Not going out with opposite sex without spouse

[EmseB]

It doesn't matter what the motivation is, in PRACTICE it's discriminatory. I don't care how non-politically conservative anyone is. But when someone won't work - late hours, over dinner, 1on q meeting - with me because I'm a woman, that is discrimination even if in his mind he's being a dedicated family man. He should get an different job.

I disagree it necessarily works out this way in practice based on my own experience, that's all. Obviously your experience has been different and I'm sorry you were treated differently because of your gender. And, no, I don't think personal ethical standards are an excuse for discrimination.

[maize]

There were a few mentors who made a big difference to me in my young adult years. It just happens that they were all male; there was nothing even vaguely unprofessional or uncomfortable about the relationship.

 

I don't see a way for that mentoring to have happened without ever meeting with them alone.

[Lady Florida.]

My husband works the overnight shift and he's currently training a female employee. It's just the two of them, alone. If he refused (which he wouldn't because he isn't ridiculous), he'd be discriminating against her and hindering her career (he's close to retirement, she's not). But wait. As a civilian employee of a U.S. Air Force contractor he can't refuse. Federal discrimination is illegal. And yet, the VP, who is also a federal government employee albeit at one of the highest levels, can refuse? He can choose discrimination? 

[TCB]

Yup.

 

Dh has worked for EDS, HP, and several other big firms and is now with GM. In all that time he has not seen a single office affair occur, and only rarely saw two single co workers ever date. In 30 years he has had one female make a pass at him, and she was a manager. He took screen shots of a couple of her texts to which he did not respond up the chain of management, and she was fired on the spot. The end. No drama.

 

Maybe work place environment and behavior of management has something to do with it. These places were All business and people apparently wanted to keep their good jobs so acted appropriately.

 

Interesting that he has not come across this where he works. I've been reading the book "The Monogamy Myth" and the author quoted a number of studies that found quite a high level of men and women reporting having extra marital or extra-relationship sex. The "Hite Report"in 1980 found 72% of men married 2 years or more had done so. I think it is a lot more common than we think. She also mentioned that many of these affairs are with people they work with. I only work 1 day a week and am not one of those people in the loop, but even I've been aware of a number of affairs where I work.

[TCB]

I agree.  I'm also having trouble with the idea that it's so easy to just accidentally fall into an affair that you must avoid ever being alone with the gender you find attractive.   If you don't want to have an affair, don't have an affair.   I have worked with men that I find attractive in the past, some I find interesting to talk to.  But, I never had to work at avoiding an affair. 

 

 

Agreed.

I've been alone with men at work etc and I've never been tempted to have an affair. I always thought the way you both did. Unfortunately I've now had personal experience of a spouse having an affair. I've been reading a lot about it and it is far more common than I thought. I always thought that having rules about not meeting one-on-one with a member of the opposite sex were a bit over the top. Now I can see that, actually, having boundaries in place can help avoid situations that make it easier to become more intimate with someone you shouldn't be intimate with. I'm not talking about physical intimacy initially. I know as well as anyone that you're hardly likely to go out to lunch with someone and get physical then and there. But talking one-on-one gives the opportunity to over share about personal things etc, and this is what develops intimacy between 2 people and that can lead to the relationship going further. Not everyone is as strong minded and able to set their mind to not doing something. I hate to say that but it is true. Just because you've never been tempted doesn't mean no one else is. Taking measures to reduce risk, for yourself and others, is not a crazy thing to do in my opinion.

[poppy]

Interesting that he has not come across this where he works. I've been reading the book "The Monogamy Myth" and the author quoted a number of studies that found quite a high level of men and women reporting having extra marital or extra-relationship sex. The "Hite Report"in 1980 found 72% of men married 2 years or more had done so. I think it is a lot more common than we think. She also mentioned that many of these affairs are with people they work with. I only work 1 day a week and am not one of those people in the loop, but even I've been aware of a number of affairs where I work.

 

Or she's trying to get people to buy her book on the idea that all men cheat.

 

[Scarlett]

I've been alone with men at work etc and I've never been tempted to have an affair. I always thought the way you both did. Unfortunately I've now had personal experience of a spouse having an affair. I've been reading a lot about it and it is far more common than I thought. I always thought that having rules about not meeting one-on-one with a member of the opposite sex were a bit over the top. Now I can see that, actually, having boundaries in place can help avoid situations that make it easier to become more intimate with someone you shouldn't be intimate with. I'm not talking about physical intimacy initially. I know as well as anyone that you're hardly likely to go out to lunch with someone and get physical then and there. But talking one-on-one gives the opportunity to over share about personal things etc, and this is what develops intimacy between 2 people and that can lead to the relationship going further. Not everyone is as strong minded and able to set their mind to not doing something. I hate to say that but it is true. Just because you've never been tempted doesn't mean no one else is. Taking measures to reduce risk, for yourself and others, is not a crazy thing to do in my opinion.

Well said. When I suspected my now xh was having an affair I installed a keylogger on his laptop. I captured about 6 weeks of chats between them.....disturbing for sure......but it definitely gave me insight into how it all played out.

[TCB]

Or she's trying to get people to buy her book on the idea that all men cheat.

 

 

Maybe but she didn't report her own study. I'm fairly sure the Hite report is well know and there were others as well. She also didn't say it was just men, women too. 

[zoobie]

As a professor, if I am going to discuss a student's performance in my class, that must be done in private. A student might want to discuss with me a reason they have missed classes that they want to have kept private. There are cases of academic dishonesty that must be investigated in private.

 

Even though emails are going through the university system to university email addresses, they are still private emails between the professor and the student. This requirement is usually in place because of a privacy requirement; anyone can set up an email that is for sally.jones@gmail So, someone can pose as Sally and send the professor emails, thus gaining private information about Sally. The university has assigned an email to Sally, so the professor can be confident that emails coming from that address are from Sally.

And if you asked an admin (confidentiality--there was a specific chain of command...in my grad school, it was dept head first; in law school, it was the dean of students) to sit in on every meeting you had with the opposite sex, you would be let go. No one has time for that nonsense. You'd only call in another person in extreme circumstances.

 

I'm positively gobsmacked that people cannot imagine multiple professional situations where two individuals need to meet privately on a regular basis.

[maize]

My husband works the overnight shift and he's currently training a female employee. It's just the two of them, alone. If he refused (which he wouldn't because he isn't ridiculous), he'd be discriminating against her and hindering her career (he's close to retirement, she's not). But wait. As a civilian employee of a U.S. Air Force contractor he can't refuse. Federal discrimination is illegal. And yet, the VP, who is also a federal government employee albeit at one of the highest levels, can refuse? He can choose discrimination?

To be fair, he never said he wouldn't train a female employee.

 

I doubt your dh is being ordered to take his trainee out to dinner.

 

We are talking about a practice that has probably unintended discriminatory effects, but it is one that crosses into the gray zone between professional and personal life and is much more subtle than refusing to ever work alone with a member of the opposite sex. I'm not aware of the current VP ever stating that he would not hold meetings with or work 1 on 1 with a female.

 

There are people in this thread espousing such standards, but MP is not so far as I know among them (though it would be pretty hilarious if he were trolling the WTM board.)

[historically accurate]

Interesting that he has not come across this where he works. I've been reading the book "The Monogamy Myth" and the author quoted a number of studies that found quite a high level of men and women reporting having extra marital or extra-relationship sex. The "Hite Report"in 1980 found 72% of men married 2 years or more had done so. I think it is a lot more common than we think. She also mentioned that many of these affairs are with people they work with. I only work 1 day a week and am not one of those people in the loop, but even I've been aware of a number of affairs where I work.

 

Only 36% of people report having had a work affair or a business trip affair, which is only half of the 72% quoted there.  

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

[TechWife]

 

I protect myself from harassment in part by setting up meetings in a way that protects myself.  I protect myself from temptation by controlling my mind.  (Not that that has been an issue.) 

 

 

 

This, exactly! 

 

Very well said. 

[TechWife]

no it doesn't. All he has to do is have a third person present. Even doctors have to do that.

 

No, they don't. The only time I've had a "chaperone" in an MD appointment was at the OB/GYN (in some states this is required, in others, it is not). Other than that, I can't tell you how many times I have been alone with physicians - it's standard operating procedure. In fact, it's against privacy regulations for them to require anyone else to be present. 

 

Besides, where are these "third person" people going to come from? If I am not needed in a meeting, it is a waste of time and money to have me there for the sole reason of chaperoning the people who need to be there. If this is "normal" - no wonder there's a glass ceiling. 

 

Making sure my character is of the quality that avoids impropriety is much more important than avoiding the appearance of impropriety. If my character is in line, I'm not going to get out of line. If my character is right, then any co-workers who behave inappropriately towards me are going to find themselves reported to HR and, it they have committed a crime, the police.  I would refuse to work alone with someone if they have a history of sexually harassing me, and yes, I would fully expect that there is a possibility of losing my job should I chose not to do that, but I wouldn't want to work for such a company anyway.   

Edited April 2, 2017 by TechWife

[Barb_]

Only 36% of people report having had a work affair or a business trip affair, which is only half of the 72% quoted there.

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

Infidelity is far more likely to happen as a result of the social media. People who MEET at work, probably in an office on the way to the bathroom or in a meeting about something boring, are far more likely to carry on an affair thanks to the privacy of texting. Affairs were happening in the 30%- ish range in the 1950s when we succeeded in shoving women literally and metaphorically back into the kitchen. Current statistics on affairs are hiding all sorts of related circumstances and you can't really use them to justify thesexual segregation some people are espousing.

[Barb_]

No, they don't. The only time I've had a "chaperone" in an MD appointment was at the OB/GYN (in some states this is required, in others, it is not). Other than that, I can't tell you how many times I have been alone with physicians - it's standard operating procedure. In fact, it's against privacy regulations for them to require anyone else to be present.

 

Besides, where are these "third person" people going to come from? If I am not needed in a meeting, it is a waste of time and money to have me there for the sole reason of chaperoning the people who need to be there. If this is "normal" - no wonder there's a glass ceiling.

I wonder how common this really is. Is it 30% of male employees? 15%? Obviously, the savviest will keep it quiet, so we can't really know how many women out there are routinely kept out of the loop. I know I plan to have a long talk with each of my girls. Now that I know this kind of discrimination exists, I plan to point it out and find out if they've ever experienced the kind of arms length treatment described in this theead. We're going to brainstorm ideas to drag it out into the light and to defend themselves by keeping records and asking pointed questions. This can't be allowed to continue in the workplace.

[Jean in Newcastle]

There are lots of temptations out there. You can be tempted to pad your expense account. So you have a decision to make. If you choose to do so, you are stealing from the company. I suppose that you could simply never work for a company that has an expense account, but most of us would tell ourselves no. We don't give into the temptation.

 

Now embezzling has criminal consequences that "fishing off the company dock" doesn't have. And some people don't think that extramarital affairs are wrong. They risk their spouse finding out. And they risk divorce but they may not think that is enough of a deterrent. And some have open marriages.

 

What I am saying is that not all affairs happen because the person is struggling against temptation. Some happen because the people involved don't value monogamy. I know that the coworkers that I knew were in blatant affairs were like that. They didn't lose the fight against temptation because they didn't think it was wrong to begin with.

 

Now I'm sure that some do think it is wrong and do it anyway but I think that if you are looking at statistics and talking about temptation, that you need to acknowledge that not all people "fall" into temptation. Some openly choose to have them because they don't share the values or beliefs that many of us share.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCB]

Only 36% of people report having had a work affair or a business trip affair, which is only half of the 72% quoted there.  

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

 

Difficult to tell how reliable those statistics you linked are. I was unable to see anything about how they were collected etc. Also some of them were rather alarming so I hope they aren't true - I can't see the exact figures as I type this, but I think it said over 70% of men and over 60% of women said they would have an affair if they knew they were sure they wouldn't get caught or something like that.

[Barb_]

There are lots of temptations out there. You can be tempted to pad your expense account. So you have a decision to make. If you choose to do so, you are stealing from the company. I suppose that you could simply never work for a company that has an expense account, but most of us would tell ourselves no. We don't give into the temptation.

 

Now embezzling has criminal consequences that "fishing off the company dock" doesn't have. And some people don't think that extramarital affairs are wrong. They risk their spouse finding out. And they risk divorce but they may not think that is enough of a deterrent. And some have open marriages.

 

What I am saying is that not all affairs happen because the person is struggling against temptation. Some happen because the people involved don't value monogamy. I know that the coworkers that I knew were in blatant affairs were like that. They didn't lose the fight against temptation because they didn't think it was wrong to begin with.

 

Now I'm sure that some do think it is wrong and do it anyway but I think that if you are looking at statistics and talking about temptation, that you need to acknowledge that not all people "fall" into temptation. Some openly choose to have them because they don't share the values or beliefs that many of us share.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your example was much better than mine upthread. Well said.

[Barb_]

Difficult to tell how reliable those statistics you linked are. I was unable to see anything about how they were collected etc. Also some of them were rather alarming so I hope they aren't true - I can't see the exact figures as I type this, but I think it said over 70% of men and over 60% of women said they would have an affair if they knew they were sure they wouldn't get caught or something like that.

I would imagine the "wish for an affair" statistic was even higher when divorce was less common. I think that's human nature. Monogamy is a social construct, not a strictly biological one.

[TCB]

I would imagine the "wish for an affair" statistic was even higher when divorce was less common. I think that's human nature. Monogamy is a social construct, not a strictly biological one.

 

This is the assertion of the author in "Monogamy Myth" also. I do think that monogamy is possible, and for me it is definitely preferable. The author's stance is that unless we face the fact that there are things in society that make monogamy more difficult, then we can't really do as much to effectively promote it.

[DesertBlossom]

It doesn't matter what the motivation is, in PRACTICE it's discriminatory. I don't care how non-politically conservative anyone is. But when someone won't work - late hours, over dinner, 1on q meeting - with me because I'm a woman, that is discrimination even if in his mind he's being a dedicated family man. He should get an different job.

 

Again, until there is evidence that any woman was actually discriminated against by Pence, this is all ridiculous.

 

According to the link upthread, in the article written by a woman who actually worked for him, there was never any discrimination. It sounds like it was actually a great work environment. So just because you can't fathom how his personal choices aren't discriminatory, doesn't mean they are.

[zoobie]

Why do people think that having rules about dinner will prevent affairs? You already took a legal (and for most of the folks advocating this rule a religious) vow to cleave only unto your spouse. If you're willing to break that one, a personal rule about dinner is nothing.

 

Someone who wants to cheat will cheat.

[TCB]

Personal responsibility is definitely extremely important. However, for some other problems/temptations there are mechanisms in place to reduce their occurrence. For instance, I'm fairly sure there are checks carried out on expense accounts etc.

[heartlikealion]

Why do people think that having rules about dinner will prevent affairs? You already took a legal (and for most of the folks advocating this rule a religious) vow to cleave only unto your spouse. If you're willing to break that one, a personal rule about dinner is nothing.

 

Someone who wants to cheat will cheat.

 

I think it's because the frequent dinners can lead to a relationship. Maybe an emotional affair. Then it spirals from there. It's not like boom dinner = affair. Just that it could be the beginning of a slippery slope.

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by heartlikealion

[Barb_]

Personal responsibility is definitely extremely important. However, for some other problems/temptations there are mechanisms in place to reduce their occurrence. For instance, I'm fairly sure there are checks carried out on expense accounts etc.

No there aren't. Expense accounts are left up to the individual unless there are consistent, glaring discrepancies.

[zoobie]

I think it's because the frequent dinners can lead to a relationship. Maybe an emotional affair. Then it spirals from there. It's not like boom dinner = affair. Just that it could be the beginning of a slippery slope.

 

Working together can lead to a relationship. You usually want relationships with your co-workers. You're not robots on a line. As someone talked about Billy Graham wanting to avoid the **appearance** of impropriety, that's all it is--a big show.

[TCB]

Why do people think that having rules about dinner will prevent affairs? You already took a legal (and for most of the folks advocating this rule a religious) vow to cleave only unto your spouse. If you're willing to break that one, a personal rule about dinner is nothing.

 

Someone who wants to cheat will cheat.

 

I think you are right. But I also think that you can do things to make it easier to cheat and also more difficult to cheat. It's not going out to dinner that makes someone cheat. It's that being alone with someone in a more social situation may make it more likely to share personal things which in turn may make it more likely for intimacy to develop. I know the old line of "my husband/wife doesn't understand me" etc is a stereotype but I think it is one because it does happen that way often. You are far less likely to have the same effect saying something like this to a group than you are saying it to one person who you see often because of work. Don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly.

[TechWife]

Personal responsibility is definitely extremely important. However, for some other problems/temptations there are mechanisms in place to reduce their occurrence. For instance, I'm fairly sure there are checks carried out on expense accounts etc.

 

Random checks, maybe. But, my husband can report expenses below a certain amount without turning in a receipt (such as a short cab ride). If he was not allowed to do this, he would be turning in upwards of 50 receipts per trip, and he travels a lot. Embezzlement isn't hard to do for people who understand how the system works and people have to trust their coworkers. That's why embezzlement can go on for years before it becomes known. 

[TCB]

No there aren't. Expense accounts are left up to the individual unless there are consistent, glaring discrepancies.

 

I've never had an expense account but I always thought they had to be submitted to the company with receipts etc. 

[Barb_]

This is the assertion of the author in "Monogamy Myth" also. I do think that monogamy is possible, and for me it is definitely preferable. The author's stance is that unless we face the fact that there are things in society that make monogamy more difficult, then we can't really do as much to effectively promote it.

An affair would novel and fun and a way to shake things up. People who engage in affairs put their own desire for fun ahead of their long-range life satisfaction. Affairs in an otherwise happy marriage are an executive function failing. I'd argue that it's better to develop the will than to try to control the environment. Controlling the environment is what we do for small children who are still learning to develop self control.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Barb_

[Barb_]

I've never had an expense account but I always thought they had to be submitted to the company with receipts etc.

Depends. When I moved across the country on the company's dime, I was supposed to save receipts but only ever remembered half of them. They never questioned it. My husband doesn't have to submit anything but his expense report.

[TCB]

Random checks, maybe. But, my husband can report expenses below a certain amount without turning in a receipt (such as a short cab ride). If he was not allowed to do this, he would be turning in upwards of 50 receipts per trip, and he travels a lot. Embezzlement isn't hard to do for people who understand how the system works and people have to trust their coworkers. That's why embezzlement can go on for years before it becomes known. 

 

There's always a way around things if you are really determined. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about personal responsibility and doing what's right because it's right, not because you will get caught. But I'm pretty sure there are usually mechanisms in place to make it a little more difficult to make the wrong choice. For instance, cameras and security in stores etc. Knowing that they are there are a deterrent to some if not to everyone. There are people who will do wrong no matter what, but there are also people, who maybe don't have as strong a sense of right/wrong, who are deterred by knowing that there are things in place to find them out etc.

[Barb_]

Working together can lead to a relationship. You usually want relationships with your co-workers. You're not robots on a line. As someone talked about Billy Graham wanting to avoid the **appearance** of impropriety, that's all it is--a big show.

That's true. Oftentimes it takes a little familiarity to cool someone's jets. There have been times when I've thought someone was attractive only to have cold water thrown on it once I grew to know him. Actually, that has happened far more often than developing feelings for someone in my experience.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Barb_

[TCB]

An affair would novel and fun and a way to shake things up. People who engage in affairs put their own desire for fun ahead of their long-range life satisfaction. Affairs in an otherwise happy marriage are an executive function failing. I'd argue that it's better to develop the will than to try to control the environment. Controlling the environment is what we do for small children who are still learning to develop self control.

 

I'm not really saying just control the environment. I'm suggesting, also, that awareness of what makes it easier or more difficult is a good thing to have. In the long run very few rules are that successful in completely stopping something from happening. But awareness of the mechanism or consequences can help. And if someone wants to but boundaries in place to help themselves then I no longer think that is a crazy thing to do.

[Twolittleboys]

I think people just need to be a bit pragmatic. I do think it is silly to have a rule ("never go out for a meal with just one person of the opposite sex", "don't go to parties") etc. I think it is perfectly reasonable to adjust according to individual cases.

 

If I am working with a team I dislike and find the idea of having dinner with them every night unappealing I will make excuses (too tired, need to work on something etc.) most of the time and just go along sometimes/rarely. If I find a specific coworker creepy I will avoid being alone with him/her as much as possible.

 

And I do think there is a risk of becoming emotionally involved. But I don't think it happens overnight. So there is nothing wrong with going out/working alone etc. to start with. If you then start getting a bit too close with someone and do not want it to get more serious, you can make adjustments at that point. Much easier than following a blanket rule just in case something could happen.

[Barb_]

I'm not really saying just control the environment. I'm suggesting, also, that awareness of what makes it easier or more difficult is a good thing to have. In the long run very few rules are that successful in completely stopping something from happening. But awareness of the mechanism or consequences can help. And if someone wants to but boundaries in place to help themselves then I no longer think that is a crazy thing to do.

I agree with the awareness part. And boundaries are good if feelings are developing. Ideally both parties would be aware of those boundaries rather than one party suddenly begins avoiding someone he or she was friendly with. But I think blanket rules against the other sex is a lot like keeping the cookies on a high shelf. It's not appropriate for grown people.

[heartlikealion]

Working together can lead to a relationship. You usually want relationships with your co-workers. You're not robots on a line. As someone talked about Billy Graham wanting to avoid the **appearance** of impropriety, that's all it is--a big show.

 

I wasn't really thinking about workmates that are alone together a lot in the office. I was thinking about workmates that are creating unnecessary alone time by leaving the office to eat out together or do other things together out of work. I used to work with a guy that sat right next to me. Of course we talked and got to know each other. Sometimes we'd have to work late to make deadlines. If I worked late there were less people in the building. But I didn't go out to eat with him one on one. That would have felt weird. For some reason he made it a point to tell dh that he worked late hours alone with me, as if trying to get a rise out of dh. Ugh. Honestly I don't think I worked with him after hours that often but it's all kind of a blur now.

 

[Barb_]

I've been alone with men at work etc and I've never been tempted to have an affair. I always thought the way you both did. Unfortunately I've now had personal experience of a spouse having an affair. I've been reading a lot about it and it is far more common than I thought. I always thought that having rules about not meeting one-on-one with a member of the opposite sex were a bit over the top. .

I forgot to acknowledge your above quote. I'm sorry for what you're going through. I am. I hope it works out for you in whichever way you're happiest.

 

I went through this ten years ago. We made it through, but he hasn't stopped meeting with his females colleagues, or traveling with them, or eating with them. He just stopped being a jerk.

[DesertBlossom]

I agree with the awareness part. And boundaries are good if feelings are developing. Ideally both parties would be aware of those boundaries rather than one party suddenly begins avoiding someone he or she was friendly with. But I think blanket rules against the other sex is a lot like keeping the cookies on a high shelf. It's not appropriate for grown people.

 

What that's like to go through life believing that your way of doing things is best for everyone else too?

 

Unless I missed it, I don't think any person on this thread has been able to give an actual example where someone was discriminated against because of an another person's personal no-dinner policy.  All the examples of discrimination have been purely hypothetical. Primarily because there probably aren't that many people out there who adhere to that rule, so encountering them is a non-issue. Although I suspect that some people are really good at setting firm boundaries in a way that other people don't even notice. Sounds like Pence didn't go out to dinner with male colleagues either, so this the hysteria over this is mind-boggling.

[Jean in Newcastle]

What that's like to go through life believing that your way of doing things is best for everyone else too?

 

Unless I missed it, I don't think any person on this thread has been able to give an actual example where someone was discriminated against because of an another person's personal no-dinner policy.  All the examples of discrimination have been purely hypothetical. Primarily because there probably aren't that many people out there who adhere to that rule, so encountering them is a non-issue. Although I suspect that some people are really good at setting firm boundaries in a way that other people don't even notice. Sounds like Pence didn't go out to dinner with male colleagues either, so this the hysteria over this is mind-boggling.

 

You do realize that this thread isn't specifically about Pence, don't you?

[Joker]

I've never had an expense account but I always thought they had to be submitted to the company with receipts etc.

Dh doesn't have to turn in receipts for meals. He gets a flat rate per day when traveling for food. He does turn in receipts for hotels and rental cars but I've traveled with him several times and it never lists that there were two people in the room. The hotel knows and doesn't care but because he's booking through a company website it always just says one adult. I wouldn't count on companies being a check and balance for possible relationships forming.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Joker

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm getting all these threads mixed up.  But I want to say (perhaps again) that I would not want to be married to a man who needs a "non-fraternization with women in general" rule as a chastity belt.  I would assume that some of the people who do want such a thing are the same ones who have husbands who need a Net Nanny (or equivalent) to keep them from viewing porn. I 100% agree with Barb on her comments about self control and adults. 

[Barb_]

What that's like to go through life believing that your way of doing things is best for everyone else too?

 

Unless I missed it, I don't think any person on this thread has been able to give an actual example where someone was discriminated against because of an another person's personal no-dinner policy. All the examples of discrimination have been purely hypothetical. Primarily because there probably aren't that many people out there who adhere to that rule, so encountering them is a non-issue. Although I suspect that some people are really good at setting firm boundaries in a way that other people don't even notice. Sounds like Pence didn't go out to dinner with male colleagues either, so this the hysteria over this is mind-boggling.

The question is, "how many people out there actually enforce this rule?" Enough to affect statistics on hiring and promotion practices? Enough to affect salaries? There's a grad school thesis in here somewhere.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Barb_

[TCB]

I forgot to acknowledge your above quote. I'm sorry for what you're going through. I am. I hope it works out for you in whichever way you're happiest.

 

I went through this ten years ago. We made it through, but he hasn't stopped meeting with his females colleagues, or traveling with them, or eating with them. He just stopped being a jerk.

 

You are right. I can't prevent my husband from doing it again if he decides to do so. It's up to him. I try not to police him because I don't think that is the answer. It's interesting that you mentioned executive function and affairs. He does have executive function issues. I feel that for him, if he had had a few self-rules that he'd stuck to, he might have avoided what happened. But he didn't and it is what it is. I actually don't feel the need for a lot of rules myself because I have a pretty strong will to do what I think right. But I can see that there are people who might do well to impose some intentional boundaries for themselves.

[creekland]

I think people just need to be a bit pragmatic. I do think it is silly to have a rule ("never go out for a meal with just one person of the opposite sex", "don't go to parties") etc. I think it is perfectly reasonable to adjust according to individual cases.

 

If I am working with a team I dislike and find the idea of having dinner with them every night unappealing I will make excuses (too tired, need to work on something etc.) most of the time and just go along sometimes/rarely. If I find a specific coworker creepy I will avoid being alone with him/her as much as possible.

 

And I do think there is a risk of becoming emotionally involved. But I don't think it happens overnight. So there is nothing wrong with going out/working alone etc. to start with. If you then start getting a bit too close with someone and do not want it to get more serious, you can make adjustments at that point. Much easier than following a blanket rule just in case something could happen.

 

Well said.  Again, why ban everyone from driving just because some (many) opt to text and drive and some crash?  It doesn't mean everyone will do it.  When you find someone texting while they drive - punish them.

 

EMSE said:  

 

So this is the point that I and others have been addressing.  I don't find these things sexual either.  Again, just because someone makes different choices, it doesn't follow that they must ascribe the loaded motive that you're stating here to their own or anyone else's actions.  No one I know thinks that a one-on-one dinner with someone is necessarily sexual in any way.  They don't think going to conferences or having meetings or working in the field with them is sexual or will become sexual.  I mean, I guess, at least from my perspective, it's not because I think those activities are sexual. I do not ascribe sexual motives or aspirations to everyone I meet and I don't think every interaction with the opposite sex is sexual in nature (uh, thank God!). 

 

If you agree with me, I'm not sure what "our" debate is... these things can happen - there's no reason to have a blanket rule not allowing them any more than we need church services with men on one side and women on the other so the two can't meet.  If individuals have a problem with one-on-one and want to have their own leashes, so be it, but if in a boss or power position, they ought to switch to something else to not affect others due to their personal issues.  There are plenty of jobs where one on one is not necessary.

 

I have had/do have male friends that have been purely platonic as well as had a few where feelings have developed on one side or the other.  I have/had many good friends who are guys.  I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  Of course women can have guy friends where nothing sexual happens.  Has someone suggested otherwise?

 

Plenty have suggested men and women shouldn't be alone together due to what might happen...

 

Total tangent: It's funny, because I just thought about it in the context of this thread and with my DH, our getting together was based on meeting one time.  I mean, not a hookup, but we did not start dating based on a long-standing friendship. It was literally one dinner out (not alone, ha ha) that got us interested in each other.  We were never friends before going out.  That's weird when I think about it because I always thought I'd end up married to someone I had been friends with for a long time (not a specific person, just, that's how I thought it "happened")

 

Hubby and I dated first (he invited me to a college dance).  I despised how arrogant he was and didn't like him at all.  He kept being persistent - and had money - so could take me out to meals back in the day when college food was iffy at best (it's incredibly better at my Alma mater now!).  From those dinners we developed a friendship and that led to marriage, so yes, dinners can lead to marriage - with quite a few steps in between in my case - literally - steps.  One of our favorite friend activities was hiking and traveling.

 

FWIW, he's no longer arrogant.  I corrupted him. His senior (4th) year of college (before we started dating as he took 5 years to finish) he was voted "Most Likely to Get Shot By His Own Troops."  Now he's loved by everyone who meets him. He just needed to learn some people skills...   :coolgleamA:  

[Barb_]

You are right. I can't prevent my husband from doing it again if he decides to do so. It's up to him. I try not to police him because I don't think that is the answer. It's interesting that you mentioned executive function and affairs. He does have executive function issues. I feel that for him, if he had had a few self-rules that he'd stuck to, he might have avoided what happened. But he didn't and it is what it is. I actually don't feel the need for a lot of rules myself because I have a pretty strong will to do what I think right. But I can see that there are people who might do well to impose some intentional boundaries for themselves.

:grouphug: Seriously, you are in the no-fun chapter of your marriage right now. Take care of yourself.

 

ETA if you guys are in counseling, you may want to bring up the idea of executive functioning. Maybe he can get some help for that. My husband ended up on Ritalin. That and a lot of training saved our marriage and his career.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Barb_

[DesertBlossom]

The question is, "how many people out there actually enforce this rule?" Enough to affect statistics on hiring and promotion practices? Enough to affect salaries? There's a grad school thesis in here somewhere.

 

Was it SKL that said that in her field of work if an employee wasn't able to work according to her conditions they would be terminated? Perhaps these people are limiting their own careers? Maybe they more likely to get fired for not being more available?  (Sounds like not many people here would care if that's the case)  I am guessing that people with strong convictions like this either find a way to work around it so that it's a non-issue for all involved. Or, they may gravitate towards jobs that don't regularly require one-on-one dinners with coworkers.

Edited April 2, 2017 by DesertBlossom

[heartlikealion]

I'm getting all these threads mixed up.  But I want to say (perhaps again) that I would not want to be married to a man who needs a "non-fraternization with women in general" rule as a chastity belt.  I would assume that some of the people who do want such a thing are the same ones who have husbands who need a Net Nanny (or equivalent) to keep them from viewing porn. I 100% agree with Barb on her comments about self control and adults. 

 

Lol it might not be that at all. It could be that the spouse is hopelessly oblivious and has no idea that women are interested in him until the women is very direct. Dh is quite oblivious. He recently found out someone has a crush on him because a mutual friend blurted it out (online gaming buddy from years ago) and he was shocked. I wasn't.

 

ETA: I'm not really sure what non-fraternization with women in general means exactly. I don't think all of us were going that far, just requesting limited one on one interactions.

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by heartlikealion

[TechWife]

I've never had an expense account but I always thought they had to be submitted to the company with receipts etc.

No, not always. Company policies vary.

[DesertBlossom]

I'm getting all these threads mixed up.  But I want to say (perhaps again) that I would not want to be married to a man who needs a "non-fraternization with women in general" rule as a chastity belt.  I would assume that some of the people who do want such a thing are the same ones who have husbands who need a Net Nanny (or equivalent) to keep them from viewing porn. I 100% agree with Barb on her comments about self control and adults. 

 

How did not having dinner with a coworker of the opposite sex get turned into "non-fraternization with women in general?"