Musing about something with attractive work partners

[Jean in Newcastle]

51 minutes ago, marbel said:

I guess this is why I feel pretty confident that my husband will not cheat on me, and completely confident that I won't on him. We don't put ourselves in positions where it's going to happen. We also place a great deal of importance on personal integrity, and staying true to our vows is part of that. And, both of us had bad experiences either with infidelity or the threat of it in our previous marriages, so we know how that feels.  We've also seen the destruction it has caused to other families.

And then there's what Jean said just a little upthread which I could not improve upon.

I don't mean to sound arrogant like "oh I KNOW it could never happen" but I am completely confident in myself and as confident in my husband as I can ever be about another person. 

For me and my husband (which I know because he has told me) the “not putting ourselves in the position “ has to do with our thought life and nothing to do with what I consider the artificial constraints of not being alone with someone. I am on super shaky ground if the only thing keeping me true to my vows is not giving myself the opportunity to cheat. 

[EmseB]

35 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

Well then they're stupid. So I guess there's the difference. 

I know that I am capable of much, and extrapolate that my husband is as well. 

So if, knowing that, I can hold myself to some low ethical standard, I fell confident my husband can too OR, barring his willingness to do that, then he'll have to handle the fallout. So will I, of course, but that's the risk one takes in such an intimate relationship. 

Right, I agree with all of this. I guess I just got the sense that people in this thread were saying they were at no risk of this happening to them. Like millions and millions of people haven't thought that before about their own partners. Those people were ignoring red flags, and those people were delusional, and those people, well, their partners were always slimy and we all knew it, obviously that's true because they cheated. Like upstanding-looking people who have all their ducks in a row and love their families have never compromised their values and shocked everyone.

I know this is kind of niche, but did anyone else here ever read The Common Room blog?

[marbel]

53 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

For me and my husband (which I know because he has told me) the “not putting ourselves in the position “ has to do with our thought life and nothing to do with what I consider the artificial constraints of not being alone with someone. I am on super shaky ground if the only thing keeping me true to my vows is not giving myself the opportunity to cheat. 

Yeah, I worded that badly. Yes, it has more to do with the way we think about marriage in general and our marriage specifically.  Certainly I did not mean to imply that the only thing keeping me from cheating on my husband is not being alone with other men ever. But also, I think there is nothing wrong with living in a way that does not cause our spouse to feel insecure.  That will look different for everyone of course and I don't necessarily see it as an artificial constraint in all cases. 

[marbel]

49 minutes ago, EmseB said:

<snip>

I know this is kind of niche, but did anyone else here ever read The Common Room blog?

I used to read it,  years ago, when I was homeschooling.  The Headmistress, right?  Or am I thinking of the wrong blog?

ETA: I went and poked around. Same blog. I'm stunned.

Edited June 29, 2020 by marbel

[Jaybee]

Just wanted to jump back in and say that I'm not sure the gorgeousness of either woman has a lot to do with it. It might make me feel more self-conscious or insecure about my own lack thereof, but it's the intimacy of the close working relationship, and the closeness that accomplishing things together can bring, that would make me more concerned, whether it were myself or him. 

I do agree on the loyalty statements others have made; dh is loyal in every area of his life, a very strong trait of his.

[Katy]

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

I don't really understand the people saying they are sure they or their partners would never cheat or are incapable of cheating. I wonder, do you (general) think people who were cheated on were in marriages where they were thinking their spouse *would* do such a thing? Because I know for a fact that isn't the case for a lot of people.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone's spouse or relationship, but I bet the percentage of people who thought their spouse would never cheat and yet were cheated on is not small.

 

I can't speak for DH, although I'm certain he was offended that I thought he could ever cheat when I accused him of it (different situation that upthread).  FTR, I don't think he did, and I would leave him if I had proof he was cheating on me.  Life is too short to go through that again.  We've both been cheated on in the past, and both of us had parents who were cheated on when we were kids.

I know I could never cheat because of a specific experience I had.  When I was young (still in college) I had very strong opinions about cheating, that it was never the woman's fault if a man cheated with her because she wasn't the one who made the commitment. Then I started dating someone I worked with, I had NO idea he was married until after our first date, when another woman warned me.  Apparently he was open about his wife, newborn daughter, and living with his mother in law to everyone but me, but took his ring off whenever I was around and never mentioned them. I was also too naive to know to look for indentations on fingers, most people my age weren't married yet.  A coworker noticed he hid his wedding ring every time I came in the room and warned me about him.  I confronted him about it and I found the entire experience emotionally and spiritually repulsive in a way I never could have anticipated. And that's when I knew that not only could I never cheat, I could never be with someone who was cheating or had a history of cheating either.  

I honestly think I'd have an easier time committing murder than I would cheating, and I'm the same person that couldn't shoot an animal when my dad tried to teach me to hunt. There have been times when I've been glad someone I thought was evil died, and then I felt guilty for feeling that way later.

[Jean in Newcastle]

6 minutes ago, marbel said:

Yeah, I worded that badly. Yes, it has more to do with the way we think about marriage in general and our marriage specifically.  Certainly I did not mean to imply that the only thing keeping me from cheating on my husband is not being alone with other men ever. But also, I think there is nothing wrong with living in a way that does not cause our spouse to feel insecure.  That will look different for everyone of course and I don't necessarily see it as an artificial constraint in all cases. 

Well, even back when I was working with mostly men I didn’t go on date-like dates with them. I would go to the food court with whoever was available- sometimes that was just one person- but it was a food court. I had one visiting coworker who insisted on going to a sit down restaurant. I got super uncomfortable because I got “date” vibes from him that I never got from anyone else ever. I made a big deal about talking about my marriage and he never tried that again. In fact he avoided me after that and that confirmed to me that he had ulterior motives. If we had had to work on a project one on one it would have been awkward but I would have made sure that no line was crossed. 

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, OKBud said:

I am appalled that so many think some women are too pretty to work with their husbands. Even closely, yes. 

My marriage has been through the wringer, like most people's who stay together long enough. When I mess something up that is MY fault. When my husband messes something up, that is HIS fault. The idea of blaming it on someone else is gross. 

Y'all aren't saying "this woman deliberately set out to undermine our heretofore secure relationship." You're saying "some women are tooooo tempting with their hot bods and quick wit and symmetrical faces for my husband to be around." Gross.

I don’t think that the ‘pretty’ issue is really a factor in most of the answers, despite being in the OP.  

[Arcadia]

21 hours ago, Joker said:

 

My dh wouldn’t have his job if he avoided ever being alone with women. It seems like it could end up being really unfair but maybe you don’t truly mean they completely avoid being alone with the opposite sex. 

For me and my husband, it was in HR recommendations in companies that we worked at and is referring to being one to one. There has been accusations from all genders about sexual harassment and some have been found to be groundless after long investigations. Some have been found to be half truths. So it’s to protect all genders.

Glass walled conference rooms where everyone can see even if they can’t hear. Carpooling from office to an event, get more than two people in a car, preferably carpool seven adults in a minivan. 

An ex-colleague and I were the only ones working in the office on a weekend. He was working in full view of the security camera while I was in my cubicle in full view of another security camera. Even a low resolution security camera can verify that we were never touching each other. Verbal sexual harassment is harder to verify by security cameras of course. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Arcadia
Typing error

[Xahm]

I've seen how much work goes into starting a business, so I would consider it a family affair if dh were starting one because otherwise I'd never see him. Not that I'd be his business partner, but I'd be around, so I'd know his business partner. He or she would know us and our kids, would be invited to family things, etc. In that kind of situation, I wouldn't care about his partner's gender. If I suspected that the partner would encourage my husband to be unfaithful, I would suspect he or she wouldn't be a trustworthy business partner either.

[Pen]

So, do I understand this correctly? Some of you think very pretty women can only work with other women or their own husbands or maybe a single man or gay man, not with married men as it is too tempting ? 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Pen

[J-rap]

I think it would bother me if my dh started a business with another similar-aged woman, but not because I didn't trust him.  My dh and I have talked about everything over the years and probably know each other nearly as well as we know ourselves.  So, it really doesn't have anything to do with trust.  We both know that temptations exist, and both understand that it's up to us to handle it wisely.  But spending all that time with another woman as his business partner would still bug me a little bit, nevertheless.  (It wouldn't have to do with looks though.)  On the other hand, it wouldn't bother my dh at all if I started a business with a similar-aged man, even a very handsome one!  He'd be happy for me to be starting a business and would hope that it worked out well.

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, Pen said:

So, do I understand this correctly? Some of you think very pretty women can only work with other women or their own husbands or maybe a single man or gay man, not with married men as it is too tempting ? 

 Not me. Not how I feel at all.

[Tap]

7 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

My gut says it would bother me, but it would depend on the type of partnership.   For example if my DH was an attorney or accountant,  and the partner was a new attorney or accountant that expected to have her own clients, but share a building, secretary,  ect that probably wouldn't bother me. 

I've got a family member who has cheated multiple times with various wives- hes been married many times.  His current wife was a co worker- both of them cheated in their spouses with each other on business trips, then divorcedand got married when she got PG with his kid.  I have no idea how they trust the other.  

I have a friend like this. She says part of what makes their marriage work is that they are both there, eyes wide open, knowing that affairs do happen.  They are more open about their feelings, big and small, because they were the person that each other confided in when things when awry in the first place.  Their relationship was build around the hard stuff.....the marriage is the easy part. LOL 

[Scarlett]

I will say, by way of explanation....I was once a very attractive young woman.  I lived through things.  Near misses..  All the feels.  I am 55 now.   I have a very attractive husband......I literally have heard women giggle in conversations with him.....so I am not naive....I am not suspicious in the slightest...literally, I have zero suspicion of my husband.  And yet, he and I have  a way of handling our life that leaves no room for concern,  

He and I both came out of long term marriages where we were cheated on. We have faith in people.  Hope in people. 
 

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

So, do I understand this correctly? Some of you think very pretty women can only work with other women or their own husbands or maybe a single man or gay man, not with married men as it is too tempting ? 

I know that was the question in the OP, but my answer wasn't really about the relative attractiveness of the people involved. I am a middle aged woman who has birthed 5 kids, I have no illusions about my attractiveness, but I still have a good relationship with my DH. So it's not purely about that. It's more the specific situation of starting a business and all that entails... long hours, working toward a common goal, riding out failures, rejoicing in successes, maybe having a drink or two together, alllll one-on-one. And I know that it would be a hugely different dynamic if the person my DH was doing this with was his best bud from childhood or if it was a woman who was a family friend. It just would be a different thing. I'm not saying no one can do it or I would never, ever consider it, but I'm not egalitarian about these things either.

[Ausmumof3]

nm

Edited June 29, 2020 by Ausmumof3

[vmsurbat1]

My reaction to the OP's initial description depends upon the kind of business being set up; it has nothing whatever to do with anyone's looks....  

If this is a "let's dream big, we can do this together, grow this baby idea to fruition" kind of business, I give it a hard no.  This scenario is not at all like co-working with other employees, male or female, and I think comparing them is a bit naive, tbh.  What I describe above would be both a huge commitment and incredibly bonding, as @Carol in Cal.rightly described earlier.  

However, if the proposed partnership is more akin to "I've got my client base, you've got yours, let's set up one business to share resources", that definitely feels different, especially as the commitment is much less.....

[TravelingChris]

11 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I think anyone can make some mistakes, but I don't think all people are capable of all mistakes.  I genuinely believe there are people who are not capable of cheater.   Meaning, there are no circumstances that would lead that person down that disastrous path.  

There's a line at the end of the movie Ratatouille  that goes something like "not everyone can be a good cook, but a good cook can come from anywhere."  I think that concept applies in a lot of cases including cheaters.  I think that a cheater can be any type of person-young, old, rich, poor, happy marriage, unhappy marriage, etc etc.  But I think that there are plenty of people who would just simply never cheat, regardless of the circumstances.  

You are completely right- it is 1/3 of all men.  Another 1/3 are serial cheaters.  The remaining group are the situational cheater,  I don't have the cite but I remember the results of the study very well.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

You are completely right- it is 1/3 of all men.  Another 1/3 are serial cheaters.  The remaining group are the situational cheater,  I don't have the cite but I remember the results of the study very well.

I wonder if those stats would hold for women. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

It takes two people to cheat.  (Not to sexually harass or to assault but we're not talking about that here.)  If I were to shut things down at the first sign of any "stirrings" on either of our part, then it wouldn't go any farther.  And if I found it becoming a problem because I couldn't shut down my feelings or the man were not backing off, then I would amend the business arrangement.  (Though honestly, I can turn off my "I'm available and looking" feelings to begin with.  I mean, no matter how attractive a BIL might be I'm not going to see that person as a possible mate.  Neither am I going to see a underage person that way.  Nor, in the case where I am married, any other man.) 

[Scarlett]

31 minutes ago, OKBud said:

Well, yeah this thread is absolutely about pretty women. No one is worried about their husbands having intimate working arrangements with men, or sexless gargoyle women.

And even if you want to remove that aspect of it...which, again, you can not as it is inherent in the situation... my answers remain the same. To think otherwise is to think any combination of the following things, and I would not respect a man about whom I was forced to think any of them:

• My husband is too stupid to realize ahead of time that he might enjoy having his ego or his *&^% stroked by a woman other than me
• My husband is not a fully grown adult, with full agency over himself
• My husband is not capable of self-policing*
• My husband is a low-key sexual predator just WAITING for a signal from another woman- any woman at all- that she's DTF
• Any woman is a potential threat to my family and myself and our entire mode of living if she's just AROUND my husband for long enough...or if they work together in a certain way

 

Look, I *know* what I am talking about here, experientally.  There's huge, huge risk of infidelity. It happens allllllll the time. I've been in some messed up situations.  But...circles of control paired with personal integrity demands that I not view women as a threat to me bc they're prettier (or whatever) and that I *do* approach my husband as fully responsible for his own choices. I can not think of why anyone would tacitly agree to live with a man in any other way!

 

*if a spouse specifically asks for help in a one-off situation, I would consider that acceptable. I fully believe there are ppl out there that my husband could be both attracted to AND could make him spectacularly happy, long-term. Too bad, so sad: we're doing something here. If he needed support in avoiding going down a deleterious road and said so, I'd help. But see how the onus remains firmly on him? It has to.

If he chooses to explode everything we've built, so be it. But I won't live like that in the meantime. And he would feel the full weight of his terrible choices if he did it. I won't take on one single iota, either ahead of time or after the fact, and I certainly will not insist that some random other woman do so!!

That is a good list. I agree with it.  I do not view any woman as a threat to me, even the ones more attractive than me, which is most these days.  And I am not suspicious at all of my husband.  I am fully aware though that certain combinations of circumstances can be a threat.  And so Dh and I set up our lives to avoid those.  Again though we are not hard nosed about it and we aren’t trying to appear morally superior to anyone.  And we don’t talk about it to other people.  Except here on this board of course.  Lol...

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

Yes, I believe that you and I are saying much the same thing, with the emphasis on different aspects of the issue. Mine is on personal accountability and yours is on the specific steps you and your husband elect to take to enact that accountability. 

I was talking about this subject in general with DH last night and he was laughing. "I know where you stand babe!" irt how thoroughly HIS FAULT it is if he cheats on me LOL. 🤣 I am... less than delightful to live with hahaha. 💃

I don’t think it’s dh’s job to police me, nor mine to police him - circle of concern and all that good stuff - however I DO think it is wise to, as a couple OR individually, decide on parameters for one’s own accountability. I know a few people who only have couples-joint Facebook accounts, like “BobSue McMillan”. That doesn’t appeal to me personally (in part because several groups I am in are totally irrelevant to dh and vice versa), but I don’t look down on couples who decide they want that accountability in place. 

I was mocked by a male friend years back when I refused to come to a party in his honor, which would have required me to give up my whole weekend and drive several hours each way. I said my view was that this would cause my dh angst and if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be very bothered if dh were going to such lengths for a female friend. My friendship with the guy ended due to this conversation. In retrospect, I think he probably *did* have ulterior motives and my refusal to go to his party made him realize I rank dh’s comfort far above his. In retrospect, I see a lot of this guy’s actions as snake-like and I think his true intentions were not good. 

[Scarlett]

10 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t think it’s dh’s job to police me, nor mine to police him - circle of concern and all that good stuff - however I DO think it is wise to, as a couple OR individually, decide on parameters for one’s own accountability. I know a few people who only have couples-joint Facebook accounts, like “BobSue McMillan”. That doesn’t appeal to me personally (in part because several groups I am in are totally irrelevant to dh and vice versa), but I don’t look down on couples who decide they want that accountability in place. 

I was mocked by a male friend years back when I refused to come to a party in his honor, which would have required me to give up my whole weekend and drive several hours each way. I said my view was that this would cause my dh angst and if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be very bothered if dh were going to such lengths for a female friend. My friendship with the guy ended due to this conversation. In retrospect, I think he probably *did* have ulterior motives and my refusal to go to his party made him realize I rank dh’s comfort far above his. In retrospect, I see a lot of this guy’s actions as snake-like and I think his true intentions were not good. 

I remember that.  And I would say that illustrates that in the moment humans aren’t always fully aware of what might be going on.  So if we have our personal boundaries we just naturally avoid those people and possibilities. 

[vonfirmath]

20 hours ago, Joker said:

What do people mean when they say they avoid being alone with the opposite sex in regards to work?

My dh wouldn’t have his job if he avoided ever being alone with women. It seems like it could end up being really unfair but maybe you don’t truly mean they completely avoid being alone with the opposite sex. I have never had reason to worry about it with dh and he does have to travel here and there and often there are female employees traveling as well.  His boss for three years was female so he definitely couldn’t avoid ever being alone with her. I don’t know, just seems like a weird statement in regards to work and careers. He does opt out of after work/conference get togethers and happy hours  if it’s a trip where I didn’t tag along though. He doesn’t like the after work drinking/socializing if he’s alone.

When I say it I mean I avoid being alone one on one.

IF I go to a lunch with guys -- it's a group. There's never been a need for me to have a one on one lunch with anyone, actually.

IF we are working together -- doors are open. It's never private in a room together.

It has never been awkward or hard to arrange. Maybe because the guys I worked with had the same values or maybe I just give off an "air" that they don't question me.

[Joker]

3 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

When I say it I mean I avoid being alone one on one.

IF I go to a lunch with guys -- it's a group. There's never been a need for me to have a one on one lunch with anyone, actually.

IF we are working together -- doors are open. It's never private in a room together.

It has never been awkward or hard to arrange. Maybe because the guys I worked with had the same values or maybe I just give off an "air" that they don't question me.

I understand but it’s just not possible for everyone. I was talking about it with dh last night and he has many closed door private meetings with his female VP and female direct reports when he’s actually in the office (he’s worked from home the last 5 years). They can’t just leave the door open due to the nature of their business. There are privacy laws with what they discuss and they can’t chance people overhearing who shouldn’t. When he’s in the office, there are often lunches as there just isn’t enough time in the day. Sometimes it’s more than one person but, again, it depends on what needs to be discussed. It doesn’t mean their values are any different as there is nothing but work taking place. I was just curious what people meant but it’s not a big deal to me.

[Jaybee]

31 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I remember that.  And I would say that illustrates that in the moment humans aren’t always fully aware of what might be going on.  So if we have our personal boundaries we just naturally avoid those people and possibilities. 

Yes. I'm not worried, and dh has no reason to worry either. However, when you have been married as long as we have, you have times when everything is not sunshine and roses. It helps to have boundaries (mentally and emotionally, as well as otherwise) that you have determined you won't cross. I haven't ever worried about dh having a physical affair. There has been a time or two when I was concerned he might be tempted (mildly) emotionally--not because he is weak or any such thing, because he is not, but because we were having some struggles we needed to work through. It helped me when I was feeling vulnerable to know that he was respectful of our relationship in ways that would give it priority and protection. He isn't a flirt, but he is certainly a good guy that would be easy for others to be attracted to.

[Scarlett]

54 minutes ago, OKBud said:

I am unmoved by those assertions, as in the military, husbands will be living 24/7 with other women...going out together, etc. Other men too, obviously. But leading together, or getting the short end of the stick together, or working on special (and intense) projects together...etc all of it and more. Plenty closed doors.

And yanno? Infidelity is a "legal" offense in our branch. Not just in your own chain of command, which cleary comes with inherent power imbalances, but with civilians as well. 

If the military with its known hotbox for affairs can hold all these people responsible for their own actions, I can as well. 

As for the avoiding talk portion of the argument... good luck with that LOL. Sorry to be flip about it but it has been instructive for me to get out. Out-out, out in the world more. A person accustomed to behaving with internal consistency and outward integrity will still get talked about, but once you fully grasp how very large the world is, outside of the place where you and the mouth-flappers live, it does not matter. Flappers gonna flap. Eventually they get tired. 

My favorite phrase of the day. 

[brehon]

1 hour ago, OKBud said:

I am unmoved by those assertions, as in the military, husbands will be living 24/7 with other women...going out together, etc. Other men too, obviously. But leading together, or getting the short end of the stick together, or working on special (and intense) projects together...etc all of it and more. Plenty closed doors.

<snip> 

If the military with its known hotbox for affairs...<snip>

 

1st para — EMS is slightly different in that I live with my partner for 24 hours every third day. But everything else is spot on. Plenty of closed doors between HIPAA and personnel matters.

”Hotbox of affairs...” — whoo boy! EMS as well (as a profession), though less so in my system. Or, at least, the people involved are much more discrete. Or I’m oblivious. 

[Guest]

Quote

Many people responded in agreement with the above from the OP, and my responses were in reaction to that. I believe that we are conditioned to feel threatened by sexually attractive women and that this waters-down the level to which we hold our husbands responsible for their own actions. A woman is not threatening to me because she's beautiful. My HUSBAND would be threatening to me if he was keen to upend our family

I get this, but IMO, people who have affairs are not 100% people “keen to upend [their] family”. I guess that was my point in relating that little story. I wasn’t thinking, “If only I could find some new guy to get busy with,” I was just chatting with someone who seemed like good friendship material. But as Scarlett said, I wasn’t fully aware of some things until I reflected on them afterwards. But I did have this sort of rule in my head that you don’t do things that cause your mate distress. 

I do wonder, in the case of my nice-looking friend with the new business partner, did his wife find it uncomfortable? Because to me, it would say a lot about someone’s character whether they would behave defensively, i.e., “Yeah, she’s good-looking, but so what? She’s brilliant at this line of work and that’s all I care about!” vs. if he recognized that discomfort and sought to be reassuring. In the later case, for example, it doesn’t necessarily mean he simply could not do business with a supermodel, just maybe, certain parameters. Like, “There’s always the secretary still in the office if we have to work late; we don’t stay in the same hotel if we travel together, etc. “

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Joker said:

I understand but it’s just not possible for everyone. I was talking about it with dh last night and he has many closed door private meetings with his female VP and female direct reports when he’s actually in the office (he’s worked from home the last 5 years). They can’t just leave the door open due to the nature of their business. There are privacy laws with what they discuss and they can’t chance people overhearing who shouldn’t. When he’s in the office, there are often lunches as there just isn’t enough time in the day. Sometimes it’s more than one person but, again, it depends on what needs to be discussed. It doesn’t mean their values are any different as there is nothing but work taking place. I was just curious what people meant but it’s not a big deal to me.

I wonder about this as I will be seeking paralegal work this fall. That would be one such job where, if I work for a male attorney, and we are discussing a case, it literally must be private. I do think most firms now have glass, but soundproof, barriers, more because of harassment claims than infidelity, but with the same outcome. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don’t think that anyone is saying that generic you or your husband HAVE to work behind closed doors with a member of the opposite sex. And indeed in some situations it is easy to avoid. But there are equally other jobs where trying to avoid that would be difficult and would impede getting business done quickly and efficiently. 
 

I guess what I am saying is that predicting the demise of a marriage simply because of a female-male partnership is weird to me. And if expressed to the parties involved can incite feelings that weren’t there and didn’t need to be there. 
 

Also I might point out that there are a lot of barriers to women being able to climb to the position of leadership needed to be partner in a new (or old) business. These restrictions in people’s thoughts and attitudes are one of those barriers we face as women. And I think it’s a shame. 
 

Let’s judge individual women and men for their actual choices. Don’t limit people for what choices they “could “ make. Sure, we put up certain safeguards for all sorts of reasons and I am not suggesting that they hold meetings in a hotel room but most professionals are getting down to business not hanky panky. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jean in Newcastle
Autocorrect

[BlsdMama]

It's never really occurred to me that DH might work with attractive women, lol.... Until more recently.  I've met several of his coworkers in his current position - men and women.  His assistant is older than me and frankly, shockingly attractive.  And she is involved with a community dance thing so I've seen pictures of her dressed in some pretty eyecatching attire. (She's a FB friend.) Now, she is happily married and she works with him too (big company) but I think it was the first time I was like, "Um..." (Pause.)   Now, the deeper darker me wonders if I'm more insecure due to my changing body (hypermetabolism, reduced activity, muscle atrophy) and my awareness of a growing list of weaknesses as a partner, kwim? But, still, I'm married to one of those guys that CANNOT tell a lie if his life depended on it , is devoted to the concept of loyalty & faithfulness, and every single thought/feeling crosses his face, for better or worse, so that is reassuring, but it is weird to feel this insecurity.

[mom2scouts]

15 hours ago, Pen said:

So, do I understand this correctly? Some of you think very pretty women can only work with other women or their own husbands or maybe a single man or gay man, not with married men as it is too tempting ? 

No, not at all. I worked in a male dominated field. Almost all of my coworkers were men. The question was about starting a business together. Have you ever started a business with someone? I have and it's a whole different situation than just working with someone.

[Pen]

44 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

No, not at all. I worked in a male dominated field. Almost all of my coworkers were men. The question was about starting a business together. Have you ever started a business with someone? I have and it's a whole different situation than just working with someone.

 

I think starting a business is so hard, with so many new businesses failing, that appearances of the people involved would be fairly low on my list of considerations for choosing a partner. 

My first question would be whether the partnership would be likely to succeed from a business perspective and be likely to be capacities and skills and integrity and ethics that would make a good partner regardless of gender and appearance.

 If I thought they were starting a business as a cover up for wanting a liaison between two married people, that would be a separate issue. 

If I thought extramarital liaison was a significant idea, I would be concerned regardless of appearance of the partner.   

 

[SKL]

He could just as easily have an affair with a not-so-gorgeous woman, including one who wasn't his business partner.

If I were the wife, I'd of course want to know all about the business and the partner, and I'd get vibes if it was legit or not, and if there was attraction or not.  I wouldn't assume anything just because someone is beautiful.  Often the "beautiful" vibe is because the woman is strong, confident, effective, focused on her mission.  Most such women don't have time for nonsense.

[marbel]

7 hours ago, Joker said:

I understand but it’s just not possible for everyone. I was talking about it with dh last night and he has many closed door private meetings with his female VP and female direct reports when he’s actually in the office (he’s worked from home the last 5 years). They can’t just leave the door open due to the nature of their business. There are privacy laws with what they discuss and they can’t chance people overhearing who shouldn’t. When he’s in the office, there are often lunches as there just isn’t enough time in the day. Sometimes it’s more than one person but, again, it depends on what needs to be discussed. It doesn’t mean their values are any different as there is nothing but work taking place. I was just curious what people meant but it’s not a big deal to me.

Some people might refuse to do a job that required that kind of contact (closed door one-on-one meetings). They just wouldn't accept the job, or would take the consequences of losing the job. I doubt that there are many people like that, but I have known a couple, and know of a few more. 

So it is possible for someone who thinks it's important enough that they will refuse/lose a job over it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, marbel said:

Some people might refuse to do a job that required that kind of contact (closed door one-on-one meetings). They just wouldn't accept the job, or would take the consequences of losing the job. I doubt that there are many people like that, but I have known a couple, and know of a few more. 

So it is possible for someone who thinks it's important enough that they will refuse/lose a job over it.

Sure. But people (in general, not you) shouldn’t slut shame those who do work jobs like that. 
 

Back when I worked at an engineering firm there were only two female engineers. If I could only be paired with one of them to go out in the field I would have been severely limited in my work. Besides which, their specialties weren’t the kind of engineering specialty that I normally worked with. And it would have been crazy to ask for a secretary (the biggest pool of females in the firm) to chaperone our fieldwork. Not to mention that the suspicion of women as potential Jezebels that are irresistible to our poor helpless husbands who can’t avoid their feminine wiles is extremely problematic to me.    

[marbel]

19 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Sure. But people (in general, not you) shouldn’t slut shame those who do work jobs like that. 
 

Well, right. I didn't say anything about slut-shaming anyone, I am confused. 

I am talking about people who make the choice for themselves to not be in situations where they will be alone with a member of the opposite sex. That is it. As I said before, I don't live that way; I don't expect my husband or anyone else to live that way.  I don't see how slut-shaming comes into the picture at all.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

20 minutes ago, marbel said:

Well, right. I didn't say anything about slut-shaming anyone, I am confused. 

I am talking about people who make the choice for themselves to not be in situations where they will be alone with a member of the opposite sex. That is it. As I said before, I don't live that way; I don't expect my husband or anyone else to live that way.  I don't see how slut-shaming comes into the picture at all.  

I was piggy backing off of what you said.  Which is why I said that I was not talking about you. 

But I do think that it is a form of slut shaming for people (again, in general) to automatically brush any woman who wants to work in a position where she has to be alone with a man as a threat.  Because she's being seen as a sexual object, not as a woman with business acumen, or specialized skills. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Jean in Newcastle
left out a word or two

[Terabith]

18 minutes ago, marbel said:

Well, right. I didn't say anything about slut-shaming anyone, I am confused. 

I am talking about people who make the choice for themselves to not be in situations where they will be alone with a member of the opposite sex. That is it. As I said before, I don't live that way; I don't expect my husband or anyone else to live that way.  I don't see how slut-shaming comes into the picture at all.  

The issue I see is not when the person who makes choices for themselves to not be in situations like that is that it's fine if they are equals, but if they are higher ranking in a field, saying, "I have this rule for myself" severely limits women's progress up the corporate ladder.  For instance, Vice President Pence has that rule for himself.  I'd be fine with him making that rule for himself if it didn't impact women working around him.  But because of his position and the sensitive nature of much of the work, a heck of a lot of women are being denied job opportunities that shouldn't be.  

The Billy Graham rule doesn't just impact the man.  It has real, severe consequences on women around them, who are limited by this arbitrary rule in a way that just isn't fair.  

[marbel]

26 minutes ago, Terabith said:

The issue I see is not when the person who makes choices for themselves to not be in situations like that is that it's fine if they are equals, but if they are higher ranking in a field, saying, "I have this rule for myself" severely limits women's progress up the corporate ladder.  For instance, Vice President Pence has that rule for himself.  I'd be fine with him making that rule for himself if it didn't impact women working around him.  But because of his position and the sensitive nature of much of the work, a heck of a lot of women are being denied job opportunities that shouldn't be.  

The Billy Graham rule doesn't just impact the man.  It has real, severe consequences on women around them, who are limited by this arbitrary rule in a way that just isn't fair.  

But did you see where I said that the person who doesn't want to be alone with a member of the opposite sex makes the decision to not take the job, or possibly lose the job because of their belief in that? So obviously not people in power.   And did I ever say it was only men who felt that way?  If I did, then I will correct that now. I also know (and know of) women who have the same philosophy.  

It's not a large group of people to be sure. I was answering someone who asked how that would work. Well, I have seen how it would work. It works with people making that (not being alone with members of the opposite sex) more important in their life than having the job that puts them in a position they don't want to be in. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by marbel

[Terabith]

4 minutes ago, marbel said:

But did you see where I said that the person who doesn't want to be alone with a member of the opposite sex makes the decision to not take the job, or possibly lose the job because of their belief in that? So obviously not people in power.   And did I ever say it was only men who felt that way?  If I did, then I will correct that now. I also know (and know of) women who have the same philosophy.  

It's not a large group of people to be sure. I was answering someone who asked how that would work. Well, I have seen how it would work. It works with people making that (not being alone with members of the opposite sex) more important in their life than having the job that puts them in a position they don't want to be in. 

Like I said, I'm fine with people having that philosophy for themselves if it doesn't impact others.  It can work if they are lower ranking in an organization, although I've definitely seen issues even in those circumstances.  

And yes, there are some women who have that stance for themselves, but 1) it's not as common for women to have that stance, and 2) women tend to not be represented equally in higher levels of organizations.  

Here's an example of a situation I witnessed in which this policy led to direct harm to a woman:  

A friend of mine was in a town that was not her own when her car started making weird noises and the engine gave out.  She coasted into a church parking lot.  Two men came out and offered to help her.  They looked at the engine and one man said he thought it just needed a jump.  But the other man had to leave to go to an appointment, so he could not use his car to jump hers, because he could not be alone with her in the church parking lot.  

Now, this was not a serious issue.  She wound up calling AAA.  But, what would happen if instead of being a woman who needed a jump, she was a woman applying at that church for a job as a youth director or associate pastor.  If the pastor of that church followed that rule for himself, is he likely to hire a woman as a youth director, if he feels he couldn't be even in the church parking lot alone with her?  Or would he hire a man, even if he was perhaps less qualified?  And that could have real life implications for the career trajectory of a woman just getting started.  The male minister looks virtuous and like he's just making a "rule for himself," but that's a rule that doesn't just impact him.  

[LucyStoner]

Is this a professional business practice, like they are both CPAs or lawyers or architects and they are hanging their shingles together or is it a business venture where there’s more risk than merely dissolving the partnership?  
 

I do not think I would be bothered by it but it’s definitely a hypothetical situation for me as if my husband were to start a business, it would almost assuredly be with me or one of his male friends.  

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Is this a professional business practice, like they are both CPAs or lawyers or architects and they are hanging their shingles together or is it a business venture where there’s more risk than merely dissolving the partnership?  
 

I do not think I would be bothered by it but it’s definitely a hypothetical situation for me as if my husband were to start a business, it would almost assuredly be with me or one of his male friends.  

I’m not entirely certain but I *think* it is more like the former scenario. It is clear to me that the woman has the same training and licensing as my friend. 

[Jaybee]

13 minutes ago, Quill said:

I’m not entirely certain but I *think* it is more like the former scenario. It is clear to me that the woman has the same training and licensing as my friend. 

Depending on personalities (are they the flirty type?), that scenario--something like lawyers or CPAs with their own clients--wouldn't bother me near as much as the picture I had of them starting a business of a different kind from the ground up together.

[LucyStoner]

17 minutes ago, Quill said:

I’m not entirely certain but I *think* it is more like the former scenario. It is clear to me that the woman has the same training and licensing as my friend. 

In that case, I wouldn’t mind it at all.  I would be befuddled if my husband objected to me working with another accountant who was male.  We both joke that our sexual orientation is “monogamous” tho.  I would be less surprised if he committed murder than if he cheated on me.  

[kesmom]

On 6/28/2020 at 1:28 PM, bolt. said:

So, yeah, if proximity to a gorgeous business partner is going to be a problem, there always was a problem. A marriage problem, or a character problem, or both.

 

This, though I would change "gorgeous" to "available" because in the marriages I have known that had infidelity, looks had little to do with it. And by available I don't mean single.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by kesmom

[Guest]

Hey, just an interesting update from something I was listening to yesterday. If was on my Calm app and it was a class about Stoical Philosophy. The instructor was saying equilibrium is improved when you accept all things could happen. He gave the example of going on a trip; your flight may be delayed, you might get pulled out for searching by security, the food might be suspended, the plane might wait on the tarmac due to weather or mechanicals, etc. It is better, he was saying, to embrace and acknowledge that any bad outcome might happen. People who grasp onto the idea that bad outcomes can never happen in their case experience much greater instability when bad stuff happens. 

I thought about this thread and infidelity in that light, and I think, that’s how I think about it. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible for me to be cheated on, or for myself to be pulled away. We do know that external structure helps people do what they mean to do, and not do what they don’t mean to do. Seen in that light, self-parameters, like someone upthread called the Billy Graham rule (never knew people called it that, but it suits), are a good idea. I don’t think it’s wise for any rule to be upheld no matter what, like in the example of giving the woman a jump in the parking lot. That’s gettin’ a bit hair-splitting to me. But I can see where the general rule would be more helpful than not. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Hey, just an interesting update from something I was listening to yesterday. If was on my Calm app and it was a class about Stoical Philosophy. The instructor was saying equilibrium is improved when you accept all things could happen. He gave the example of going on a trip; your flight may be delayed, you might get pulled out for searching by security, the food might be suspended, the plane might wait on the tarmac due to weather or mechanicals, etc. It is better, he was saying, to embrace and acknowledge that any bad outcome might happen. People who grasp onto the idea that bad outcomes can never happen in their case experience much greater instability when bad stuff happens. 

I thought about this thread and infidelity in that light, and I think, that’s how I think about it. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible for me to be cheated on, or for myself to be pulled away. We do know that external structure helps people do what they mean to do, and not do what they don’t mean to do. Seen in that light, self-parameters, like someone upthread called the Billy Graham rule (never knew people called it that, but it suits), are a good idea. I don’t think it’s wise for any rule to be upheld no matter what, like in the example of giving the woman a jump in the parking lot. That’s gettin’ a bit hair-splitting to me. But I can see where the general rule would be more helpful than not. 

No kidding. I was scratching my head on that one...,I don’t know a single man who would not have helped that woman in the parking lot.  Even if one of them had to be late to his appointment or even if one of them was alone with her while either helping her jump it or calling AAA. What jerks.