You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

[Guinevere]

Can you read? Did I say that anywhere? Have I ever said that?

Why the strawman??

[TPFKA@W]

Because women are lying and untrustworthy?

Are you implying they are not capable of being liars and of being untrustworthy? Because they are, I give them full credit for being capable of great deceit.

The world in which we live makes cya a good practice.

[Joe Guy]

I agree with @w. If you’re in politics especially, you should be careful who you spend time with. Some women can be very evil, just like some men.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Don’t answer my question Meade

And I will answer your question anyway Of course I'd not refuse. My friends are almost all as ancient as me and none of us have any interest in shenanigans. The "rule" has more to do with enclosed, private spaces along with the wise advice to flee temptation. It's all too easy for people to talk behind one's back and that can create a host of problems.

If a person believes Jesus's declaration that looking on another with lust is committing adultery in the heart, then the unlikelihood of physical acts that you and others persist in trumpeting is irrelevant. It's thoughts that are the biggest struggle. [Note that adultery applies to a married person]

Foster was more concerned with gossip, although who knows his thoughts? He was wrong not to take responsibility and give the journo access. He had to work it out; not her. His problem; not hers.

[Lord Jim]

so weak that without constant supervision they would likely go berserk and attempt to rape any woman with whom they found themselves alone.

I've long thought that had to be the assumption that fueled the creation of these fashions:

[MajGenl.Meade]

so weak that without constant supervision they would likely go berserk and attempt to rape any woman with whom they found themselves alone.

Rather sad that such a squalid interpretation is even bruited about. Is it not possible that when two people are in close contact, one (or both) may find the other to be a fascinating individual with whom a longer-term relationship seems desirable? That propinquity can lead to affection, even love, is not an outlandish concept at all. It can equally lead to misunderstanding and embarrassment.

All rather more likely among humans than the assumption of madness and rape.

[Big RR]

Meade--would a chaperone of any sort really prevent this? During Victorian times (if movies are correct ) chaperones were often employed in meetings among the genders and people still developed affection and fell in love.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Who knows? But you're still thinking of single people with a chaperone. The point here is a married person not being alone with a person of the opposite sex. Of course, "thoughts" can still happen in groups and in a football stadium crowd. But if a person believes that it's best not be alone with a person of the other sex, then let it be so. What's wrong with it?

There's a married lady friend of ours - and her rule is not to be alone with a man other than her husband. She wouldn't go out for a cup of coffee with me alone and NOT because she's avoiding an uncontrollable urge to attack my studly body. I am glad she has that rule (as do I) because I find her very attractive. If she and I started hanging out together, here and there, all innocent-like, it might become awkward. One of us might misinterpret (or interpret!) something. At minimum, there's a friendship (and at maximum, two marriages) down the drain. Such accidents don't happen when spouses are present.

I'll not be dishonest and claim immunity from human weakness. Best if I avoid the possibilities.

[Econoline]

From Charlie Pierce:

The groundbreaking documentary, My Penis Terrifies Me: The Robert Foster Story, will be debuting at Cannes next year.

[BoSoxGal]

Married people begin affairs with other married and unmarried people whom they’ve first met or socialized with in the presence of their spouses ALL THE TIME. Rules against spending time alone with a person of the opposite sex minus one’s spouse are not a panacea against adultery; lots of affairs these days begin and largely exist online - there are many Christian spouses who commit infidelity using their phone or tablet or laptop while their spouse is sitting unaware in the same damn room, maybe even on the same sofa!

Back in Victorian and other olden days, ONLY married people were allowed to share company with friends of the opposite sex outside the presence of a chaperone - it was the unmarried who required chaperones to avoid falling to temptation.

[Sue U]

Oh for fuck's sake, I have never seen so many people so incapable of believing they can actually choose to act like mature adults in person-to-person interactions -- particularly in the workplace. If you are so fearful of straying from your own marriage, maybe you shouldn't be married in the first place. Behaving like a professional is usually sufficient to be treated like a professional in professional circumstances. In social situations, if you require a chaperone to have coffee with a friend because one or both of you "might misinterpret (or interpret!) something," then you need to examine the nature of your friendship and/or make some (adult) choices about how you live. Respect yourself, respect others, don't be a creep, and you'll never have to worry about what anybody else thinks.

[TPFKA@W]

OFFS I can't believe how many obfuscate and distort this to be about temptation when it is clearly about saving one's reputation.

[rubato]

If there were a justification for this he would have to require a chaperone when with a man as well as a woman. The fact that he does not proves it is troglodyte sexism.


yrs,
rubato

[TPFKA@W]

If there were a justification for this he would have to require a chaperone when with a man as well as a woman. The fact that he does not proves it is troglodyte sexism.


yrs,
rubato

It probably is an idea he should entertain. And I am not sure which is uglier, troglodyte sexism or willful obfuscation. Actually I will go with willful obfuscation by those who should be better than that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Foster was more concerned with gossip, although who knows his thoughts? He was wrong not to take responsibility and give the journo access. He had to work it out; not her. His problem; not hers.

Obfuscation is a false charge, as shown above. There are two streams of thought here; 1. why Foster avoided the journo and is it justified (in other people's opinions) and 2. my wife and I having the general rule to avoid private (and in some cases public) one-on-one time with a person of the opposite sex.

Apparently, the second one is profoundly annoying some people. Why? Because I am a horrible and evil person who dares to acknowledge the possibility of sinful thoughts and that I prefer not to be alone with a woman because there is a possibility of misunderstanding. Therefore, I am unworthy to be married, unable to choose to act like a mature adult, and a creep, not to mention other ills. I'll tell my wife that she's got it all wrong too.

[Scooter]

That there are an appreciable number of people whose work routinely includes 1 on 1 meetings with a person of the opposite sex, who would lay awake at night scheming about how they could use one or more of these meetings to allege conduct so depraved as to ruin a reputation, weaving the lies so convincingly as to be accepted as true without any corroboration, is a patently absurd notion.

If this were really a threat requiring such an extreme response, there would be countless men accused of committing rape or other crimes in their workplace. And of course all of those uncorroborated accusations would be taken as gospel, because we all know that women alleging rape are always believed.

In his personal life, Foster can choose whom to associate with, or not, for whatever reasons he chooses. But he is seeking high elected office, and the price of his chosen means of self-protection, whether from his own weakness or someone else's malice, should not be borne by women who work in the government he may run, or whose work depends on interacting with that government, who will be sidelined or excluded outright from any role that Foster deems to carry a risk of inappropriate contact.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What he said

[Bicycle Bill]

This is so ridiculously sexist and misogynistic. It presumes that every women is either: (1) so damn sexy no man could restrain himself in her presence; or (2) a lying not to be trusted whore who will either throw herself at any man in her presence, or lie about it. All the responsibility is placed on the women.

You forgot the third possibility ... that there ARE women out there who are lying, not-to-be-trusted whores who will make scurrilous allegations (i.e., lie about it).  So why shouldn't the male party play the CYA game?

Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that a doctor would not examine a female patient without the female nurse also in the room, either. Make of that what you will.

-"BB"-

[rubato]

In Kaiser Permanente Male OB/Gyns are entitled to having a 'chaperone' for pelvic exams, generally a medical assistant or nurse who also speeds visits by performing other work for the MD. This has caused bitterness among the female OB/Gyns who think they should get equal support (and who are just as vulnerable to false accusations of misconduct).

If anyone was paying attention to the Cosby rape cases and the Metoo movement women are more likely to NOT report sexual exploitation than they are to do so falsely.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

"...

Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that a doctor would not examine a female patient without the female nurse also in the room, either. Make of that what you will.

-"BB"-

Ignorant Bullshit is what I make of that. In fact the vibrator was invented by a doctor whose hand would get tired relieving women of 'hysteria' by masturbating them.

https://mashable.com/2015/02/20/history-of-vibrators/


yrs,
rubato