"Women and men cannot ever be friends." Agree or disagree

[Scarlett]

I often think of a quote I saw about marriage. It says you don't expose it to the elements. That part always stuck with me. I think some people just have more layers of Rust-Oleum than others. ;) At the same time, some spouses don't say a word and suffer in silence and some say something and the spouse had no idea how their actions were affecting them.

I've never been the jealous type. I trust my husband 100%. He's told me some nurses hit on him and flirt. He also has female nurse friends that he talks to at work. BUT he would never think of going out to lunch with one of them because that is not the norm. If it's part of your normal workday to do work lunch, then I'd be fine with it. He goes out to work lunches every once in a while, but it's with company people and you don't get to pick who goes.

The problem is that you just never know what's in someone's head. The other person may be in a sexless marriage, going through a divorce or a midlife crisis and the act of being nice is received as much more than intended. It's also why I don't "friend" exes on Facebook. It's one thing if you have stayed in touch before you meet your spouse and kept it up with your spouse being fine with it. It's a whole other thing to seek out exes two decades into your marriage. Bumping into them in your hometown is one thing. Initiating contact on FB and then maintaining it is unnecessarily exposing my marriage to the elements.

I consider myself a nice person, but I'm aware that my "nice" is sometimes received as flirting by both men and their wives. It's my scatterbrain sarcastic and rambley ways I'm sure. ;) I make sure to respect boundaries set by wives. One of our neighbors was always outside working on his yard. So when we went on vacation, I caught him, told him we would be leaving and we exchanged cell phone numbers in case anything were to happen to the house. His wife sends me a text to let me know she'll keep an eye on the house. It was subtle, but from then on I only every talked to her. She's great and I like her a lot, so boundary limit received and not crossed again.

I had something similar happen....we have new neighbors ....close to our age, no kids, some cool dogs. We have chatted in the yard several times when one or both of them come after their dogs. The other day he and I ended up in a conversation and there had been some vandalism nearby that we were discussing....anyway that led to exchanging numbers in case we ever needed to contact the other. I got in the house and sent him a text and I also gave him my husband's number. And gave dhs his number.

 

I still feel bad that at various times in my life I was too young and ignorant to respect other women's boundaries.

 

I love that quote you linked.

[creekland]

So your DH wouldn't help out a friend?

 

:lol:  My hubby would help out a friend.  He'd say, "Why don't you talk to my wife about that.  She can answer any question far better than I can."   :lol:

 

I too like hearing how different people live. I learn things. And sometimes I learn that I prefer my way of doing things.

 

I also learn that for some reason some people get really angry when others have a different way of doing things.

 

Ditto - though that latter part I knew already.  The way the human brain perceives it goes like this:

 

Everyone likes to think they are intelligent.  If someone is intelligent, then they've thought through their way of being/belief and come to the best conclusion.  If someone comes to a different conclusion, they either don't have enough info and need to learn (or perhaps are not intelligent themselves) or they're questioning my intelligence.  So folks provide info (or just jump to conclusions) - and that switches the thoughts to the other party... but the cycle continues.

 

It takes work to be able to realize intelligent folks can come to different conclusions on all sorts of things in life.

 

For me, I get really surprised when I see some things more or less IRL (vs Hollywood or stories) and then I want to figure them out (my science brain at work).  Going to the source of those who believe "whatever" is the best way to find real info rather than just talking about them with like minded folks.

 

I'll freely admit some things hit closer to home than others - esp when I can put myself in someone else's shoes and that path wouldn't have been pretty for my life.  I think we're all that way actually, but I know I can be if I don't rationalize what's going on enough.

Edited April 3, 2017 by creekland

[Guest]

It's kind of weird though, to just say "don't be jealous, be wise!"

 

No one WANTS to think twice about what their spouse is up to.

 

It just can't be stressed enough that every relationship is it's own thing, created and protected (or not) by two or more people. Human people, no less.

 

So it gets hairy.

 

I had a situation when I was young where a wife flat out told me not to talk to her husband. Now... At the time I was tamping down the instinct to holler HEY LADY NO PROBLEM HES OLD haha, so I just smiled and nodded and said no problem... Thinking oh geez she's a crazy lady.

 

But now I think about it and man I am so glad I did respond reassuringly to her in the moment. Because what's more important? Their **family** or my continued aquaintance with this dude? Even if she was a psycho jealous tw+t (and I don't think she was--id say in hindsight they were going through some stuff and the very last thing they needed was some woman around, at all, for any reason.) Ykwim.

 

If I'd been friends with that guy before they met, it'd still be true. Wife>everyone. The ex's on Facebook scenario presented earlier is a perfect example.

 

... Which again is not about the op, but rather the subsequent chitchat.

 

Some marriages need these rules, some would find them abhorent. Not my pony not my circus either way.

[heartlikealion]

 

I often think of a quote I saw about marriage. It says you don't expose it to the elements. That part always stuck with me. I think some people just have more layers of Rust-Oleum than others.  ;) At the same time, some spouses don't say a word and suffer in silence and some say something and the spouse had no idea how their actions were affecting them. 

 

I've never been the jealous type. I trust my husband 100%. He's told me some nurses hit on him and flirt. He also has female nurse friends that he talks to at work. BUT he would never think of going out to lunch with one of them because that is not the norm. If it's part of your normal workday to do work lunch, then I'd be fine with it. He goes out to work lunches every once in a while, but it's with company people and you don't get to pick who goes. 

 

The problem is that you just never know what's in someone's head. The other person may be in a sexless marriage, going through a divorce or a midlife crisis and the act of being nice is received as much more than intended. It's also why I don't "friend" exes on Facebook. It's one thing if you have stayed in touch before you meet your spouse and kept it up with your spouse being fine with it. It's a whole other thing to seek out exes two decades into your marriage. Bumping into them in your hometown is one thing. Initiating contact on FB and then maintaining it is unnecessarily exposing my marriage to the elements.

 

I consider myself a nice person, but I'm aware that my "nice" is sometimes received as flirting by both men and their wives. It's my scatterbrain sarcastic and rambley ways I'm sure. ;) I make sure to respect boundaries set by wives. One of our neighbors was always outside working on his yard. So when we went on vacation, I caught him, told him we would be leaving and we exchanged cell phone numbers in case anything were to happen to the house. His wife sends me a text to let me know she'll keep an eye on the house. It was subtle, but from then on I only every talked to her. She's great and I like her a lot, so boundary limit received and not crossed again. 

 

 

we ran into a similar problem. Dh delivered baked goods (holiday time) to some people at work. One woman we know works in a different office than the rest. Dh and I both chat with her when we see her and she's brought ds a treat on Halloween before. I don't know how the dialogue went but I just know here's dh showing up at her office with baked goods and next thing we know she says her husband was upset by it. I told him he should have had me deliver them. It's not that dh is "wrong" but just that I would err on the side of caution for stuff like that. I don't know if dh will ever give her baked goods again now.

[creekland]

we ran into a similar problem. Dh delivered baked goods (holiday time) to some people at work. One woman we know works in a different office than the rest. Dh and I both chat with her when we see her and she's brought ds a treat on Halloween before. I don't know how the dialogue went but I just know here's dh showing up at her office with baked goods and next thing we know she says her husband was upset by it. I told him he should have had me deliver them. It's not that dh is "wrong" but just that I would err on the side of caution for stuff like that. I don't know if dh will ever give her baked goods again now.

 

Honestly, if there were someone like that in my circle of acquaintances or friends it would probably be best if they weren't in the circle... I literally can't fathom that situation and do not care to suddenly start worrying about every possible thing someone might be offended by.  I have far more important things to be thinking about.

 

Fortunately, there are plenty of people to go around so everyone's circle can be filled (or not) as they see fit.

 

Perhaps that one hits closer to home for me because my dad drove my mom off by being so controlling of her and thinking the worst whenever she did anything work or friend related.  He wanted her to do nothing without him - and if he didn't want to do it (company party or whatever) she wasn't supposed to go.  He drove off his second wife too - same thing.  I don't blame my mom or step mom one bit for ending their relationships and remain closer to both than my dad.

[regentrude]

I had a situation when I was young where a wife flat out told me not to talk to her husband. Now... At the time I was tamping down the instinct to holler HEY LADY NO PROBLEM HES OLD haha, so I just smiled and nodded and said no problem... Thinking oh geez she's a crazy lady.

 

But now I think about it and man I am so glad I did respond reassuringly to her in the moment. Because what's more important? Their **family** or my continued aquaintance with this dude? Even if she was a psycho jealous tw+t (and I don't think she was--id say in hindsight they were going through some stuff and the very last thing they needed was some woman around, at all, for any reason.) Ykwim.

 

If I'd been friends with that guy before they met, it'd still be true. Wife>everyone. 

 

Let's turn it around and look at the opposite scenario of a man insisting that his wife have no contact with any men.

That is considered a classical sign over an over controlling and abusive relationship.

 

ETA: My husband would be absolutely livid if he found out I had done anything like this, because that would mean I treat him like property, or like a small child who is unable to choose his own contacts. I know that that would damage our relationship badly. It would be presumptuous to say to whom a grown man can talk to or not.

Edited April 3, 2017 by regentrude

[Scarlett]

Let's turn it around and look at the opposite scenario of a man insisting that his wife have no contact with any men.

That is considered a classical sign over an over controlling and abusive relationship.

 

ETA: My husband would be absolutely livid if he found out I had done anything like this, because that would mean I treat him like property, or like a small child who is unable to choose his own contacts. I know that that would damage our relationship badly. It would be presumptuous to say to whom a grown man can talk to or not.

 

 

I think her post was about respecting the feelings of the spouse.  She didn't say the wife insisted there be no contact with any woman.  Maybe it was just a bad time and the wife was bothered by this one woman.

[creekland]

I think her post was about respecting the feelings of the spouse.  She didn't say the wife insisted there be no contact with any woman.  Maybe it was just a bad time and the wife was bothered by this one woman.

 

From my perspective, that's still something I'd talk with hubby about - why that one woman bothered me or whatever.  I can't see ever going behind his back and chasing someone off myself and I certainly wouldn't put up with him doing it to me.

 

If he requests something odd - due to gut feeling or whatever - I may or may not agree with him, but I'd still want to work it out with him, not anyone else.  If he didn't trust me enough that he put up a rule (no or limited contact with other men without him), that seriously would be a significant dent in our relationship - not a straw on a camel's back, but a load of bricks.  That might be true for me because of how my dad handles(d) things.

[Scarlett]

From my perspective, that's still something I'd talk with hubby about - why that one woman bothered me or whatever.  I can't see ever going behind his back and chasing someone off myself and I certainly wouldn't put up with him doing it to me.

 

If he requests something odd - due to gut feeling or whatever - I may or may not agree with him, but I'd still want to work it out with him, not anyone else.  If he didn't trust me enough that he put up a rule (no or limited contact with other men without him), that seriously would be a significant dent in our relationship - not a straw on a camel's back, but a load of bricks.  That might be true for me because of how my dad handles(d) things.

 

 

Oh I agree with you.  Dh and I would not do that to each other either.  I am just trying to see it from that wife's POV.  

[gaillardia]

My sil has stayed close friends with ALL of her boyfriends from teenage years and early adulthood but her dh, my dh's bro, all of his previous girlfriends must obviously still want him because she has a very bad attitude about all of them. When I mentioned the sudden death of a husband of a woman (bro had dated this woman for years) and the awful heartbreak and devastation it was to the woman and family, my sil was just rude and completely unsympathetic. WT?

There is close contact with male friends of hers and his, female friends of hers, but wife apparently forbids any women to be friends with husband. 

 

[Audrey]

Poll based on this statement:

 

" I have not encountered medieval attitudes like "women and men cannot ever be friends" before coming here to this board."

 

 

I voted no. I don't believe that.

 

But, the larger question might be whether one considers the phrase "women and men cannot ever be friends" as an opinion, or as a directive.

[Guest]

I voted no. I don't believe that.

 

But, the larger question might be whether one considers the phrase "women and men cannot ever be friends" as an opinion, or as a directive.

My only quibble is with the absolute nature of the phrasing. Why would that rule apply to all people, in all situations, for all time and through all stages of life? That's just dopey.

 

But I have déja vu because I asked about scenarios in marriage and opposite sex friendships once before. It also went on for pages and pages.

[Guest]

Let's turn it around and look at the opposite scenario of a man insisting that his wife have no contact with any men.

That is considered a classical sign over an over controlling and abusive relationship.

 

ETA: My husband would be absolutely livid if he found out I had done anything like this, because that would mean I treat him like property, or like a small child who is unable to choose his own contacts. I know that that would damage our relationship badly. It would be presumptuous to say to whom a grown man can talk to or not.

Yes I wasn't talking about no contact with any men or women. That isn't just a warning sign, it *is* abuse.

[unsinkable]

My only quibble is with the absolute nature of the phrasing. Why would that rule apply to all people, in all situations, for all time and through all stages of life? That's just dopey.

 

But I have déja vu because I asked about scenarios in marriage and opposite sex friendships once before. It also went on for pages and pages.

I know! It is such an absolute statement! It is nice to see so few people agree with it.

[Guest]

From my perspective, that's still something I'd talk with hubby about - why that one woman bothered me or whatever. I can't see ever going behind his back and chasing someone off myself and I certainly wouldn't put up with him doing it to me.

 

If he requests something odd - due to gut feeling or whatever - I may or may not agree with him, but I'd still want to work it out with him, not anyone else. If he didn't trust me enough that he put up a rule (no or limited contact with other men without him), that seriously would be a significant dent in our relationship - not a straw on a camel's back, but a load of bricks. That might be true for me because of how my dad handles(d) things.

Yeah if I'm in the middle of a super great phase marriage that's what I do too.

 

If [we/me/he] are going through some stuff I MIGHT want to just not even need to have this conversation with my dude, and that might be the best thing for my marriage at that time.

 

I don't know why I bothered her, though I could guess. But MY feelings about it are totally irrelevant. Because marriage>Everything else, and even if she handled it badly that is still true. Marriage is hard and I assume (now) that she was doing her best at the time.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I've debated whether to give one more opinion. I am going to give it with the caveat: I do not care how you or Billy Graham (or Billy Crystal for that matter) decide you want to handle this in your own life or marriage.

 

But. . . I just wanted to point out that Jesus spent a lot of time alone with the Samaritan woman - a known serial adulteress no less. And he spent time with Mary and Martha. And he called them his friends and vice versa. And he was criticized and was told that he was impropitious for eating with "tax collectors and sinners" - which apparently included the prostitute who anointed his feet with oil and perfume with her hair. And he didn't seem to care one whit what anyone else thought about it. So I have no problem, personally, with making the choices that I have made.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jean in Newcastle

[SKL]

I've debated whether to give one more opinion. I am going to give it with the caveat: I do not care how you or Billy Graham (or Billy Crystal for that matter) decide you want to handle this in your own life or marriage.

 

But. . . I just wanted to point out that Jesus spent a lot of time alone with the Samaritan woman - a known serial adulteress no less. And he spent time with Mary and Martha. And he called them his friends and vice versa. And he was criticized and was told that he was impropitious for eating with "tax collectors and sinners" - which apparently included the prostitute who anointed his feet with oil and perfume with her hair. And he didn't seem to care one whit what anyone else thought about it. So I have no problem, personally, with making the choices that I have made.

 

I don't think anyone wants you to second guess the choices you have made.

 

That said ... Jesus might not be the best example.  He wasn't married, not sure if his female friends were married, I don't recall him being alone with them, I'm not sure what his female friends' feelings were, he had super-human self-control, and we cannot know how long his platonic friendships might have lasted since he died so young.

 

If your point is that the Bible does not proscribe platonic relationships, I think you are right.

[amy g.]

Honestly not being snarky. I'm just wondering about the statement that Jesus had super human self control?

 

What is that belief based on? It is not anything I have ever been taught.

[8circles]

It's interesting to me that the poll does not reflect the conversation that well. As in, nearly everyone allowed for the possibility that men and women could be friends, but nearly half the people in discussion seemed to think it didn't really happen/didn't apply to their lives/wasn't anything they'd really seen... As if the male-female friendship is some rare and fragile thing, only occasionally spotted in the wild.

 

Sigh.

 

I agree. Because the poll is intended to be a "gotcha".  It's written that way.

 

In previous conversations, it hasn't been worded the same and has been about someone's specific scenario - not a general absolute. It was referenced (the post which this poll is based off of) as an absolute in hyperbole and now that's been used to try to get a "gotcha".

 

It's all good. Lots of people see it for what it is.

[Scarlett]

Honestly not being snarky. I'm just wondering about the statement that Jesus had super human self control?

 

What is that belief based on? It is not anything I have ever been taught.

He was a perfect man. No one else has been.

[Catwoman]

I agree. Because the poll is intended to be a "gotcha". It's written that way.

 

In previous conversations, it hasn't been worded the same and has been about someone's specific scenario - not a general absolute. It was referenced (the post which this poll is based off of) as an absolute in hyperbole and now that's been used to try to get a "gotcha".

 

It's all good. Lots of people see it for what it is.

I'm pretty sure the poll was spinning off of a quote from another thread. When the poll was first posted, I was wondering where the quote came from so I went and found it, and it was a direct quote from one of Regentrude's posts.

 

I'm not unsinkable so I don't know what she was thinking when she started this thread, but I didn't view it as a "gotcha" thing, but as her being curious about whether or not people agreed with Regentrude's quote.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would read anything more into it than that, particularly because this is one of three (or maybe more -- they're blending together in my mind) threads on very similar topics. It didn't seem to me that the poll was directing anyone to vote in any specific way, and it hasn't seemed like unsinkable has been trying to lead the conversation or pressure anyone to think a certain way.

 

I think the discussion has been very interesting, and everyone has been quite respectful of differing opinions, so I'm not sure why you're saying that, "Lots of people are seeing it for what it is." It's just a poll and it's just another thread. I'm not seeing any conspiracy here.

 

 

Edited to add -- I hope that didn't come across as snarky. I didn't mean it that way! :)

 

.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Catwoman

[SKL]

Honestly not being snarky. I'm just wondering about the statement that Jesus had super human self control?

 

What is that belief based on? It is not anything I have ever been taught.

 

The three temptations he withstood after fasting 40 days and 40 nights.

 

[Mom-ninja.]

what is lust of the heart?

[Lady Florida.]

what is lust of the heart?

 

It's what Jimmy Carter did and apparently it's as bad as committing actual adultery. I guess it's a good thing we're no longer allowed to post sexy celebrity hunk photos (kilts anyone?) anymore. 

[KungFuPanda]

Dp

Edited April 4, 2017 by KungFuPanda

[KungFuPanda]

Hm, maybe for some people - I've heard the same around here.

Me though? I can name at least a dozen couples we count on our very good friends list though, and those are just the ones we live near right now. We send out almost 125 Christmas cards each year. I have another handful of close mom friends and that is after I pruned my friendships in the years after college (growing apart and choosing not to stay in contact with some people due to drama or differences that made friendship challenging).

I'd say my friendships reflect my life choices in church, education, and politics. All of those involve lots of couples and nuclear families in general, so I suppose it isn't surprising that I wouldn't even have much chance to socialize with just s male even if I wanted to (which I don't, that sounds weird to me when I say it). But it's rare I even come across an unmarried man, outside of the guy who does my nails :D

  

Experiences obviously vary a great deal; I encounter unmarried men every day.

Teaching at an engineering school, I am surrounded by hundreds of unmarried younger men, LOL.

But even among colleagues, there are quite a number of unmarried men. Of my 14 male colleagues in my department, 5 are single (i.e, not just unmarried, but not even in a relationship), and I happen to be good friends (= dinners at our house) with three of them and friendly (=stop by office and chat) with the other two. Another one was single for a long time while we were friends (= dinners and float trips together) and is now married. Our best friend who moved away was single for a long time after his divorce.

 

  

As of now, 181 people have answered that yes, men and women can be friends, 7 have said no they can't, and 20 chose the "other" option.

Nowhere near 208 people have actually posted comments on this thread, so I'm still going to assume that most members of this forum (at least those who participated in the poll) are of the opinion that men and women can be friends because the poll results are so overwhelmingly in the "yes" column.

The OP in this thread seemed pretty clear to me, so I doubt many people misunderstood it.

This view that affairs are like patches of black ice lurking everywhere and just waiting for you to slip is fascinating to me. I guess you can have an unplanned affair, but you can't really have an accidental affair. It takes two people to make a consensual decision. "He slipped and fell in" isn't a real thing. There's no getting around the fact that people are hardwired to be attracted to other people. If someone chooses to stay home to avoid the possibility of ever corming in contact with a one-to-one situation, they have every right to do so. It just seems so limiting to me. We're living in a time when sexual attraction (and gender) is less and less gender-specific. It seems much healthier to me to acknowledge the idea that you might be attracted to someone, but you don't have to act on it OR freak out about it. Shutting yourself (or your spouse) up so that nobody EVER has a stray feeling might work, but it's at the expense of developing emotional maturity.

 

I'm thinking when you're younger and in the little kid phase of life, it's easier to just stay home a lot and socialize with other couples. However, once those kids are teens there seems to be another round of divorces that happen. Now you have friendships that are decades long and those friends are once again single. Do you cancel that annual camping trip that you've been going on with that family for 15 years because Bob divorced Susie? Or because Bob died and Susie is planning it alone? If you hold on to your old friends, life WILL make more and more of them single as you age. It happens sooner than you ever imagined it could.

[heartlikealion]

what is lust of the heart?

 

Looking at someone with lust is considered committing adultery with your heart in some religions. Also brings to mind, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

 

I don't think people can always control thoughts (lustful or otherwise) but some people in this thread think they are immune I guess. I'm OCD so I might just be an odd duck. If I get a bad thought (unwanted or otherwise) it might get stuck on repeat. I used to struggle a lot with spiritual OCD and let me tell you, it sure made going to Communion difficult. I don't expect everyone to safeguard themselves from bad thoughts or bad situations the same. But I don't want people to think just because people want to avoid things or struggle with unwanted thoughts that they are weak.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't think anyone wants you to second guess the choices you have made.

 

That said ... Jesus might not be the best example. He wasn't married, not sure if his female friends were married, I don't recall him being alone with them, I'm not sure what his female friends' feelings were, he had super-human self-control, and we cannot know how long his platonic friendships might have lasted since he died so young.

 

If your point is that the Bible does not proscribe platonic relationships, I think you are right.

My point was:

 

1. Jesus treated all people the same-and did not exclude half the population from his contact list. I'm not going to argue specifics though he did cause some scandal for doing so even among his disciples. (The Bible does not record every single encounter he had with people so it's silly to try to argue the minutiae on this since we don't have enough data. )

 

2.. Jesus was not concerned with his reputation and in preventing even a hint of impropriety. Instead, he came down quite harshly against the Pharisees who cared about such stuff to the detriment of showing grace towards people (again all people regardless of their gender).

 

As far as Jesus and temptation goes:

 

 

Hebrews 4:15New International Version (NIV)

 

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

 

New International Version (NIV)

 

We are told in numerous places in the Bible to imitate Jesus-that he is our role model.

 

Now I recognize that the Bible also talks about choosing friends wisely. And it talks about fleeing temptation. And it talks about sin starting in the mind - which includes sexual lust as well as other sins. (Which is where I believe these sins should be addressed first if possible).

 

My intent is not to tell people (those who care about the Biblical perspective in all this) how to apply it to their life. That's between them and God. My intent was to just share why this particular conservative Christian (in how I approach the Bible) has decided that it is worth it to me to chance possible misunderstandings and awkwardness and even temptation because I want to be open to all people.

 

As always, YMMV.

 

 

Edited because I found a typo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jean in Newcastle

[TCB]

If the only thing that is keeping my husband or I faithful is a mere lack of opportunity to cheat (in the form of never being alone with members of the sex we are attracted to), I say we have a problem even if no one cheats.

 

You could well be right, but unfortunately some people have those problems. Some people are not as good at clear boundaries. They aren't as aware that something might be happening and head it off at the pass. They don't have the will power to say no. Should they have all these problems? Ideally no, but the fact remains that they do. That is why this is something everyone has to decide for themselves in my opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer. Also, I wouldn't think that there are many people who the only thing stopping them cheating is the lack of opportunity. But it might be something that helps them avoid cheating.

[lovinmyboys]

This thread got me started researching affairs. If the Internet is to be believed, 1 in every 2.7 marriages will have one person cheat. So more than 1/3 which seems really high. One website said most affairs are just one night and the partner never finds out. Some stats have it as high as 72% of people cheat. That seems so high. And, most people who cheat say they are in a happy marriage.

 

I do believe that it takes more than just opportunity to cheat. However, combining a few factors can make it easier (alcohol, knowledge that you won't get caught, being away from home for long periods). I don't think everyone who has had an affair planned it. People I know who have had one say "it just happened." Which, obviously isn't true, but their take on it.

 

I don't build my relationships around fear. The stats won't cause me to do anything different. They were just kind of eye opening.

[SKL]

My point was:

 

1. Jesus treated all people the same-and did not exclude half the population from his contact list. I'm not going to argue specifics though he did cause some scandal for doing so even among his disciples. (The Bible does not record every single encounter he had with people so it's silly to try to argue the minutiae on this since we don't have enough data. )

 

2.. Jesus was not concerned with his reputation and in preventing even a hint of impropriety. Instead, he came down quite harshly against the Pharisees who cared about such stuff to the detriment of showing grace towards people (again all people regardless of their gender).

 

As far as Jesus and temptation goes:

 

 

Hebrews 4:15New International Version (NIV)

 

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

 

New International Version (NIV)

 

We are told in numerous places in the Bible to imitate Jesus-that he is our role model.

 

Now I recognize that the Bible also talks about choosing friends wisely. And it talks about fleeing temptation. And it talks about sin starting in the mind - which includes sexual list as well as other sins. (Which is where I believe these sins should be addressed first if possible).

 

My intent is not to tell people (those who care about the Biblical perspective in all this) how to apply it to their life. That's between them and God. My intent was to just share why this particular conservative Christian (in how I approach the Bible) has decided that it is worth it to me to chance possible misunderstandings and awkwardness and even temptation because I want to be open to all people.

 

As always, YMMV.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree, Jesus was not concerned with his reputation.  It is somewhat unrealistic to expect a politician, businessman, or even family man (or woman) to be unconcerned with reputation IMO.  Not to say it is wrong to put that aside in order to be open to all people.  Not wrong, but risky in certain situations.

[Word Nerd]

I agree. Because the poll is intended to be a "gotcha". It's written that way.

 

In previous conversations, it hasn't been worded the same and has been about someone's specific scenario - not a general absolute. It was referenced (the post which this poll is based off of) as an absolute in hyperbole and now that's been used to try to get a "gotcha".

 

It's all good. Lots of people see it for what it is.

:confused: What are you even talking about?

[Bootsie]

I agree, Jesus was not concerned with his reputation.  It is somewhat unrealistic to expect a politician, businessman, or even family man (or woman) to be unconcerned with reputation IMO.  Not to say it is wrong to put that aside in order to be open to all people.  Not wrong, but risky in certain situations.

It was risky for Jesus, also.

[Scarlett]

 

This view that affairs are like patches of black ice lurking everywhere and just waiting for you to slip is fascinating to me. I guess you can have an unplanned affair, but you can't really have an accidental affair. It takes two people to make a consensual decision. "He slipped and fell in" isn't a real thing. There's no getting around the fact that people are hardwired to be attracted to other people. If someone chooses to stay home to avoid the possibility of ever corming in contact with a one-to-one situation, they have every right to do so. It just seems so limiting to me. We're living in a time when sexual attraction (and gender) is less and less gender-specific. It seems much healthier to me to acknowledge the idea that you might be attracted to someone, but you don't have to act on it OR freak out about it. Shutting yourself (or your spouse) up so that nobody EVER has a stray feeling might work, but it's at the expense of developing emotional maturity.

 

I'm thinking when you're younger and in the little kid phase of life, it's easier to just stay home a lot and socialize with other couples. However, once those kids are teens there seems to be another round of divorces that happen. Now you have friendships that are decades long and those friends are once again single. Do you cancel that annual camping trip that you've been going on with that family for 15 years because Bob divorced Susie? Or because Bob died and Susie is planning it alone? If you hold on to your old friends, life WILL make more and more of them single as you age. It happens sooner than you ever imagined it could.

Who is suggesting shutting themselves or their spouse up? Who is suggesting not going camping with a single friend? Having a standard of conduct between the sexes does not have to be radical like that.

[heartlikealion]

    

This view that affairs are like patches of black ice lurking everywhere and just waiting for you to slip is fascinating to me. I guess you can have an unplanned affair, but you can't really have an accidental affair. It takes two people to make a consensual decision. "He slipped and fell in" isn't a real thing. There's no getting around the fact that people are hardwired to be attracted to other people. If someone chooses to stay home to avoid the possibility of ever corming in contact with a one-to-one situation, they have every right to do so. It just seems so limiting to me. We're living in a time when sexual attraction (and gender) is less and less gender-specific. It seems much healthier to me to acknowledge the idea that you might be attracted to someone, but you don't have to act on it OR freak out about it. Shutting yourself (or your spouse) up so that nobody EVER has a stray feeling might work, but it's at the expense of developing emotional maturity.

 

I'm thinking when you're younger and in the little kid phase of life, it's easier to just stay home a lot and socialize with other couples. However, once those kids are teens there seems to be another round of divorces that happen. Now you have friendships that are decades long and those friends are once again single. Do you cancel that annual camping trip that you've been going on with that family for 15 years because Bob divorced Susie? Or because Bob died and Susie is planning it alone? If you hold on to your old friends, life WILL make more and more of them single as you age. It happens sooner than you ever imagined it could.

 

Who's going camping? 2 married people and Susie and all the kids? I don't think that's a one-on-one trip then. And if it's not that, then it's no longer a family camping trip, really?

 

Like I said before, many people that aren't going out one-on-one aren't changing anything. I don't go on vacations with other families. We hardly go out as it is, making time to do things with other couples isn't bothersome, it's just not that convenient because we have kids in tow or have to get sitters. Most scenarios just don't apply to me right now and maybe never really did. Emotional maturity? Who said we never talk to people of the opposite sex or differen't marital status? I didn't know emotional maturity was measured by putting yourself in situations that you normally don't just so other people can stop treating you like you're sheltered or deprived.

 

[KungFuPanda]

Who is suggesting shutting themselves or their spouse up? Who is suggesting not going camping with a single friend? Having a standard of conduct between the sexes does not have to be radical like that.

 

 

I was specifically addressing the "I would never have male friendships" or the "Dh and I ONLY have couple friends" contingent of the conversation in VERY general terms.  It was aimed at nobody in particular and was just a thought I added to the general conversation.  Clearly, I do not think people need to make radical rules to assure that their spouses are behaving, but some people do.  This is what makes this conversation interesting enough to continue for 5+ pages.

[heartlikealion]

I was specifically addressing the "I would never have male friendships" or the "Dh and I ONLY have couple friends" contingent of the conversation in VERY general terms.  It was aimed at nobody in particular and was just a thought I added to the general conversation.  Clearly, I do not think people need to make radical rules to assure that their spouses are behaving, but some people do.  This is what makes this conversation interesting enough to continue for 5+ pages.

 

Five pages and you still didn't notice that it doesn't mean they don't trust their spouse. There are several reasons listed as to why some people choose not to seek out one-on-one time with others. It doesn't always reflect a lack of self control or a lack of trust. Please read the points listed upthread.

 

[Reefgazer]

Jimmy Carter could probably give you a better answer on this one.  :laugh:

what is lust of the heart?

 

[KungFuPanda]

Who's going camping? 2 married people and Susie and all the kids? I don't think that's a one-on-one trip then. And if it's not that, then it's no longer a family camping trip, really?

 

Like I said before, many people that aren't going out one-on-one aren't changing anything. I don't go on vacations with other families. We hardly go out as it is, making time to do things with other couples isn't bothersome, it's just not that convenient because we have kids in tow or have to get sitters. Most scenarios just don't apply to me right now and maybe never really did. Emotional maturity? Who said we never talk to people of the opposite sex or differen't marital status? I didn't know emotional maturity was measured by putting yourself in situations that you normally don't just so other people can stop treating you like you're sheltered or deprived.

 

 

I'm not talking about contriving artificial situations to see if you can handle it.  I'm thinking more about going out of your way to avoid normal interactions that DO come up in your everyday life.  I get that not everyone runs into the same life scenarios.  

[creekland]

Well, we'll be tempting fate again tomorrow.  Last time hubby had a work date with a lady over lunch.  He brought home $1150 for his time, so his services - whatever they may be - must be pretty good.  ;)

 

Tomorrow he'll do the friend thing.  Our neighbor's pony is getting gelded (fixed) today.  There's a routine that must be followed for a few days afterward to ensure proper healing.  

 

Plan A was to get it done yesterday and I'd be there to help her today, but the vet had an emergency come up so the surgery was rescheduled.

 

Plan B was to get it done today and I'd be there tomorrow to help her, but the teacher I go in for at school (the one who is getting cancer treatments) contacted me this morning to tell me she wasn't feeling well - can I come in for her tomorrow?  Of COURSE!

 

Plan C is to get it done today and HUBBY will go over there tomorrow and show/teach her what to do.  Her husband will be at work, so it will just be her and my hubby - no cameras - no chaperones.

 

And I'm not the least bit worried.  That's what friends do for each other.  I'd have been just as content going over there and showing her hubby how to do it if that's what had worked out with changed schedules.

 

If one is thinking we should just delay another day... we can't.  We're leaving Thursday to go watch middle son dance, so doing it tomorrow can't happen.

 

If one is thinking I should have the teacher at school find someone else, you're out of your mind.  Good friends don't do that to each other.

 

If one is thinking she should find some other female to come show her what to do, WHY?  We're right next door - within walking distance - and we're good friends... it would take far more effort to try to find someone else - esp last minute - and what kind of friends would we be if we couldn't be there for each other?

[heartlikealion]

I'm not talking about contriving artificial situations to see if you can handle it.  I'm thinking more about going out of your way to avoid normal interactions that DO come up in your everyday life.  I get that not everyone runs into the same life scenarios.  

 

For me it would feel more out of the norm to approach a male coworker and invite him to lunch. But that's just me. Dh and I share a car. If I had to hitch a ride with someone that happened to be male I could, but I would rather not. I asked a couple for a ride to church recently when dh was out of town. They pointed out to me that so and so lived closer (recently widowed man). I brushed it off. I just didn't feel super comfortable (I know them better, anyway). I made a mental note to find someone else to ask if there's a next time.

 

Now if there was an emergency and I had to get a ride with one of my male neighbors then so be it.

 

For some of us the dining out or doing things outside of work-related business meetings is artificial.

[Bootsie]

Five pages and you still didn't notice that it doesn't mean they don't trust their spouse. There are several reasons listed as to why some people choose not to seek out one-on-one time with others. It doesn't always reflect a lack of self control or a lack of trust. Please read the points listed upthread.

 

I have not seen much discussion of people seeking out one-on-one time with others.  Most of the discussion has revolved around intentional avoidance of situations.

[heartlikealion]

I have not seen much discussion of people seeking out one-on-one time with others.  Most of the discussion has revolved around intentional avoidance of situations.

 

To me going to lunch with a male coworker when it's not mandatory (not a business meeting) is kind of seeking out one-on-one time. Innocently, probably. But still not necessary time spent alone.

[EmseB]

Well, we'll be tempting fate again tomorrow. Last time hubby had a work date with a lady over lunch. He brought home $1150 for his time, so his services - whatever they may be - must be pretty good. ;)

 

Tomorrow he'll do the friend thing. Our neighbor's pony is getting gelded (fixed) today. There's a routine that must be followed for a few days afterward to ensure proper healing.

 

Plan A was to get it done yesterday and I'd be there to help her today, but the vet had an emergency come up so the surgery was rescheduled.

 

Plan B was to get it done today and I'd be there tomorrow to help her, but the teacher I go in for at school (the one who is getting cancer treatments) contacted me this morning to tell me she wasn't feeling well - can I come in for her tomorrow? Of COURSE!

 

Plan C is to get it done today and HUBBY will go over there tomorrow and show/teach her what to do. Her husband will be at work, so it will just be her and my hubby - no cameras - no chaperones.

 

And I'm not the least bit worried. That's what friends do for each other. I'd have been just as content going over there and showing her hubby how to do it if that's what had worked out with changed schedules.

 

If one is thinking we should just delay another day... we can't. We're leaving Thursday to go watch middle son dance, so doing it tomorrow can't happen.

 

If one is thinking I should have the teacher at school find someone else, you're out of your mind. Good friends don't do that to each other.

 

If one is thinking she should find some other female to come show her what to do, WHY? We're right next door - within walking distance - and we're good friends... it would take far more effort to try to find someone else - esp last minute - and what kind of friends would we be if we couldn't be there for each other?

See, and I don't think anyone has been commenting on how other people should conduct personal interactions. Speaking for myself, it would not cross my mind to think of different alternatives for other people's friendships, business interactions, or whatever.

[8circles]

:confused: What are you even talking about?

 

Something that you are apparently unaware of. 

[creekland]

See, and I don't think anyone has been commenting on how other people should conduct personal interactions. Speaking for myself, it would not cross my mind to think of different alternatives for other people's friendships, business interactions, or whatever.

 

There have been a few posts saying they can't envision how any such get together would ever be necessary.  I'm showing one that came up in my life.  Perhaps it will help explain it better for those who think it would never happen.

[EmseB]

There have been a few posts saying they can't envision how any such get together would ever be necessary. I'm showing one that came up in my life. Perhaps it will help explain it better for those who think it would never happen.

I took those posts to mean unnecessary in their own lives due to their own circumstances, not unecessary for anyone and everyone. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

[creekland]

I took those posts to mean unnecessary in their own lives due to their own circumstances, not unecessary for anyone and everyone. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

 

They have no clue what will come up in their lives - just as we had no clue until about 4 hours ago that this one would happen in our lives.  Granted, this specific event isn't likely to happen to many others, but other events certainly could spring up.

 

Life isn't predictable - for anyone.

[EmseB]

They have no clue what will come up in their lives - just as we had no clue until about 4 hours ago that this one would happen in our lives. Granted, this specific event isn't likely to happen to many others, but other events certainly could spring up.

 

Life isn't predictable - for anyone.

Okay. I guess from my perspective, I have guidelines within which I normally operate that may be on the more conservative side of things, but do realize I can't think of every possible eventuality.

 

I wouldn't assume that because someone has a guideline that I don't hold to that it would mean they are unaware of life's possible curve balls. Perhaps they have the guidelines they do precisely because of life's unpredictability. I just wouldn't want to assume anything about their experience. To me, telling another grown person that they can't possibly predict everything because life is unpredictable seems condescending. I am sure you didn't mean it that way, I just couldn't imagine assuming another adult doesn't know that, if that makes sense.

[creekland]

Okay. I guess from my perspective, I have guidelines within which I normally operate that may be on the more conservative side of things, but do realize I can't think of every possible eventuality.

 

I wouldn't assume that because someone has a guideline that I don't hold to that it would mean they are unaware of life's possible curve balls. Perhaps they have the guidelines they do precisely because of life's unpredictability. I just wouldn't want to assume anything about their experience. To me, telling another grown person that they can't possibly predict everything because life is unpredictable seems condescending. I am sure you didn't mean it that way, I just couldn't imagine assuming another adult doesn't know that, if that makes sense.

 

I'm really not into arguing petty details TBH.  Folks said they can't imagine anything coming up that would make something like this necessary.  Something came up in our lives that did.  I suspect the same can happen in anyone's life.  Period.