Jump to content

Menu
The Well-Trained Mind Community

Musing about something with attractive work partners


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would be bothered. I'm not gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination, but it's more than that. Dh and I have a great relationship and have been married a very long time. However, I recognize my own

Why the woman? Why should not the man who feels he needs to put up those rules reconsider the type of work he is in?

I have not read the responses yet bc I'm in a rush, but I'll tell you really quickly the conclusions I came to... My husband works in a job that has A LOT A LOT of infidelity associated with it,

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.   

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.    

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Jean in Newcastle
left out a word or two
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by marbel
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by kesmom
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes 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. 

 

LOL I was agreeing so hard with the first paragraph that I laughed out loud at the second, because I felt like it supported my impulse that it's more important to develop a sense for how to handle disparate situations on their own merits, rather than setting expectations in advance 🤣

To a certain extent I agree, though. We've all known people who are like "what about this, is this cheating?" If you go looking for trouble just so that you can edge right up to the line without going over, you're a jackwagon. ...but that goes both ways in that if you see the edge of trouble in every situation, something is amiss. Either your spouse is throwing off a not-exactly-upstanding vibe, or you're dealing with your own insecurities*. And they aren't mutually exclusive.

 

*usually because some jagoff did you dirty 

Edited by OKBud
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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.  

Right. I would be mad at dh if he didn't help a woman in that situation! But he would, because he's that kind of a man. 

As to the first paragraph Quill just wrote, it made me laugh too, and think, "And I always thought that meant I was a pessim...realist!" Because I nearly always think through all the scenarios. It helps me handle life with its bumps better when I know I have. (Though I never have explored the infidelity angle with it beyond that we are fallible--and I won't.)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

"And I always thought that meant I was a pessim...realist!" Because I nearly always think through all the scenarios. It helps me handle life with its bumps better when I know I have.

 

It's also a common trauma coping mechanism, which I think is the kernel of truth in the maxim what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, a phrase I despise when wielded by unthinking cretins. And, ironically, it's a habit that well-meaning but off-base therapists sometimes encourage people to shed in favor of blind optimism. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

Right. I would be mad at dh if he didn't help a woman in that situation! But he would, because he's that kind of a man. 

As to the first paragraph Quill just wrote, it made me laugh too, and think, "And I always thought that meant I was a pessim...realist!" Because I nearly always think through all the scenarios. It helps me handle life with its bumps better when I know I have. (Though I never have explored the infidelity angle with it beyond that we are fallible--and I won't.)

Umm yeah that’s totally me. I have heard of stoic philosophy though.  I’m sure that’s why our lives haven’t changed much even during a pandemic. Lol. We’ve pretty much set ourselves up for worst case scenario without going full prepper.

When I went into labor with my first, he was 2 weeks overdue, and it took 22 hours of labor and still he wasn’t moving. They finally had to give me an emergency c-section.  He was 10lbs. There was no way I would have been able to have a natural birth with his Charlie Brown head. It didn’t phase me. Right before I my delivery date, Africa was flooding and some lady gave birth in a tree and was stuck up there for 3 days with her mom. That was my measuring stick. I didn’t care about the birth plan or having a natural birth. What happens, happens as long as he comes out and is healthy. How we got there couldn’t be as bad as giving birth in a tree with alligator-filled flood waters below. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

Right. I would be mad at dh if he didn't help a woman in that situation! But he would, because he's that kind of a man. 

As to the first paragraph Quill just wrote, it made me laugh too, and think, "And I always thought that meant I was a pessim...realist!" Because I nearly always think through all the scenarios. It helps me handle life with its bumps better when I know I have. (Though I never have explored the infidelity angle with it beyond that we are fallible--and I won't.)

This is quite tangential but, in the book The Unthinkable, which talks about behavior in a disaster/crisis, studies have found that the most likely people to survive and/or save the lives of others in a disaster are people in law enforcement or with a military background. The reason is because people with such training are typically mentally prepared for a disaster. They habitually observe things like exits, what they would do if XYZ happened, etc. They have a mental contingency plan that they are much more likely to put directly into action when there’s an explosion, a terrorist act, a tornado, a plane malfunction and so on. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Plum said:

How we got there couldn’t be as bad as giving birth in a tree with alligator-filled flood waters below. 

Ain't that the truth!! Perspective is a powerful thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Quill said:

This is quite tangential but, in the book The Unthinkable, which talks about behavior in a disaster/crisis, studies have found that the most likely people to survive and/or save the lives of others in a disaster are people in law enforcement or with a military background. The reason is because people with such training are typically mentally prepared for a disaster. They habitually observe things like exits, what they would do if XYZ happened, etc. They have a mental contingency plan that they are much more likely to put directly into action when there’s an explosion, a terrorist act, a tornado, a plane malfunction and so on. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic. 

On the tangential topic 😄, we have had a very varied life, and in the process, I learned a lot of street smarts. I wouldn't say I am hypervigilant, but I am certainly aware. I tell myself that it isn't worry, but rather preparation, lol. Interestingly, when my father died, I was much more prepared than my siblings, because I had thought through the scenarios every single time we left to go overseas. 

ETA: One effect of this mindset is that there is little that surprises me. So with our children, we have tried to emphasize that they can come to us with anything. We have seen a lot, and so while we hope for the best and encourage them to strive for that, we recognize our own potential for failure in one aspect or another. We have high ideals and expectations for them, but can also come alongside with commiseration and understanding when they don't reach our or their own expectations. Doesn't mean we wouldn't be disappointed, but we also won't hit the roof. We do sincerely pray for them, because this world can be hard.

Edited by Jaybee
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's entirely possible to be prepared for disaster, while also being confident that a *specific* disaster isn't going to happen.  Kind of like "expect the unexpected."  That phrase doesn't actually mean to expect events that you never thought possible....it means that unexpected things WILL happen, so having a broad plan in place to cover when those things happen is always a good idea.  

An example of this is what is really going on right now.  No one really expected a pandemic that would send our country into a SAH order for 2 to 3 months (or more.)  I mean except for the most extreme of preppers, I would venture that most folks really weren't thinking about having to SAH for 3 months, be laid off, or be stuck working from home, schooling their kids from home, due to a virus, right now in 2020.  But it's still possible to plan for emergencies, by saving up money, having a stockpile of food, etc etc.  People who had some emergency plans in place were better prepared to be shut down than people who didn't have any.....even though I would assume that the vast majority of folks who had some emergency plans never had specific plans in place for what actually happened.  

So to bring it back around to the topic somewhat....I think it's entirely possible to be confident that your spouse won't cheat, while still also recognizing that marital disasters are possible and have some sort of emergency plans in place.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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. 

I live by the concept posted above, but I detest the Billy Graham rule. I think the Graham rule does nothing but hurt and demean women. I can’t imagine not meeting with men 1:1 in a work setting. Not only would I not be able to be successful in my role, but my male coworkers wouldn’t be successful either. Not to mention, treating a males differently than females is illegal. 
 

But, anyway, I think the way to live out the philosophy above is to mitigate the impact of bad scenarios, not to focus on eliminating the bad scenarios. For instance, how to mitigate the impact of a marriage ending. What do I do? I make sure I can support myself and my kids, know our financial resources, and am capable to live independently if I ever need to. Marriages can end for so many reasons. Living the philosophy means I am set up to recover from my marriage ending or my spouse being disabled or dying. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2squared said:

I live by the concept posted above, but I detest the Billy Graham rule. I think the Graham rule does nothing but hurt and demean women. I can’t imagine not meeting with men 1:1 in a work setting. Not only would I not be able to be successful in my role, but my male coworkers wouldn’t be successful either. Not to mention, treating a males differently than females is illegal. 
 

But, anyway, I think the way to live out the philosophy above is to mitigate the impact of bad scenarios, not to focus on eliminating the bad scenarios. For instance, how to mitigate the impact of a marriage ending. What do I do? I make sure I can support myself and my kids, know our financial resources, and am capable to live independently if I ever need to. Marriages can end for so many reasons. Living the philosophy means I am set up to recover from my marriage ending or my spouse being disabled or dying. 

I couldn’t agree more with your second paragraph. It’s a big part of the reason I didn’t/don’t advocate early marriage and am big on daughters being capable of manning the ship, should that become necessary for any reason. 

As to your first paragraph, it is possible I don’t know precisely how The Billy Graham Rule” is expressed. I just took the kernel of truth from it and applied it as a general rule to keep oneself out of situations that could either look wrong or actually be wrong. Male or female; I don’t see it as a gender thing, just a wise decision of self-governance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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. 

By that logic I had better not work with anyone because they might murder me. Or might sexually harass me (male or female). Or might steal from me - even if it’s my lunch from the break room. The POC might accuse me of racism (since the Billy Graham rule is about avoiding the possibility of being falsely accused. ). 
 

People do bad things. But people can also be honorable and trustworthy. Instead of descriminating against people (because that’s what this is at it’s core) maybe it’s better to be so honorable yourself that you won’t give into sexual advances. That you will brush off little problems and won’t turn a blind eye to big ones (thus being an accessory). That you will treat people with kindness and professionalism no matter their gender or race or sexual orientation. That you will recognize that everyone has skills- even “gorgeous women “ and have a right to make a living and to start a business. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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. 

I think there is a difference in grasping the idea that bad outcomes can happen and putting rules in place to try to control and prevent those things from happening.  I don't not fly because I might have a bad outcome and be stuck on the tarmac.  I don't make sure that I have a tool box with me and personal mechanical training so that I can fix the plane if there is a problem.  Yes, I take a bag of almonds with me when I fly because food service might be disrupted, but I don't travel with the ability to fix a complete meal.  I accept that there are some things out of my control.  I weigh what is a reasonable plan, based on the probability of something happening, and how much a plan will weigh me down.   

To me, putting rules in place of who my spouse or I can work with based on physical attributes or gender in order to reduce the chance that there was an extra-marital affair, thus perhaps preventing my spouse from developing a successful business, would be akin to not flying because of the low probability that I will sit on the tarmac without food because of mechanical problems.  There is a difference in acknowledging, and accepting, that something COULD happen and it is out of your control and taking draconian measures to prevent it from happening.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quill said:

 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. 

My brain just does not make the leap from 'it's not impossible for dh to cheat' to 'therefore dh should never be alone with a female.'  

By this reasoning, your dh should never be alone with anyone, because if you accept that anything could happen, you have to accept that he could have a fling with a male coworker as well. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, katilac said:

My brain just does not make the leap from 'it's not impossible for dh to cheat' to 'therefore dh should never be alone with a female.'  

By this reasoning, your dh should never be alone with anyone, because if you accept that anything could happen, you have to accept that he could have a fling with a male coworker as well. 

Grace and Frankie!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

By that logic I had better not work with anyone because they might murder me. Or might sexually harass me (male or female). Or might steal from me - even if it’s my lunch from the break room. The POC might accuse me of racism (since the Billy Graham rule is about avoiding the possibility of being falsely accused. ). 
 

People do bad things. But people can also be honorable and trustworthy. Instead of descriminating against people (because that’s what this is at it’s core) maybe it’s better to be so honorable yourself that you won’t give into sexual advances. That you will brush off little problems and won’t turn a blind eye to big ones (thus being an accessory). That you will treat people with kindness and professionalism no matter their gender or race or sexual orientation. That you will recognize that everyone has skills- even “gorgeous women “ and have a right to make a living and to start a business. 

But you do do things like lock your doors, don't let strangers in your house, don't do things that are overall risky, right? Everyone takes precautions for these scenarios all the time even if they are so ingrained that we don't think about them. Everyone takes some kind of precautions that don't give an appearance of vulnerability (like not waving cash around after you get it from an atm or not staring into one's phone while walking around alone). The fact that you think my precaution of not wanting to be alone with a man in certain scenarios is unreasonable doesn't make it so. It isn't about discrimination or thinking everyone is going to do something horrible, or even that a particular person is going to do something horrible. And of course it requires a working brain to say I can walk into a break room at work even if it would mean I'm "alone" with another person, but maybe being in their hotel room on a work trip is a different form of "alone". There is alone, and then there is Alone.

I don't think this is about gender either. To use another example, in my church, no adult is allowed to be alone with a child or children. This doesn't assume everyone is a predator and it has nothing to do with rights of people to teach Sunday school or run youth group. I'm sure we can all see the wisdom in this rule as it's pretty universal these days, and it has nothing to do with assuming bad things about particular people or discrimination. And a good argument against the rule isn't, "Well I know that so-and-so would never hurt a child! If I thought he was capable of that I'd never ask him to teach Sunday School!" 

As a female who was in the military I would have been extremely uncomfortable with, say, a male superior insisting we had to be alone together to accomplish some task. That's not to say I was never alone with a male co-worker, but it was never a situation that was insisted upon by someone higher up, or even a peer. I mean, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer are people who exist in the world and are far from the only creeps out there who would take advantage of seniority and power.

I doubt Quill really thinks good looking people don't have a right to start a business or that they don'thave skills, lol. That is taking things to an extreme. Being concerned about the quality and quantity of alone time your spouse spends with another person isn't unreasonable.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how this got from the OP to having an inflexible rule about never, ever being alone with someone one who is not one's spouse.

It seems like the latter is being brought up as a strawman to dismiss any and all concerns in the former.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't know how this got from the OP to having an inflexible rule about never, ever being alone with someone one who is not one's spouse.

It seems like the latter is being brought up as a strawman to dismiss any and all concerns in the former.

But the OP seems to be on board with it, or at least consider it a reasonable choice. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But you do do things like lock your doors, don't let strangers in your house, don't do things that are overall risky, right? Everyone takes precautions for these scenarios all the time even if they are so ingrained that we don't think about them. Everyone takes some kind of precautions that don't give an appearance of vulnerability (like not waving cash around after you get it from an atm or not staring into one's phone while walking around alone). The fact that you think my precaution of not wanting to be alone with a man in certain scenarios is unreasonable doesn't make it so. It isn't about discrimination or thinking everyone is going to do something horrible, or even that a particular person is going to do something horrible. And of course it requires a working brain to say I can walk into a break room at work even if it would mean I'm "alone" with another person, but maybe being in their hotel room on a work trip is a different form of "alone". There is alone, and then there is Alone.

I don't think this is about gender either. To use another example, in my church, no adult is allowed to be alone with a child or children. This doesn't assume everyone is a predator and it has nothing to do with rights of people to teach Sunday school or run youth group. I'm sure we can all see the wisdom in this rule as it's pretty universal these days, and it has nothing to do with assuming bad things about particular people or discrimination. And a good argument against the rule isn't, "Well I know that so-and-so would never hurt a child! If I thought he was capable of that I'd never ask him to teach Sunday School!" 

As a female who was in the military I would have been extremely uncomfortable with, say, a male superior insisting we had to be alone together to accomplish some task. That's not to say I was never alone with a male co-worker, but it was never a situation that was insisted upon by someone higher up, or even a peer. I mean, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer are people who exist in the world and are far from the only creeps out there who would take advantage of seniority and power.

I doubt Quill really thinks good looking people don't have a right to start a business or that they don'thave skills, lol. That is taking things to an extreme. Being concerned about the quality and quantity of alone time your spouse spends with another person isn't unreasonable.

Of course people (individuals and corporately) take certain precautions.  This is why most businesses have big windows on conference rooms and even offices.  But examples - from this thread - are things like not driving somewhere with a male coworker, and not starting a business with a female partner (are females only supposed to start businesses by themselves or with their spouse or with another woman?). 

Yes, creeps are everywhere.  I have met my fair share.  And I dealt with them.  I told the person who would spank my bottom every time he went by, VERY LOUDLY to get his hands off of me and that the next time he did it, he would need hand surgery.  (My female boss defended him and told me that he was from another generation and that I should put up with it.   I refused.)  I told the guy who used to comment every time he saw me on my bust size that unless he wanted me to go to HR AND make a phone call to his wife (who I knew) that he'd better knock it off.  (He blustered about how I was too sensitive and I didn't back down and he did.  And while I was at it, I told him to lay off from harassing other females in that office.  And the other females thanked me for it.)  I quit the job where a male boss kept propositioning me because in that situation I didn't have any leverage at all and retreat was the best course of action.  Maybe now I would have more options but I didn't then.

Marriages are built on trust and caring and attention to each other.  A man can spend all his time at work with other men and still neglect the wife and family.  And a man can choose to honor his vows even if he's working with women in the workplace - even if that woman is gorgeous and has risen in rank and experience and skills to be business partner material. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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. 


I’m not sure if stoical philosophy distilled down to an app is very persuasive to me.  I can understand that anything can happen while also knowing someone and their personality and values. I also know that I’ve survived and thrived through some serious sh!t in my life.  Serious enough and often enough to know that I would not be gutted by much of anything.  

I reject the “Billy Graham rules” because I don’t see the world like that.  I don’t think that temptation (attraction) is the only thing required to cheat. That attraction also doesn’t happen with all or even a sizable number of adults.   So banning myself from working with other people based on their sex is also banning myself from working with people who I mostly wouldn’t find attractive anyways.  

  I’ve felt an attraction to someone when I was married.  It was uncomfortable.  What did I do?  I talked to my husband and protected my boundaries.  It made sense for me to avoid that person in a way that it doesn’t make sense for me to avoid all males. And even then it wasn’t because I was afraid I would cheat, it was because I didn’t enjoy the discomfort . My husband has had women explicitly hit on him.  He’s always rebuffed them.  

My friend who is an experienced marriage therapist broadly lumps most cheating spouses into two categories.  Those who do it repeatedly because they don’t feel bound by their marriage vows.  And those who who do it once or twice because something is going on in their marriage and they won’t discuss it with their spouse due to immaturity or shallowness of the cheater’s communication.  I know I’m not married to the former.  I also know I’m married to a man with the social and emotional skills to talk to me about anything.  It wasn’t always this way (we were super young when we got married) but he’s done the work to learn those skills because it was important to him.  

To me if the only thing keeping someone faithful in their marriage is just a blanket avoidance of all people of the opposite sex, there’s something off about that person’s moral compass.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, katilac said:

But the OP seems to be on board with it, or at least consider it a reasonable choice. 

And? That's an individual decision that people have to be free to make. Again, if I had a boss in a position of power over me who also insisted on closed-door meetings frequently no matter my standard on the issue I would find that not only weird and uncomfortable, but also discriminatory.

But I have been in the position of having to negatively counsel a subordinate and even then, sexual harassment taken completely out of the picture, my next level supervisor was required to be there as a witness to the counseling for all sorts of reasons...to ensure I'm not targeting him unfairly, to document the meeting, etc. Heck, I don't think my ob/gyn is a bad guy getting his jollies but even when I've had a female doctor, a nurse is always present for pants-off procedures. Not because the doctor isn't a professional or because I'm scared or because we can't be alone together. We live in a litigious, liability driven culture, that ALSO, by the way wants people to be given the benefit of the doubt when they accuse others of sexually based harassment or crimes. Doesn't it seem prudent, then, that both parties would want to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation or any issues? I know I do! I can think of a million and one scenarios where accountability comes in the form of simply a door being open or another person being in the room or a recording device being on if none of those things are possible.

But all of this is kind of a tangent from having an issue with the kind of quality and quantity of time a spouse is spending with another person.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

To me if the only thing keeping someone faithful in their marriage is just a blanket avoidance of all people of the opposite sex, there’s something off about that person’s moral compass.  

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

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, EmseB said:

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

Of the people whom I know *personally* who abide by this rule, they do tend to express explicitly that "all it takes" is being tempted by the devil and "one moment of weakness". So, I think I can be forgiven for believing that how this rule supposedly stems infidelity is by eliminating all temptation.  And yes, I think that eliminating all temptation is an overly simple way to address the issue.  I don't feel tempted to violate my marriage vows as a matter of course.  Even the one time I felt attraction that was more than a passing recognition that someone is good looking, I didn't feel likely to act on it.  I do find the belief that "all it takes is one moment of weakness" to be shallow and I do associate it with a deficit in someone's morality.  It is immoral to minimize one's personal role in infidelity and to reduce it to just being tempted (either by the devil or the attractive person.)  It's immoral to engage in workplace discrimination.  It is immoral to limit people based on their attractiveness. I feel strongly that people who do this nonsense should remove themselves from the situation rather than engage in workplace discrimination that both humiliates and belittles women, especially women who are considered attractive. If their regressive views are going to limit anyone's professional lives, it should be their own and not the people who have to work with them.  

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding not helping a woman jump her car, I just can't even grasp the logic of refusing on the basis that it's inappropriate to render aid to a human because of their sex.  

1.  We take care of each other.  Period.  There are very few situations in which it would be appropriate to not offer assistance. 

2.  Normal people do not scam on (and by scam on, I mean hit on) people they come across on the side of the road who are in need of help.  The people who have hit on me in such situations are the creepy creep creeps of the world.  

3.  Unfortunately, women who are stranded are more vulnerable to creeps. It's incumbent on the non-creeps of the world to help a stranded woman become unstranded so she doesn't have to say yes to an offer of help that raises her alarm bells.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EmseB said:

And? That's an individual decision that people have to be free to make. Again, if I had a boss in a position of power over me who also insisted on closed-door meetings frequently no matter my standard on the issue I would find that not only weird and uncomfortable, but also discriminatory.

But I have been in the position of having to negatively counsel a subordinate and even then, sexual harassment taken completely out of the picture, my next level supervisor was required to be there as a witness to the counseling for all sorts of reasons...to ensure I'm not targeting him unfairly, to document the meeting, etc. Heck, I don't think my ob/gyn is a bad guy getting his jollies but even when I've had a female doctor, a nurse is always present for pants-off procedures. Not because the doctor isn't a professional or because I'm scared or because we can't be alone together. We live in a litigious, liability driven culture, that ALSO, by the way wants people to be given the benefit of the doubt when they accuse others of sexually based harassment or crimes. Doesn't it seem prudent, then, that both parties would want to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation or any issues? I know I do! I can think of a million and one scenarios where accountability comes in the form of simply a door being open or another person being in the room or a recording device being on if none of those things are possible.

But all of this is kind of a tangent from having an issue with the kind of quality and quantity of time a spouse is spending with another person.

And you said it was quite a departure from the OP's original premise, when I don't think the OP reacted that way. Your corporate example of handling meetings with subordinates is pretty far off from the original scenario of business partners, as well. We can all discuss whatever we choose to discuss. 

We all have different experiences. dh and I have worked at various jobs in various states, and none of them h. ave ever required that we have a next level supervisor sit in on a meeting with a subordinate, and I've never heard anyone in real life reference that, so I don't at all think it's anywhere near a universal rule. However, I wouldn't have a huge problem with a company requiring a third person in such meetings if it's required all the time and not in relation to male/female interactions. I would have a problem with a company requiring a third person when going to lunch, and I would have a problem with that sort of rule being applied to my personal life. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the era of Me Too, the Billy Graham rule and iterations of it are looking smarter and smarter.  It may just be leaving a door open or meeting in a restaurant and not a hotel room, but keeping it mixed company public or easily observable is just not the worst idea ever.  I know that’s how my spouse operates with a female boss and a team under him that is half younger women.  He doesn’t discriminate or change opportunities at all, he just doesn’t schedule private meetings in rooms where other people cannot walk by and see through the glass.  In a modern office with cubes and conference rooms it just isn’t that difficult.  The principle is just keeping everything as above board as possible without being ridiculous.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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. 

Have to disagree with this as it is not my experience. We have travelled lots but every time we have had a disruption since we knew the rules, we were given hotel and food vouchers because we were looking at more than a 5 hour delay. In other places, we have deliberately taken long transits because there are wonderful places like Singapore and I think Seoul where they have free city tours. You have to pay for it in Dubai but Emirates has built hotels where you are fed all meals you are there for and given a nice hotel room free for long transit. I've been pulled in security, patted down in many countries including my native country as policy, lost luggage, but every time I have had money as compensation for lost bags or it was matter of policy. The point I am trying to make is, in today's world unless you are extremely naive, no one is unprepared for a travel inconvenience. But even if we are, it is just an inconvenience. Not life altering. These are also unanticipated and short of not traveling you cannot prevent them.

An infidelity is not like that. You cannot protect your marriage from infidelity by demanding spouses not work with "attractive" partners or those of the opposite sex. It depends on the person. There was something I read today about a woman who moved into a new townhouse with a jogging track nearby specifically because she wanted to run. Her middle aged neighbor would stand on his balcony during that time. This woman was berated by that man's wife because she was wearing less clothes while exercising and "distracting" to her husband. Now whose fault is it that the husband is vile ? Will the wife demand women cover up to protect her marriage ? She should kick the loser out if his behavior bothers him, not berate local women exercising in the heat.

I come from a very modest culture. Wearing clothes neck down where the only skin visible is face, hands and feet does not mean you are not groped. Vile men will do that whether you are clothed or not. As for the "Billy Graham rule", it is surprising and disheartening for I have such a high opinion of him. I thought he was such a great man of God, with this rule which does not exist in the Bible he comes across as very shallow to me. I expect a great man of God to resist temptation not behave like a sexist which might have excluded many women from seeking employment in his organization. Saying he is only human does not cut it for me. My DH works with very many women, if our marriage could break based on him just being with a woman in a room, I would break my marriage because I will not bet my future and those of my children with such a man. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

In the era of Me Too, the Billy Graham rule and iterations of it are looking smarter and smarter.  It may just be leaving a door open or meeting in a restaurant and not a hotel room, but keeping it mixed company public or easily observable is just not the worst idea ever.  I know that’s how my spouse operates with a female boss and a team under him that is half younger women.  He doesn’t discriminate or change opportunities at all, he just doesn’t schedule private meetings in rooms where other people cannot walk by and see through the glass.  In a modern office with cubes and conference rooms it just isn’t that difficult.  The principle is just keeping everything as above board as possible without being ridiculous.

This thread was started with a topic of not working at all with a woman partner. There is absolutely nothing wrong with meeting in more public settings as long as privacy laws etc are met to protect clients or proprietary information. But denying women opportunities just because they are women is not some moral victory. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been staying out of this thread but jumping in a bit late.. 

My general opinion is that I would not be concerned about my hypothetical husband working with a woman. I would be concerned about my hypothetical husband starting a business with a woman, but not to the point that I would disallow it or make a fuss. This concern reflects more on me and my security of my hypothetical marriage more than it reflects on the woman or my hypothetical husband.

[I could also make an argument that the gorgeous business partner is less a threat than an average-looking business partner because the gorgeous one is probably used to being hit on more and has more reflexes to avoid and shut down the situation. But I don't want to distract from my true intention with this post and see this more as an interesting debate than a fact.]

But life is not always a hypothesis. 

For some men, the choice not to be alone with other women, work closely with other women, or put themselves in situations where they develop any type of relationship with women, is appropriate. I know the "Billy Graham rule" is mostly virtue signaling and often paints men as unable to control themselves and women as walking temptations, which is gross on both counts. But, that doesn't mean that every guy following these restrictions is doing it to virtue signal or because they see all women as available or temptations or trying to lead them astray -- they do it for themselves and their own mental equilibrium. [And in many business environments it's just smart, regardless of the sex of the individuals.]

I don't deem the measures necessary in the vast majority of cases. My hypothetical husband can pick up groceries, go on business trips where there will be women, and shut his door when talking to a female colleague about private and business issues.

That doesn't mean that in the few situations they are necessary that men should be ridiculed or put down to poor moral fiber or damaged moral compass. How does doing what is necessary for oneself now a flaw? Does any of this sound easy and something someone without strength of will would do? Someone who is more prone to these temptations isn't a creep until they act like a creep, putting them into that basket immediately is a whole lot of judge and counterproductive [for the record, I don't think anyone has said that yet, so I'm not attacking/arguing anyone particular with this]. 

AND, it still doesn't eliminate all temptation, but does take away a lot of avenues to act; taking away the "easy answers" is what the goal is here. Everyone has a willpower amount, and some people have less in these areas. You could probably trust me with your retirement savings, but don't leave me with your chocolate cake. 

As an aside, regardless of my previous experience plus my always-held dislike for adultery (like, so strongly held it is ironic), I know that I am not immune. Since being married (or really, since dating) I do not register other men as attractive beings. Sure, there may be underlying symptoms and cheating only happens if blah blah blah, but I do not declare myself as perfect in this or any regard. Who knows, someday I may be struck by lightning and I only hope I have the wits and will to run the other way.

PS - jumping a car is such a funny "but what if!" to me. If you have the ability to help someone in this situation, you do it, regardless of their sex.

Edited by Moonhawk
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I dunno, maybe this sort of thing is approaching the need for a spin off thread?

But I was reading some of the posts about a man never being alone with a woman and I thought of this post in another thread

Quote

Adults using separate restroom facilities (when available) is pretty standard youth/child protection protocol nationwide. Not unique to AHG. Two deep leadership also common to all scouting programs. 

  •  

It's true that in terms of protecting children from adult sexual predators, most youth programs have a policy of preventing adults from being alone with children (one on one.)

So, I am wondering how that applies in terms of men and women being alone together.  The truth is that the vast majority of sexual assault criminals are men.  That's just a statistical fact, and we already recognize this fact when it comes to protecting children from sexual assault.  So, in terms of protecting women from sexual predators, most of whom are men, is it really all that wrong for people to be comfortable with a rule where men and women aren't working alone together?  I mean I know that a lot of people have such a rule in their head due to the idea of a consensual affair, but how does it apply when we add the risk of a non consensual incident? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

In the era of Me Too, the Billy Graham rule and iterations of it are looking smarter and smarter.  It may just be leaving a door open or meeting in a restaurant and not a hotel room, but keeping it mixed company public or easily observable is just not the worst idea ever.  I know that’s how my spouse operates with a female boss and a team under him that is half younger women.  He doesn’t discriminate or change opportunities at all, he just doesn’t schedule private meetings in rooms where other people cannot walk by and see through the glass.  In a modern office with cubes and conference rooms it just isn’t that difficult.  The principle is just keeping everything as above board as possible without being ridiculous.

I completely support the idea of open cubicles, glass walls and everything above board. But you cannot do that in every job.

I was taught to swim as an adult by a man who just happened to be my friend's father. He does this as a job because he is good at it. He is retired military with helicopter rescues in the sea expertise. I signed up with an adult swim instructor who was a woman and qualified to teach, but not someone who had fear of water and panicked every time they put their head in the water like me. I learned to swim in the pool of my friend's house, in their backyard. It is impossible for anyone to learn to swim without someone touching you, even if I wore a modest bikini I still showed lots of skin. This is a good christian family and the man who taught me to swim is a strong christian man in a long marriage. It is because of this man I can lap swim for an hour today when I learned to swim as an adult. He has used his God given talent to teach swimming to countless adults like me who could never learn from even a qualified adult instructor. 

Now contrast this with Billy Graham. Am I to believe the only reason Billy Graham did not turn into Harvey Weinstein was because he never let himself be in a room with a woman. What would have happened if he was ? It is utterly disheartening to me, the idea of a strong Christian man who I consider Billy Graham to be not able to be in the mere presence of a woman and makes me see him in not a good way. God used Billy Graham mightily. But did he stunt God by this one action ? So disheartening.

Edited by Dreamergal
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arctic Mama said:

I think there is a really a misunderstanding of the why and how of that rule. It’s not about temptation so much as the appearance of propriety and impropriety and trying to prevent reputations from being ruined...?

 

If I saw a picture of a woman with Billy Graham, my first thought would have been he was praying with her. That is what I would have done if I found him sitting in a room by himself. I would run in because I was so excited to see him and asked him to pray for me. The idea that he would refuse and rush out because he thought he would appear improper or his reputation might be ruined grieves me and speaks to a christian culture which even he was not immune against. Around the world he has such a great reputation as a man of God even now. This one thing saddens me about him, AM

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

I think there is a really a misunderstanding of the why and how of that rule. It’s not about temptation so much as the appearance of propriety and impropriety and trying to prevent reputations from being ruined...?

 

This is the way I’ve always understood it.

Like I said upthread somewhere, dh never does the after work socializing on his trips back to the office unless I’m with him. And it is about how he worries about things being misinterpreted. On one trip I went on, we ended up walking back a female employee who had too much to drink. Turns out she was staying in our hotel and on our floor. Dh said that was exactly the type of thing he wants to avoid when he’s traveling without me. If anyone had seen and he was alone, they might have come to a different conclusion and it could have been bad since she was drunk.

That said, it’s not something he worries about during work hours at the office because it’s just not feasible. But he definitely doesn’t put himself in social situations outside of work that could be seen as something troublesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...