compelling interest in prohibiting sexual relations--during an active attorney-client or mental health professional or physician-patient relationship. But the prohibition must be narrowly drawn to serve the compelling interest ...."

And to justify the illegal patronization of disabled people, who everyone knows just cannot be trusted to make their own decisions because they're viewed as retarded or something, we have to bolster the unlawful constraint of the disabled with ... what ... a compelling state interest!

Well, I will up the ante, because qualified disabled people who are protected by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act in their exercise of fundamental Constitutional rights are entitled to strict scrunity and to require the State to prove a compelling state interest to restrict their choices. Ha! We now have two conflicting compelleing state intrerests in juxtaposition!!

And, the one that arises under Title II of the ADA in the enforcement of the fundamental Constitutional rights of association and to marry is entitled to invoke federal conflict preemption -- it trumps the contervailing state concerns.

"Notwithstanding that most people are capable of taking care of themselves, even if they have some sort of disability, I do think the risks of coercion or undue influence and the appearance of things warrant a prohibition on sexual relations during the professional relationship between lawyers and clients and doctors and patients. A lawyer screwing his or her client just doesn't look good, and it sounds even worse."

Then the remedy is to regulate/punish those that engage incoercion and/or undue influence, not all the others who consensually enjoy their sexual relationships. How is this any more difficult than probating a will?

And I have news for you -- my husband who is sometimes my lawyer screw all the time, I think it sounds great, and looks even better.

Why should I get a divorce to maintain my husband as my lawyer if he sometimes can zealously advocate my cause? Me thinks you just don't like the stability and enjoyment of married people, the thrill of sexual relationships, and I suspect this is because you are a lonely envious unattached single with no dating prospects.

And, I don't exchange money for sex. I don't have to.
1.8.2007 1:49pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Isn't that why you go to a massage therapist in the first place? I asked several physical therapists and a doctor of physical medicine if massage therapy would help my spine problem and they all said "no." They said it will make you feel better when you get it, but otherwise continue with those crunches to get your core stronger. Now perhaps there are some medical conditions were massage therapy really is therapeutic, but somehow I think it's all about feeling emotionally better. Which is a good thing. So why not get everything massaged? There is always some loser trying to spoil everyone's fun.
1.8.2007 1:53pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Folks: As my original post noted, and as the update makes clear, the law doesn't just apply to massage therapists, but also a wide range of other alternative health care practitioners. The connection with massage parlors thus seems not to be the justification for the law.
1.8.2007 2:07pm
New World Dan (www):
Here's where it gets interesting, though. The state investigated after receiving a complaint from a third party. In this case, allegedly, Mr. Fjellman's ex-wife. Now, I think this regulation might be fine and proper if it was based upon a complaint from an actual victim.
1.8.2007 2:33pm
Visitor Again:
Mary Katherine, I don't think doctors and lawyers should be prohibited from sexual relations with only disabled people who are their patients or clients but from sexual relations with all patients or clients, disabled or not, the case of a lawyer or doctor who represents or treats his or her spouse. It's a general prohibition; it doesn't single out disabled people at all.

I doubt anyone would question the right of a lawyer to represent his or her spouse and to have sexual relations as often as they wanted during the course of the professional relationship. I certainly don't.

I'm thinking of people who, for example, are going through a divorce and who are vulnerable because of their emotional state and perhaps their need for comforting. There surely are quite a few male lawyers who have taken advantage of women who are emotional wrecks during divorce proceedings or who are undergoing mental trauma or stress in connection with other types of legal proceedings.

Then the remedy is to regulate/punish those that engage incoercion and/or undue influence, not all the others who consensually enjoy their sexual relationships.

That would be the equivalent of no regulation at all because of the difficulties of proof. Better a flat rule. Doctors and lawyers ought not to mix their personal sex lives with their professional duties. It's unseemly; it's, well, unprofessional.

Me thinks you just don't like the stability and enjoyment of married people, the thrill of sexual relationships, and I suspect this is because you are a lonely envious unattached single with no dating prospects.

Wrong on all counts. And it's apparently because you take my message as saying things it just doesn't say or at least as meaning things it did not mean.
1.8.2007 3:11pm
Visitor Again:
Mary Katherine, I don't think doctors and lawyers should be prohibited from sexual relations with only disabled people who are their patients or clients but from sexual relations with all patients or clients, disabled or not, the case of a lawyer or doctor who represents or treats his or her spouse. It's a general prohibition; it doesn't single out disabled people at all.

Bold-faced words in my opening sentence should be deleted.
1.8.2007 3:14pm
Dan Simon (mail) (www):
"I went to a massage parlor the other day--no, no, not one of those....it was one of those "acupressure" places, where if you have, say, a crick in your neck, they rub your penis."

-- Bruce Baum
1.8.2007 5:19pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"It's a general prohibition; it doesn't single out disabled people at all."

Doesn't matter of the state law conflicting with Title II of the ADA is neutral on its face. A disparate impact or criteria the screen out or tend to screen out without a business necessity are all that's required.
1.8.2007 5:27pm
Malvolio:
You forgot to mention that doctors, lawyers, or psychotherapists may be in a position of power over their clients because of their knowledge of illegal or embarrassing facts about the client.
My accountant knows more embarrassing things than my doctor and my lawyer put together, but I could legally sleep with him (uh, if I dug middle-aged Japanese gentlemen).
They married a year later.
At least there was a happy ending.
Spoken like a single man.
(Rim Shot)
Back at you.
1.8.2007 6:25pm
Zubon (www):
Is this one of those posts that appears because the author has expertise in the subject matter?
1.8.2007 7:01pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Yes -- I have a decent amount of expertise on constitutional law, including the law related to regulation of sexual relations.
1.8.2007 7:24pm
Speaking the Obvious:
As Eugene wrote: "Minnesota law bars a wide range of "health care practitioner[s]" — including massage therapists (I mean the legit ones, not prostitutes claiming to be masseuses) — from 'Engaging in sexual contact with a complementary and alternative health care client.'"

Well, at least it's good to know that in Minnesota they don't expect to the "Engaging in sexual contact" prohibition to apply to actual prostitutes...
1.9.2007 2:08am
Visitor Again:
Doesn't matter of the state law conflicting with Title II of the ADA is neutral on its face. A disparate impact or criteria the screen out or tend to screen out without a business necessity are all that's required.

Sorry, Mary Katherine, but you are out to lunch on this one. There is no way in the world that a court would hold that a general prohibition on sexual contact between, say, lawyers and clients or doctors and patients violates the ADA. I have learned quite a bit from a lot of your posts, but on this one you are simply off base.
1.9.2007 5:04am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Visitor Again, you need to get out of the last 200 years mindset that disabled people do not have sexual relationship or marry. That view (Taney, J., Buck v. Bell) went by the wayside with the ADA. See numerous Solicitor General briefs filed in Medical Bd. of Calif. v. Hason (cert dismissed); Tennessee v. Lane.

Given that disabled people do have sexual relationships and marry, such a neutral on its face rule could have a disparate impact on those perceived to be *gasp* mentally disabled. Indeed, that's mostly what I have heard in all the posts on this thread as justification for the rule ... the poor vulnerable mentally disabled people who might be taken advantage of by choosing to have a sexual relationship with a professional they like and admire.

It is yourself who is "way out to lunch;" otherwise you woul dhave cited me to something to support your contrary viewpoint.
1.9.2007 11:47am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Speaking the Obvious, I think it is obvious that it is way to cold to have a sexual relationship in Minnesota, so the rule there would have no practical effect either way.
1.9.2007 11:49am
eddy:
Mary K-K-Katherine -- Because it it so c-c-cold here in Minnesota, we've made love-making primarily an indoor activity.

I believe the real intent behind this law was actually to guard against unscrupulous aromatherapists who have mastered the art of enslaving men through scents.
1.9.2007 1:40pm
Aaron:
Malvolio,

A "happy ending" refers to the way to get the, umm, "special massage" at the brothel, er, massage parlor.
1.9.2007 1:53pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Yes, MKDP, but even if the ADA weren't unconstitutional and trumped every other law ever written, as you seem to believe it does, how does that mean this law has a disparate impact? It bans these relationships for everyone, whether disabled or not.
1.9.2007 8:20pm
Visitor Again:
Visitor Again, you need to get out of the last 200 years mindset that disabled people do not have sexual relationship or marry. That view (Taney, J., Buck v. Bell) went by the wayside with the ADA

Mary Katherine, how you can draw this conclusion from anything I wrote is bewildering. I can see you are determined to exercise your right to be wrong, and I will not stand in your way. Best wishes to you.
1.10.2007 4:34am