New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
for you, Luv4all7... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14235934/Tough choice: Celibate marriage or no license
Minn. law on sex with former clients rubs massage therapist the wrong way LINDSTROM, Minn. - LaRae Lundeen Fjellman could lose her state license as a massage therapist for having sexual relations with her husband. Her husband, Kirk Fjellman, is a former client. He saw her professionally from October 2000 to May 2002, and the two say they started dating in July 2002. But when they consummated the relationship a few months later, they ran afoul of a Minnesota law that bans massage therapists from having sexual relations with former clients for two years. "There's no harm, no victim," Kirk Fjellman said. "What's this about?" Story continues below ↓ advertisement The case is before a judge and could be decided this month, with LaRae Fjellman facing a fine and possibly loss of her license. The outcome could have implications for the private lives of an array of alternative health care providers. Documents filed by the Department of Health say the therapist clearly violated the state law, passed by the Legislature in 2000. LaRae Fjellman does not deny she violated the statute but said she didn't know it existed until the state came knocking. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
And lose her license she should.
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
They were talking about this on the radio today.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
purplerein said: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14235934/Tough choice: Celibate marriage or no license
Minn. law on sex with former clients rubs massage therapist the wrong way LINDSTROM, Minn. - LaRae Lundeen Fjellman could lose her state license as a massage therapist for having sexual relations with her husband. Her husband, Kirk Fjellman, is a former client. He saw her professionally from October 2000 to May 2002, and the two say they started dating in July 2002. But when they consummated the relationship a few months later, they ran afoul of a Minnesota law that bans massage therapists from having sexual relations with former clients for two years. "There's no harm, no victim," Kirk Fjellman said. "What's this about?" Story continues below ↓ advertisement The case is before a judge and could be decided this month, with LaRae Fjellman facing a fine and possibly loss of her license. The outcome could have implications for the private lives of an array of alternative health care providers. Documents filed by the Department of Health say the therapist clearly violated the state law, passed by the Legislature in 2000. LaRae Fjellman does not deny she violated the statute but said she didn't know it existed until the state came knocking. Absolutely ridiculous. You americans sure have some weird laws.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
That's just stupid. In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: purplerein said: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14235934/Tough choice: Celibate marriage or no license
Minn. law on sex with former clients rubs massage therapist the wrong way LINDSTROM, Minn. - LaRae Lundeen Fjellman could lose her state license as a massage therapist for having sexual relations with her husband. Her husband, Kirk Fjellman, is a former client. He saw her professionally from October 2000 to May 2002, and the two say they started dating in July 2002. But when they consummated the relationship a few months later, they ran afoul of a Minnesota law that bans massage therapists from having sexual relations with former clients for two years. "There's no harm, no victim," Kirk Fjellman said. "What's this about?" Story continues below ↓ advertisement The case is before a judge and could be decided this month, with LaRae Fjellman facing a fine and possibly loss of her license. The outcome could have implications for the private lives of an array of alternative health care providers. Documents filed by the Department of Health say the therapist clearly violated the state law, passed by the Legislature in 2000. LaRae Fjellman does not deny she violated the statute but said she didn't know it existed until the state came knocking. Absolutely ridiculous. You americans sure have some weird laws. Oh that's just the tip of the iceberg.. don't get me started! I am seriously thinking of moving.. Canada sounds better everyday.. except for Spats.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
JustErin said: purplerein said: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14235934/Tough choice: Celibate marriage or no license
Minn. law on sex with former clients rubs massage therapist the wrong way LINDSTROM, Minn. - LaRae Lundeen Fjellman could lose her state license as a massage therapist for having sexual relations with her husband. Her husband, Kirk Fjellman, is a former client. He saw her professionally from October 2000 to May 2002, and the two say they started dating in July 2002. But when they consummated the relationship a few months later, they ran afoul of a Minnesota law that bans massage therapists from having sexual relations with former clients for two years. "There's no harm, no victim," Kirk Fjellman said. "What's this about?" Story continues below ↓ advertisement The case is before a judge and could be decided this month, with LaRae Fjellman facing a fine and possibly loss of her license. The outcome could have implications for the private lives of an array of alternative health care providers. Documents filed by the Department of Health say the therapist clearly violated the state law, passed by the Legislature in 2000. LaRae Fjellman does not deny she violated the statute but said she didn't know it existed until the state came knocking. Absolutely ridiculous. You americans sure have some weird laws. Well, I understand the logic behind the law, but why persue it when it comes to this couple. The woman wasn't running a prostitution ring she fell in love! I can't stand when they waste tax money on this bull shit! In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What are U guys talking about?????
Its completely against the code of ethcis. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
luv4all7 said: What are U guys talking about?????
Its completely against the code of ethcis. Maybe,
But why waste time/money on taking her to court? I'm sure there is a real criminal they should be out catching.  In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sweeny79 said: luv4all7 said: What are U guys talking about?????
Its completely against the code of ethcis. Maybe,
But why waste time/money on taking her to court? I'm sure there is a real criminal they should be out catching. I agree.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sweeny79 said: luv4all7 said: What are U guys talking about?????
Its completely against the code of ethcis. Maybe,
But why waste time/money on taking her to court? I'm sure there is a real criminal they should be out catching. True. Very true. But people like her do need to get their license taken away. Because of people like that I get schmucks trying to feel me up on a regular basis. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
luv4all7 said: What are U guys talking about?????
Its completely against the code of ethcis. Who the hell are they to say what two consenting adults can and can't do when it comes to initmate relationships? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
luv4all7 said: Sweeny79 said: Maybe,
But why waste time/money on taking her to court? I'm sure there is a real criminal they should be out catching. True. Very true. But people like her do need to get their license taken away. Because of people like that I get schmucks trying to feel me up on a regular basis.   In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
She knew the laws before she took a job as a massage therapist. If she didn't like the laws. She shoulda not took an oath or signed a contract. Whether the rules suck or not they were the rules. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: luv4all7 said: What are U guys talking about?????
Its completely against the code of ethcis. Who the hell are they to say what two consenting adults can and can't do when it comes to initmate relationships? EXACTLY! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
shanti0608 said: JustErin said: Who the hell are they to say what two consenting adults can and can't do when it comes to initmate relationships? EXACTLY! See above. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
shanti0608 said: JustErin said: Who the hell are they to say what two consenting adults can and can't do when it comes to initmate relationships? EXACTLY! But... if you think about it,it's like a teacher dating a student a few weeks after graduation. A lot of people would say that teacher needs to loose her/his license. ...just playing devil's advocate here.  In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yeah. I just know how bad it sucks when your put in a slimey situation. And when shit like this gets out it makes it worse for everyone else. It doesn't feel good to be propositioned when your just trying to do your job. You feel like YOU did something wrong. And these girls know this, and THATS why there are RULES! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
luv4all7 said: She knew the laws before she took a job as a massage therapist. If she didn't like the laws. She shoulda not took an oath or signed a contract. Whether the rules suck or not they were the rules.
Very true, but that's the only argument one can use. It's a ridiculous law that should be abolished. Punishing consenting adults that are no longer even in a client/masseuse relationship for the behaviour of bad clients that sexually abuse the employees or employees that get paid for sex under the mask of being a masseuse, is sad. Luv4all7 if clients make sexual advancements to you, you should report them and they should be banned. Or at least that's they way it should work. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: luv4all7 said: She knew the laws before she took a job as a massage therapist. If she didn't like the laws. She shoulda not took an oath or signed a contract. Whether the rules suck or not they were the rules.
Very true, but that's the only argument one can use. It's a ridiculous law that should be abolished. Punishing consenting adults that are no longer even in a client/masseuse relationship for the behaviour of bad clients that sexually abuse the employees or employees that get paid for sex under the mask of being a masseuse, is sad. Luv4all7 if clients make sexual advancements to you, you should report them and they should be banned. Or at least that's they way it should work. Rite. It SHOULD be. But a massage therapist is always replaceable, a good paying client, isn't. And I understand the elementaryness (I know thats not a word) of the situation. Its just that dirty men use that shit to their advantage at some point. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
JustErin said: luv4all7 said: She knew the laws before she took a job as a massage therapist. If she didn't like the laws. She shoulda not took an oath or signed a contract. Whether the rules suck or not they were the rules.
Very true, but that's the only argument one can use. It's a ridiculous law that should be abolished. Punishing consenting adults that are no longer even in a client/masseuse relationship for the behaviour of bad clients that sexually abuse the employees or employees that get paid for sex under the mask of being a masseuse, is sad. Luv4all7 if clients make sexual advancements to you, you should report them and they should be banned. Or at least that's they way it should work. The law is there not only to discourage prostition, but to make clients aware that there will be no hanky panky. I think there is a need for it. But I do think it's silly to prosicute this woman. In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sweeny79 said: JustErin said: Very true, but that's the only argument one can use. It's a ridiculous law that should be abolished. Punishing consenting adults that are no longer even in a client/masseuse relationship for the behaviour of bad clients that sexually abuse the employees or employees that get paid for sex under the mask of being a masseuse, is sad. Luv4all7 if clients make sexual advancements to you, you should report them and they should be banned. Or at least that's they way it should work. The law is there not only to disencourage prostition, but to make clients aware that there will be no hanky panky. I think there is a need for it. But I do think it's silly to prosicute this woman. Well, I don't get it. Charge the people that are doing the hanky panky and paying for it, not people that are getting into serious relationships with former clients. Not being allowed to have a relationship with a former client makes zero sense at all and it has nothing to do with the dynamics between the employee and client. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
luv4all7 said: JustErin said: Very true, but that's the only argument one can use. It's a ridiculous law that should be abolished. Punishing consenting adults that are no longer even in a client/masseuse relationship for the behaviour of bad clients that sexually abuse the employees or employees that get paid for sex under the mask of being a masseuse, is sad. Luv4all7 if clients make sexual advancements to you, you should report them and they should be banned. Or at least that's they way it should work. Rite. It SHOULD be. But a massage therapist is always replaceable, a good paying client, isn't. And I understand the elementaryness (I know thats not a word) of the situation. Its just that dirty men use that shit to their advantage at some point. Whoa, wait a tic...I just noticed this comment. So you are saying that a client that sexually abuses an employee is not accountable for their actions and nothing will be done because they are a so called "good paying client"?? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
JustErin said: Sweeny79 said: The law is there not only to disencourage prostition, but to make clients aware that there will be no hanky panky. I think there is a need for it. But I do think it's silly to prosicute this woman. Well, I don't get it. Charge the people that are doing the hanky panky and paying for it, not people that are getting into serious relationships with former clients. Not being allowed to have a relationship with a former client makes zero sense at all and it has nothing to do with the dynamics between the employee and client. I agree this woman might have bent the rules a little, but she didn't really do anything wrong. They'll throw the case out I bet. In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: luv4all7 said: Rite. It SHOULD be. But a massage therapist is always replaceable, a good paying client, isn't. And I understand the elementaryness (I know thats not a word) of the situation. Its just that dirty men use that shit to their advantage at some point. Whoa, wait a tic...I just noticed this comment. So you are saying that a client that sexually abuses an employee is not accountable for their actions and nothing will be done because they are a so called "good paying client"??
Is that hard to believe? Boy, Canada MUST be a lot different. (NOT saying that sarcastically either) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
luv4all7 said: JustErin said: Whoa, wait a tic...I just noticed this comment. So you are saying that a client that sexually abuses an employee is not accountable for their actions and nothing will be done because they are a so called "good paying client"??
Is that hard to believe? Boy, Canada MUST be a lot different. (NOT saying that sarcastically either) That's what I thought too. In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sweeny79 said: luv4all7 said:
Is that hard to believe? Boy, Canada MUST be a lot different. (NOT saying that sarcastically either) That's what I thought too. I guess I just wouldn't put up with shit like that. And my job made a huge deal over sexual harrassment issues and we aren't even touching each other. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
We live in a messed up world. We shouldn't even have to make laws about this. If a man wants a prostitute he should see a prostitute, not a massage therapist.
But if a massage therapist wants to date a client he/she shouldn't have to wait 2 years. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: We live in a messed up world. We shouldn't even have to make laws about this. If a man wants a prostitute he should see a prostitute, not a massage therapist.
But if a massage therapist wants to date a client he/she shouldn't have to wait 2 years. This is true. It is ridiculous that we need those laws but we do. Even the school I went to, some of the people in the offices were twisted.....wanting SOMETHING, yanno????? Sick! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |