In an unexpected turn of events, a massage therapy session at a shopping mall resulted in a complaint lodged by a female client claiming breach of privacy from her male therapist, Steven Xu. The woman narrated her grievous account of the session, describing his actions as overstepping professional boundaries and leaving her feeling violated and disgusted.
Based out of Auckland, Xu conceded to the sequence of events as described following the grievance reaching the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The judicial body promptly confirmed that the therapy practitioner had indeed breached ethical guidelines.
As per the woman’s account, her identity kept confidential by the tribunal, she had won a complimentary hour-long massage session at a shopping center clinic in Auckland. The package promised a full-body therapy covering her neck, head, shoulders, back, and legs.
There was a clear lack of advance communication regarding the specific areas she wanted Xu to work on before the session. The only instructions given were to declothe, leaving only her underwear on, and lay face down on the table.
The therapy started with her lying face down, draped with a towel, which was occasionally moved by Xu to expose her back and bottom during the session. The disturbing event happened when, lying on her back with the towel covering her chest, Xu removed the towel completely and began massaging her breasts, touching her nipples in the process.
Despite Xu’s denial of touching her nipples and his claim of her removing her bra as silent consent, the woman felt extreme discomfort. Xu justified his actions by stating that the process was meant to increase circulation and that the region has numerous acupuncture and pressure points.
His logic—laid out to the tribunal—was that had the woman objected to her breasts being massaged, she should have informed him outright. During the session, however, she expressed no such apprehensions.
Later in the session, Xu massaged her lower stomach area, upper abdomen, and legs after re-exposing her by folding back the towel. Feeling violated, she covered herself as Xu stepped out. Upon his return, he wiped the excess oil off before leaving the room, enabling her to dress herself and exit, despite feeling violated.
In a later written communication with the massage parlor, the woman expressed her concerns about the inappropriate behavior. The owner confirmed that a full-body massage should exclude the breasts. Even after Xu denied any unethical behavior, texted to the woman, the complaint made its way to the Health and Disability Commissioner.
Outlined in the decision by both parties was advice from a massage expert declaring that Xu had failed to get informed consent from the woman. Dr. Barry Vautier highlighted that Xu had draped her inappropriately and touched her inappropriately. In his expert opinion, male masseurs rarely, if ever, massage female clients’ breasts due to the risk of their actions being misconstrued.
Vautier observed that relaxation massages generally do not involve massaging the breasts. As they are classified as an erogenous zone, they should not be massaged or touched without explicit consent. He deemed Xu’s actions to be a severe breach of privacy and ethical conduct.
The tribunal unanimously declared, and Xu agreed, that he failed to communicate effectively, did not adhere to professional standards, and was remiss in respecting the privacy of his client.
