Let’s say you give some wise advice to an attractive and somewhat naive young woman. Her parents have passed, and she is so very happy to get that sort of advice. She feels the need for a steady hand to help her through life, so she wants you to be … like an uncle. A fatherly sort of figure who can dispassionately guide her through difficult choices.
The trouble is, you’re not her uncle. If you were, there would be some amount of safety. Not complete safety, but some amount, because we have an instinct not to get involved with close relations. That’s why, as a general rule, brothers and sisters are usually not going at it, and why the most dangerous character in a young girl’s life can be her stepfather.
There’s something in our brains that dials back sexual attraction towards someone who is a close blood relative.
The problem with this is that the modern mind has been trained to push back. If there’s an exception, the foolish person thinks, the rule can be discarded.
But the Pharaohs married their sisters! And I know a brother and sister who ….
Right. Nothing is 100 percent. Men tend to be attracted to certain things and repulsed by other things, but there’s always a minority who go the other way.
Wise living is a matter of playing the odds. The Proverbs are not laws of the universe. They’re guidelines.
You might spend your life socking away money in your 401(k) only to die before you retire, but contributing to your 401(k) is the right thing to do. And realizing that you have no business being “like an uncle” to an attractive young woman is also the right thing to do. And explaining that to her might be one of the best lessons she ever gets in life.
You raise interesting points. Yet, I’m not sure I’d make this a hard and fast rule of thumb or prohibition. It’s better to say, “if” you’re going to have this type of relationship, put safeguards or boundaries in place that will mitigate any potential negative side effects from human nature.
Let’s suppose that this guy is totally gay. Then there should be no problem.
Can’t speak for Crowhill, but I’d think he’d suggest a gay guy would be an exception. Still, context is very important when considering social norms like this. It seems there would be too many exceptions to make the rule effective. Instead of this type of relationship be totally off limits, it seems more practical and reasonable to offer cautionary “guidelines” to minimize potential negative impacts.
Some straight guys have no propensity for sexual sin. Example: Joseph. According to the Book of Genesis, Joseph turned down the advances of Potiphar’s wife – even when doing so resulted in his imprisonment. Unfortunately, men of Joseph’s integrity are rare: many otherwise decent guys would immediately give in to such a temptation.
@Scott, agreed. This is another area that falls outside of the proposed norm.
That said, let’s suppose we are dealing with a straight guy with a propensity to be “tempted” in this manner. It still doesn’t mean he is going to succumb to this temptation. Crowhill’s proposed norm seems to suggest that people cannot control their natural urges or impulses. Yet, in actuality, it happens consistently. For instance, there are men who work with and have close association with women they find attractive. Yet, despite their attraction, they don’t act upon it inappropriately. Of course, we know there are men who do. We hear about those and it becomes the fodder for affairs, scandals and #metoo. Still, I suspect there are many more men who resist and act appropriately given already established norms and self-imposed boundaries. Despite being tempted, they “choose” to act differently.
William is right that it can be reasonable to do otherwise dangerous things if you take the right precautions.
My point was more that we need to structure our lives around a reasonable understanding of human nature.
QUOTE: William is right that it can be reasonable to do otherwise dangerous things if you take the right precautions.
I think it’s a bit too strong to suggest this is a “dangerous” thing. I’d suggest it’s just an acknowledgement that human nature acts in a certain way, we should be cognizant of it and govern ourselves accordingly.
Have her develop a relationship with your wife, if the young woman knows and is comfortable with her, and your wife can ask you for advice when she feels the need for input. If she’s someone you’re interacting with without your wife knowing her well, you should be distancing yourself from highly personal stuff anyway.
Otherwise, yeah, problems are not *inevitable**. I know men I’m fairly confident I could trust in this situation. I just don’t think it’s a wise risk to run, because our ability to assess these things isn’t as good as it needs to be for this kind of thing to be a good idea. Sure, many men feel temptations that they resist. But you don’t have an obligation to form a fairly intimate relationship that creates temptations, so finding another way to handle the situation is far preferable.
@Pentamom, having a relationship with a “wife” is fine…”if” the guy is married. As well, mentor/mentee relationships typically require a certain amount of platonic personality chemistry to be effective. In some cases, the wife and the protege may not have it. As well, the wife may not be as skilled or knowledgeable as her spouse in the desired areas of coaching. In those cases, the female-female association wouldn’t be beneficial. So, it’s somewhat dependent upon the personalities involved, not only the sex.
Indeed, there are some male-female relationships that shouldn’t exist (especially if they already know they will likely not control themselves). Yet, the part that’s troublesome to me is that it “seems” to be assumed that it’s generally a “bad idea” and that a man “should not” be a mentor to a female protege. All people of the opposite sex are not automatically attracted to each other. If the relationship is handled well (with reasonable boundaries), there’s “typically” little risk of things going to an inappropriate place.
Overall, in these situations, it’s a matter of using a little common sense (understanding human nature) and abiding within appropriate boundaries.
@Pentamom, I agree. But for the record (in case anybody is wondering), the guy in this story is not me. 🙂
But maybe you self-identify with him – or with her.
I figured it wasn’t, I was just using the convention “you” because it’s easier to talk about that way.
William, if he’s not married, then I don’t see that there’s an issue in the first place. He can be a mentor, and if it goes in a romantic direction, who cares?
I know that the wife’s relationship with the young woman might not be as good, but the question is whether that overrides the other concerns. Sometime you have to settle for what appears to be second best in one area, in order to avoid creating a problem in another. Again, this young woman is not entitled to a close relationship with a married man, even if it appears that it would benefit her in some way.
It’s true that all people of the opposite sex are not automatically attracted to one another. But as Greg says, the question is what you want to bet on — is it a safe bet that these two particular people will continue not to be attracted to one another as they are involved in a fairly intimate relationship? Is it not the case that such relationship tend to foster attraction? Is it a safe *enough* bet to risk a man’s character and/or marriage?
Also, the thing about “reasonable boundaries” — I guess my view is that a married man can be friends with a woman, OF COURSE, but having intimate knowledge of her personal problems and giving her counsel on them on a regular basis, outside of a professional counseling situation, is itself beyond a “reasonable boundary.” It’s not any and all relationships between married men and other women, it’s this relationship in particular that I find to raise concerns.
@Pentamom, as typical, we different in view. See my comments below.
QUOTE: William, if he’s not married, then I don’t see that there’s an issue in the first place. He can be a mentor, and if it goes in a romantic direction, who cares?
Despite both being single, in some circumstances, a mentor relationship going in a romantic direction could be inappropriate…such as a boss/subordinate. Therefore, it’s not only marital status that needs to be considered.
QUOTE: I know that the wife’s relationship with the young woman might not be as good, but the question is whether that overrides the other concerns. Sometime you have to settle for what appears to be second best in one area, in order to avoid creating a problem in another.
That’s just it…who irrefutably determined that it *necessarily* creates a problem? If the two parties involved are not attracted to each other, there’s no issue. If both parties have incorporated appropriate boundaries, there’s less likelihood of an issue developing. As I said previously, there are some male-female relationships that should NOT be. In THOSE case, there shouldn’t be a that type of interaction. Yet, to assume that any married male-single female mentor interaction creates a problem is too broad of a generalization.
QUOTE: But as Greg says, the question is what you want to bet on — is it a safe bet that these two particular people will continue not to be attracted to one another as they are involved in a fairly intimate relationship? Is it not the case that such relationship tend to foster attraction? Is it a safe *enough* bet to risk a man’s character and/or marriage?
Depends on what you define as “intimate”. If they are meeting frequently, secretly, listening to romantic music, scantly clad and/or naked….yep, a problem just might develop! Surprise, surprise…human nature strike again! Yet, if they connect occasionally, in public places or by other modern means (e.g., email/text), others are aware of their relationship (inclusive of spouses) and their discussions are about life issues (that are not of a sexual nature), I’d generally say there’s little likelihood that there’s going to be an issue.
QUOTE: Also, the thing about “reasonable boundaries”…but having intimate knowledge of her personal problems and giving her counsel on them on a regular basis, outside of a professional counseling situation, is itself beyond a “reasonable boundary.”
Says who? On what authority do you make this assertion?
That said, as a LONG-time married man, I can speak from direct personal experience. Over the years, I’ve had this type of interaction with women WITHOUT issue. My wife has been aware and didn’t consider it “beyond” a reasonable boundary. Those associations were without issue because “reasonable boundaries” were put into place and the nature of those interactions were purely platonic.
Now, I repeat, in some cases it is NOT advised for a married man to mentor a woman. Yet, to assume that any male-female (married or single) mentor interaction creates a problem is too board of a generalization. People are not animals, can make choices and do not have to give in to their impulses. Common sense (understanding human nature) and abiding within appropriate boundaries are the keys to successfully managing such interactions (when and if they occur). But, for those who cannot or even question if they can control themselves, indeed, they should stay far, far away from any such relationships.
If this is a boss/subordinate relationship then it’s already a bad idea to make it a personal relationship anyway. I thought we were talking about situations that weren’t obviously out of bounds to begin with, so there was still a question about it. I can’t think of any situation in which it would be appropriate to have this kind of relationship to begin with, but not appropriate to have it go in a romantic direction between two unmarried people.
When you’re deciding to avoid something that might create a problem, you don’t always decide on the basis of knowing it definitely will. Sometimes you decide on the basis of avoiding the possibility, because the problem is a bigger issue than the potential benefit. That’s all I’m saying.
My definition of intimate is simply engaging, albeit without inappropriate trappings, on matters that are inherently highly personal to people and tend to get people emotionally involved with one another to some degree, in their discussion. I thought most people understood that to be included in the range of meanings of the word, but I guess not, for at least or some reason you find it useful to assume either the least extreme or the most extreme case of everything I say, whichever sustains an argument better.
Sorry that last sentence should be “or at least for some reason,” not “for.”
Is this Dear Abby or somethin’?
The only thing more fun than solving other people’s problems is solving hypothetical problems. Any problems but one’s own real ones!
@Pentamom
QUOTE: If this is a boss/subordinate relationship then it’s already a bad idea to make it a personal relationship anyway. I thought we were talking about situations that weren’t obviously out of bounds to begin with, so there was still a question about it.
Says who? It’s common for people to have personal relationships in the workplace, most times WITHOUT issue. So no, it’s not “necessarily” a bad idea…neither is it “out of bounds”. Once again, it depends on how the interactions are structured and what boundaries are put into place that determines if it’s appropriate or inappropriate.
QUOTE: When you’re deciding to avoid something that might create a problem, you don’t always decide on the basis of knowing it definitely will. Sometimes you decide on the basis of avoiding the possibility, because the problem is a bigger issue than the potential benefit.
The generalization cannot be legitimately made that it will be *necessarily* problematic. It’s one thing to say, one needs to exercise prudence and establish boundaries in this situation. Yet, it’s quite another to say…”and realizing that you have no business being ‘like an uncle’ to an attractive young woman”…intimating that such a relationship should not exist or be avoided altogether. In some cases, the benefit could be bigger than the effort it takes to effectively manage such a relationship.
QUOTE: My definition of intimate is simply engaging, albeit without inappropriate trappings, on matters that are inherently highly personal to people and tend to get people emotionally involved with one another to some degree, in their discussion.
What’s inherently inappropriate about a mentoring relationship between a married man and single woman which contains reasonable boundaries? Men and women get to know each other personally frequently and it doesn’t *necessarily* result in inappropriate behavior. Some male leaders have this with high-potential female talent within their organization. Some male professors have this with female students during their college tenure. We know sometimes there are issues. Yet, many times these relationships occur without issue. Indeed, it’s necessary to manage these relationships prudently. Still, when common sense (understanding human nature) and reasonable boundaries are in place, the likelihood of negative issues is minimal.
QUOTE: I thought most people understood that to be included in the range of meanings of the word, but I guess not, for at least or some reason you find it useful to assume either the least extreme or the most extreme case of everything I say, whichever sustains an argument better.
I learned a long time ago NEVER to assume anything, especially in online communications. It’s better to have a clear understanding of the author’s intent, particularly when using words that have a range of meaning. So, I raised the point since I can’t read your mind. That said, it *seems* you’re assuming a married man having a mentoring relationship with a single female necessarily leads to inappropriate behavior. If so, you’ve not demonstrated that to be true. Neither have you validated your assertion that having intimate knowledge of a woman’s personal problems and giving her counsel on them on a regular basis, outside of a professional counseling situation, is itself beyond a “reasonable boundary”. If that’s YOUR preference, no problem…we all have them. Yet, there’s a difference between personal preference and what should be legitimately generalized.