I think we should give the young women a break. They get all these messages from the media about how being a woman means bringing the sexy, and then when they dress accordingly, they get in trouble for it. Men don't get these messages, and aren't brainwashed into thinking they have to look like bimbos.

I think we need to actively fight back against those messages and raise women who dress thoughtfully.

Am I an outlier here if I would be leery of any man who would need to "prove" his loyalty to me, and our commitment to each other, by insisting on having a chaperon whenever he had business dinner or private meeting with a female colleague?

In my experience, if someone is seeking an intimate relationship with a boss, colleague or subordinate, all the chaperones, glassed office windows, open doors, head-to-toe draped clothing, and avowed "rules" won't stand in the way. Some of the most duplicitous, unsavory behavior I've witnessed has been by individuals who outwardly extolled their commitment to a code of conduct. Mr. Pence either will, or won't, conduct himself properly, but I suspect his "vow" is less of a shield than his own personal integrity.

IMO the rule is rediculous and just another excuse for perpetrating sexism/misogyny. The appropriateness of clothing is a red herring in the context of this rule (and a totally different, although interesting, discussion).

Interesting question, Gaylene. I probably would be leery if someone 'needed to prove' and tried to overtly set up 'rules' beforehand. But I do prefer it if people simply follow them. My oldest friend just puts her bloody husband on the phone with me and makes us talk, lol. We do our duty, and stop as soon as possible. Hahaha! It's a bit of a pain, but I feel it's important for the health of marriage. Apparently we (them and me) all do and like it.

It's been asked why women are seen as temptresses. I am suggesting that our clothing may be a part of the answer. Traditionally, men are taught that they cannot control their urges. Women are taught that they must have utmost control over their bodies. I think this is why men more than women feel the need for these rules.

I agree wholeheartedly with you Gaylene. Often people who are very pious in public are the most duplicitous in private (gross generalisation I know- but certainly true of several Political Figures here).

I have done a bit of further reading on this matter and while I stand by my original comment (that political figures are wise to be cautious and suspicious, and I can understand that facing a trial by media is a frightening prospect), I wonder if this goes further than that, and does show a certain view of the world.

WRT appropriateness of women's clothing, it is a minefield. I don't envy female teenagers trying to navigate the world of clothing choices. I can remember choosing outfits that in retrospect were not the wisest choices (too short, too tight etc) because I was experimenting, on a tight budget and really unsure of what the parameters were. And I have to say, wanting to be liked and wanting to be attractive, in my own way on my own terms.

Xtabay, I agree. It is hard to find a good balance with all the conflicting messages women get.

I don't understand who it is Mike Pence wants to impress with this rule given his position.

I think the Billy Graham rule is very out of step with modern business interactions, although given how litigious our society is, and how many cases we have seen of impropriety and criminal behavior, I suppose it probably does make sense to follow this rule in situations with severe power imbalances (teaching, for example). But the VP? That seems so ridiculous it suggests to me he is not fit for the post.

Also, I think ChewySpaghetti raises points that are probably worth an entire separate thread, but one that might be very difficult to navigate. Girls and women are so often victimized and blamed that I think we have to tread very carefully here, but I agree with Chewy that -- just as boys need to be taught about consent, respect, and what is criminal behavior, girls need to be taught about making choices with intention and responsibility, including how they present themselves. This is not about blaming a girl, it's about teaching her what we all know here: that how you present yourself does matter. And, as a sober person, I think all young people, boys and girls, need to be taught at a very young age about the effects of alcohol on decision-making, as in: when you are young and you drink, you lose the ability to make a rational decision. Off-topic of this off-topic, but anyway ..... (Sorry, feel passionately about this...).

I couldn't agree more, viva. Schools can teach a lot, but things like how to dress and how to conduct oneself appropriately are usually learned at home. I have a feeling like a lot of young people just pick up what their peers are doing, and it's very hard for parents to override the pack mentality. Better to start young so when they have to make these choices, they at least have the benefit of some earlier education on the repercussions of certain behaviors. Sermon over!!

Viva, you've expressed my thoughts EXACTLY! Viewing interactions between the genders only through the oppressor/temptress/victim lens is demeaning to both sexes. There is a need to teach BOTH boys and girls about integrity, respect, and self control--neither gender gets a free pass.

Gaylene, what an interesting perspective regarding "proving" one's love. I hadn't thought of it that way. I looked at it as a "gesture". Hmmm...I would have to agree with you on that.

I'v avoided this thread for awhile, but I hope I'm able to jump in with a first person view, since I've been aware of this "rule," and the (BG) Billy Graham rules that surround it.

First, BG's approach of not criticizing his colleagues in ministry is one of his greatest legacies, alongside the financial accountability that is so crucial -- churches and ministries are more transparent and healthy because of this.

As for the rule about interactions with the opposite sex -- my DH and I use this rule, kinda like a Pirate Code (meaning it's a more a guideline, in a wink to the movies). It is not just for protecting fidelity, but also for safety from false accusation and, well, just safety. These days, it sometimes has nothing to do with affairs or the just the opposite gender. In my years teaching at a Christian college, I taught private music lessons, but my studio was in a well traveled corridor with a window in the door. On one occasion I was actually physically threatened by an male student angry over his grade. I was grateful that a male colleague heard the kerfuffle , peered in and intervened.

DH spent 20 years in pastoral ministry, and is now a college professor. If he meets with a female colleague, congregant or student, he might make simple adjustments. For example, he might meet in the open area of the church, at a comfortable table in full sight, but with enough space for the conversation not to be directly overheard. There have been times when he has just texted me when he's going to visit with someone and he might be alone -- we also use the "Find My Friends" feature on the iPhone, which means I could know, if I wanted to, exactly when he enters and leaves a location. Of course, it's really a way to avoid the phone calls, "Are you still at Target?" since he can just look and see now, lol!

FWIW, my view alongside DH, as he entered the private parts of people's lives (sometimes taking me along, when it seemed to make sense), I saw relationships torn apart by secrets and lack of care --- A marriage is strengthened first by the energy invested in each other, without which, boundaries are pretty meaningless.

As for the patronizing quality of the BG rule -- I've been on the other side of that, too. When I was a teen, the whole "pastors should only give side hug thing" became popular. I told my pastors, whom I had been close to since childhood, that if they were going to give me such a lame hug, they shouldn't bother! I also speak up regularly whenever someone asks me, (and yes, it's happened), to speak to a young girl about her "dress." I challenged one male elder to go to the junior department at Kohls and see if he could put together an outfit that was cute -- and to the knee. Gamely, he took me up on it, and came away with a new sense of how difficult it can be to run the gauntlet between the expectations of others. Finally, I did suggest to one elder, who questioned my willingness to kiss men onstage in opera (in gooey makeup and sweating under bright lights in front of loads of people), that I wasn't a Jezebel, but I might be a Deborah, or, better yet, a Jael! Truthfully, I don't think he knew who Jael was! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jael

I do not know VP Pence personally, but I now live in his state. My work colleagues have lobbied him in the Governor's office, and two friends at church worked with him on his staff. There are many who disagree with his policies (I don't often agree with him, either), but to a person they affirm that he was accessible, and willing to hear someone out. They all loved Karen Pence for her advocacy and simple ways -- which are getting her pretty much chewed up in D.C. I think it's appropriate to make sure that women who work in government have equal access to the VP, and that his "rule" doesn't affect his job. Heck, I'd offer to bring alone a "3rd party!" Rather than have one of Pence's aids in the meeting, I'd bring alone my daughter, or another young woman, inviting her into the halls of power with me -- to do a little "team building," you might say.

Interesting conversation! I work in a male oriented field (engineering) and I've never come across this. All my bosses have been men and most of my coworkers. The only place I've ever had a male ask a female to be in the room is at the gynecologist when the male doctor had a female nurse. In that situation it makes complete sense to me.

Actually, that's true for me too, Sara: never an issue in hard tech. But problems in soft tech. And the energy industry is too much: serious drinking there, which not many women wanted to do.

It probably goes without saying, but I think it's depressing that we even have to have this conversation. It shows how much it's still a man's world.