Married: Going out to dinner

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most cases of adultery are not with total strangers but with people that we already know and think are pretty decent.

If eating a meal alone is unpleasant, then this means that the main reason for adding a man who is not your husband at a meal would be for the purpose of social pleasantness.

Most wives who are mothers can rarely even get out alone without the kids and when my wife does, she is happy to have solitude and takes a book. I sure don't want her, nor does she want me, to be alone in a socially pleasant setting with the opposite sex.

In the US the divorce rate is very, very high and I think the rate of adultery is also very high. Therefore, there are very good reasons for having strict rules about the patterns of social behavior that would be considered appropriate or inappropriate for married couples.

And maybe this is just a lower socio-economic family-guy standpoint, but going out to dinner is a special thing and not something one does everyday.

Preach it , Pergy!
 
Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.


Work is not "fellowship". Discussing the advertising budget for the next year while eating pasta is not intimate.

And it is nowhere near adultry.
 
I don't know that it is adultery, but it is certainly not wise. Breaking bread together is actually more than just discussing business, but I don't know that it is or has to be 'intimate'. Maybe we've just moved that far away from previously accepted norms that we don't realise what this really is anymore.
 
It occurred to me that the excuse for eating dinner with the opposite sex was often work-related. That adds a new wrinkle.

If a woman worked and had to discuss business over dinner while her husband or family were at home, even if the business dinner was all with other women, this would be a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant. Having a stay-at-home mom tending to the kids avoids all of this and a traditional sort of family arrangement keeps up those hedges that traditionally guarded families.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

I'm glad that the major "business" that my wife discusses with a man is mainly concerning home-schooling and the upkeep of the home, and that man is me.
 
Haha! Hopefully not! Where I come from vans seem to evoke images of kidnappers--sorry! And I'd hate for it to sound like I want there to be a rule, "No private conversations allowed!" That is not the case--I kind of hate man-made, one-size-fits-all rules. I just was [trying] to agree that restaurants are safer than vans.

Cool, Jessi, then we're on the same page.


I think what bothers me most in this thread is that the one-size-fits-all "rules of prudence" seem to boil down to a view that women=temptation. How, if that were true, our Lord could have ministered to the Samaritan woman, or Timothy could have been commanded to treat younger women as sisters I don't know. I would suggest that taking such a view contributes to the sexualization of our culture, by fostering rather than refusing the idea that all relationships can be conceived of in sexual, or at least incipiently sexual, terms.
 
It occurred to me that the excuse for eating dinner with the opposite sex was often work-related. That adds a new wrinkle.

If a woman worked and had to discuss business over dinner while her husband or family were at home, even if the business dinner was all with other women, this would be a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant. Having a stay-at-home mom tending to the kids avoids all of this and a traditional sort of family arrangement keeps up those hedges that traditionally guarded families.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

I'm glad that the major "business" that my wife discusses with a man is mainly concerning home-schooling and the upkeep of the home, and that man is me.


Well, if this were the case, wouldn't it also be "a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant" for a mother to go out socially with friends for dinner? I rarely get to do this, but my husband greatly encourages me to find even more times to do so. I also encourage him to go frolfing or play basketball with his friends when the chance arises.
(Though my husband doesn't merely "fend" for himself if I eat apart from him. He cooks something, just as I would. Actually, on top of knowing how to feed the children, he also knows how to bathe them, brush their teeth, and put the children to bed.)
 
I think I handled this ok but as an exstension to this discussion would ya'll agree?

You did what was your duty. It's the military's fault for putting the two of you into this inappropriate situation. A place where women don't belong. Our Military has been weakened by the introduction of women into almost every area of the military life. Fornication between service members is at epidemic levels and all the PC and EO people are convinced its a necessary price to pay for equality in the Military. Just tell that to all the illagitamet children which are the by-product of these train-wreck policies.

I was an Aviation Ordnancemen in the Navy, so my job sounds similar to yours. We had women working with us as well. The only problem was they were never physically able to do the work - So they got to answer phones and fill out forms. We even had to make-up work for them to do. But when it came to lifting a five hundred pound bomb over your head with three other men (the job they were trained and paid to do), they couldn't do it. And its not there fault - the're women. Its the Navy's fault for capitulating to political correctness. Just my :2cents:
 
It occurred to me that the excuse for eating dinner with the opposite sex was often work-related. That adds a new wrinkle.

If a woman worked and had to discuss business over dinner while her husband or family were at home, even if the business dinner was all with other women, this would be a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant. Having a stay-at-home mom tending to the kids avoids all of this and a traditional sort of family arrangement keeps up those hedges that traditionally guarded families.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

I'm glad that the major "business" that my wife discusses with a man is mainly concerning home-schooling and the upkeep of the home, and that man is me.


Well, if this were the case, wouldn't it also be "a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant" for a mother to go out socially with friends for dinner? I rarely get to do this, but my husband greatly encourages me to find even more times to do so. I also encourage him to go frolfing or play basketball with his friends when the chance arises.
(Though my husband doesn't merely "fend" for himself if I eat apart from him. He cooks something, just as I would. Actually, on top of knowing how to feed the children, he also knows how to bathe them, brush their teeth, and put the children to bed.)

Jessica,

I assume that you rarely get to do this because your heart is in your home, your priorities are right, and that your family and your husband are your main social investments.

I would also assume that, though your husband, and other husbands on the PB, can cook and clean for themselves, that most homes would fall into a general trend of the husband focused outward on the world while the wife frees up his time by focusing inward on the home (which means that it would be to her high dishonor if her husband had to "fend for himself" very often at all and that the infrequent occasions of this would be by voluntary arrangement).

It seems that the general principle of Scripture is that a godly woman is "home-based" and is not "out and about" all the time, nor wanting to be.

Having a woman who is married with kids working a 48-hour work-week (which I hear is average in the US) and then, afterwards, desiring to eat with people (and men, too) that are not her husband or kids, is truly beyond me.

If a married woman demands frequent social stimulation apart from her family, and especially if this includes other men, I believe this to be highly questionable.

Of course, I also believe that if a family has kids that, unless they are starving, the woman ought not to be working outside the home. Thus, it would be expected that a wife's social outings would be primarily with her family and those not including her husbands and/or kids would be with other mothers talking about those kids or taking the children over to play with other kids.


I believe that for both men and women, after we are married, that the main "social circle" that we must have is our family. This goes for guys, too. If a guy or gal demands weekly meetings with her guy or chic peers away from the family, I believe this is not healthy. Every busy mother needs an occasional outing by herself, but if this is frequent or is demanded angrily, this is probably a sign that she is not getting satisfaction out of her role.

This applies to guys, too. If he is spending large amounts of time getting social fulfillment from his male peers, then this is troublesome. Working hard is one thing, and every man needs some "cave time" away as well, but if those meetings do not advance his career or calling (which supports his family) and he is looking for social stimulation primarily from others besides his wife, I believe this to be troublesome.

Throughout the world, eating out at a restaurant with a member of the oppositie sex for dinner would be treated as an impropriety I believe unless there were significant mitigating factors or unless they were relatives. Only in the West would this be accepted.


These are not rules laid down by Pharisees, but are rather traditional mores and common sense principles.
 
Especially to the young people that may be reading this thread, a word of caution; some here profess it fine for a married believers to dine alone with members of the opposite sex, could be in their economy or case by case analysis but very poor advice in general. How will a young man or woman discover temptation in this realm unless it is experienced? Never underestimate our capacity for sin.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Pro 16:17 The highway of the upright is to depart from evil: he that keepeth his way preserveth his soul.
Pro 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
 
If eating a meal alone is unpleasant, then this means that the main reason for adding a man who is not your husband at a meal would be for the purpose of social pleasantness.

Its unpleasant because I get hit on by creepy cowboys, not because I mind eating alone. I eat alone at home all the time.
 
41% of Babies Born Out of Wedlock - Archive - Fox Nation

If the above link contains statistics that are anywhere near reality, I would say that there are strong reasons to put up very high hedges in your marriage and not to poo-poo such high hedges as needless rule-making.

The funny thing is I'm one of the people who would try very hard not to dine with another guy and I'd not want my husband dining with some other girl; yet I am also the one who is poo-pooing rule making. (Hello, PB, what's new there?)
If you'll notice, I never poo-pooed prudence or wisdom. I just took issue with the idea of near-adultery, and the certainty that the speaker had that eating together was such a thing, not that in some, or even many, cases it might be. But that it is.
Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.

Also, I think what makes a hedge high would be relative to how high the porch is, right? Maybe in some marriages, there's nothing but a stoop. In others, they've got a top-floor balcony. What's high for the stoop might not be high enough for the balcony. And what reaches the balcony might overcome the other house entirely.
 
But I don';t think its just living in Montana. I think if you're a man, its hard to understand what it's like to go to a restaurant alone as a female.

Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to step in and clarify that I'm not having business meals as some sneaky way of cheating on my fiance. Ugh.
 
41% of Babies Born Out of Wedlock - Archive - Fox Nation

If the above link contains statistics that are anywhere near reality, I would say that there are strong reasons to put up very high hedges in your marriage and not to poo-poo such high hedges as needless rule-making.

The funny thing is I'm one of the people who would try very hard not to dine with another guy and I'd not want my husband dining with some other girl; yet I am also the one who is poo-pooing rule making. (Hello, PB, what's new there?)
If you'll notice, I never poo-pooed prudence or wisdom. I just took issue with the idea of near-adultery, and the certainty that the speaker had that eating together was such a thing, not that in some, or even many, cases it might be. But that it is.
Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.

Also, I think what makes a hedge high would be relative to how high the porch is, right? Maybe in some marriages, there's nothing but a stoop. In others, they've got a top-floor balcony. What's high for the stoop might not be high enough for the balcony. And what reaches the balcony might overcome the other house entirely.

Agreed. I also poo-poo rule-making and don't really consider myself all that strict in most areas. I just think there'd better be a very, very good reason for any married woman to be eating out without her husband and kids.

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

I just wanted to step in and clarify that I'm not having business meals as some sneaky way of cheating on my fiance. Ugh.

I don't think anyone took your comments as such. At least I hope not. I didn't. :)

Seconded.
 
Preach it again, Pergy! I am not trying to say that we should all be as big a prude as possible to glorify God in our everyday life, and the idea that Kathleen is some sort of Denny's-based seductress is also way wierd. But Common Sense for Christians seems to have died off somewhere along the line...
 
I think that there is a divide on this issue based on your job experience. If you work @ a static type of job, anything from walmart to an office, then eating a meal in a resturant is something that is exclusivly (?) social. Or almost completly so.

As a person that was in sales for 20 years, I ate 8-10 meals a week out and was often away from home overnight. In one position I hired teams in several cities and had to meet with them weekly. Since we did not maintain offices in those cities all business was conducted in resturants. I interviewed, hired, and had weekly meetings with each team member. IF I did not have these in a resturant my only other option was in a hotel room!

The idea that a sales manager sitting at a table at chili's for 3-4 hours having a meeting every 45 minutes is a form of semi-seduction of female co-workers (and employees!) is laughable to anyone that has lived that life. When you work "on the road" resturants ARE your workplace. You select them based more on cell coverage & wi fi, and how comfortable the chairs are (! no kidding, if you drive 3 hours, then meet for 4hours, then drive home, this is the biggest issue!) then on the ambience.

To call this "nearly adultry" is stunningly naive, In my humble opinion. If that is true, then any person that works with any person of the opposite sex is engaged in "near adultry" every time they clock in.

Now, when your job situation is diferent then the nature of eating in a resturant may change. And a wise man (woman) will use prudence. But it seems to me that the moral pronouncement that have been bandied about in this thread are manifestly unhelpful.
 
Thank you Kevin. This thread has left me kind of speechless. Shocking how many judge *appearances*.

*edited to add* I have never done this as a married or single woman, I have never been in a position that dictated it. I just don't want anyone who would be so assuming about a meal to assume that I am defending myself on this. LOL!
 
Last edited:
Chatting with my wife again about this subject and I remembered a case from 15 years ago, or so. I had to fire a (male) employee for making unwanted sexual advances against co-workers. These advances occurred on the job site & after work hours but NOT in a resturant. Although he was part of a team that traveled together & ate together 2-3 days a week.

I fired him in a resturant! (and yes, I picked up the tab!)
 
I'm glad to read replies about such a variety of circumstances, but I just want to point out that in my understanding the original post was about going out to a non-business dinner with a coworker without any intent of discussing work. (even though they probably would have talked about it some, of course, since it's what they have in common.) It seems very much like that particular situation would have been purely social or just to avoid eating alone. I think it was wise for him to decline.
 
Having just returned from a men's retreat, this was one topic of discussion, prayer and concern.

There is more to this.

Being unaccountable with a member of the opposite gender in the kind of settings described in the post alone brings with it a host of temptations, which many, many men struggle with. It presents special dangers, e.g. the broad application of the seventh commandment and controlling our thoughts, etc.
watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;[771] temperance,[772] keeping of chaste company,[773] modesty in apparel;

It's not sufficient to view this solely from the practicality of one's own convenience, nor from custom in a trade or business.

We are all learning and growing in Christ as we are engaged by the Word- and there are a lot of dangers, and temptations created in routinely exposing one's self to situations, unaccountable alone, with managerial power, over a meal, with a lone member of the opposite gender.

Learning to abstain from the lusts of the flesh is a lifetime process, and it often requires abstaining from or removing things that are potentially tempting, or are unwise, or cause others to stumble.

Nor is its biblical evaluation done on a basis of a relative scale of evil.

It's a very real consideration for a believer to ask if God would have them in a job that requires such.
 
Last edited:
It's a very real consideration for a believer to ask if God would have them in a job that requires such.

That's still more than half assuming women are lust demons who find all men attractive. It would seem 90% of the men here are just hugely more magnetic to the opposite sex than I am, which I suppose is a blessing.
 
Regarding the OP: First, I read some of the replies but not all. I really don't see what the problem is. I think common sense and wisdom should be used in all areas and decisions in life.

Are you attracted to this woman coworker? Is she attracted to you? If not, then I see no reason to not go out to dinner with your coworker while on business travel. Does your wife trust you? Is she okay with you eating out with female coworkers? If so, then I see no reason not to go out to dinner with your coworker while on business travel. Do you not like this woman? Does she annoy you? If she does, don't go.

Isn't this all common sense?

I travel a lot for my job, and I eat out with my coworkers all the time. Sometimes they're men, sometimes women, sometimes married, sometimes single, sometimes with just one other person, sometimes with a group... When on business travel, it's almost expected to go out to eat with your coworker (who's also on the trip with you). Unless, of course, you're not on friendly terms with the other person. (Which I encounter sometimes.) It might come off as rude to snub someone like that, if they had expected to go to dinner with you.
Also, if you're sick or tired. These are valid reasons to turn down dinner in this circumstance.

But to say that you're a married man and you can't eat out alone with a woman, is sort of odd. I say this from a Christian perspective. Are you afraid you're going to fall into temptation, there with her, at the dinner table? Is something different going to happen at dinner with just you two, than when the third person was there? How exactly will you fall into sin? Or is that not the problem?

Do you think that others may see you, a married man, and think you are cheating on your wife? How is this possible when on business travel? No one will know you. Usually.
Also, your conscience is clean. Who cares what others think.

Anyway, I just don't understand this line of thinking if you use common sense. Please help me to understand. Thanks. :)
 
I disagree with the line of thinking that says you should go if you aren't attracted to her but don't go if you are. Couldn't that get you into more socially awkward situations, like if you always tell coworker A that you don't want to go to dinner but you always go with coworker B? Also, you may not be attracted to your coworker now, but spending more time around someone over dinner could easily change that. When I was in college, I wasn't attracted to this guy I was friends with, but we ended up having breakfast together in the cafeteria 3 times a week for a semester (just as friends!), and now he's my husband. I'm not saying strict rules are necessary, but maybe following a general guideline that isn't dependent upon your attraction level would be a good idea.
 
I travel a lot for my job, and I eat out with my coworkers all the time. Sometimes they're men, sometimes women, sometimes married, sometimes single, sometimes with just one other person, sometimes with a group...
It's a different case when one goes out in group, with a different dynamic, but still one must be discerning.
When on business travel, it's almost expected to go out to eat with your coworker (who's also on the trip with you).
What's "expected" is not the standard for the believer, though.

Unless, of course, you're not on friendly terms with the other person. (Which I encounter sometimes.) It might come off as rude to snub someone like that, if they had expected to go to dinner with you.
Also, if you're sick or tired. These are valid reasons to turn down dinner in this circumstance.

But to say that you're a married man and you can't eat out alone with a woman, is sort of odd. I say this from a Christian perspective. What's your basis for this Christian perspective? Where in Scripture? Are you afraid you're going to fall into temptation, there with her, at the dinner table?
There are many broken lives out there who can attest to this. Many, many men struggle with this temptation.
Is something different going to happen at dinner with just you two, than when the third person was there? How exactly will you fall into sin? Or is that not the problem?

Do you think that others may see you, a married man, and think you are cheating on your wife? How is this possible when on business travel?
This can cause problems for spouses, other married workers, nonbelievers watching the witness, as well as the two people themselves.
No one will know you. Usually.
The world, the flesh, and devil will often imply that as rationalization. But, even if that were true, God always knows.
Also, your conscience is clean. Who cares what others think.
Scripture tells us to avoid even the appearance of evil, a principle drawn from it would be a man's headship and position in the creation pattern would include protecting the reputation of a woman.

Anyway, I just don't understand this line of thinking if you use common sense. Please help me to understand. Thanks.

Consider a few duties of the seventh command that might be violated:

Question 138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.

Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

(Just to name a few.)
 
....keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel...

Scott, Is any woman, simply by virtue of being a woman, considered unchaste company? Proverbs is full of warnings to stay away from the "strange woman" (Ch 5), the "whorish woman" (Ch 6) etc. It doesn't say stay away from any woman. Likewise, modest apparel may be a big issue today, but not all women dress that way.
 
First, thank you for responding to my post. It is my experience on the PB to be a "threadkiller"... not sure why. (Most of my posts, throughout the years, either kill the thread or just go unanswered.) So, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you. :D

Anyway, on to your post Scott:

It's a different case when one goes out in group, with a different dynamic, but still one must be discerning.
I agree. This falls under "common sense", though.

What's "expected" is not the standard for the believer, though.
What is expected for the believer is to not sin, or cause others to sin, to bring glory to God, etc. But your reasoning and your referencing the WCF doesn't prove your point in this instance.

What's your basis for this Christian perspective? Where in Scripture?
It seems some are claiming that the actual eating dinner with someone of the opposite sex is a sin. I am saying that it is not. If someone is sinning at dinner with someone of the opposite sex, it's not the dinner's fault, or the act of eating with someone, it is a problem with the person himself who is sinning. And as I've stated in my post, it is important to use wisdom. If anything causes you to sin, don't do it. It has nothing to do with eating dinner with someone. You are going after the wrong thing here, in my opinion. This doesn't even fall under Christian Liberty, in my opinion.

There are many broken lives out there who can attest to this. Many, many men struggle with this temptation.
Then don't go out to eat with your coworker. It's that simple. These broken lives are because of someone sinning. The dinner didn't make someone sin. I never fell into sin going out to eat with people. This isn't an area where I'm tempted. If this IS an area where you might fall, don't do it. Why even ask if it's okay? To me, this means you have deeper issues than eating dinner with a coworker... Because honestly, if you're gonna fall into temptation at dinner, you'll fall anywhere. What about at work? What about at the store? What about on an airplane? What about when eating out alone and the waitress comes on to you? The broken lives and temptation to sin has nothing to do with the act of eating out with a coworker (which is what the OP was addressing).

This can cause problems for spouses, other married workers, nonbelievers watching the witness, as well as the two people themselves.
That's why I said to use common sense. If it's going to cause a problem, don't do it. I've found that eating out with non-believers has been an opportunity to be a good witness. We can't hide ourselves away in a closet, because we're afraid we might somehow commit a sin. How do you know when he had dinner alone in his hotel room he wasn't tempted to watch p0rnography on the television? (Not saying he did, I'm just giving a hypothetical situation.)

The world, the flesh, and devil will often imply that as rationalization. But, even if that were true, God always knows.
If you are sinning... But, this is not a sin. Let's not call something a sin, if it isn't.

Scripture tells us to avoid even the appearance of evil, a principle drawn from it would be a man's headship and position in the creation pattern would include protecting the reputation of a woman.
The appearance of evil isn't there. At a dinner table at a restaurant. I agree with all that you are saying. But only in reference to sin. Eating out with a coworker is not sin. It's not even the appearance of sin.

Question 138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.

Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
What does all this have to do with eating dinner? I love the quote. But your bolded words seem to imply something that isn't there.
Now, if sin were involved in this dinner, and the man were indeed cheating on his wife with a coworker, that's a different story. But that is not the case.
And if it was, the restaurant would be a safer place to see them anyway. Because I'm sure the two were staying at the same hotel. I would be more concerned if they ate dinner together in his hotel room...

I appreciate your reply. Don't think I don't agree with what you said in regard to sin. But I don't think what you wrote applies to the act of eating dinner with a coworker of the opposite sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top