Riffing off your post, not arguing with you...If anything, I would think all of this would make people more aware that science, in and of itself, isn't a thing to be believed or disbelieved. It is a process; an observation of things in a set point in time in certain conditions. It isn't static and isn't dependent on consensus or anything like that. It is a field of study where people find new observations and information all.the.time. A lot of the time even the results we do find are not causal or even able to be replicated. The absolute frenetic pace with which covid is being studied shows us how much things can change dramatically from one observation to the next. It is exposing the fact that almost every area of study is subject to so many different factors. People make decisions with the best information we have at the time. Science gives us information that we have to decide what to do with. Science isn't what we believe in or don't believe in, scientists aren't infallible or somehow able to take study results and then suddenly able to know what to do with it when you're dealing with global economies and populations. Take all this science coming out and add several layers of global, national, local, and even individual politics. Add in differing economic and social issues. Add in personal bias, areas of expertise, and even tiny errors that can be made. Now consider that all those things also come into play when determining which studies and papers and data are even done in the first place, and with covid, a lot of what is being done is throwing everything up against a wall and seeing what sticks. It isn't as simple as just believing science or coming to consensus and I'm not a plandemic anti-vax denier by any stretch.

I think that this discussion is all over the place and if people want to put eating out for pizza and closed-door, no-window meetings in the same category of privacy to either refute or advocate for any position, I don't agree with that. But to the bolded, if I get a vibe that a guy or gal is a creeper or that a closed-door, no-window meeting would be unsafe for me, no matter how ridiculous some might say I'm being, you're darn right I am going to let my lack of comfort make decisions about when and where I meet with someone. I am going to make that decision for someone else for my own peace of mind and dictate terms of meeting in public or in a room with a window or with a recording device or with a friend or co-worker. And to be honest, I don't care how that impacts someone else's career or my own, really. And I am going to allow anyone and everyone else I hypothetically work with to make that same call based on their own personal standards. The sentence after the one I bolded seems to indicate you would do the same in circumstances you would deem it necessary? You are truly, truly fortunate to have never worked for or with someone who made you uncomfortable. Sincerely, that is awesome. I have worked for both men and women, albeit a small number, who I definitely didn't want to accept a dinner invitation from or be alone with in an office with no windows. Probably nothing would have happened, but there was a vibe that I didn't want to ignore. I have also worked with people who had improper office romances that affected the morale of the whole office. If you've never been in these sorts of situations, don't you think it's more difficult to evaluate how or if they should be handled? Or are you saying that because it has not happened to you it is rare enough that precautions are not necessary?

Can you come be my mom?

We disliked the hot tub in our rental. It kind of felt like taking a family bath. We just never used it very much. And maintaining it was spendy with chemicals and such, I'd rather just deal with a pool if I have to have a standing body of water in my back yard.

Should Matt Lauer have been treated that way before people knew what he was doing? Or, heck, even after? How many women were shamed into going in to meet with him alone using this very line of questioning?? Having an open door or a window into an office is hardly treating men or women as sexual predators. Notallmen, lol.

Also, the goal posts aren't moved. This is all part and parcel of the same basic issue surrounding office and other professional relationships. Should a wife feel comfortable if her husband is spending a huge amount of time alone with another woman? Can the lines of a professional relationship and a personal relationship get blurry in a quickness? Should a woman feel comfortable if her boss wants to meet with her alone repeatedly where no one else can see them? Should a man be transparent and open about his meetings with individuals in the workplace? Is favoritism or appearance therof a problem? Can we just prop a door open or meet in the open? If not, can we take meeting notes and compare or record what is discussed? Is there a power differential that makes this relationship inappropriate? What does this meeting look like to an objective third party? Am I demanding too much of my employees' personal time? And replace genders and orientations as needed for any of these questions. People are, of course, more than their urges. At the same time, office affairs happen, sexual assault happens, bosses, professors, doctors get in trouble for crossing boundaries, women and men. And it's not exactly rare. We make rules for adults with children because we know adults cross lines that children can't defend themselves from. Adults are not children but they still cross lines with each other and no matter how many Alias episodes you've seen, most women cannot defend themselves from most men and according to some will not be believed when they tell their story, or according to others will lie about being assaulted. Either way, not being in a situation that requires witnesses to prove or disprove a story helps immensely. If you've never witnessed or been a party to workplace drama or seen some of the stupid and malicious choices people can make, please be thankful, but don't be naive about how not-rare these things are among all genders of all classes of jobs, and all stripes of people. Any rule should be flexible, but I'm not a jerk for feeling uncomfortable about meeting someone alone who could overpower me if they so choose. People we know and even know well can and do commit sexual assault or harassment. Incidentally, I recommend the book The Gift of Fear. Being uncomfortable with a situation is often the most reasonable indicator of a problem situation.

They don't show signs until they do and then 10 women say, you too?? No signs of being a creeper, really??? Of course they don't and that is how the Matt Lauers of the world get to have an office door that locks with the push of a button from their desk and no one comes forward for 20 years because they are made to feel silly and also crazy for feeling uncomfortable with a meeting with their boss. But good to know this is no longer an issue. I give up, honestly. If sexual assault in the work place is so statistically low so that it is silly to take precautions as a woman then we're in a lot better shape than I thought.

Good to know that the problem of women being believed about rape and sexual assault when it's her word against his has totally been resolved!

I feel like this has seriously jumped the shark, but if a witness is involved because things are that serious and the witness is making stuff up to get someone in hot water, maybe a closed door meeting one-on-one isn't the best idea either. Otherwise, all I'm saying is meet where a door can be propped open or there is a window into the office or there is some official way of documenting what happened. I don't find this to be revolutionary in a metoo culture where women have trouble being believed about being in compromising situation, but I'm not a college professor either. Maybe they don't get in trouble for getting involved with students ever and that's just something that happened at my JC. Interestingly, I used to be a transcriptionist. All sorts of people, including doctors and psychiatrists and professors, record confidential sessions. I have transcribed them. There are ways to anonymize them and such that probably vary by state and federal law.

Okay, so you're saying women don't get sexually assaulted at work at high enough rates for an open door or glass window policy to be in effect? Or if I feel uncomfortable meeting with a coworker in private then I should ignore that feeling and do it anyway? I think there is a huge chasm of difference in any case between being alone in an office with someone with the door closed and no window and being in a restaurant with them. It's interesting you put those two things in the same category. They seem like apples and oranges to me What percentage of women would make this a problem in your view? How many women would have to be assaulted for it to be a reasonable standard for me to not want to be alone with someone in a closed door setting? I'm not being snarky in case it sounds that way. I'm genuinely wondering because I've never heard this kind of advice before.

Okay, yeah, I guess I'm thinking of private as in no one could see in or anything. Or even if it was just having a recording of a meeting or something if no one could see what was happening. Confidential, I understand...no record of what happened or accountability for either party is what I'm wondering about.

Is there any HR department or company lawyers that would advocate for bosses and subordinates to meet privately, one-on-one, routinely behind closed doors? Places where that is considered advisable business practice? Without any type of CYA in place? I honestly don't think this is purely an issue of sexual impropriety or appearances. Any number of issues crop up when you have a disagreement about something like intellectual property or who is at fault or who was promised what...and if all that happens with no record and just a he said/she said account of a meeting? It seems like any lawyer would say that's not good business or personal practice. But I tend to watch too much Judge Judy. And have also attended too many military SAP trainings, lol.

Agreed? There are only a few people insisting those boundaries must inherently limit women in particular.

I just don't know why it has to be all or nothing. I mean, Harvey Weinstein is a person that existed. Women have trouble getting people to believe they were harassed or worse at work, right? People have affairs with people at work? I don't feel like some boundaries for anyone of any gender are beyond the pale, nor do I think that having a rule means that someone is totally inflexible all the time or doesn't know how to think or is not mindful of how their boundaries might affect others. I'm sure some people are jerks! Some people are jerks! Is prude-shaming a thing? I feel like it's a thing.

As I said, if people have different preferences or want to conduct business differently, that's fine with me. You don't have to convince me. I have a different view and got out of the rat race entirely, partly because of all this. It isn't my speed to be trying to wine and dine and make deals over cocktails or on the golf course. My point was that I *don't* want to be working over a nice meal. I just want to have a nice meal. To each their own. I personally don't find all of that all that great, but I get how some people can thrive on it. And you are really blessed if your workplace does not have a lot of shenanigans and drama...seriously, that is great because a lot of places do. Workplace interludes aren’t that rare, IME. A relative of mine got promoted into her boss's position because her married boss was doing stuff with a married employee and they were posting evidence on Tumblr! Said evidence involved inappropriate use of workplace facilities and resources. And this is like a c-level executive in a well established job, not some young single person. And it was common for stuff like that to happen across the industry. He was really, really lucky she did not sue him for sexual harassment and agreed it was all consensual because the power imbalance was huge. And they were simply going together to the conference room to have facility meetings or to talk about logistics for an upcoming conference. Wouldn't it be so beyond the pale to suggest two professionals couldn't be alone behind closed doors with each other? That they could end up costing the company six figures in searching for a new CEO and covering themselves legally? And that does not touch all the young and single people with married people in the military and the issues that stuff caused. A spurned spouse that knows her cheating husband can get in legal trouble for cheating? Oh man, ish got crazy. Like I said, I'm glad I'm out of all that but if you don't have drama I can see how it's all a non issue. And if you are a low drama person like myself you often wonder how grown people could act the way they do. But often times people make personal boundaries based on experience like, not some pharisaical sense of trying to remain pure. And while I was typing this, I see that no one works where there are inappropriate office romances except me. 😂

I don't think there's anything wrong with whatever someone prefers. I personally would not want to be in a job where I was required to have dinner alone with my boss of any gender as a condition of advancement or even a condition of having a good working relationship. I wouldn't want it to be that way with Marta or Frank. Maybe I'm just used to an officer/enlisted divide, where it would be extremely inappropriate for a superior to go to a one on one dinner with a subordinate. But to be honest, if Mike Pence (used because of an earlier example) somehow made it necessary for any of his employees in government to have dinner with him one on one in order to be in his good graces, I would find that extremely unprofessional. I personally am not talking about going to get a pizza with a co-worker, although I personallywould probably not do that with any one specific person repeatedly just so no one got any ideas. I thought people were talking about bosses and employees and how it was unfair for the boss not to dine alone with his women employees. And to be honest, if I'm going to go to the trouble of going out for a nice meal with any one person, I'd rather it be someone I want to be one on one with, which has never been my boss. Maybe y'all had more fun bosses than I did. And also maybe my opinions in this are colored by the fact that most of the time in my various workplaces, if you thought two co-workers were being a little too chummy and spending a lot of time on work lunches together, you were probably right.

But as a woman, I would not want dining alone with my boss, especially someone with some kind of position of power, to be a condition of my job. I can't figure out why a woman (or anyone) would want to be in that position, to be honest, where they would *have to have* dinner alone with a person who can make or break their career or future in the company, to be means or a condition of advancement. That sounds like horrible corporate culture. You say right or wrong like oh well, it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we still have to do it. But I don't think that's a good way to approach it. We have to go along to get along?

I agree with this. I think a start up business with a close partner of either gender can have any number of issues. As for who should or shouldn't start up businesses, I guess I would limit myself to starting up a business for any of those issues, including the complications that could ensue if I was spending large amounts if time developing an intense working relationship with the opposite sex. I wouldn't do it. I don't see this as me or the other person not being trustworthy or me or the other person being creeps or jerks who would jump in each others pants... it's just not where I would be putting my energy at this point in time. But I would say that about any number of things I'm not doing for any number of reasons. Yes, I have limitations on my life because of marriage and family situation. So does DH. That isn't tragic to me because no one can pursue all the things all the time. Someone might be able to do both things (like the woman in the OP), but I don't think it's bad to say, well, I wouldn't pursue that business venture because of x, y, or z.

I don't think there has to be a big show or statement of rules or why things are being done a certain way. I agree, to constantly bring it up would be creepy.

Is anyone anywhere saying that's what's going on? Like blanket avoidance with no consideration for environment, situation, persons involved, or timing? That that avoidance is "the only thing keeping someone faithful"? I know that rules read tend to lend themselves to not thinking and simple rule following, but does (did) anyone, even Billy Graham himself, apply them without any thinking involved? I'm not in favor of zero tolerance in any situation, including this one because it takes away human judgment, which is always needed. Again, I think this is a strawman to the actual issues involved.

And? That's an individual decision that people have to be free to make. Again, if I had a boss in a position of power over me who also insisted on closed-door meetings frequently no matter my standard on the issue I would find that not only weird and uncomfortable, but also discriminatory. But I have been in the position of having to negatively counsel a subordinate and even then, sexual harassment taken completely out of the picture, my next level supervisor was required to be there as a witness to the counseling for all sorts of reasons...to ensure I'm not targeting him unfairly, to document the meeting, etc. Heck, I don't think my ob/gyn is a bad guy getting his jollies but even when I've had a female doctor, a nurse is always present for pants-off procedures. Not because the doctor isn't a professional or because I'm scared or because we can't be alone together. We live in a litigious, liability driven culture, that ALSO, by the way wants people to be given the benefit of the doubt when they accuse others of sexually based harassment or crimes. Doesn't it seem prudent, then, that both parties would want to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation or any issues? I know I do! I can think of a million and one scenarios where accountability comes in the form of simply a door being open or another person being in the room or a recording device being on if none of those things are possible. But all of this is kind of a tangent from having an issue with the kind of quality and quantity of time a spouse is spending with another person.

I don't know how this got from the OP to having an inflexible rule about never, ever being alone with someone one who is not one's spouse. It seems like the latter is being brought up as a strawman to dismiss any and all concerns in the former.

But you do do things like lock your doors, don't let strangers in your house, don't do things that are overall risky, right? Everyone takes precautions for these scenarios all the time even if they are so ingrained that we don't think about them. Everyone takes some kind of precautions that don't give an appearance of vulnerability (like not waving cash around after you get it from an atm or not staring into one's phone while walking around alone). The fact that you think my precaution of not wanting to be alone with a man in certain scenarios is unreasonable doesn't make it so. It isn't about discrimination or thinking everyone is going to do something horrible, or even that a particular person is going to do something horrible. And of course it requires a working brain to say I can walk into a break room at work even if it would mean I'm "alone" with another person, but maybe being in their hotel room on a work trip is a different form of "alone". There is alone, and then there is Alone. I don't think this is about gender either. To use another example, in my church, no adult is allowed to be alone with a child or children. This doesn't assume everyone is a predator and it has nothing to do with rights of people to teach Sunday school or run youth group. I'm sure we can all see the wisdom in this rule as it's pretty universal these days, and it has nothing to do with assuming bad things about particular people or discrimination. And a good argument against the rule isn't, "Well I know that so-and-so would never hurt a child! If I thought he was capable of that I'd never ask him to teach Sunday School!" As a female who was in the military I would have been extremely uncomfortable with, say, a male superior insisting we had to be alone together to accomplish some task. That's not to say I was never alone with a male co-worker, but it was never a situation that was insisted upon by someone higher up, or even a peer. I mean, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer are people who exist in the world and are far from the only creeps out there who would take advantage of seniority and power. I doubt Quill really thinks good looking people don't have a right to start a business or that they don'thave skills, lol. That is taking things to an extreme. Being concerned about the quality and quantity of alone time your spouse spends with another person isn't unreasonable.

closing parking lots seems nonsensical. Yes, the cars are close together. People might be if they are all getting in and out of cars at the same time, but unless there's an organized event going on it seems like it would be totally avoidable. No one has, to my recollection, been close enough to breathe in my face in a parking lot. Even in non-covid times, people generally wait for one another to get in or out or to get kids in or out, if only to avoid car doors hitting one another. I went to the zoo last week (timed tickets, masks and distancing), parking lot was full, but we never saw another person until we got to the gate. I can't get the italics to turn off. So annoying!

Weren't those kids in restaurants and hotels and dance clubs and bars together? I'm not advocating for all of that. I'm saying people should be allowed to go to the beach, to be outside in public.