State Law Rubs Married Couple the wrong way..

ValkyrieofHouston

Golden Member
Sep 26, 2005
1,736
0
0
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/596791.html

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?"

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.

 

iwantanewcomputer

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2004
5,045
0
0
i think that means they got married within 2 years of the therapy, and the state assumes they were going at it by then
 
Nov 7, 2000
16,403
3
81
f the govt

who do they think they are saying who you can or cant have sex with

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
f the govt

who do they think they are saying who you can or cant have sex with

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg

how about sex with kids?
 

Kaervak

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
8,460
2
81
Originally posted by: ArchCenturion
They must have not been very private about it? Maybe someone got them on video?

Why would that matter? They're married, who cares if they're screwing each other on the dining room table wearing super hero costumes. Two married, consenting adults in their own home having sex. "MY GOD THEY MUST BE STOPPED BECAUSE SHE USED TO BE HIS MASSEUSE." Maybe because I don't treat human sexuality as evil I don't see the point to this law. If there's a logical valid proven reason to it, then that's different. But as it is now, I think it's incredibly stupid.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
This sounds like a dumbly worded law meant to protect against prostitutional infringements at massage parlors.
 

Shadowknight

Diamond Member
May 4, 2001
3,959
3
81
I can understand the laws banning dating/sex between patients and their psychiatrists/psychologists, but every other type of doctor or licensed medical person? Makes no sense.
 

Whisper

Diamond Member
Feb 25, 2000
5,394
2
81
The same type of laws/regulations exist to prevent relationships between psychologists/counselors and previous clients as well, although I'd imagine that's a bit more of a sensitive relationship than that between a masseuse and her masseusee
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
f the govt

who do they think they are saying who you can or cant have sex with

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg

how about sex with kids?

Kids are minors and can't legally consent. Dur.

It's kinda obvious that he implied between adults.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,407
11,440
136
i can understand the law as a protection so one party doesn't manipulate the other. but in this case the people are married! cmon......
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
f the govt

who do they think they are saying who you can or cant have sex with

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg

how about sex with kids?

Kids are minors and can't legally consent. Dur.

It's kinda obvious that he implied between adults.

That goes to his point. His argument is "Who is the government to make the arbitrary age of consent with whom I want to have relations with!"
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Thraxen
If the judge rules against them then the judge is an idiot.

Not really... the the judge is supposed to follow the law, not what he thinks the law should be. It's a pretty clear-cut case that they broke the law. It's just that this was an unintended consequence of a poorly written law.
 

BobDaMenkey

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2005
3,057
2
0
Sounds like the law was meant to prohibit prostitution via massage parlors, gone wrong. That's a pretty fscking retarted case. I hope they drop it.