Married man going to lunch with single female inappropriate?

[Anonymous]

Some responses seem to indicate that if a man is even slightly attracted to a female colleague then he shouldn't meet up for lunch. It's tough to beat back biology but it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex. On occasion I go to lunch with 3 female colleagues who are all attractive, and also brilliant. So am I supposed to deprive myself of stimulating professional conversation because my lower brain occasionally notices that they are pretty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some responses seem to indicate that if a man is even slightly attracted to a female colleague then he shouldn't meet up for lunch. It's tough to beat back biology but it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex. On occasion I go to lunch with 3 female colleagues who are all attractive, and also brilliant. So am I supposed to deprive myself of stimulating professional conversation because my lower brain occasionally notices that they are pretty?

Right... Everyone believes you - so you work at a strip club then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely inappropriate. Where are your boundaries?

I have to agree. You find her attractive. You are doing too much explaining and justifying and posting here. Its nonsense. You know its fishy. So stop.

And the justifying is just so skeevy and obvious. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quarterly lunches are NBD, OP! In fact, they may indicate that you're not really even close friends because friends see each other on a regular basis. If you were seeing this person 3-4 times weekly, that might have been a concern.

Do you ever invite others on these lunches?

Here's a test: invite one or two other people to join you. Are you still enjoying lunch? Can you go back and forth between a lunch "just the two of you" and lunch in a slightly larger group?

If tension develops, maybe something's under the surface?

Another test: are you feeling some tension?

If you're feeling mixed signals, why?

My husband was doing this - though his lunch pal was married. She strung him along with all sorts of 'in the moment' attention when she had free time.
He thought that they were good friends. She got sick for two years and when the stuff hit the fan and she needed support or friendship she never even contacted him.
No one from the family contacted him - even after she died. He was not significant to her at all apparently but he thought he was.
Men are suckers for any kind of attention. You are way over thinking this OP - you're just some random dude that she knows a little bit sometimes and that's it. Invest your time in people that care and/or work colleagues instead. Do you have lunch with DW? What about some guy friends that you can actually see after work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some responses seem to indicate that if a man is even slightly attracted to a female colleague then he shouldn't meet up for lunch. It's tough to beat back biology but it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex. On occasion I go to lunch with 3 female colleagues who are all attractive, and also brilliant. So am I supposed to deprive myself of stimulating professional conversation because my lower brain occasionally notices that they are pretty?

Right... Everyone believes you - so you work at a strip club then?

Whoa whoa whoa. This has NOTHING to do with "equality in the workplace". How is your (clearly lower) brain equating the two?

If management AT THE WORKPLACE or the WORKPLACE was criticizing two colleagues for interacting because someone might think someone is attractive, that would be directly affecting equality in the workplace, which you have strong feelings about (hahaha).

This has EVERYthing to do with personal accountability.

Dude posts he has issues with the womans attractiveness. He does not say it quite like that, but really, what else was the point of his post? So we could reassure him its ok to notice someone is attractive? He seems instead to be seeking permission to do something that he swears isnt going to lead to doing something else, but then why would be even post? His Red Herring was wondering if she might be drawn to him. Dude is confused. Dude has issues. Dude is actually being avoidant of the issues while presenting as if he is seeking knowledge and input. Dude is silly. Don't be like Dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some responses seem to indicate that if a man is even slightly attracted to a female colleague then he shouldn't meet up for lunch. It's tough to beat back biology but it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex. On occasion I go to lunch with 3 female colleagues who are all attractive, and also brilliant. So am I supposed to deprive myself of stimulating professional conversation because my lower brain occasionally notices that they are pretty?

Right... Everyone believes you - so you work at a strip club then?

Whoa whoa whoa. This has NOTHING to do with "equality in the workplace". How is your (clearly lower) brain equating the two?

If management AT THE WORKPLACE or the WORKPLACE was criticizing two colleagues for interacting because someone might think someone is attractive, that would be directly affecting equality in the workplace, which you have strong feelings about (hahaha).

This has EVERYthing to do with personal accountability.

Dude posts he has issues with the womans attractiveness. He does not say it quite like that, but really, what else was the point of his post? So we could reassure him its ok to notice someone is attractive? He seems instead to be seeking permission to do something that he swears isnt going to lead to doing something else, but then why would be even post? His Red Herring was wondering if she might be drawn to him. Dude is confused. Dude has issues. Dude is actually being avoidant of the issues while presenting as if he is seeking knowledge and input. Dude is silly. Don't be like Dude.

Ok so the first post was one of the most thoughtful and insightful posts on this thread. I'm impressed with pp. The retort is lacking all such insight. Pp, you seem to think it's just "rules" that hold women (and probably POC) back. It's not. We've actually done a pretty good job of fixing the rules. It's societal norms that take a while to adjust. First pp hit the nail on the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quarterly lunches are NBD, OP! In fact, they may indicate that you're not really even close friends because friends see each other on a regular basis. If you were seeing this person 3-4 times weekly, that might have been a concern.

Do you ever invite others on these lunches?

Here's a test: invite one or two other people to join you. Are you still enjoying lunch? Can you go back and forth between a lunch "just the two of you" and lunch in a slightly larger group?

If tension develops, maybe something's under the surface?

Another test: are you feeling some tension?

If you're feeling mixed signals, why?

My husband was doing this - though his lunch pal was married. She strung him along with all sorts of 'in the moment' attention when she had free time.
He thought that they were good friends. She got sick for two years and when the stuff hit the fan and she needed support or friendship she never even contacted him.
No one from the family contacted him - even after she died. He was not significant to her at all apparently but he thought he was.
Men are suckers for any kind of attention. You are way over thinking this OP - you're just some random dude that she knows a little bit sometimes and that's it. Invest your time in people that care and/or work colleagues instead. Do you have lunch with DW? What about some guy friends that you can actually see after work

This may be the worst post in the thread. You and your husband are mad and offended that when his colleague got sick he wasn't more included? Her family was supposed to personally contact co-workers? You sound so selfish!

[Anonymous]

OP here. I'm getting two sides to the issue as expected. To clarify I see her as a friend and don't have immoral intent. She is incredibly beautiful with a great personality and most men would naturally be attracted to her. Regardless of whether she has romantic interest in me or not, should I continue with her? I would have lunch with her even if I did not find her attractive however. Should women be penalized in such cases for being too beautiful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm getting two sides to the issue as expected. To clarify I see her as a friend and don't have immoral intent. She is incredibly beautiful with a great personality and most men would naturally be attracted to her. Regardless of whether she has romantic interest in me or not, should I continue with her? I would have lunch with her even if I did not find her attractive however. Should women be penalized in such cases for being too beautiful?

Does your wife know you are having these lunches? If you are completely open with her about it, then I think you are safe. However, if you keep these lunches a secret from her, that is a big red flag.

FWIW, however, I think you are flattering yourself that this "incredibly beautiful" woman with a "great personality" is attracted to you. If those characteristics are true, she clearly has no need to chase a married father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm getting two sides to the issue as expected. To clarify I see her as a friend and don't have immoral intent. She is incredibly beautiful with a great personality and most men would naturally be attracted to her. Regardless of whether she has romantic interest in me or not, should I continue with her? I would have lunch with her even if I did not find her attractive however. Should women be penalized in such cases for being too beautiful?

What are you torn about exactly OP? I think this is still not clear.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think you are attracted to her and trying to get feedback on whether she might be attracted to you.
You're wondering if these lunches mean anything or are significant to her.

Because if you really were as sincere as you expressed in your original post, you would have just talked about it with your wife rather than posting here. Let her know about the lunches, and if she doesn't express any discomfort then it's a non-issue.

I'm sure you have no intention of cheating or betraying your wife, but you still are curious to know if this attractive colleague of yours might be attracted to you. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some responses seem to indicate that if a man is even slightly attracted to a female colleague then he shouldn't meet up for lunch. It's tough to beat back biology but it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex. On occasion I go to lunch with 3 female colleagues who are all attractive, and also brilliant. So am I supposed to deprive myself of stimulating professional conversation because my lower brain occasionally notices that they are pretty?

Right... Everyone believes you - so you work at a strip club then?

Whoa whoa whoa. This has NOTHING to do with "equality in the workplace". How is your (clearly lower) brain equating the two?

If management AT THE WORKPLACE or the WORKPLACE was criticizing two colleagues for interacting because someone might think someone is attractive, that would be directly affecting equality in the workplace, which you have strong feelings about (hahaha).

This has EVERYthing to do with personal accountability.

Dude posts he has issues with the womans attractiveness. He does not say it quite like that, but really, what else was the point of his post? So we could reassure him its ok to notice someone is attractive? He seems instead to be seeking permission to do something that he swears isnt going to lead to doing something else, but then why would be even post? His Red Herring was wondering if she might be drawn to him. Dude is confused. Dude has issues. Dude is actually being avoidant of the issues while presenting as if he is seeking knowledge and input. Dude is silly. Don't be like Dude.

Ok so the first post was one of the most thoughtful and insightful posts on this thread. I'm impressed with pp. The retort is lacking all such insight. Pp, you seem to think it's just "rules" that hold women (and probably POC) back. It's not. We've actually done a pretty good job of fixing the rules. It's societal norms that take a while to adjust. First pp hit the nail on the head.

No. THe poster of the this original post included this statement: it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex.

We are not talking about the workplace. Silly OP dude is NOT ASKING about the workplace. He is not asking about equality. He is asking simply if a married man and single woman should have lunch even if its purely professional and threw in the thing about her attractiveness.

He is the one hinting at mixing apples and oranges all over the place, but this poster made that more obvious.

Societal norms are the aggregate of people's actions over time and the point of intersection here is one mans confused thoughts on the matter, expressed imperfectly because its hard to express perfectly. He deserves the ribbing he signed himself up for. On the other hand the people who pointed out the personal side of this like "Does your wife know about these lunches?" are getting more to the meat of the matter.

OP's handwringing is silly. Very human. Very silly. He knows it, on some level. I just dont believe he would have ever posted if he didnt think she was hot, even if he thought she was attracted to HIM.

Ah well.

[Anonymous]

Beautiful single woman with married man is dangerous territory...stay away!

[Anonymous]

Sometimes I wonder if I've been transported to Saudi Arabia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some responses seem to indicate that if a man is even slightly attracted to a female colleague then he shouldn't meet up for lunch. It's tough to beat back biology but it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex. On occasion I go to lunch with 3 female colleagues who are all attractive, and also brilliant. So am I supposed to deprive myself of stimulating professional conversation because my lower brain occasionally notices that they are pretty?

Right... Everyone believes you - so you work at a strip club then?

Whoa whoa whoa. This has NOTHING to do with "equality in the workplace". How is your (clearly lower) brain equating the two?

If management AT THE WORKPLACE or the WORKPLACE was criticizing two colleagues for interacting because someone might think someone is attractive, that would be directly affecting equality in the workplace, which you have strong feelings about (hahaha).

This has EVERYthing to do with personal accountability.

Dude posts he has issues with the womans attractiveness. He does not say it quite like that, but really, what else was the point of his post? So we could reassure him its ok to notice someone is attractive? He seems instead to be seeking permission to do something that he swears isnt going to lead to doing something else, but then why would be even post? His Red Herring was wondering if she might be drawn to him. Dude is confused. Dude has issues. Dude is actually being avoidant of the issues while presenting as if he is seeking knowledge and input. Dude is silly. Don't be like Dude.

Ok so the first post was one of the most thoughtful and insightful posts on this thread. I'm impressed with pp. The retort is lacking all such insight. Pp, you seem to think it's just "rules" that hold women (and probably POC) back. It's not. We've actually done a pretty good job of fixing the rules. It's societal norms that take a while to adjust. First pp hit the nail on the head.

No. THe poster of the this original post included this statement: it seems to me that if we want to get to a place where women and men are treated equally in the workplace then we shouldn't be criticizing two colleagues going to lunch because of a natural inclination toward attractive people of the opposite sex.

We are not talking about the workplace. Silly OP dude is NOT ASKING about the workplace. He is not asking about equality. He is asking simply if a married man and single woman should have lunch even if its purely professional and threw in the thing about her attractiveness.

He is the one hinting at mixing apples and oranges all over the place, but this poster made that more obvious.

Societal norms are the aggregate of people's actions over time and the point of intersection here is one mans confused thoughts on the matter, expressed imperfectly because its hard to express perfectly. He deserves the ribbing he signed himself up for. On the other hand the people who pointed out the personal side of this like "Does your wife know about these lunches?" are getting more to the meat of the matter.

OP's handwringing is silly. Very human. Very silly. He knows it, on some level. I just dont believe he would have ever posted if he didnt think she was hot, even if he thought she was attracted to HIM.

Ah well.

Actually, first pp posits a general goal, which I for one share with him. Perhaps, you pp, don't. Like I said, you seem to think everything's all good for the ladeez, just so long as management doesn't explicitly stand in the way of their career goals. Just like how we got rid of segregation a long time ago, why he hell do black people still have problems? Op may not have asked specifically about his employer but first pp is a big thinker. Next pp not so much.