Not going out with opposite sex without spouse

[Barb_]

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 a) 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.

All good points and all possibilities. The problem lies when someone in a supervisory role has a personal rule for themselves. If the rule is only hurting the career of the person who keeps that rule, well then I reserve the right to raise an eyebrow and think it's weird. But when it prevents lower level employees from gaining access to training or information or promotions--that's illegal.

[Barb_]

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

When people on this thread mentioned having this rule for themselves or their husbands or knew of people who do.

[MercyA]

If Pence and Graham can't go over a memo with a female staffer unless chaperoned, that says a heck of a lot about their own moral failings.

 

Well, we may as well get it out there in the open: Mike Pence is afraid of girls.

 

Those are some pretty harsh assumptions. I'm no fan of Pence or, truth be told, Billy Graham, but how could you possibly know their internal motivations?

 

I would trust my husband completely in a room full of bikini-clad models throwing themselves at him. :) It doesn't mean he still wouldn't take steps to avoid any appearance of impropriety if necessary. It has zero to do with his character (which is stellar) or any supposed fear of women (he's more of a feminist than I am). 

 

I don't quite get the level of angst expressed on this thread. There's only so much we can know about a person based on a few comments made years ago.

Edited April 2, 2017 by MercyA

[DesertBlossom]

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.

 

Did someone suggest banning everyone from having dinner with co-workers? These are personal guidelines that one person has set for himself.

 

A more appropriate analogy here is someone who decides to keep their purse in the back seat so that if they receive a text or call it's impossible to answer while driving. You might think that's stupid and that they should have the self-control to leave it next to them and also ignore it. But does it affect you?  

[DesertBlossom]

When people on this thread mentioned having this rule for themselves or their husbands or knew of people who do.

 

I must have missed that.

[Barb_]

I must have missed that.

It's a long thread.

[maize]

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.

Adhering to such a rule does not necessarily mean the person is exceptionally prone to temptation on the issue.

 

My husband actually does have a policy of avoiding hanging out alone with female co-workers. He is a rule-oriented person in general and does not want to ever give the impression of even a hint of impropriety.

 

He is not in a career where work is typically carried out over dinner, nor is he in an influential or mentoring type position. He does not have a problem with meeting privately in an office or conference room with female co-workers to get work done, but he would not go out to dinner alone with a female co-worker and prefers to avoid sharing a car alone with a woman.

 

I have zero concerns about infidelity with him.

 

I don't think such a policy is always discriminatory; it becomes discriminatory when a person with significant authority or influence is more accessible to members of one sex than the other. If a person does dine alone with male colleagues but not with female colleagues, and if relationships and/or negotiations that impact work and careers develop or could develop during such meetings, the policy is discriminatory.

Edited April 2, 2017 by maize

[Barb_]

Maize! I'm usually on my phone and can't see siglines. I didn't know you were pregnant! Congratulations:D

[maize]

Maize! I'm usually on my phone and can't see siglines. I didn't know you were pregnant! Congratulations:D

Thanks!

 

One month to go...

[SKL]

I just saw in the news that bit where the Fox News celebrity has had FIVE multi million dollar sexual harassment charges, where apparently he promised to mentor young women privately, but then ruined their career changes at the network if they rejected his advances.  Some of these were paid by the Fox News chairman who has had his own set of similar charges.

 

I wonder if that plays into this all, if there is a culture at play where men are either very strict family men or 1950s-style "Mad Men" style predators.

 

I am sure there is a broad range of personalities, as I certainly see in my own personal experiences and the many anecdotes we've all read.  I do think there are some subcultures where this is tolerated more than others.  But also individuals vary greatly wrt their interest in or willingless to pursue emotional or sexual relationships outside of monogamy.  There are certainly men whose minds just don't go there.  There are married "family men" (politically conservative and liberal) whose minds easily go there.  I think it helps to acknowledge that as reality.

[SKL]

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.

 

I had a very nice guy assigned to me as a "mentor" when I was in business school.  The way the program worked, the mentor took the mentee out to lunch one-on-one.  My mentor spent a large % of the time talking about his awesome wife.  I got the distinct impression that he was trying to build a wall against the possibility of non-professional "interest" on my part.  Which is fine, but that is also kind of awkward.

 

[SKL]

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'm not sure it's about preventing "affairs."  It may be about preventing the potential or appearance of impropriety on the part of either participant.

 

It may sound stereotypical, but it is really not that unusual for a woman to be opportunist with men in power.  I've seen it so many times.  It's one thing to be strong and ward off these attentions as they happen.  But what is wrong with just avoiding them in the first place?

 

ETA:  It is entirely possible that someone threatened MP (or a colleague) with an accusation of impropriety that did not actually occur.  It's hard to disprove something that never happened when you were alone with someone.  So maybe he just thought, screw this, I'm not opening myself up to that possibility.

 

In MP's place, I would just not take men OR women out to dinner one-on-one.  I don't know what his actual practices are as VP.  I really don't care what he said more than a decade ago on this topic.  It only shows one piece of the puzzle.  He may have set up more in-office meetings or multiple-party dinners with women, who knows?  To me, the point is that careers don't ride on one-on-one dinners.  If some do, they shouldn't.  Who you ate dinner with does not prove whether you have harmed women's careers, any more than it proves you've destroyed marriages.

Edited April 2, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

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

 

Every place I worked had someone checking expenses line by line.

 

[HTRMom]

I would have no problem with my husband having a business lunch with his female boss or another coworker. I might question him if he was eating with the same women alone every week, but not like I would definitely forbid it. I would be extremely uncomfortable with him taking a business trip with only a woman, especially if it was more than a couple of days. A married couple that I am close with had the husband cheat on his wife with his secretary during a long business trip and now it's just a sensitive issue for me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lady Florida.]

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.)

 

But he said he wouldn't be alone with one. Training is my husband's reason for needing to work alone with a female. There are other reasons of course. Regardless of the reason for being alone - training, taking or giving notes/dictation, discussing policy, etc. - refusing to be alone with an employee based solely on what's between the person's (or your own) legs, is beyond absurd.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[TCB]

: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.

We aren't in counseling at the moment but I'm going to read up on that some more. Thanks for the suggestion. Glad you made it through this and it's encouraging for me to know that you did.

[8circles]

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.

Well, there are several threads on this same topic so I don't know where all my posts are going. But I've shared that this did happen to me on several occasions - I don't have specifics because I've been a sahm for over a decade now. Nobody has responded to my examples except to say they have a job that doesn't require men & women alone together so mine must not have either.

 

This is about much more than Pence at this point and that's been said repeatedly.

[8circles]

Every place I worked had someone checking expenses line by line.

 

When I worked for a company that sent me traveling rarely, expenses were checked line by line. When I worked for a company who sent me traveling every week, they didn't - up to a certain amount was assumed and anything beyond that needed receipts. Edited April 2, 2017 by 8circles

[maize]

But he said he wouldn't be alone with one. Training is my husband's reason for needing to work alone with a female. There are other reasons of course. Regardless of the reason for being alone - training, taking or giving notes/dictation, discussing policy, etc. - refusing to be alone with an employee based solely on what's between the person's (or your own) legs, is beyond absurd.

Did he say he would not be alone with a female co-worker/employee? I haven't read the actual quote. I thought it was just about not going to dinner alone.

 

Never being alone with someone of the opposite sex would be hard to pull off in most professional environments and definitely limiting.

[QueenCat]

 And yet, the VP, who is also a federal government employee albeit at one of the highest levels, can refuse? He can choose discrimination? 

 

And this particular federal employee, as VP, should be attending every expected diplomatic social, regardless of whether his wife is able to attend or alcohol is served, unless another more pressing national matter needs more attention than our diplomatic relations at that given time. It's just a part of being VP, no matter what political party one is affiliated with.

[Slartibartfast]

Without being certain of particulars it can be hard to deduce exactly every single aspect of this issue.

 

I think it is a legitimate concern and one that should be clarified.

 

There should be a diverse representation in public service. Limiting others because of one's very particular manner of doings things is not something that should happen at higher levels.

[Slartibartfast]

Did he say he would not be alone with a female co-worker/employee? I haven't read the actual quote. I thought it was just about not going to dinner alone.

 

Never being alone with someone of the opposite sex would be hard to pull off in most professional environments and definitely limiting.

There wasn't a statement on whether or not someone could be alone with someone of the opposite gender if food was not present.

 

I don't know why it would be ok if there was not food but not if there was food. Is food inherently romantic but not if there is no food?

 

I don't get it.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Slartibartfast

[EmseB]

Nobody has responded to my examples except to say they have a job that doesn't require men & women alone together so mine must not have either.

Wow. I will happily discuss this stuff all day long in depth, get a little salty, even. But that's some chutzpah to tell someone that their experience was not their experience. I must've missed that tangent in one of the threads. How could someone say what your job did or did not require based on their own job? That kind of stuff definitely makes these convos more frustrating.

[SKL]

When I worked for a company that sent me traveling rarely, expenses were checked line by line. When I worked for a company who sent me traveling every week, they didn't - up to a certain amount was assumed and anything beyond that needed receipts.

 

We had a "per diem" meal allowance for each meal as allowed by the IRS, which we could use instead of restaurant receipts if we wanted to.  I often used the "per diem" allowance rather than submit individual receipts for my apples and cereal bars, LOL.  But the per diem allowance was indeed checked and verified as to whether I was entitled to it.  And while I did make a few bucks on that policy (also saved the company by not eating at restaurants), I don't think anyone ever got rich on per diems.  :P

 

The IRS requires very accurate reporting and documentation of meals, entertainment, travel, lodging, and employee fringe expenditures.  Companies have to be detailed for tax purposes even if they don't pinch pennies otherwise.  And many companies are not profitable enough to let people play around with expense accounts.  I remember being in that role and questioning the need for x number of gourmet coffees at the airport in one day.  (In retrospect that was pretty anal.)

[8circles]

Goodness, you missed my point entirely. My point wasn't about John at all. It's about taking offense at one positive comment about someone else's choice.

 

But, I guess in a way your post is the perfect example of something like that. "John sure seems dedicated to his family because he does x." "Yeah, well you don't know that, John could be a total jerk and I've thought of a dozen reasons why he's probably a total a-hole."

 

Okay, then.

 

Nope. I'm not saying he's probably a total a-hole. I am not making any assumption at all, I'm saying one can't make an assumption about him being a family man because he does X and therefore it doesn't matter that by doing x he discriminates, because doing x means he's a family man.

 

IF someone discriminates against a protected class, it makes no difference that he had good intentions and never meant to discriminate.

 

I don't care if John is an a-hole or family man of the year - he can't discriminate against a protected class.

[8circles]

You say I'm not getting the point, but then totally bypassed the point of both of my posts, so it seems we are talking past one another. Along with the last bit where you just disregard what I've said to put words in my mouth. Ah well, I suppose that's the nature of message boards.

 

If I didn't get your point, you could try restating it.

[maize]

There wasn't a statement on whether or not someone could be alone with someone of the opposite gender if food was not present.

 

I don't know why it would be ok if there was not food but not if there was food. Is food inherently romantic but not if there is no food?

 

I don't get it.

Dinner together is a common way to sicialize, including dating. It looks/feels different to many people than sitting in a conference room going over project notes or something.

 

I have still not seen anything saying MP refuses to ever meet one on one with a woman in a work context.

 

I do think that given his prominence/influence and the type of career he is in that a willingness to have dinners alone with males but not females is problematic, I'm just not willing to jump from that to the conclusion that he refuses to ever meet alone with a woman.

Edited April 2, 2017 by maize

[historically accurate]

Dinner together is a common way to sicialize, including dating. It looks/feels different to many people than sitting in a conference room going over project notes or something.

 

I have still not seen anything saying MP refuses to ever meet one on one with a woman in a work context.

 

I do think that given his prominence/influence and the type of career he is in that a willingness to have dinners alone with males but not females is problematic, I'm just not willing to jump from that to the conclusion that he refuses to ever meet alone with a woman.

 

This was Billy Graham's rule if I remember correctly. BG did not meet with females one on one at any time. Because Pence's rule has been compared to Graham's I think they're getting merged. Pence only mentioned it in passing many years ago, so I don't believe he refuses to meet one on one with women, but I haven't seen it definitively either way. 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by beckyjo

[TechWife]

This was Billy Graham's rule if I remember correctly. BG did not meet with females one on one at any time. Because Pence's rule has been compared to Graham's I think they're getting merged. Pence only mentioned it in passing many years ago, so I don't believe he refuses to meet one on one with women, but I haven't seen it definitively either way. 

 

Just using your post for a jumping off point.

 

I don't understand the comparison between Vice President Pence and Rev. Graham. Rev. Graham works in a patriarchal culture and not being alone with women who are not in your family is part and parcel of that culture. Vice President Pence works for the citizens of this country, which  has non-discrimination policies in place. It is not part of the overall culture in the US to segregate politics, business or social encounters. 

[lovinmyboys]

Just using your post for a jumping off point.

 

I don't understand the comparison between Vice President Pence and Rev. Graham. Rev. Graham works in a patriarchal culture and not being alone with women who are not in your family is part and parcel of that culture. Vice President Pence works for the citizens of this country, which has non-discrimination policies in place. It is not part of the overall culture in the US to segregate politics, business or social encounters.

The Mike Pence quote came from a paper in 2002 that said nothing about Billy Graham. Lots of media (slate for one) have sort of assumed or speculated that he was following the "billy graham" rule. MP never said that (as far as I know).

[TechWife]

The Mike Pence quote came from a paper in 2002 that said nothing about Billy Graham. Lots of media (slate for one) have sort of assumed or speculated that he was following the "billy graham" rule. MP never said that (as far as I know).

 

Yes, I am aware of that. I am just saying that it's like comparing apples to oranges. They are in two different cultures. 

[creekland]

Did someone suggest banning everyone from having dinner with co-workers? These are personal guidelines that one person has set for himself.

 

A more appropriate analogy here is someone who decides to keep their purse in the back seat so that if they receive a text or call it's impossible to answer while driving. You might think that's stupid and that they should have the self-control to leave it next to them and also ignore it. But does it affect you?  

 

You are making the analogy from the guy's (or lady's) POV with the policy. They are the ones making the rule to keep the purse in the back seat.

 

 I am making it from the unfortunate one left out due to being the wrong gender for the "in group."  If there is no back seat option - tough luck for them.  They aren't allowed up front.  They're punished even though they did nothing wrong and had no intention of doing anything wrong.  It's all due to "maybe something will go wrong because it did with someone else" - someone else who was likely totally unrelated.

 

If one needs a back seat, one had better not be driving a 2 seater.

[Bootsie]

I would have no problem with my husband having a business lunch with his female boss or another coworker. I might question him if he was eating with the same women alone every week, but not like I would definitely forbid it. I would be extremely uncomfortable with him taking a business trip with only a woman, especially if it was more than a couple of days. A married couple that I am close with had the husband cheat on his wife with his secretary during a long business trip and now it's just a sensitive issue for me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see what the length of the trip would matter.  Also, if a man is going to cheat while he is on a business trip, it does not have to be with a female colleague he is traveling with.  He could just as easily have an affair with a client at the place where he is traveling to.  Or, he could be taking a mistress (who doesn't work with him) along on the trip.  

[HTRMom]

I don't see what the length of the trip would matter. Also, if a man is going to cheat while he is on a business trip, it does not have to be with a female colleague he is traveling with. He could just as easily have an affair with a client at the place where he is traveling to. Or, he could be taking a mistress (who doesn't work with him) along on the trip.

Yeah, I know that. It's not entirely rational. I guess my issue with the length is that spending every night together for weeks is more likely to lead to an emotional connection compared to a couple of days.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slartibartfast]

Dinner together is a common way to sicialize, including dating. It looks/feels different to many people than sitting in a conference room going over project notes or something.

 

I have still not seen anything saying MP refuses to ever meet one on one with a woman in a work context.

 

I do think that given his prominence/influence and the type of career he is in that a willingness to have dinners alone with males but not females is problematic, I'm just not willing to jump from that to the conclusion that he refuses to ever meet alone with a woman.

It still doesn't make sense to me.

 

Given his history I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt but neither am I going to run around with torches and pitchforks over this because the whole issue lacks clarity.

[Rosie_0801]

Yeah, I know that. It's not entirely rational. I guess my issue with the length is that spending every night together for weeks is more likely to lead to an emotional connection compared to a couple of days.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's also more likely to lead to a huge relief that you aren't stuck with the blighter forever. :p

[TechWife]

Yeah, I know that. It's not entirely rational. I guess my issue with the length is that spending every night together for weeks is more likely to lead to an emotional connection compared to a couple of days.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My husband doesn't spend "every night together" with his coworkers when he travels. They occasionally eat dinner together, especially if they have similar taste in food, there is an occasional dinner with clients, but by and large, he gets up in the morning, runs, eats, works, eats, goes to his hotel, works more, sleeps, repeat. After spending all day with each other, they all have work to get done on their other business matters and they can get a bit tired of each other, too. This spending a lot of free time with each other just doesn't happen a lot. 

[Audrey]

All I know after reading this thread is that Pence now seems positively progressive compared to the views expressed in some of these posts.  

 

 

What bothers me most about that is that those posts are examples of women defending oppressive patriarchy.  It more than bothers me.  It disgusts me.  Et tu Bruta?  Et tu?

[Audrey]

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.

 

 

 

You can't control how other people react to you.  You can only control your own reactions to other people.  So, this defense of having to nix dinners with women because they might come on to you, is absurd and ineffectual, at best.  Men know the word "no" and are capable of keeping both their emotions and their genitals away from women who might "come on" to them. 

[heartlikealion]

You can't control how other people react to you.  You can only control your own reactions to other people.  So, this defense of having to nix dinners with women because they might come on to you, is absurd and ineffectual, at best.  Men know the word "no" and are capable of keeping both their emotions and their genitals away from women who might "come on" to them. 

 

No, you can't control them but you can also avoid putting yourself in a situation where you have to shoot someone down. Especially a workmate where had the "shutting down" conversation never came to a head you wouldn't have a future awkward as hell working relationship.

 

[Bluegoat]

A woman in her early 20s is an adult. If she meets with a man and he acts like a jerk, she should tell him to knock it off, and if he doesn't, she should get up and leave.

 

Honestly, I think by NOT allowing your dd to be in those situations, not only are you teaching her to fear men (because you'll be making her assume they're all after one thing,) but you're also depriving her of learning valuable social skills so she will be able to casually deflect unwanted attention -- or to directly confront it if the casual deflection doesn't work.

 

The vast majority of men are perfectly respectful and could be alone with your dd at any time and nothing bad would happen. Of course, there are always a few idiots, but she needs to learn how to effectively deal with unwanted attention, too.

 

You know, I agree with you on this, but I'm not sure the culture isn't going the other way on it.  20 year old in universities, for example, are in many cases not permitted or discouraged from dating anyone employed by the university, even if there is no direct supervisory relationship.  And relationships between staff and grad or post-grad students are being discouraged as well. 

 

There isn't a greater "power differential" in these types of circumstances than with an older mentor.  There is a lot of pressure on universities and post-secondary institutions to be in parental mode with undergraduate students in many different ways.

 

And I know  lot of parents that won't let their older kids be alone with a male music teacher or coach (and the teachers may not allow it either because of fear of some sort of accusation.)  I'm not sure there is a clear sense with people what age that should change.

 

This seems a little crazy if it is extended to adults, but really, a lot of our work relationships may have some kind of power differential or something to be gained on one side or the other.  When we take all of the relationships there seems to be a lot of pressure to consider special or monitor, and apply the same standards to other settings, it gets a little crazy IMO.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

People do thinks sometimes because they are weak.  And a lot of people don't think the point of a marriage is the vow, they think it is the emotional attachment.

 

THat being said, I'm not sure that preventing an affair is the point of having this rule.  I think it might have more to do with either not making it easy for people to gossip, or possibly about avoiding accusations.

[Scarlett]

For me it is just a standard of conduct between the sexes. It is a very simple principle which acknowledges the potential for problems of all kinds. Misunderstandings, a spouse with hurt feelings, the impression of impropriety, one party or both parties developing inappropriate feelings, and yes at the very worst end of the potential for problems is an affair which even if does not destroy a family at the very least damages a marriage and the conscience of the guilty party.

 

For myself and my husband and all the people in my life this is not a burdensome standard. Not one time has it caused me an inconvenience. And many many times I have seen the standard disregarded and a total disaster follow. Sure in some of those cases two people deliberated disregarded the standard because they WANTED to have an affair. But at least it was a clear line they crossed......they can't look back and say 'I don't know what happend'.

 

I look at it like drugs. Some people can use drugs a few times and not become addicted. Others can try it one time and their life is destroyed. So to me I was a believer in that risk....I never took the risk of becoming one of the ones that would have their life destroyed by drugs. Likewise many people here seem to have had no problem crossing the standard I have for myself about opposite sex interactions. Which is great. But it is a risk I am not willing to take.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Scarlett

[zoobie]

People do thinks sometimes because they are weak. And a lot of people don't think the point of a marriage is the vow, they think it is the emotional attachment.

 

THat being said, I'm not sure that preventing an affair is the point of having this rule. I think it might have more to do with either not making it easy for people to gossip, or possibly about avoiding accusations.

Which in and of itself is ridiculous. We should shut down the gossipers and tell them they're stupid for assuming two professionals meeting = hokey pokey. We should change our base assumption that men and women working together is something lurid that needs to be highly structured to avoid evil.

Edited April 3, 2017 by zoobie

[Scarlett]

Which in and of itself is ridiculous. We should shut down the gossipers and tell them they're stupid for assuming two professionals meeting = hokey pokey. We should change our base assumption that men and women working together is something lurid that needs to be highly structured to avoid evil.

For me....and I can only speak for myself......I don't see men/women interactions as lurid. I also think to ignore the potential for problems is naive.

[HTRMom]

My husband doesn't spend "every night together" with his coworkers when he travels. They occasionally eat dinner together, especially if they have similar taste in food, there is an occasional dinner with clients, but by and large, he gets up in the morning, runs, eats, works, eats, goes to his hotel, works more, sleeps, repeat. After spending all day with each other, they all have work to get done on their other business matters and they can get a bit tired of each other, too. This spending a lot of free time with each other just doesn't happen a lot.

Ok. Good to know. My husband spent two weeks in England last year with three other male coworkers and they spent all their evenings walking to different pubs together and the weekend visiting tourist places, besides being in the same meetings all day. Slept in the same room. He had trouble getting time to talk to me. But I'm glad that's not always the case, especially with opposite-sex trips.

[QueenCat]

My husband doesn't spend "every night together" with his coworkers when he travels. They occasionally eat dinner together, especially if they have similar taste in food, there is an occasional dinner with clients, but by and large, he gets up in the morning, runs, eats, works, eats, goes to his hotel, works more, sleeps, repeat. After spending all day with each other, they all have work to get done on their other business matters and they can get a bit tired of each other, too. This spending a lot of free time with each other just doesn't happen a lot. 

 

Mine doesn't either. On a short trip, he and his coworkers tend to spend more of their evenings together. On longer trips (more than a week), they are more likely to spend a lot of time together in the beginning but then branch out more on their own after that, maybe having dinner together every few days, unless someone they're visiting with at the travel location wants to see them all more often, in the evening.

[QueenCat]

Ok. Good to know. My husband spent two weeks in England last year with three other male coworkers and they spent all their evenings walking to different pubs together and the weekend visiting tourist places, besides being in the same meetings all day. Slept in the same room. He had trouble getting time to talk to me. But I'm glad that's not always the case, especially with opposite-sex trips.

 

They slept in the same room? That's one I can't imagine......... I don't think hubby has ever been expected to share a room with a co-worker. Neither did I, when I used to travel for work.

[HTRMom]

They slept in the same room? That's one I can't imagine......... I don't think hubby has ever been expected to share a room with a co-worker. Neither did I, when I used to travel for work.

Not all four, but they had two rooms. I think they all agreed to that to get the hotel they wanted in the pub district that was otherwise full.

[SKL]

They slept in the same room? That's one I can't imagine......... I don't think hubby has ever been expected to share a room with a co-worker. Neither did I, when I used to travel for work.

 

I have had to share rooms with co-workers.  Usually someone I didn't even know (big nationwide company).  Same sex, but once a roommate [married with kids] brought her boyfriend up.  It was most awkward for me.  :P