The Billy Graham Rule

[Guest Mores]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham_rule

There was a time when this behavior was common practice -- expected in most cases.  It was considered the proper thing to do.  I had refused to take a young lady home from babysitting at our home many times because this was the proper thing to do.  A friend told me,"I don't blame you.  You're just setting yourself up for liability if you do otherwise."

I had to raise an eyebrow at that.  I wasn't doing it over fear of false accusation.  I was doing it because it was the "proper" thing to do.  He had difficulty understanding that.  In his mind there was nothing right or wrong except that there were consequences.  In the end, we could always argue this or that about right and wrong vs consequences.  But what ever happened to things simply being right or wrong?  Only when politically expedient I suppose?

I went through the social changes, where it was more and more acceptable for men and women to spend time together alone under non-exceptional circumstances.  And today, the Billy Graham rule is considered not only obsolete, but offensive.  How did such a practice become offensive?

People talk about women's rights to do as they please.  But men are not allowed to do the right thing to protect women?  Do they think it's only about protecting men?  Well, that seems to be the obvious effect nowadays.  But originally, the practice was to protect women.  You simply didn't go somewhere without a chaperone.  Why do they want women to NOT be protected?  Why would you complain about such a practice?

People raise a huge fuss about a bishop interviewing youth alone (even though the Church policy has allowed for a third party to be there for this very reason). "Two deep leadership" is a required practice in Boy Scouting.  Everyone thinks these are wise things to do.  But ask that a man and a woman not be alone together, and it's considered offensive?  HOW???

Protecting women is now offensive.  This is the world we live in.

[prisonchaplain]

We may be coming full circle. It is true that VP Pence was heavily criticized for observing this rule. The claim of feminists is that women did not have equal access to him for business and politics, and thus his prudish standard kept women from advancing. Ironically, #metoo has caused many young men to become very reticent around women. Not because it's the proper thing to do, but to avoid liability and false accusations. I much prefer that my proper behavior PLEASE the Father rather than APPEASE the culture, but indeed:  This is the world we live in.

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham_rule

There was a time when this behavior was common practice -- expected in most cases.  It was considered the proper thing to do.  I had refused to take a young lady home from babysitting at our home many times because this was the proper thing to do.  A friend told me,"I don't blame you.  You're just setting yourself up for liability if you do otherwise."

I had to raise an eyebrow at that.  I wasn't doing it over fear of false accusation.  I was doing it because it was the "proper" thing to do.  He had difficulty understanding that. 

I guess proper means something different to different people.  Personally, I would have thought the proper thing to do would be to give the young lady/babysitter a ride home and to be well behaved and act like a gentleman.    I have never had a second thought about giving a babysitter a ride home, or anyone else for that matter.

I guess the liability is something to be concerned about.   

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Scott

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

There was a time when this behavior was common practice -- expected in most cases.  It was considered the proper thing to do.  I had refused to take a young lady home from babysitting at our home many times because this was the proper thing to do.  A friend told me,"I don't blame you.  You're just setting yourself up for liability if you do otherwise."

I had to raise an eyebrow at that.  I wasn't doing it over fear of false accusation.  I was doing it because it was the "proper" thing to do.  He had difficulty understanding that.  In his mind there was nothing right or wrong except that there were consequences.  In the end, we could always argue this or that about right and wrong vs consequences.  But what ever happened to things simply being right or wrong?  Only when politically expedient I suppose?

I was almost always the one to take our babysitter home. Not only that, but I would actually sit in my car and watch her until she got into her house. How creepy is that?

[anatess2]

57 minutes ago, Scott said:

I guess proper means something different to different people.  Personally, I would have thought the proper thing to do would be to give the young lady/babysitter a ride home and to be well behaved and act like a gentleman.    I have never had a second thought about giving a babysitter a ride home, or anyone else for that matter.

I guess the liability is something to be concerned about.   

 

 

39 minutes ago, Vort said:

I was almost always the one to take our babysitter home. Not only that, but I would actually sit in my car and watch her until she got into her house. How creepy is that?

There's the wolf, the sheep, and the sheepdog.  The wolf would take the babysitter and molest her on the way home.  The sheep follows protocol and don't take the babysitter home not only to avoid temptation but also so other people including the babysitter wouldn't have cause to think he's a wolf.  The sheepdog follows protocol and tries to protect his reputation because a good reputation makes him a better trusted sheepdog.  But, when there's no other way to keep the babysitter safe, he takes responsibility for the babysitter's protection from wolves regardless of the consequences to his own reputation.  Of course, the sheepdog knows with 100% certainty that he is a sheepdog and not a wolf and wouldn't succomb to wolfish temptations regardless of the dings to his reputation.

Edited July 16, 2019 by anatess2

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Of course, the sheepdog knows with 100% certainty that he is a sheepdog and not a wolf and wouldn't succomb to wolfish temptations regardless of the dings to his reputation.

I recently saw someone, likely on this forum, respond to a comment about whether middle-aged men like very young women with the response, "Of course!" (Or something similar.) Maybe I'm an aberration, but as an adult, I've never really been attracted to teenage girls. The older I get, the more they look like my daughter, or soon enough, my granddaughter. It's kind of the other side of the coin from the Farrah Fawcett Effect of my youth: I thought Farrah Fawcett was pretty enough, but I never fantasized about her. Yuck. She was, like, 30, probably old enough to be my mother. Why so many other teenage boys had her poster on their walls, I didn't want to imagine.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, Mores said:

In his mind there was nothing right or wrong except that there were consequences.  In the end, we could always argue this or that about right and wrong vs consequences.  But what ever happened to things simply being right or wrong?

In some ways, I think this might be the heart of the question -- Is it morally wrong for unmarried men and women to be alone together? My impression has always been that the real moral right/wrong question is about adultery/chastity/sexual impropriety. Men and women being alone together, by itself, is morally neutral. Things like the Billy Graham rule are more like "hedges about the law". By setting a standard -- a hedge -- that is far away from the actual moral question, one eliminates/minimizes the opportunity to cross an actual moral boundary.

[Guest Mores]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In some ways, I think this might be the heart of the question -- Is it morally wrong for unmarried men and women to be alone together? My impression has always been that the real moral right/wrong question is about adultery/chastity/sexual impropriety. Men and women being alone together, by itself, is morally neutral. Things like the Billy Graham rule are more like "hedges about the law". By setting a standard -- a hedge -- that is far away from the actual moral question, one eliminates/minimizes the opportunity to cross an actual moral boundary.

We're getting into semantics more than actual meanings.

Wrong? No.  Inappropriate?  Yes.  Why?  Because it's just not right.  So, it is wrong.  Well, I didn't say that.  Well, you said it's not right, so that means it's wrong...

You see how that can go?  You talk about the hedge.  I see the story about getting close to the edge of the cliff.  There are some who simply go running off the cliff.  Others try to stay away from the cliff.  We try to stay FAAARRR away from it. 

But what these feminists would ask is that men dance as close to the cliff as possible and even take up residence there.  Then they're shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you that someone dared to fall off the cliff.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Mores

[Jamie123]

A few years ago, my stepdaughter was close friends with a girl (let's call her Heather) who was - not to put too fine a point on it - a little unstable. Prone to cutting her arms with knives. My stepdaughter (let's call her Branwen) was very kind and supportive of her and often invited her to our house after school. It was naturally up to me (the only member of the household with a drivers license) to take her home at the end of the evening.

The first time this happened I gladly took Heather home. I didn't think twice about it. I knew she would be safe with me. Well, as safe as anyone can be in a car on the public road with an adult at the wheel - which perhaps isn't saying very much; she was quite safe from me at any rate. There is no way I would ever rape anyone - no how.

And yet it occurred to me afterwards what a horrible risk I had taken. If she had accused me of anything inappropriate, what defence would I have had? My own "loss of reputation" wasn't even the dust on the crust: even if I'd been lucky enough to have had the charges dropped for "lack of evidence", or been acquitted by a jury, the accusation alone would have driven my family into ruin. I worked myself up into quite a state, imagining being jobless with no prospects and no ability to provide for my loved-ones, my hard-earned degrees and professional qualifications worthless, my family living on at the State's expense in some drug-infested inner-city estate.

When I told this to my wife, she told me she'd had exactly the same thoughts and has even talked about it with her parents. It's a mistake I never dared to repeat. Next time, either Branwen or my wife came with me whenever I got inside a car with Heather. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

On 7/16/2019 at 5:55 PM, Vort said:

I thought Farrah Fawcett was pretty enough, but I never fantasized about her. Yuck. She was, like, 30, probably old enough to be my mother. Why so many other teenage boys had her poster on their walls, I didn't want to imagine.

I could never quite understand what people saw in Farrrah Fawcett. She looked OK from some angles I suppose, but Jaclyn Smith was much more my type.

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I could never quite understand what people saw in Farrrah Fawcett. She looked OK from some angles I suppose, but Jaclyn Smith was much more my type.

I'm fairly sure that Farrah Fawcett's pinup poster predated her Charlie's Angels days.

[Guest MormonGator]

The Mike Pence/Billy Graham rule is just common sense. Unless I really know you (I'm thinking my best friend or my sister) there is no way I'm going to be alone with a woman in any setting. It's just to cover all my bases. Her word against mine, and in this environment-where everyone wants to "Believe Women" and "MeToo", etc, I have no chance of surviving an accusation. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I'm fairly sure that Farrah Fawcett's pinup poster predated her Charlie's Angels days.

Yeah.  But the poster got sales prior to Charlie's Angels only because of her nipple.  It didn't blow up to be the iconic poster that it is until after Charlie's Angels aired which propelled her, Smith, and Jackson to stardom because... well, Fawcett and Smith didn't wear bras.  Smith didn't have a nipple-poster so, of course, Fawcett ended up holding that iconic spot in pop culture.

[pam]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm fairly sure that Farrah Fawcett's pinup poster predated her Charlie's Angels days.

It actually was done during her 1 season with Charlie's Angels. Not that it matters of course.

[Texan]

10 minutes ago, pam said:

It actually was done during her 1 season with Charlie's Angels. Not that it matters of course.

No... although my first memory of Farrah Fawcett was from Logan's Run, which my friends and I must have seen five or six times (and laughed harder each time).  But this question sent me off to Google, where I read that Ms. Fawcett did her own hair for that photo shoot, and she applied all her makeup herself without a mirror.  I find this astounding, because I can't even comb my hair without a mirror.  None of the staged backgrounds seemed to work for her, so they used a "worn Mexican blanket from a battered 1937 Chevy truck."  Her red swimsuit is now in the Smithsonian.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Texan said:

 Her red swimsuit is now in the Smithsonian.

Wow! 

[Traveler]

A difference of culture.  Some years ago, I was working in Japan.  I was working on a multinational project.   There were 5 engineers working later into the night.  None of the engineers were Japanese.  Two of us were American, one Korean, one from Taiwan and one from Europe.  We decided to go get something to eat and set out for a noodle restaurant.   We took a shortcut through a industrial area seldom used.  It was dark and the path followed along a open sewer.  In short it was not a pleasant place.  As we walked there was a school girl (obvious from her outfit) walking towards us.  Coming from the USA I thought that this young girl would be terrified of 5 grown men and foreigners on her path.  Strange enough as we approached the young girl walking by herself, her demeanor and body language showed no fear or even hesitation meeting us on the dark path.

As we passed I made eye contact with this little girl - perhaps in her early teens.  She showed no concern at all.  It seemed that I was more concerned than her.  As I related my concern of this occurrence with my  Japanese host - he was quite surprised over my concern.  He only asked why me or the girl should have any concern - it was as though he could not understand any reason for concern - since obvious to him the girl was perfectly safe,

I have often pondered why in our society that a pervert would feel safe and a young girl have reason to feel unsafe?

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, pam said:

It actually was done during her 1 season with Charlie's Angels. Not that it matters of course.

Yes, not that it matters.  But the photo shoot was contracted and sold a few months before Charlie's Angels.  It's basically part of the reason she got the role.  Fawcett gained a bit of popularity prior to the poster due to her marriage to Lee Majors who was very popular.  My brother has that poster on his wall not because of Charlie's Angels but because of Six Million Dollar Man.  Anyway, she left Charlie's Angels after one season because of Lee Majors too.

P.S.  Interestingly, my brother also has a poster of Brooke Shields because of Andre Agassi. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by anatess2

[mordorbund]

On 7/22/2019 at 7:32 PM, Texan said:

Her red swimsuit is now in the Smithsonian.

So is mine.

 

They really need to clean out their lost'n'found.

[NightSG]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:55 AM, Vort said:

I thought Farrah Fawcett was pretty enough, but I never fantasized about her. Yuck. She was, like, 30, probably old enough to be my mother. Why so many other teenage boys had her poster on their walls, I didn't want to imagine.

They probably thought the same about your Abe Vigoda in a Speedo poster.