What's this "imbalances of power and knowledge" baloney? Sounds like Marxist/feminist college faculty Foucault-style horse manure.
And speaking of the late-lamented Foucault, how many boys did the famously promiscuous, AIDS-infected prof lure into his room "to discuss theory"? Just asking..., not judging.
Laws like this (WSJ, by Volokh - h/t, Althouse) which tell you who you can date are what convince people that government has grown not only overly intrusive, but overly arrogant and overly stupid.
Read Volokh's piece, and then tell me whether any of that could not equally apply to lawmakers, politicians, lawyers, bosses, personal trainers, rich folks, veterinarians, co-workers, professors, electricians, colonels, Maytag repairmen, and even Presidents. A quote:
Of course medical relationships offer room for various kinds of abuses. In some situations, it may be proper to interfere with people's right to marry, and their sexual and romantic autonomy, in order to prevent those abuses. We can talk about relationships between psychotherapists and clients (or ex-clients), or relationships between doctors and current patients, or other circumstances in which the risk of subtle coercion or unprofessional behavior is especially high (which is to say materially higher than the risk of subtle coercion and other harms in any sexual relationship).
But the trouble here is that the rules go vastly further than these special situations, and vastly undervalue the countervailing reasons to limit regulation--people's right to choose whom to date, have sex with and marry, even including their dental hygienists, opticians, and the like. So much for the right to marry; so much for sexual autonomy; so much for consenting adults deciding whom to love, without the fear of losing their livelihood.
I see nothing at all wrong with doctors having relationships with patients, nor with therapists having relationships with ex-patients. People are adults, and can use their brains and choose what to do. Such issues are not issues for lawmakers, but for ethics committees of professional boards. (Isn't it odd that such laws never apply to us lawyers, who, rumor has it, are famous for getting involved with clients?)
Look - in any two people, you can find an "imbalance of power" if you want to. And in any desired romantic relationship there will be "subtle emotional coercion:" it's called "trying to win someone's heart" (or at least their company), aka "courtship." All is fair in love and war.
Furthermore, never forget this basic biological truth: a charming female always has mighty, witch-like power over a man's emotions - and she knows it. It's Darwinian. Why do some folks, mainly feminist-types, try to deny this most basic fact of life?
Guys cannot help thinking about new opportunities to play Hide The Salami, and women are suckers for romance. Chosing to act on these things is another matter entirely - or should be, but it's none of the government's damn business.
Image: My witchy dental hygienist during lunch break. What fellow would not want to invite her to dinner, even after she has been a co-conspirator with your dentist to torture you and then to empty your wallet?
