SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

A strawman is setting up an argument no one posited and then knocking it down this man of straw quite easily. It's a logical fallacy. No intent to be disrespectful.

No-one here argued anyone was walking gentialia with legs. The graham rule doesn't imply that either.

And no one stated they couldn't control themselves. And that is also not an implication of the graham rule, just as not keeping chocolate cake around the house is not an implication of lack of self control.

Thus both are straw men positions.

It is interesting that Not Just Friends and the Graham rule are essentially kissing cousins on this topic. NJF is pretty much SOP as a book here at SI tho I understand not all agree with it.

Having been subjected to a “we are just friends” betrayal from my WW, I do.

Also just as an aside, the Modesto Manifesto was a direct reaction by Billy Graham to several sexual scandals in evangelicalism at the time. He wanted his ministry to always be above reproach. So criticize him at will, fire away, but he walked the talk.

[This message edited by Thumos at 5:44 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

Everyone has their own opinion...and I stated mine. I am very HAPPY that my H has CHOSEN to go by the Billy Graham Rule . He HONORS me by doing this...and I LOVE it!!

This has caused NO issues with other women climbing the corporate ladder where he works. But if ANY of them have any intention of doing it by laying my H...they won't make it that way.

I mean absolutely no offense with this, I swear. But like the OP, your H did cheat. I understand wanting your spouse to have that rule if they have been unfaithful. That's a bit of a consequence and a way to make R feel safer, I'm sure.

I, as a single woman, have no interest in working with people who do not value me for my abilities and what I know at work but instead look at me as something potentially sexual. That would 100% limit my career options. If I had to pick up a babysitter on the way to meet with a male coworker to make sure that there was no hanky panky going on in the office or to make him feel okay about being around me, that would be the creepiest weirdest dynamic I can imagine.

[This message edited by DevastatedDee at 5:42 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

A strawman is setting up an argument no one posited and then knocking it down this man of straw quite easily. It's a logical fallacy. No intent to be disrespectful.

No-one here argued anyone was walking gentialia with legs. The graham rule doesn't imply that either.

And no one stated they couldn't control themselves. And that is also not an implication of the graham rule, just as not keeping chocolate cake around the house is not an implication of lack of self control.

Thus both are straw men positions.

I wasn't suggesting a lack of control. I was suggesting that defining me at work by my genitals and treating me differently than a man would be treated is demeaning and disrespectful and reduces me to mere genitalia with legs. It takes my humanity and makes me into an object. I don't want to be chocolate cake. I want to be the individual in the office who possesses the skills to help resolve a problem or kick off a new initiative.

Thumas I am going to respectfully disagree and not engage further.

I appreciate the discussion.

[This message edited by prissy4lyfe at 5:42 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

Seats, Irrespective of what your W does, the best thing you can do for yourself, for her, and for your kids is pick yourself up and start again. You found a vulnerability - closing it is the best path. A reminder: Energy used in beating yourself up is wasted.

I don't mean to minimize your error. Your W has to process it, and she has very wide latitude in deciding how she'll do that.

You do, too. It looks like you're owning it and looking into the root causes, and that looks like a start at making the necessary changes. Contrast that with some other options, like denying, minimizing, blameshifting, lying....

And if the reality is you can't control yourself regarding friendships with the opposite sex...then the location of the friendships is of no consequence.

Classic straw man reasoning and logically false.

Having done low-intensity sexual things (with my W) at business and social functions, I don't understand how this is a straw man argument. Am I missing something obvious?

In my usual view, the Billy Graham rule says men are unable to control themselves when they're with women. Sometimes, though, I hear BG saying men are victims of women.

I never see it as a reflection of reality - I've been alone with women other than my W, most of whom had their attractions, too many times, and I can't remember crossing any sexual boundaries with them. I know too many other men who keep up their boundaries.

I've been able to accomplish things alone with women other than my W in the workplace that I couldn't have accomplished without them. I've had fun alone with women other than my W that would have been less fun without a companion.

Maybe the rule worked for BG, but it wouldn't have worked for me. And BG might have led a richer, more spiritual life if he hadn't followed the rule - we'll never know.

OTOH, it's reasonable for Boundaries to get tighter after a violation. WSes should keep themselves out of potentially compromising situations to as great a degree as possible. Also, boundaries that WS and BS agree to set need to be honored. Seats posted about a real need to change.

[This message edited by sisoon at 5:53 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

I appreciate the discussion.

.

I understand.

One other thing people should know: the Modesto Manifesto was not focused on sex. That was only one part of the pledge and actually the smallest part. The other portions had to do with money, lies, fame and power. I think we can all agree that sex, money, power, fame and lies have been the source of most human problems pretty much since the dawn of time.

It's odd that the media has focused on one aspect of the pledge but not the other areas which make up the majority of the document. Gee it's almost as if society is obsessed with sex or something.

[This message edited by Thumos at 11:04 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

I just picture it as my boss calls me at my desk "Dee, I just got notifications that these new regulations are in effect. Can you come into my office so that we can brainstorm on how to meet these requirements?"

"Yes indeed, on my way!"

"Shoot, I just remembered you're a woman. Can you grab James on the way to sit in? Or maybe it should be Stephanie. Is it better for it to be two men and you or two women and me? Oh no. Hey, bring them both and a couple of extra chairs so that they can sit."

"Okay, but they're kind of busy doing their own jobs right now."

"Hmm. Well, they can bring their laptops too so that they don't have to stop what they're doing."

Regular meeting stuff just got all creepy and weird if that were to happen. Professionalism out the window.

Am I missing something obvious?

Yes you are.

A strawman is positing something no one asserted, stated or claimed and then easily knocking down the strawman.

The Graham rule doesn't state no one can control themselves nor does it imply that. If you assume that on your own, it's your own view and you're welcome to it.

[This message edited by Thumos at 5:55 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

DevastatedDee...no offense taken at all .

You had an RA on Dday. I can certainly understand that way of thinking because I had thoughts of an RA after my own Dday. However...this shows that a perfect storm can happen at ANY time depending on the situation. There are way too many A's on here from coworkers to show that job related affairs happen all too often.

When a person takes the situation to the point where there is NO possible way something like this can happen...it makes temptations less...well...tempting.

theseseatsRtaken was put on the spot and he didn't know what to do. He realized later that he didn't do the right thing for HIM and his sweet wife. THAT comes FIRST. If people get upset...OH WELL. It took a LONG time for my H to come to the conclusion that I come FIRST over anyone else except God. Now that he HAS...he will not apologize for it...and I will EMBRACE it! I WILL honor MY vows as well .

Just an FYI to everyone...Franklin Graham is a great chip off of the old block too .

So if everyone can control themselves and it's not about surprise sex happening, what is the actual point of the Graham rule?

Or Devastated, you just meet somewhere other than his office. A good executive would probably not want to constantly summon people to his office anyway, as it creates a rather unhealthy power dynamic. The best executives I've worked with tended to want to collaborate with teams, and meet people in other settings. In my own line of work, I can't even think of that many circumstances in which I would need to meet with very many coworkers, male or female, exclusively alone.

There are way too many A's on here from coworkers to show that job related affairs happen all too often.

I mean it's practically the most common affair on SI. We'd be whistling past the graveyard to pretend otherwise.

Thumus...

I am aware of that document. And while can agree that those things are issues..we disagree on the importance of the document when offering "teachings" regarding those issues

As previously mentioned I respect those who believe in Bag's teachings but for various reasons I do not believe in them as taught by him or those who now lead in his place.

Again...I always appreciate the conversation.

Count me in as another woman who, if I could never be alone one-on-one with a man, couldn’t do my job. I don’t work in an office setting like the rest of y’all appear to, but sometimes in my line of work meeting up with a man with no one else present in the vicinity is required. I also would not be able to tell my bosses “I can’t do that” because, again, that would mean I can’t do my job.

I do respect the convictions of those who choose not to be alone with the opposite sex during work, but it’s not a choice I would personally make.

DevastatedDee...no offense taken at all .

You had an RA on Dday. I can certainly understand that way of thinking because I had thoughts of an RA after my own Dday. However...this shows that a perfect storm can happen at ANY time depending on the situation. There are way too many A's on here from coworkers to show that job related affairs happen all too often.

When a person takes the situation to the point where there is NO possible way something like this can happen...it makes temptations less...well...tempting.

I did have an RA on DDay. That wasn't exactly "any time". That was DDay. That wasn't "look at this excel spreadsheet" on a Wednesday. If I were still with my XWH and he wanted me to not work alone with men ever, I'd have had to quit my job to comply with that. Luckily that never came up given the gravity of his own transgressions even in the short time before I ended that marriage.

I've not yet been tempted to destroy or complicate my job over sex. There's plenty of sex to be had after 5pm with non-coworkers if that's what I want. And yes, lots of people do treat the office like a hookup joint. Everyone in my office knows who those people are. I worked for one of those people for a short time before he was fired over it. I've not seen that be the most viable way to treat one's job in the long run. The vast vast majority of my coworkers are not hooking up with one another. I've supervised men and women and not yet been inappropriate or wanted to be inappropriate no matter what they looked like. I had a very attractive younger man working for me who tried to work his way up in that fashion and I fired him instead. DDay madness aside, I am not that person. I don't play with my job like that. I don't work closely with anyone who does. I am lucky enough to work with mature adults. I won't accept being treated like I'm dangerous due to my gender at a job that I've earned with my abilities.

[This message edited by DevastatedDee at 6:12 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

I do respect the convictions of those who choose not to be alone with the opposite sex during work, but it’s not a choice I would personally make.

In fact me either. I meet with female colleagues all the time. But if I knew someone was choosing to invoke the graham rule I would honor it, just as you have.

I wouldn't try to shame him into doing something different, I wouldn't try to tell him he's a misogynist who views women as big walking vaginas on stork legs (now there's a word picture lol). I wouldn't try to label him as some crazed Handmaiden’s tale authoritarian. Etc.

I would just assume it was a personal choice. And in light of being a betrayed spouse and on the receiving end of “we are just friends” gaslighting, I would totally understand why.

[This message edited by Thumos at 6:18 PM, July 7th (Wednesday)]

Or Devastated, you just meet somewhere other than his office. A good executive would probably not want to constantly summon people to his office anyway, as it creates a rather unhealthy power dynamic. The best executives I've worked with tended to want to collaborate with teams, and meet people in other settings. In my own line of work, I can't even think of that many circumstances in which I would need to meet with very many coworkers, male or female, exclusively alone.

His office is pretty conveniently located to my desk and it would have been weird to go "let me see if I can schedule this meeting room that seats 20 people for just us and let's walk across the building for this 20 minute brainstorming session" and then do the same again a couple hours later. It would be untenable. Of course now while teleworking, we just do all this on the phone or via IM. It literally just wouldn't have worked when we were in the office to do things this way. Couldn't all be on the phone because of listening ears and often sensitive business conversations. We have plenty of team collaborations, but most of those start with just us two working out a lot of things before we bring it to the table for all. I've worked with most of the same people for over a decade and it has never turned a creepy corner for any of us.

Thanks for the replies folks. Just to cover off a few questions/thoughts:

Yes, BS is aware and 'upset' doesn't begin to cover it. I had intended to tell her verbally on the phone on my way home. But when she text me letting me know that there was a faster way for me to get home from where I was - I had to let her know then and there that I would have to make the detour of taking this co-worker back to her car first (Not that she would ever have known, but as much as im far from perfect I do always try to ensure I am communicating diversions in any travel plans to avoid situations where route changes are discovered later and then look suspicious) I sent a text explaining the situation before I hopped in the car, and asked her to please give me a call so she could feel a bit safer with it all (having wife on speaker in the car while giving co-worker a lift seemed like a good way to help the situation).

But here's the problems with all that:

1. I didn't think to do the same/similar when I first gave her the lift to this location.

2. The fact that I planned to tell her verbally afterwards suggests I had nowhere near the appropriate level of recognition that my choice to give her a lift in the first place was the wrong decision and that it directly contravened our agreement on what is and is not ok in our marriage after the affair.

BS's devastation isn't about me being alone in a car with a woman. It's about us having established boundaries and me not having the strength or the composure to invoke them in the moment when tested. Because how many other times could I have made a similar choice that she doesn't know about? How dangerous am I if it's this easy to not keep to our agreed boundaries? It's the doubt and the fear all over again. And with so much more to lose now.

As far as Billy Graham, I'm not familiar with him but I get the idea behind that rule. I've read everyone's thoughts on both sides of the fence and I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly in my case I need to have an answer lined up that first and foremost respects my wife, and doesn't share any personal details because as someone correctly said - that's none of their business anyway. I don't have to give my reasons. Let them think what they like.

I wouldn't try to shame him into doing something different, I wouldn't try to tell him he's a misogynist who views women as big walking vaginas on stork legs (now there's a word picture lol). I wouldn't try to label him as some crazed Handmaiden’s tale authoritarian. Etc.

I would assume he cheated or had some funny ideas about women. It would, paradoxically, bring sexual thoughts into a non-sexual situation.

I need to have an answer lined up that first and foremost respects my wife, and doesn't share any personal details because as someone correctly said - that's none of their business anyway. I don't have to give my reasons. Let them think what they like.

That is very true...SHE comes first .