Is it ok for spouse to go to lunch with co-worker of opposite sex?(Inspired by RIDISN

[morgan98]

OK, I'm really not following the logic. Going to lunch with a member of the opposite sex can be a temptation and lead to an affair, but sharing an office isn't? I'm guessing a lunch would last 1-2 hours in a day, and you might only do that once a week (maybe twice). But sharing an office would be 8 hours a day EVERY day. What's different?

I don't think anyone is denying cheating doesn't happen. Just that it's the exception rather than the rule.

This leaves me scratching my head as well. All day, every day, in what I assume is a relatively confined space (most offices are) vs. an occasional lunch for an hour or so. Seems like over the course of days, weeks, months, etc. (in the sharing of an office scenario) there would be much more time for "chit-chat" and opportunity to learn about one another and discuss personal and professional issues which could lead to developing a bond. That is fine, but if a sandwich in public is involved it is bad?

This is a second marriage for both my husband and I. Both of us were the victims of cheating in our first marriages. We both have professional careers. We travel, eat, have a drink with whomever we want. I am not talking about going out of our way to unnecessarily spending time with anyone out of particular, but if I am invited to lunch by a man in a work setting, I really do not think about cheating on my husband with him.

 

[luvsJack]

This is a perfect example of "living in different worlds".

In my world, a coworker asking to sit with another opposite sex coworker at lunch would be such a complete non-issue, that most people would not even think to mention it to their spouse when they got home that evening. They wouldn't hesitate to say yes (unless they secretly couldn't stand the coworker, that is) and the coworker wouldn't have to look for a "safe" married person to sit with. There would be no need for a friend to sit in, in order to preserve the appearance pf propriety. Heck, in my world, that poor woman would almost never have to worry about a request for lunch being taken as an invitation to sex, and any harassment of her would be dealt with swiftly and severely, and there would be career consequences for her harasser.

I expect this was a random encounter, two truckers passing in the night. But what if their routes coincided a lot and your husband decided to start eating lunch regularly with this woman? What if they became friends?

Realistically, what would be the harm?

The woman was a complete stranger. Dh doesn't even know what company she works for. Very doubtful they would ever be in the same truck stop again.

She had been given a hard time before by other drivers and didn't want to deal with that. Sitting with dh rather than alone eliminated that. He nor his co worker thought she was offering anything.

Some truckstops are nice clean family places. Some are not. The ones that aren't have a lot of women that ARE offering sex. Some drivers don't even realize that every woman there isn't.

My response to dh was sympathy for this woman as it has to be tough in such a male dominated industry that also keeps her alone most of the time. And I was glad he was there to give her some relief and a meal in peace. He was fussing about the way some other drivers act and told me about the incident.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

This leaves me scratching my head as well. All day, every day, in what I assume is a relatively confined space (most offices are) vs. an occasional lunch for an hour or so. Seems like over the course of days, weeks, months, etc. (in the sharing of an office scenario) there would be much more time for "chit-chat" and opportunity to learn about one another and discuss personal and professional issues which could lead to developing a bond. That is fine, but if a sandwich in public is involved it is bad?

This is a second marriage for both my husband and I. Both of us were the victims of cheating in our first marriages. We both have professional careers. We travel, eat, have a drink with whomever we want. I am not talking about going out of our way to unnecessarily spending time with anyone out of particular, but if I am invited to lunch by a man in a work setting, I really do not think about cheating on my husband with him.

Yep. We shared an office for several years and ended up quite good friends. Work is not 8 hours head down "all business" there was plenty of casual chit chat about work and not work. We had both working and social lunches. There was nothing untoward at all but sharing an office is a lot of time together.

For those who say your spouse just politely declines lunch or coffee, I hope they decline their same-sex co-workers as well. People are generally pretty perceptive. I mean, if Steve always said no to be, but would always go out with Joe I would wonder if there was some issue with me personally. I would never think it was just because I'm female.

If all the guys on my team had this policy, I'd start to wonder if I smelled and nobody close to me told me or something. Eventually, I'd put it together but it would not be the first place my mind went. This is probably only an issue where it's common to go grab lunch or coffee for a casual private work chat.

 

[CarolAnn856]

I read your post, but dismissing my response as standby, even though this topic doesn't meet your qualifiers, is nothing but an attempt to marginalize my opinion. It was nothing but a "polite" insult. Your reply was an attempt at a neutral way to say you're right, even though you're open-minded. If you actually knew me & knew my views, you'd know how ridiculous your response to me is. I actually believe it's perfectly fine for people to totally trust their spouses & have no expectations on things like this & for others to have stipulations that they've agreed upon as a couple. It's their life. I hope it works out for them either way. My view may be biased based on past experience, but I wouldn't attempt to tell anyone how they should think.

Actually, the standby remark was your attempt to marginalize the comments of everyone who disagrees with the stance that some posters hold. And, although I've said numerous times that I disagree with the sentiment expressed and yet believe others have the right to act they way they want in this matter, you disregard that post after post. I won't continue to discuss this with someone who refuses to have an open mind about the other side.

 

[luvsJack]

Well, I was responding to this part of your comment:

" They each have time "out with the boys" or "the girls", they just don't go in a mixed group unless they both go. " which made it sound like just other people being there was not enough; it had to be ALL single sex or else both memebers of the couple had to be there.


As for "how hard would it be to take another co worker to lunch" as others have explained that can be hard. Here are two real life examples:

My DH travels extensively to many factiries. He is the lead/director for his department and able to handle all types of issues at a high level. They have 12 "experts" in just one of the many issue types. These are all younger/newer people who have other jobs as well but have learned enough about this one topic to go in and train some or lead some projects. The first year or so that they have that designation they will go along and shadow DH when he handles their topic, and hopefully contribute more and more of the leadership over the week so that after a couple such weeks they can take on many of the smaller/easier projects and that goes off his plate. So DH, and that person usually arrive at a plant on Monday late afternoon after a day of travel (which often involves 3-4 hours driving to some middle of nowhere place, in a shared rental car). They either stop for dinner in route, or go to dinner shortly after checking in. At that point they won't have been in the plant (that trip) to even ask someone to join them and generally the locals will not be jumping at the chance to miss a night at home to entertain them--besides which they need to go over the game plan for the next day, and there will be no one locally who would make sense to be a part of that. A couple of times during the week there will probably be big dinners involving lots of people from the plant but there is likely to be at least one other night in which no local really wants to play host, and DH can offer lots of good feedback and help to the person in that one on one dinner and mentor them and help them get better at their job.
It's a male dominated field, but two out of the twelve in that group are women---both he and I have been happy that some women are breaking that glass ceiling a bit.

Also, DH is in charge of Europe and Asia, his US counterpart is in charge of North and South America and is a woman. 2-3 times per year they get together to work on global strategy and make sure they are working at the same level, etc. They fly to one of the plants (or, better, an area where they can get to a couple in the week) and make sure that they both are seeing the same issues in audits and scoring the same, etc but then also have working dinners to discuss the strategies, training ideas, etc. It wouldn't even be appropriate for the local workers or plant managers to be in on these meetings as that could be seen as giving the visited plant an advantage over othes, etc.

So there are two real life examples of how it can be appropriate and necessary to have one on one bussiness dinners, for just my husband and he is far from unique.
My comment was meant to convey that if someone has a relationship rule in which they choose not to be in such situations I should hope that person would limit themself and not accept promotions, or quit and work in a different field, etc rather than end up in a position like my husband and then, say, suggest only men for promotion into positions which the person is required to meet with, or bow out of all those dinners with the female mentorees leaving them unable to learn as much as hteir male coutnerparts and then looking less qualified to upper management. Basically, if you are going to place those rules on YOUR relationship, I hope you (general you) are very cognizant of how it could limit others and actively work to be sure you are not allowing it do so---but rather making sure if anyone is limited by your rules it is yourself---especially when it comes to career advancement.

I did say that and should have explained better. Mostly they have their girls/boys nights out with married friends so if one decided to bring their spouse, no big deal. If DIL had a night out planned with two female friends and one said "Oh, Bob, Mike and John are meeting us there" and Bob, Mike and John are single guys, she may choose not to go. Same for DS. Neither says the other has to make that choice but its what both choose to do on their own.

I can see where in your dh's situations, its different. I am in no way saying its wrong for you and your dh or any married couple to do things differently, at all. This is what works for ds and dil and for me and dh. Everyone has to do what works for them. Its not that anyone else's way is wrong, its just what works for us.

I also said that ds and dil have the strongest marriage of anyone I know and this is true. I didn't mean that to say anyone else doesn't have a strong marriage.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Actually, the standby remark was your attempt to marginalize the comments of everyone who disagrees with the stance that some posters hold. And, although I've said numerous times that I disagree with the sentiment expressed and yet believe others have the right to act they way they want in this matter, you disregard that post after post. I won't continue to discuss this with someone who refuses to have an open mind about the other side.

I'm not on a side. It appears we're just misunderstanding each others intent.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I am in no way saying its wrong for you and your dh or any married couple to do things differently, at all. This is what works for ds and dil and for me and dh. Everyone has to do what works for them. Its not that anyone else's way is wrong, its just what works for us.

I fully agree with you there, with the caevat that no peron's rules for their relationship should allow htem to discriminate with coworkers----that they must own that their rules might not be feasible in certain work enviornments and therefore should not work in such enviornments so that they are not hampering others in usch work places form getting their job done, or being promoted as readily, etc

 

[ronandannette]

Yep. We shared an office for several years and ended up quite good friends. Work is not 8 hours head down "all business" there was plenty of casual chit chat about work and not work. We had both working and social lunches. There was nothing untoward at all but sharing an office is a lot of time together.

For those who say your spouse just politely declines lunch or coffee, I hope they decline their same-sex co-workers as well. People are generally pretty perceptive. I mean, if Steve always said no to be, but would always go out with Joe I would wonder if there was some issue with me personally. I would never think it was just because I'm female.

If all the guys on my team had this policy, I'd start to wonder if I smelled and nobody close to me told me or something. Eventually, I'd put it together but it would not be the first place my mind went. This is probably only an issue where it's common to go grab lunch or coffee for a casual private work chat.

Really, it's not a big declaration of "I refuse to go with you because you're a woman". Much more often rather than decline we'll just casually find somebody else to come along and it's all good. OTOH, if someone objected to going as a group instead of one-on-one, I'd wonder why. And just to be clear - we're talking about lunches that are purely for eating and visiting - we have any necessary work related discussions in the workplace.

Well it's great that your working life is such that it is easy/normal to only have meetings and other work IN the office. You probably don't travel a lot for bussiness in which case meals out become a huge part of the work (guessing here). I also assume then that you do not want to appear to favour one gender so simply never socialize outside of the office with ANY of your coworkers, right? (and many people in professions that don't have those blurred lines do have a a "no socializing with coworkers" rule, so I can totally see that).

No, neither of us travel. Neither of us have any similar situation to your husband's to navigate through. And as it happens, I don't consider the people I work with to be my "friends". Friendly and congenial, definitely but not people I consider socializing with very much at all, so I'm pretty sure nobody is feeling left out.

OK, I'm really not following the logic. Going to lunch with a member of the opposite sex can be a temptation and lead to an affair, but sharing an office isn't? I'm guessing a lunch would last 1-2 hours in a day, and you might only do that once a week (maybe twice). But sharing an office would be 8 hours a day EVERY day. What's different?

I don't think anyone is denying cheating doesn't happen. Just that it's the exception rather than the rule.

I am not a poster that has even once mentioned cheating, or the temptation to do so, in any of my posts. Not once. The idea of not going out socially alone with other men/women seems arbitrary to many - I understand that. It's a boundary we've set based on a whole bunch of factors (all of which I'm sure posters here will deride) that basically boils down to us wanting to each be the only intimate - note I said intimate, not sexual - man/woman in each other's lives.

As for the scenario of sharing an office, well that could certainly lead to a level of closeness if people wanted it to. But I personally would have no problem keeping things polite, congenial, comfortable and professional without pouring out our hearts to one another.

This leaves me scratching my head as well. All day, every day, in what I assume is a relatively confined space (most offices are) vs. an occasional lunch for an hour or so. Seems like over the course of days, weeks, months, etc. (in the sharing of an office scenario) there would be much more time for "chit-chat" and opportunity to learn about one another and discuss personal and professional issues which could lead to developing a bond. That is fine, but if a sandwich in public is involved it is bad?

This is a second marriage for both my husband and I. Both of us were the victims of cheating in our first marriages. We both have professional careers. We travel, eat, have a drink with whomever we want. I am not talking about going out of our way to unnecessarily spending time with anyone out of particular, but if I am invited to lunch by a man in a work setting, I really do not think about cheating on my husband with him.

We simply don't NEED to have lunch alone with opposite sex co-workers. As I said in my very first post on the subject, it's not a hadship or hindrance for either of us to avoid so we do. You go ahead and do whatever is comfortabl for you - nobody is criticizing that.

 

[NHdisneylover]

We simply don't NEED to have lunch alone with opposite sex co-workers. As I said in my very first post on the subject, it's not a hadship or hindrance for either of us to avoid so we do. You go ahead and do whatever is comfortabl for you - nobody is criticizing that.

My only question to you is, do you avoid having lunch alone with any coworker? Or do you go out with those of hte same gender and not those of opposite? Beucase therein would lie the problem (if there is one)

 

[mi*vida*loca]

I have lunch with men at times. I work for 5 surgeons, all men. My SO doesn't care. I don't care if he has lunch with women either. If it was in his nature to cheat nothing will stop that. When there's a will there's a way and a lunch is the least of my worries.

I was married to a man I didn't trust. I refuse to live that life again.

 

[sam_gordon]

I am not a poster that has even once mentioned cheating, or the temptation to do so, in any of my posts. Not once. The idea of not going out socially alone with other men/women seems arbitrary to many - I understand that. It's a boundary we've set based on a whole bunch of factors (all of which I'm sure posters here will deride) that basically boils down to us wanting to each be the only intimate - note I said intimate, not sexual - man/woman in each other's lives.

As for the scenario of sharing an office, well that could certainly lead to a level of closeness if people wanted it to. But I personally would have no problem keeping things polite, congenial, comfortable and professional without pouring out our hearts to one another.

I apologize for confusing you with some of the other posters. Regarding the bolded, if you can keep things polite, congenial, comfortable, and professional when you're in an office for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, why can't you do so in a lunch setting for 1-2 hours? I'm not trying to be snarky, that just seems to defy logic.

 

[Hikergirl]

This whole discussion has me shaking my head. On top of the whole trusting your spouse thing, the thought that you can't trust yourself is mind boggling. To avoid temptation you don't put yourself in a position to be tempted? Do people really think that little of themselves?
I know I won't cheat, ever. It takes a certain kind of person who would, I have never been that type of person and I never will be. Yes I do know that, yes I am saying "never". Things don't just happen, you make a conscious choice to be unfaithful. Things beyond your control just happen, but not things within it. If you think you have to control the situation so you don't cheat you've got some issues going on.

 

[firefly_ris]

I work in a fairly male dominated industry (web development and programming) -- it's quickly becoming less and less so which is great, but at my second job, I was the only female (I'm still the only female developer now but there are other females where I work now). We were a small company (5 people) so we usually lunched together, and occasionally on summertime Fridays played hooky and went to the movies together. I have no qualms about it, my husband has no qualms about it. He can go to lunch with whoever he pleases. At the end of the day I'm his and he's mine and that's that. I have no problem with whatever anyone else's personal rules are, that's their business; that said, I've yet to encounter a person in my workplace who can't go to lunch with me because I'm a chick.

 

[DopeyDame]

Again, we're talking about a married individual spending all their free time at work with the same person, when there is another option. You & your coworker were working in your shared office. I don't think anyone sees anything wrong with that. That's not the same as you & he choosing to spend all your meals & other work situations alone as well, when there were other people who would have been happy to have you join them.

Nope - that's NOT what we're talking about.
No one said anything about being OK with a married individual spending all their free time at work with the same person.
The people who are getting strong reactions are the ones that are saying that there is NO scenario in which it is OK for their spouse to eat with a person of the opposite sex. Not even once. Not even in a public restaurant. Not even with someone they may never see again in their lives.

That seems extreme to many of us, and many of us are worried about the social and career damage it does to OTHER people in the workplace.

 

[DopeyDame]

Maybe that's one of the confusions in this thread. Some may be running a bunch of posts together & confusing what people are saying. My DH & I don't have a rule. I never said we did. We own our own business & literally spend maybe 3 hours a week apart, when he's running errands while I clean house. Some weeks we run errands together, since we're already out. He spends about a half hour a week on the internet, if he has something he really needs to purchase. Many times he doesn't open a computer. Good luck to him finding a woman in that time. I was just really surprised by the number of people who didn't appear to realize that cheating in a business environment is so common. One poster even questioned another for only citing one situation like that made it an anomaly. It's definitely not, as you agreed. I'm not posting from my current personal perspective, but was just pointing out that it's not uncommon.

I don't think people are saying it's uncommon necessarily, just that not going out to lunch won't do diddly squat to prevent the cheating. As I said, my one close friend who did have a pretty serious affair met her guy on the bus. The commuter bus is also where my FIL met his mistress years ago. And when I started dating my husband (ironically, we met at work!) we didn't go to lunch alone for quite a while because we didn't want to raise suspicions - but trust me, we were in a relationship.

So it strikes me as arbitrary and confusing.

 

[DopeyDame]

As for the scenario of sharing an office, well that could certainly lead to a level of closeness if people wanted it to. But I personally would have no problem keeping things polite, congenial, comfortable and professional without pouring out our hearts to one another.

.

I am genuinely asking - not trying to be snarky or dismissive - can you help us understand why adding food or drink into the mix makes this different? I'm having a hard time following how being alone in an office *all* day with someone is OK, but running to the cafeteria together is somehow more intimate.
Because all my lunches with coworkers (some for business reasons, most just because we're both hungry and heading to the cafeteria or chipotle at the same time) are "polite, congenial, comfortable, and professional"

 

[Magpie]

Really, it's not a big declaration of "I refuse to go with you because you're a woman". Much more often rather than decline we'll just casually find somebody else to come along and it's all good. OTOH, if someone objected to going as a group instead of one-on-one, I'd wonder why. And just to be clear - we're talking about lunches that are purely for eating and visiting - we have any necessary work related discussions in the workplace.

No, neither of us travel. Neither of us have any similar situation to your husband's to navigate through. And as it happens, I don't consider the people I work with to be my "friends". Friendly and congenial, definitely but not people I consider socializing with very much at all, so I'm pretty sure nobody is feeling left out.

I am not a poster that has even once mentioned cheating, or the temptation to do so, in any of my posts. Not once. The idea of not going out socially alone with other men/women seems arbitrary to many - I understand that. It's a boundary we've set based on a whole bunch of factors (all of which I'm sure posters here will deride) that basically boils down to us wanting to each be the only intimate - note I said intimate, not sexual - man/woman in each other's lives.

As for the scenario of sharing an office, well that could certainly lead to a level of closeness if people wanted it to. But I personally would have no problem keeping things polite, congenial, comfortable and professional without pouring out our hearts to one another.

We simply don't NEED to have lunch alone with opposite sex co-workers. As I said in my very first post on the subject, it's not a hadship or hindrance for either of us to avoid so we do. You go ahead and do whatever is comfortabl for you - nobody is criticizing that.

For what it's worth, I do hear what you're saying.

I think what's making this debate so very heated is because of all the social and cultural baggage that comes packaged with what should - in a perfect world - be just a personal, private, consensual choice between a couple of people. You're absolutely right - it's not a hardship or a hindrance, when it's just you and your partner and no one else is impacted.

But there's an important cultural context in which this debate is taking place. We're less than a generation removed from the "Boys Club", when women could not advance in their careers, because they were denied the social networking opportunities and mentoring that men had available to them. Even now, women who try to make inroads into traditionally male environments (ie, truckers) are often harassed and isolated.

We live in a world where certain countries have even codified this morality into law. Where if an employer wishes to hire a woman, he is legally obliged to provide a separate work environment and break room. Supporters of this kind of segregation are found in both genders. The women aren't comfortable socializing with men, and appreciate the accommodations made for them. Men feel they're making reasonable efforts to accommodate women in the workplace. Both feel it is immoral for the genders to mix. It is a matter of faith, culture, ethics, modesty and propriety.

I had one woman tell me that she felt protected and valued and cherished. That she never had to worry about sexually harassed, or even left destitute (since her husband was legally obligated to provide for her). If she broke the law, her husband would be held accountable, as a parent is held accountable for a wayward child. She described woman as a "protected class of people". I had a man explain to me that the women of his culture are different from Western women. They're not as strong or as independent. They're more emotional and delicate and precious, and therefore need protection in a way that Western women don't.

If you truly value something and want it to last, you must protect it and cherish it and keep it safe from the elements, right?

On both sides of this argument, people are hearing both subtext, and text-text:

"My husband respects me (more than yours respects you)." "I value my marriage (you don't)." "I'm dedicated to protecting and preserving my marriage (you aren't)." "You may think you'd never cheat, but anyone can slip given the right opportunity." "Why even take that risk?" "I'm more moral than thou art."

"Your marriage is weak." "You don't trust your partner." "You don't trust yourself." "You must be totally obsessed with sex."

It's no wonder people are getting offended with each other!

If the two of you have decided to structure your lives so that you don't spend any unnecessary amount of time in the company of the opposite gender, and if you choose not to have intimate friendships with any others (I'm assuming this includes your friendships with other women?), then that should absolutely be your right. And if it makes you both happy, wonderful!

But, where it becomes problematic for me is when too many other people decide that your way is the right way to do things. Or even worse, the only way to do things. Because that's what leads to a gender-segregated society. It's the reason why women are still harassed and treated like sex objects when they step outside of their expected roles. Or else politely isolated, avoided, and regarded as "unicorns", with all the associated consequences for their careers. "Women just don't make good executives. We hire plenty of them, but they never advance. Now, this young man, he reminds me of me when I was his age! Plus, he's a member of my golf club." And yes, many people today are content living in that sort of world, but I'm not, and I'd hate to see us slipping back into it.

Sometimes our decisions are symbolic of more than we intend. And I'm saying this as a woman who both worked in the military and later quit her job and stayed home to keep house and raise our children. I've had a lot of time to think about the significance of my choices in a broader cultural context.

 

[Westcoastwild]

I do love a good zombie thread...

I agree that workplace cheating is a lot more common than people think. A previous workplace had a major clique problem. I went to a lot of effort to stay out of the "popular" crowd. Maybe it meant not fitting in but sometimes it's detrimental to fit in. I would absolutely believe that there was cheating going on there. There was a lot of interpersonal drama that I deliberately stayed blind to, because I did not want to get involved.

However. I am rolling my eyes at the whole lunch with opposite sex thing. Like someone else said, lunch break is literally the last place that's going on. And the people I know of who have cheated or been cheated on- it never came out of the blue. The cheating would have happened with someone, if not a coworker. Old high school friend, neighbor, kid's teacher, anyone. It was more due to the cheater's personality and situation than temptation. I mean, maybe they didn't set out to cheat, but it's usually dissatisfaction with their lives that led them to cheat. I know of one guy whose wife was super paranoid and she shut down all possible interactions he could possibly have with the opposite sex... and then of course, he got into a "passionate" online affair and left her for someone he had NEVER even met in real life.

And then, hilariously, my cousin's coworker went off the deep end when her husband decided he was gay from visiting chatrooms. Divorced her over that. That's the thing about this thread. Like how do the people determine who is "safe" for their spouses to be around? May December romance can happen, so much older and much younger opposite sex aren't safe. Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, so the hot coworker may be less of a threat than the frazzled divorcee with 3 kids. Bisexuality is a thing, so how can you be sure your spouse isn't cheating with a member of the same sex.

I don't really think cutting yourself of your spouse off from human contact is a viable solution. And the idea that adults should need chaperones to dine at somewhere like Panera seems very... middle school.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

Really, it's not a big declaration of "I refuse to go with you because you're a woman". Much more often rather than decline we'll just casually find somebody else to come along and it's all good. OTOH, if someone objected to going as a group instead of one-on-one, I'd wonder why. And just to be clear - we're talking about lunches that are purely for eating and visiting - we have any necessary work related discussions in the workplace.

No, neither of us travel. Neither of us have any similar situation to your husband's to navigate through. And as it happens, I don't consider the people I work with to be my "friends". Friendly and congenial, definitely but not people I consider socializing with very much at all, so I'm pretty sure nobody is feeling left out.

I am not a poster that has even once mentioned cheating, or the temptation to do so, in any of my posts. Not once. The idea of not going out socially alone with other men/women seems arbitrary to many - I understand that. It's a boundary we've set based on a whole bunch of factors (all of which I'm sure posters here will deride) that basically boils down to us wanting to each be the only intimate - note I said intimate, not sexual - man/woman in each other's lives.

As for the scenario of sharing an office, well that could certainly lead to a level of closeness if people wanted it to. But I personally would have no problem keeping things polite, congenial, comfortable and professional without pouring out our hearts to one another.

We simply don't NEED to have lunch alone with opposite sex co-workers. As I said in my very first post on the subject, it's not a hadship or hindrance for either of us to avoid so we do. You go ahead and do whatever is comfortabl for you - nobody is criticizing that.

But that was my whole point-clearly they're not making a declaration about no because I'm a woman. But if every time I say "hey let's grab a coffee/lunch and talk about xyz" and they always decline or find somebody else to bring along but go out to lunch with Joe by himself I'm going to wonder what's going on. Somebody saying "anything work related can be done in the office" would be odd to me too.

It's not as sly and discreet as some people here think it is.

It's very common for two people to chat about something work related in a slightly social setting-it's also common for that to be one on one.

 

[NHdisneylover]

For what it's worth, I do hear what you're saying.

I think what's making this debate so very heated is because of all the social and cultural baggage that comes packaged with what should - in a perfect world - be just a personal, private, consensual choice between a couple of people. You're absolutely right - it's not a hardship or a hindrance, when it's just you and your partner and no one else is impacted.

But there's an important cultural context in which this debate is taking place. We're less than a generation removed from the "Boys Club", when women could not advance in their careers, because they were denied the social networking opportunities and mentoring that men had available to them. Even now, women who try to make inroads into traditionally male environments (ie, truckers) are often harassed and isolated.

We live in a world where certain countries have even codified this morality into law. Where if an employer wishes to hire a woman, he is legally obliged to provide a separate work environment and break room. Supporters of this kind of segregation are found in both genders. The women aren't comfortable socializing with men, and appreciate the accommodations made for them. Men feel they're making reasonable efforts to accommodate women in the workplace. Both feel it is immoral for the genders to mix. It is a matter of faith, culture, ethics, modesty and propriety.

I had one woman tell me that she felt protected and valued and cherished. That she never had to worry about sexually harassed, or even left destitute (since her husband was legally obligated to provide for her). If she broke the law, her husband would be held accountable, as a parent is held accountable for a wayward child. She described woman as a "protected class of people". I had a man explain to me that the women of his culture are different from Western women. They're not as strong or as independent. They're more emotional and delicate and precious, and therefore need protection in a way that Western women don't.

If you truly value something and want it to last, you must protect it and cherish it and keep it safe from the elements, right?

On both sides of this argument, people are hearing both subtext, and text-text:

"My husband respects me (more than yours respects you)." "I value my marriage (you don't)." "I'm dedicated to protecting and preserving my marriage (you aren't)." "You may think you'd never cheat, but anyone can slip given the right opportunity." "Why even take that risk?" "I'm more moral than thou art."

"Your marriage is weak." "You don't trust your partner." "You don't trust yourself." "You must be totally obsessed with sex."

It's no wonder people are getting offended with each other!

If the two of you have decided to structure your lives so that you don't spend any unnecessary amount of time in the company of the opposite gender, and if you choose not to have intimate friendships with any others (I'm assuming this includes your friendships with other women?), then that should absolutely be your right. And if it makes you both happy, wonderful!

But, where it becomes problematic for me is when too many other people decide that your way is the right way to do things. Or even worse, the only way to do things. Because that's what leads to a gender-segregated society. It's the reason why women are still harassed and treated like sex objects when they step outside of their expected roles. Or else politely isolated, avoided, and regarded as "unicorns", with all the associated consequences for their careers. "Women just don't make good executives. We hire plenty of them, but they never advance. Now, this young man, he reminds me of me when I was his age! Plus, he's a member of my golf club." And yes, many people today are content living in that sort of world, but I'm not, and I'd hate to see us slipping back into it.

Sometimes our decisions are symbolic of more than we intend. And I'm saying this as a woman who both worked in the military and later quit her job and stayed home to keep house and raise our children. I've had a lot of time to think about the significance of my choices in a broader cultural context.

well said!