Can't be alone with a woman?

Status
Not open for further replies.
raybar said:
"Foster pointed out that he is a married man and that he made an agreement with his wife, in observance of his Christian faith, that neither of them could “be alone with someone of the opposite sex throughout our marriage.”"

Does this include his own mother? How about a daughter? What about her father, brothers, cousins, her pastor?
Click to expand...

I didn't know it was a "Christian" thing; I've heard of it with Orthodox people. My sister was friends with an Orthodox woman. I learned quite a bit of nonsensical restrictions from her - on the Sabbath - can't lock or unlock anything, turn off the gas pilot on everything, no driving, no phone, can't tear paper, can't touch (hug or shake hands) with anyone who's not Orthodox, can't be alone with opposite sex unless they're related.

I had fun teasing her about constantly hugging me and being alone with me; I asked her if she has to atone & ask forgiveness from her Rabbi for each violation. I guess she found me irresistible.....LOL!
 

win231 said:
I didn't know it was a "Christian" thing; I've heard of it with Orthodox people. My sister was friends with an Orthodox woman. I learned quite a bit of nonsensical restrictions from her - on the Sabbath - can't lock or unlock anything, turn off the gas pilot on everything, no driving, no phone, can't tear paper, can't touch (hug or shake hands) with anyone who's not Orthodox, can't be alone with opposite sex unless they're related.

I had fun teasing her about constantly hugging me and being alone with me; I asked her if she has to atone & ask forgiveness from her Rabbi for each violation. I guess she found me irresistible.....LOL!
Click to expand...
Can't see the humor, here. What may seem "nonsensical," to you, is a core belief of Orthodox Jewish folks.
 
Since what if's are a large part of all the responses. What if a male brought along by the reporter would be a co conspirator to an allegation of sexual misconduct? Wouldn't a no ride along be the best rule for his truck & his rules.
 
treeguy64 said:
Sorry, I'm dissenting, here. The #MeToo movement has ruined lives by making claims, without any proof, whatsoever. If I were in situations where women were going to be closely following me, I would insist on having an observer along, at all times. I don't believe this guy is nuts. I think he's very realistic, and cautious. We're living in very odd times, ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...


I agree here.......
 
There would be no "MeToo" movement if none of those MeToo stuff ever happened. And that's the rub. You believe it or not and that's going to determine what you feel about it. I worked for a male boss for over 30 years off and on, and I never had a MeToo moment with him. However I worked in a department with someone who talked like a pig, I don't understand to this day why some men get a kick out of that. And we women did call on him on it. but never tried to ruin him. Just tried to explain to him why that was not cool. The only thing that worked was in around 1992 there was a lot of reporting about how men like that made Human Resources get down to business about stopping that type of behavior. And only because of law suits.

There are women who do try to take advantage, especially in the work place people start to date then if one or the other wants to break it off, there is trouble. And it's usually the woman who has the problem. My dad had to go to court for that kind of thing because he was a supervisor in that kind of environment. The woman lost. So, anyway, men and women should each be careful, and stop the blame game. Watch your own behavior and be real and honest with yourself.
 
RadishRose said:
Which "Orthodox"?

Jewish, Russian, Greek, etc.
Click to expand...

She's Orthodox Jewish. Ya know, I'm Jewish only because my parents were; I'm not religious, but I do find some customs of exaggerations of religion (like those I mentioned) rather amusing. Also amusing is how many people (of all religions) who practice the more serious versions will violate the rules that are difficult & inconvenient to follow.
Sorta reminds me of some vegetarians who say they sometimes eat meat...
 
I knew I was Jewish but I only recently found out I was Ashkenazi Jewish, 10%. I don't understand the low percent because my mom's mom was 100 percent Jewish. But there could have been mixes in the past, and probably so.

The reason I'm posting this is because one can be ethnically Jewish without being religiously in the Jewish faith. My mother wasn't and neither am I.
 
The more a man is in the public eye the more he should make sure he isn't alone with a non relative female. And I wonder why this reporter wanted so bad to be alone with him. Lots of pigs out there who need to be taken down but there are also a lot of innocent men and women who have had their lives majorly messed up by lies. Sometimes it's not just financial gain they are after, there are a lot of drama kings and queens out there too.
 
Here's a sidebar about the Orthodox Jewish aspect of this. Recently I discovered some fascinating TV series on two of the TV streaming channels, produced and acted in Israel. They are in Hebrew, but have nice, clear translation captions.

One of them is called Shtisel, broadcast on Netflix. It's about a super-orthodox, Hasidic family living in Jerusalem, very well written and acted. These are the people who dress the way they did in European ghettos hundreds of years ago (men in black suits, always with hats, curls in front of their ears, etc.; women in "modest" dresses, and after they are married, always in wigs when out in public.)

The young man who is the main character is the son of a rabbi who is the principal of a religious school. The son trained as a rabbi, but wants to be an artist. He's a very good artist, from the "works" they show. Meets with opposition, of course. He's a very likable character, and I really felt sorry for him. I had to keep reminding myself that this is just a story, not a documentary!

To me, one of the most interesting parts is the interaction between men and women in this segment of society. They are not allowed to be alone together, ever, in any circumstances. Marriages are arranged by the families, but the young people do get to meet each other for dates in restaurants to see if they like each other. If there is no objection, they are married and expected to start producing children.

Another show, which I enjoyed even more, is called Srugim, broadcast on Amazon Prime. It's about the modern orthodox in Israel, who have regular careers, and dress like everyone else in the modern world. But they are bound by certain rules of sexual conduct also. All of these young people, educated and pretty "hip" in every other respect, actually remain virgins until they are married! I don't remember if they have the strict prohibition about men and women being alone together.

When I read about the politicians who announce that they will not be alone with a woman other than their wife, it reminded me of these orthodox Jews. So it isn't only "Christians" who follow this.

I'm not sure, in the case of the politicians who announce this policy, if they really mean they are never alone in any circumstances with a woman, or if they only mean no eating out, etc., in other words, social interactions. There's a big difference between taking someone out to a nightclub, and having a friendly conversation with your cleaning lady.
 
Olivia said:
There would be no "MeToo" movement if none of those MeToo stuff ever happened. And that's the rub. You believe it or not and that's going to determine what you feel about it. I worked for a male boss for over 30 years off and on, and I never had a MeToo moment with him. However I worked in a department with someone who talked like a pig, I don't understand to this day why some men get a kick out of that. And we women did call on him on it. but never tried to ruin him. Just tried to explain to him why that was not cool. The only thing that worked was in around 1992 there was a lot of reporting about how men like that made Human Resources get down to business about stopping that type of behavior. And only because of law suits.

There are women who do try to take advantage, especially in the work place people start to date then if one or the other wants to break it off, there is trouble. And it's usually the woman who has the problem. My dad had to go to court for that kind of thing because he was a supervisor in that kind of environment. The woman lost. So, anyway, men and women should each be careful, and stop the blame game. Watch your own behavior and be real and honest with yourself.
Click to expand...


Well I do not believe [most] of it. Particularly the claims of abuse, date rape, etc. When these claims are months,years, even decades old.
 
I read in another article that the length of time requested by the reporter was a 'follow-around" for 15 hours. That length of time would cover a couple of meals and a lot of what is considered to be personal time. That amount of time seems excessive to me, more of a 'I want to get to know you really, really well' rather than a simple interview. I question her motive for wanting so much continuous one on one time.
 
Last edited:
So far I don't think anyone has mentioned in the thread that the female reporter wanted to ride along with the candidate on a 15 hour trip.

I'd never heard the "Billy Graham Rule" called that until this story, but it's one I've pretty much followed as a single woman. I've had married male colleagues that I enjoyed spending time with through the years and set boundaries on how I interacted with them ...no lunches alone, no chatty phone calls. I still don't private message married men friends on fb, forums or send texts unless asking a specific question and ending it there. That's been as much to protect myself from a crush on a married friend as much as it is showing respect to his marriage and wife. I decided to set those boundaries in my early 20s when a married coworker and I did have a strong attraction to one another that was so obvious we were teased about it. We set those rules, enjoyed our friendship at work and I decided to stick to them through the years. In the 30+ years since, I've seen workplace and internet relationships end marriages in a messy manner, so have never regretted having those boundaries in place.

Maybe it's a Mississippi or Deep South thing... I doubt I'll vote for Foster for reasons other than this, but I do understand his choice and respect it.

Excerpt from CBS story

Mississippi Today journalist Larrison Campbell said she requested to accompany candidate Robert Foster on a 15-hour "ride along" campaign trip ahead of the August 6 primary, but was denied because she is a woman.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
rgp said:
Well I do not believe [most] of it. Particularly the claims of abuse, date rape, etc. When these claims are months,years, even decades old.
Click to expand...

I do believe most of it. Sexual abuse is a deeply shameful experience and memory to the victim. That person often confides in a close friend or relative at the time, but it takes a long time to process the experience sufficiently before being able to publicly "come out" about it. Very little is gained other than exposing a perpetrator so that he/she won't be given an opportunity to continue the predatory behavior.

Obviously there are some who are falsely accused, and their accusers should be prosecuted. However, just as with general assaults, theft, robbery, murder and other crimes, we don't allow occasional false accusations to deter us from following up on the mostly true accusations. In other words, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Given that nearly all rapes and unwanted sexual aggression comes from men, it begs the question of why women are restricted because of it. Perhaps it's time for men to don the burkas and to be chaperoned at all times.

Maybe Foster could compromise with a rule that ALL reporters who want to ride along must be accompanied by a third party. Equal access.
 
That amount of time seems excessive to me, more of a 'I want to get to know you really, really well' rather than a simple interview. I question her motive for wanting so much continuous one on one time.
Click to expand...

Gemma, I guess whether this is "excessive" or not depends on whether male reporters request the same amount of time. And what if the candidate was a woman? Would that amount of time also be excessive? In other words, what is typical for this type of news reporting?
 
Sunny said:
Knight, you can applaud all you like, and since it is (still) a free country, people can run their marriage any way that suits both of them.

But, being that this guy is a Republican candidate for governor in a red state, I wonder how sincere any of this nonsense is, and how much is just pandering to his "Christian" base?
Click to expand...
I thought the "no politics" rule was supposed to be enforced here. This is the second or third post I've seen from various people on this thread that have been political. What gives?
 
StarSong said:
I do believe most of it. Sexual abuse is a deeply shameful experience and memory to the victim. That person often confides in a close friend or relative at the time, but it takes a long time to process the experience sufficiently before being able to publicly "come out" about it. Very little is gained other than exposing a perpetrator so that he/she won't be given an opportunity to continue the predatory behavior.

Obviously there are some who are falsely accused, and their accusers should be prosecuted. However, just as with general assaults, theft, robbery, murder and other crimes, we don't allow occasional false accusations to deter us from following up on the mostly true accusations. In other words, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Given that nearly all rapes and unwanted sexual aggression comes from men, it begs the question of why women are restricted because of it. Perhaps it's time for men to don the burkas and to be chaperoned at all times.

Maybe Foster could compromise with a rule that ALL reporters who want to ride along must be accompanied by a third party. Equal access.
Click to expand...

" Sexual abuse is a deeply shameful experience and memory to the victim. "


Exactly what [IS] sexual abuse ? I have heard it described anywhere from an unwanted touch/caress of the breast or maybe buttocks, to a statement , along the lines of [have sex with me or??] Now, how exactly is that proven ? Should we just take the accusers word ? I refuse to.

Show me a bruise, some sign of battery. But sheer accusation ? ...... I don't think so.

IMO, [some] of the shameful comes from them having consensual sex, then regretting it. Or ...... it didn't bring the results, second date/promotion, or ? that the "victim" was hoping for.
 
I don't mean to denigrate my own sex but it is a known fact that some women either through immaturity or low self-esteem get their jollies by trying to arouse men. Intelligent men avoid them.

Mother Nature made the male sex easy to compromise.
 
StarSong said:
Wow. Talk about blaming the victims. I'm out of this conversation.
Click to expand...


When there is no evidence, there is no victim. Again, when it is an accusation of an event/assault that took place "sometime" ago, all we have is that accusers word. That does not make them a victim. Only an accuser.

Are there any men in your life ? Any at all ? Do you want these men's lives ruined, reputation ruined, job lost.....or worse, incarcerated on nothing more than the word of a person ? No evidence , no proof, nothing....just the accusation.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top