5 ms·

> I hereby advance my theory that it is rather simpler than that. 'If you are in a position of power over the other party, then you should keep some social dist

> I hereby advance my theory that it is rather simpler than that. 'If you are in a position of power over the other party, then you should keep some social distance'. > If you find there is only two of you left, then go home. This seems dangerously close to the Pence view of not socializing alone with women. Is your view actually stronger? That a person should not socialize alone with anyone they have power over, rather than just women?

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
I'm not sure what Pence's view is. But as a married man, I absolutely believe the best policy for myself, and probably most married men, is to avoid situations that increase the odds of my infidelity. And yes, the includes not developing close friendships with anyone I find attractive.
- benrbray 9y ago
  Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Do you really not trust yourself?
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    I think for some definition of "not in control", I would agree that men are not in control of their sexual urges. More specifically, while I think in most situations I'd be fine, but if I've had one too many drinks, and the social situation "feels" appropriate to me, it might be possible that I do something which I'd later regret.
  - DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
    Short answer: would you say the same thing to a recovering alcoholic regarding hanging out with his old drinking buddies at a bar? tl;dr For me, it's a matter of risk tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for the risk of cheating on my wife. So based on my best understanding of the circumstances that tend to increase the likelihood of infidelity, I try hard to avoid those circumstances. > Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? First, "stereotype perpetuation" isn't something that just happens to people. A person has some ability to accept or reject adopting belief in a stereotype. So I'll let other people take responsibility for what they believe regarding this topic. Secondly, what you're seeing is a male being in control of his sexual urges. My post was simply giving insight into one of the mechanisms by which I do it. > Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Well ideally, yeah. But I didn't design the human condition. > Do you really not trust yourself? I try to have an accurate understanding of my strengths and weaknesses, and to plan accordingly.
    - roflc0ptic 9y ago
      Per my anthropology class in college, about 10 percent of men and women answered “yes” to a question like “have you cheated on your partner in the last year?” It’s a little inhumane to make individual men responsible for the weight of western civilization’s treatment of women when they’re trying to do right by their partners. I determined years ago that I’m some combination of unwilling or unable to maintain monogamous relationships, so I stopped making that commitment. Even without that constraint, being romantically engaged with people is at best distracting and at worst destructive, and so structure my life so as to avoid engendering those feelings. When I spend time with members of the sex I find attractive, I inevitably want to escalate. It’s my unsubstantiated conjecture that this is why traditional societies had separate gender roles. Same sex groups take so much less emotional energy.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > And yes, the includes not developing close friendships with anyone I find attractive. Which brings in all the problems with the Pence view. It reinforces the glass ceiling / old boys club, because friends talk about business on the golf course (or at the LAN party), and then women get excluded from that. Worse, it's a policy adopted only by the self-conscious people who wouldn't otherwise have crossed the line anyway, and not the bastards going around groping people left and right, which increases the proportion of interactions with the latter category. The problem seems to be that there are obvious benefits to standing right on top of the line (increased probability of friendship/romance) but nobody wants anybody to cross it, and that can't happen. If you tell everybody to stand as close as they can to an invisible line that nobody can quite agree on the exact contours of, every time a moderate person actually draws their version of the line you'll find a whole slew of people standing on the wrong side of it, because it's everyone even slightly less moderate than that. Ask a conservative (i.e. puritan) person to draw the line and everybody will be standing on the wrong side of it. Rejection sucks. Nobody wants to get rejected, so nobody wants to be thrust into the position of the villain who has to reject someone. But the world where nobody ever has to reject someone is the completely sterile one. The uncomfortable no is the price of the opportunity for yes. Nobody who internally knows that the answer is no wants that "opportunity" thrust on them, but how is the other party supposed to know that ahead of time? And it's no help to point out the obvious cases. There are things that 99.99% of people agree are over the line. The problem is the things that 75% of people agree are over the line, because then 25% of people are doing them.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    > It reinforces the glass ceiling / old boys club, because friends talk about business on the golf course (or at the LAN party), and then women get excluded from that. Some might, I don't. Some crap people do crap things. I discuss work issues in work. Out of hours work discussions exclude all kinds of people, people with families, women (again in particular) with children and those who prefer work situations to social ones. I occasionally meet male and female colleagues one-to-one in coffee shops during work hours, to talk things through, but I don't drink alcohol with them. I haven't studied Pence's view, but I am a married man and I rarely meet women socially one-on-one. I socialize very occasionally with my team . I have seen so many times where a manager socializes with his team, then they do a bit of texting, then one hits on hard times and needs a shoulder to cry on, then they fall out and the company has a sexual harassment case to deal with where maybe it is just a 'lovers quarrel'. I agree with the other poster that said that having sex with close colleagues is wholly unprofessional. There are plenty of people on earth.
- why_tho_ 9y ago
  I don't understand this train of thought, then again I'm not married, but why do you think someone would want to have sex with you because they happen to be alone with you? This reeks of misogyny... You're basically saying you have no self control when it comes to 50% of the worlds population. That's just pathetic and comes across as extremely rapey. People have agency over who they have sex with, you're saying they don't.
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    What if he agrees with all your allegations that he is rapey and misogynistic? In that case, wouldn't it be better if he adopts the policy than not? I assume you'd agree. So, if you are misogynistic, following this policy saves you from career suicide and harming others, and if you are not misogynistic, then the price is small. Therefore, it's best to follow this "no socialization with subordinates" policy.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      I would disagree that the price is small. Many of my closest friends are opposite gender, and as another user said, avoiding cross gender friendships is likely to be harmful to the gender which has fewer people at the top.
      - DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
        You're probably right. As I mentioned elsewhere, I feel bad about any downsides this has for women. It's probably a downside that we should try to mitigate.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
hashbig 9y ago
After reading about yet another sexual accusation every other day, I am not sure Pence's view is that crazy after all.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  The other answer seems to be even more radical - audio/video record every interaction as a proof of (not) wrong-doing. At least in that way, one gender isn't staying away and keeping away the other, thus potentially exacerbating the problem of gender stratification. But then again, now we're in the murky territory of privacy, and how many jurisdictions are 2(all) party consent. Back and forth, round and round. Pence's answer does seem to be the logical, if completely ugly, solution.
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    Let's call it the Torvolds principle instead. "Pence" has unfortunate connotations.
    - i_am_nomad 9y ago
      ... to you.
      - backpropaganda 9y ago
        To half the population.
jimnotgym 9y ago
> Is your view actually stronger? That a person should not socialize alone with anyone they have power over, rather than just women? I didn't say don't socialize, I said keep some distance. The example of being in a bar together is the start of many sorry tails, and yes you should go home. But the answer is yes, I have a different relationship with my workmates to my friends, deliberately. I do the majority of my business in business hours. I don't find after hours drinking clubs healthy at all.

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago

I'm not sure what Pence's view is. But as a married man, I absolutely believe the best policy for myself, and probably most married men, is to avoid situations that increase the odds of my infidelity. And yes, the includes not developing close friendships with anyone I find attractive.

benrbray 9y ago
Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Do you really not trust yourself?
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  I think for some definition of "not in control", I would agree that men are not in control of their sexual urges. More specifically, while I think in most situations I'd be fine, but if I've had one too many drinks, and the social situation "feels" appropriate to me, it might be possible that I do something which I'd later regret.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  Short answer: would you say the same thing to a recovering alcoholic regarding hanging out with his old drinking buddies at a bar? tl;dr For me, it's a matter of risk tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for the risk of cheating on my wife. So based on my best understanding of the circumstances that tend to increase the likelihood of infidelity, I try hard to avoid those circumstances. > Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? First, "stereotype perpetuation" isn't something that just happens to people. A person has some ability to accept or reject adopting belief in a stereotype. So I'll let other people take responsibility for what they believe regarding this topic. Secondly, what you're seeing is a male being in control of his sexual urges. My post was simply giving insight into one of the mechanisms by which I do it. > Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Well ideally, yeah. But I didn't design the human condition. > Do you really not trust yourself? I try to have an accurate understanding of my strengths and weaknesses, and to plan accordingly.
  - roflc0ptic 9y ago
    Per my anthropology class in college, about 10 percent of men and women answered “yes” to a question like “have you cheated on your partner in the last year?” It’s a little inhumane to make individual men responsible for the weight of western civilization’s treatment of women when they’re trying to do right by their partners. I determined years ago that I’m some combination of unwilling or unable to maintain monogamous relationships, so I stopped making that commitment. Even without that constraint, being romantically engaged with people is at best distracting and at worst destructive, and so structure my life so as to avoid engendering those feelings. When I spend time with members of the sex I find attractive, I inevitably want to escalate. It’s my unsubstantiated conjecture that this is why traditional societies had separate gender roles. Same sex groups take so much less emotional energy.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> And yes, the includes not developing close friendships with anyone I find attractive. Which brings in all the problems with the Pence view. It reinforces the glass ceiling / old boys club, because friends talk about business on the golf course (or at the LAN party), and then women get excluded from that. Worse, it's a policy adopted only by the self-conscious people who wouldn't otherwise have crossed the line anyway, and not the bastards going around groping people left and right, which increases the proportion of interactions with the latter category. The problem seems to be that there are obvious benefits to standing right on top of the line (increased probability of friendship/romance) but nobody wants anybody to cross it, and that can't happen. If you tell everybody to stand as close as they can to an invisible line that nobody can quite agree on the exact contours of, every time a moderate person actually draws their version of the line you'll find a whole slew of people standing on the wrong side of it, because it's everyone even slightly less moderate than that. Ask a conservative (i.e. puritan) person to draw the line and everybody will be standing on the wrong side of it. Rejection sucks. Nobody wants to get rejected, so nobody wants to be thrust into the position of the villain who has to reject someone. But the world where nobody ever has to reject someone is the completely sterile one. The uncomfortable no is the price of the opportunity for yes. Nobody who internally knows that the answer is no wants that "opportunity" thrust on them, but how is the other party supposed to know that ahead of time? And it's no help to point out the obvious cases. There are things that 99.99% of people agree are over the line. The problem is the things that 75% of people agree are over the line, because then 25% of people are doing them.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  > It reinforces the glass ceiling / old boys club, because friends talk about business on the golf course (or at the LAN party), and then women get excluded from that. Some might, I don't. Some crap people do crap things. I discuss work issues in work. Out of hours work discussions exclude all kinds of people, people with families, women (again in particular) with children and those who prefer work situations to social ones. I occasionally meet male and female colleagues one-to-one in coffee shops during work hours, to talk things through, but I don't drink alcohol with them. I haven't studied Pence's view, but I am a married man and I rarely meet women socially one-on-one. I socialize very occasionally with my team . I have seen so many times where a manager socializes with his team, then they do a bit of texting, then one hits on hard times and needs a shoulder to cry on, then they fall out and the company has a sexual harassment case to deal with where maybe it is just a 'lovers quarrel'. I agree with the other poster that said that having sex with close colleagues is wholly unprofessional. There are plenty of people on earth.
why_tho_ 9y ago
I don't understand this train of thought, then again I'm not married, but why do you think someone would want to have sex with you because they happen to be alone with you? This reeks of misogyny... You're basically saying you have no self control when it comes to 50% of the worlds population. That's just pathetic and comes across as extremely rapey. People have agency over who they have sex with, you're saying they don't.
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  What if he agrees with all your allegations that he is rapey and misogynistic? In that case, wouldn't it be better if he adopts the policy than not? I assume you'd agree. So, if you are misogynistic, following this policy saves you from career suicide and harming others, and if you are not misogynistic, then the price is small. Therefore, it's best to follow this "no socialization with subordinates" policy.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    I would disagree that the price is small. Many of my closest friends are opposite gender, and as another user said, avoiding cross gender friendships is likely to be harmful to the gender which has fewer people at the top.
    - DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
      You're probably right. As I mentioned elsewhere, I feel bad about any downsides this has for women. It's probably a downside that we should try to mitigate.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

hashbig 9y ago

After reading about yet another sexual accusation every other day, I am not sure Pence's view is that crazy after all.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
The other answer seems to be even more radical - audio/video record every interaction as a proof of (not) wrong-doing. At least in that way, one gender isn't staying away and keeping away the other, thus potentially exacerbating the problem of gender stratification. But then again, now we're in the murky territory of privacy, and how many jurisdictions are 2(all) party consent. Back and forth, round and round. Pence's answer does seem to be the logical, if completely ugly, solution.
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  Let's call it the Torvolds principle instead. "Pence" has unfortunate connotations.
  - i_am_nomad 9y ago
    ... to you.
    - backpropaganda 9y ago
      To half the population.

jimnotgym 9y ago

> Is your view actually stronger? That a person should not socialize alone with anyone they have power over, rather than just women? I didn't say don't socialize, I said keep some distance. The example of being in a bar together is the start of many sorry tails, and yes you should go home. But the answer is yes, I have a different relationship with my workmates to my friends, deliberately. I do the majority of my business in business hours. I don't find after hours drinking clubs healthy at all.