1
i am curious if you have ever had a massage? just gauging from your statement, i am guessing no. : )
licensed massage therapists are actually well trained in many aspects of health service, such as anatomy, physiology and clinical standards. they provide what i find akin to physical therapy, or any other health service that involves utilizing a more "hands-on" approach.
by your definition, the services/examination provided by my doctor could be considered risque too. : D
usually my massage therapist is a woman (her husband is her clinic partner and back-up), and while the massage is not in a group setting, there is nothing remotely "risque" about it. instead, it's often a bracing (and verging on painful) journey across the landscape of knots in my back. also, she does myofascial release, an intensive therapy designed to restore and protect range of motion. because of my injury, it is almost painful, but well worth it for the end result.
while i can't speak for others, the massage offered by my massage therapist would never be confused as "risque" or less than a health-seeking, therapeutic massage. and i don't think most licensed massage therapists are offering anything less than real therapy.
licensed massage therapists are actually well trained in many aspects of health service, such as anatomy, physiology and clinical standards. they provide what i find akin to physical therapy, or any other health service that involves utilizing a more "hands-on" approach.
by your definition, the services/examination provided by my doctor could be considered risque too. : D
usually my massage therapist is a woman (her husband is her clinic partner and back-up), and while the massage is not in a group setting, there is nothing remotely "risque" about it. instead, it's often a bracing (and verging on painful) journey across the landscape of knots in my back. also, she does myofascial release, an intensive therapy designed to restore and protect range of motion. because of my injury, it is almost painful, but well worth it for the end result.
while i can't speak for others, the massage offered by my massage therapist would never be confused as "risque" or less than a health-seeking, therapeutic massage. and i don't think most licensed massage therapists are offering anything less than real therapy.
Alone with another in a room.
Sometimes with someone of the opposite sex.
Much hand to body contact.
Sometimes hand contact near questionable places.
Sometimes with little clothing.
We think nothing of that because it's done for medical reasons, from medical professionals.
Yet the cuddling issue involves a similar general description.
And in some higher degree cases may actually serve a medical purpose, ie so severely damaged they need that.
If cuddling were done in a medical context by people perceived as trained medical professionals, would we view it in the same light as we do massage, since both do to some extent have similar general descriptions?
That was my food for thought.
Both have the same general descriptions.
Both could be used for medical purposes. (One psychological, one physical.)
Both could to an extent be done by perceived professionals.
So why acceptance of one and not the other?
Familiarity?
My question is examining why we accept one and not the other.
I'm not condoning, just examining our acceptance or rejection of both, and the motives behind it.
Like I said in my initial reply, I was rambling, tossing out food for thought.
Not drawing any hard and fast conclusions.
Anyways I really need to scoot. I may be back later to discuss further.
ciao.