Should women be allowed to entice men in the workplace?

Should women be allowed to entice men in the workplace?

Should professional women who are very good at their job be allowed to wear clothes and carry themselves in an enticing manner at work? Is this appropriate or a right of hers to dress and act as she wishes? Or does the employer have the right to insist on certain behavior and dress for a peaceful and productive work environment?

A court case supporting the employer has recently passed the appellate courts.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/den...topstories.html

Sounds like two different questions.

One is attempt, the other is success.


But an interesting point, could men be accused of sexual harassment if women wore enticing clothes? Is it the employer's responsibility to create a safe environment so no one is unnecessarily tempted?

******* REMOVED AS INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT *******

******* QUOTED POST REMOVED AS PART OF A THREAD CLEANUP *******

Whether it's the best thing to discuss is irrelevant, is this a concern is relevant.

I personally believe that the workplace should be kept reasonably safe from people imposing on others with their dress or attitudes. I do find temptation a valid point in my Christian walk anyway.

******* REMOVED AS INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT *******

I think most men are too embarrassed to admit that they have a problem with seeing immodestly-clad women. So the issue gets swept under the rug. It would not be "manly" to appear weak. Furthermore, when most of "the guys" would enjoy seeing a little "extra," most men would not wish to "make waves" or risk others' scorn for saying they had a problem with keeping their thoughts pure around such women as are immodestly-dressed.

I agree with Alchemy. It is a problem. It is, in fact, the sin of this age. Our society has become increasingly bold in matters of sensuality.

In my opinion, if it is "sexual harassment" for a man to whistle or comment on a woman's good figure, it should be sexual harassment for a woman to flaunt it. Women are turned on by such comments, and men are turned on by such views. The harassment regulations appear to have looked only at the woman's side of things. Men are disadvantaged, and are still harassed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

At least the Muslims are consistent how they make their women dress in public. Is this the way we want to go?

I agree that a Christian woman needs to be modest in dress and by all means avoid being a temptress.

Do the men have no responsibility how they act? Are we following in the footsteps of Adam when he gave the woman the whole responsibility? We have Christian Churches steeped in male chauvinism where the female is mostly the guilty one and the male remains innocent whatever he does to a woman. It is his excuse that the woman enticed him with her beauty or friendliness. Is this where we want to go?

Ellen White had a lot to say in her time about the manner of how women should be dressed, did she not?

Perhaps it is this way in your country. Places I've been have typically been lenient on women in the sexual conduct arena. For example, when a man rapes a woman, he can expect a significant jail term. When a woman rapes a man, she gets only a slap on the wrist (and many sorry men wishing she had raped them).

I was working at an Adventist institution where one of the staff ladies seduced one of the male staff. She wanted him to marry her, and she thought she would force the outcome by such an act. He didn't want to marry her. In the end, the administrator counseled them to keep separate, and they were both given a leave without pay of three months. I suppose this appeared "fair," since they both received the same treatment. But one can only imagine what might have been the situation had it been the man to force himself upon the woman. I expect it would have been handled somewhat differently then.

There are definite differences between men and women in this area, not only in physiology and in attitudes and perspectives, but also in what society views as acceptable. Men are frequently treated more harshly where I've been. The harshest part for the woman is the pregnancy and the "hit-and-run" deadbeats who don't support their progeny.

Interestingly, Ellen White does not make much of an issue of a man's dress. But she speaks much of ladies' dress. Is this fair? Is it fair that Mrs. White talks more about the men in other areas? I see it as fair. There are God-given differences between men and women that make these distinctions necessary. Too often people try to say that what God created as two distinct forms should be exactly the same in every respect.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In my opinion, this is a complex case with several aspects which must be considered. So, I will address several of them:

1) A public business has a right to establish standards fo dress for both males and for females. I work in a Federal government institution which has standards of dress for both men and women.

2) I consider the decision of the Court to be of narrow focus. Baased upon the statements made, I consider to be be an appropriate decision. IOW, I agree with it.

3) I personally object to the title of this thread: Should women be allowed to entice men. . . That title comes across to me as sexist and unfair to women.

4) I believe that men has a responsibility that is often not given to them.

5) If I am walking down the street and an adult woman comes toward me who is either topless or naked, the responsibility is mine not to jump on her. The responsisbility is not hers as to what I do. Period. End of discussion.

6) Folks, we live in a world where exposure of human flesh is becomming more accepted. Laws are changing. About a year ago, a city near where I live passed a new law: That law prohibited total public nudity on the part of any adults. But, it allowed adults to be topless. Frankly, it was passed because it was felt that it addressed a situation that had gotten out of hand and came up with a good resolution.

NOTE: I reference the public Naked Pumpkin Run and the Naked Bicycle Race, both of which occured each year in this city. These are International events which have been well reported on the Internet if you want to see more.

7) I will say again: Men are responsible for their actions. Regardless of what the woman does, it is not appropriate to excuse the man for jumping on her.

In as much as I have mentioned the NPR and the NBR, I will say a bit about enforcement issues which brought about the change in the city law.

Under the previous law enforcement required one of two issues to exist: 1) Someone had to be offended. It seems that it was very hard to find an adult willing to go into court and claim offense. 2) Under the law most likely to result in a conviction, the person convicted would have to register as a sex offender. Juries simply did not want to return that type of a conviction for someone minding their own business while walking down a city street with a paumpkin on their head or while riding a bicycle.

Enforcement was also an issue. When you have several hundred naked people running down the street with pumpkins on their heads, you realisticly cannot arrest them all. You can only get a few. That raised the issue with selective enforcement which does not go well in court.

The new law said it was O.K. to go topless as long as no one else was assualted. To go naked could result in a minor conviction that did not require registration as a sex offender.

It was felt that this would raesolve what was considered to be a problem. That is what happened. At the next Naked Pumpkin Run, people were not totally naked. The same was true for the next Naked Bicycle Race.

So, in the eyes of the public: Mission accomplished.

I am reminded of a time when I was taking graduate work in psychology. A hightly educated Engineer came to our clinic and wound up with me. He had been arrested for the sexual assualt of a 4 year-old female.

His story: He had knocked on the door of a neighbor and the 4 year-old had opened the door naked. As he said to me: What would you expect me to do?

With the exception of physical assualt (rape), the man is responsible for what he does. The woman is not responsible for what the man does. Yes, she may be responsible for waht she does.

Alchemy's question might be worded more equitably:

Is it morally acceptable (by Christian doctrine) for men and women to comingle,
where temptation may be encouraged, or even the appearance of evil?

_________________

So, your question is: Should men and women be allowed to work in the same environment?

No, that's an inaccurate simplification,
much as the original post conveyed an incomplete critique.

____________

Not quite. My thoughts were mostly based on reports and articles from the United States of America. You may have chosen different news channelse.

I misspelled. It should have been: Not quite. . .

The latest case in the news is from Italy where the Roman Catholic father Pierco Corsi gives 120 women the fault they were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends last year. The Church has declared it does not agree.

I never heard of those naked races before.

As far as the title, I pretty much got it from the article. But, I did not mean any disrespect toward women or tried to disregard the responsibility of men. So, maybe you could read the article and comment to that.

I didn't understand what happened. Did he do something bad, or is this a case of diminishing the word, "assault" to looking at a naked 4 year old standing in the doorway?

As far as the law with the naked races go, I don't see why people would not get naked if the problem before was too many. That is, why should anything change if everyone got naked, then there would be too many to arrest under the new law or not.

The situation seems to be more --

Must a man, by law, continue to employ a woman when he realizes the situation is a threat to his marriage?

Someone brought up the "naked races" --
Personally I don't think a Christian would attend those races. No matter whether government clamps down on them or not-- a Christian still has the choice to "flee" or stay away from any temptations.

When that temptation, (even if it's not a planned enticement, or anything as radical as those races, but is generated by constant association with a good looking member of the opposite sex) should an employer have the right to stop employing that person?

We know from scripture --
Flee from fornication. 1 Cor. 6:18
How can one flee if they are in close association 8 hours every day?

Actually in the original case -- the employers wife insisted the woman be "let go" before their marriage was ruined.

The question -- is it right for the law to demand he maintain her as his employee?
Possibly he could have arranged for her transfer to another dental office?

I fully agree men should be responsible for their actions!
It's true that society too often casts stones at the woman while the man goes free when it comes to sexual sin.

But women also need to be responsible for their actions and influence.
A fact of life is that men are programed to respond to sight.

While I don't think government should get into dress policing, yet Christian women, if their aim is to help others find Christ and heaven, will not dress in clothes that are either skin tight or low cut or high hems lines etc. etc.

They will not dress in a way to tempt men to impure thoughts.

While I was working in Africa I heard and saw a tribe where some of the women used no clothes in the heat of day. I was told that when a male American tourist got too close to one of these women he had to flee to save his life. The moral standards in that tribe were not lower than elsewhere.

I am not saying this is an excuse for women to dress inappropriately elsewhere.

On Danish TV today on New Year's Day was seen a review of the life of the royal family during 2012. For a while we saw the dresses used, because they show a pattern forming the latest trend, not only in Denmark, but in many places in the world.

It was pointed out that neither the Queen nor the Crown Princess, who came originally from Tasmania, had ever been seen in a dress that did not cover the knees, and that this should be the standard.

How are men "programmed"? I don't disagree with your comment, but how is it men are "programmed"?

Why would one wish to follow the world's standards?

Does the Bible or the SOP seem inadequate or outdated?

______________________

Ulrike, that's a broad statement without much focus.
Are women unaffected by what they see?
Or do women have their own particular weakness when it comes to morality or sin? (Covetousness? Born to shop?)

It might be more accurate to say all men are programmed to sin, unless reprogrammed through conversion.

But what of Christ? Was He programmed to respond to sight?

__________________________

I do not recall the exact wording, but not long ago I read where Ellen G. White stated that our women should follow the worldly standard when it is practical and healthy. Was she wrong in giving us such advise?

Men and women are created differently. Men are stimulated by sight. This is why Jesus told the men of His day, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).

Men are stimulated by sight. The average man is attracted to a woman physically, before he is connected to her emotionally.

Women, on the other hand, are stimulated by the interested look, the sweet words, the touch.
Pornography is sold mainly to men -- not exclusively of course, but it is men who are the driving consumers of all types of pornography.

So in scripture we find that God has given certain commands to women regarding their appearance, so they will not stimulate men.
1 Timothy 2:9, which states, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing; "

And God has given different commands to men, such as in First Corinthians 7:1, which says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
So while a woman is commanded to dress a certain way so the man is not stimulated, the man is commanded to act a certain way, to behave a certain way, so the woman is not stimulated.

I have often wondered about the contradictions women are giving --
1. They rightly demand that they be regarded as intellegent people with character and talents etc -- NOT as sex objects.
2. But then they dress like sex objects seemingly getting their "self-worth" by how many men they can get to look at them.

1. They rightly demand that they not be exploited sexually.
2. But then young girls (and adult women)dress like prostitutes when they go out. These young girls who dress in such a provocative way are putting themselves in danger.
And when mothers dress their little girls to look like hockers one can't help but realize the morality of our society is hitting an all time low.

Girls and women may think that's the way to "get a man" but the probability is extremely high that they will get the wrong type of man.

True, the Ten Commandments were specifically addressed to men - in letter and spirit.
But they apply to women as well.
____________

True observations & good questions.


The only hope for these actions is conversion, a complete change of character.
Otherwise we are all self-destructive.
There was no Women's Liberation, only a more deceptive bondage for all mankind.

"get a man.." Yes, sow a carnal seed and reap the fruit.

None, even the church, have been educated aright. No discernment. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

_________________________

That was not in question. Fornication in mind and act is sin. The issue is that men are tempted to fornication differently than women and the dynamics and roles people play that tempt to sin need to be realized.

Very well said. I appreciate this perspective.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves: 15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

I find this type of statement to be reprehensible. If Ellen White has said something so apparently contradictory of the Word of God, then please furnish the actual quote for us to see and judge for ourselves. It is wrong to misstate her words or to misapply them and teach others to do so. Your statement here is so out of context as to provide no context at all. Please find the statement. Without it, I reject the entire concept you have claimed she supported. I don't believe it until proven otherwise.

Here is what the Bible says:


We have also this passage from 2 Corinthians:



I do not believe Mrs. White would have countered such concepts as these, and it is irresponsible to suggest she would have while giving no support for said suggestion.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green:

1. I think APL has already replied to your objection, and I trust you regard the words of the Bible on par with what EGW writes. If not, it is very difficult for you and me to come to the agreement on anything.

2. It appears like you evaluate what I wrote only by considering the first part, taking no consideration to what I added: "when it is practical and healthy."

3. The world around me uses warm clothing in the winter. Is it wrong of me to do that because the "world" does that?

4. My initial statement was that Danish female royalty wears decent dresses which reach well below the knees, and fortunately this influences many women. Your arguments could mean that our women should not do that. Do you mean their dresses should be shorter? Or what is your point?

Johann,

You presented your commentary within the context of discussion regarding modesty of dress. Do you believe that the world's standard is modest? If not, why would you choose to present Ellen White as being in support of following such a standard?

Yet that is what you have done, whether intentionally or not. All I ask is that the actual statement be provided given the controversial nature of what you say she said. That is the responsible thing to do.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Johann,

Indeed, when the whether turns cold, the world is forced to become more modest. Temptations increase in the summertime. We are to be modest if the world is modest or if it is not. We are not to follow the world, but to live by principle.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green is off base. What Johann presented was the Danish royalty wearing modest dress, and that this was good and it would be a good standard Danish women. It even fits EGW's recommendations!

Will you permit me to say that you only read my post superficially without considering what I had really said?

Mini-skirts were popularized in the 1960s as a practical measure to make sex more convenient in the middle of the day without the need of removing everything. Mary Quant, who made them popular, herself said she didn't want to "wait until dark" to "go to bed with a man." In the summertime, they're likely "healthy" as well, being cooler. Certainly they do not drag in the filth of the streets, which would be unhealthful. And mini-skirts require so much less cloth to make them and provide for ease of walking without hindering the gait. So, mini-skirts are practical and healthful. They are certainly the standard in many parts of the world, such as in Taiwan where the ladies have adopted them in conjunction with full-length leotards/tights.

Now, if Ellen White were to have advocated such a view as you have implied, she could be said to support the wearing of mini-skirts.

Is this where we want to go?

"Practical and healthy" is incomplete without the added concept of "principled" and/or "moral."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, Johann didn't present modest dress, merely "covering the knees".

One could claim this as modest when compared to undergarments or bikinis, if given to argument. But "covering the knees" is a far stretch from the modest, practical and healthy attire detailed by EGW. "Covering the knees" falls short of complete covering of the limbs, etc.

Why mind when ministers hold worldly opinions? It's not 'reprehensible', it's just a fact of life. But they should tell the truth..."I disagree with EGW and favour the Danish royalty as my guide", etc.
_______________________

Johann is correct, that when the world dresses with God's approval, it is safe to imitate that dress.
That's what he said. But "covering the knees" alone does not meet the standard.
_______________________________

Worthy thoughts so far. But no distinction is made between behaviour of the Christian and the non-Christian. 'Average man' or 'average woman' merely references the world. The same language and comparison is used in the Church, so not surprising that we lump all of humanity together. It's how we've been taught by family, society and ministry - no distinction between the reprobate and the redeemed. "Men are like this, women like that" - from the universities of the world - no allowance for the gospel message to offer a better choice.

So the churches are in a gender stalemate, seeking solutions like women's ordination, implementing wordly policy, grasping at straws. Instead of urging transformative change as taught in the Bible...the very core of Christ's message missed by the Church.
_____________________

Christians are biologically "average" men and women.
So what should be the distinction? Obviously the Christian is to look to God's commands (several of which I quoted from scripture) and His transforming power, while the world feels no responsibility for that.

The reason this is even being addressed here -- is because Christians need to be different -- dressing in a responsible way to glorify their Creator.

Quoting EGW:
"I beg of our people to walk carefully and circumspectly before God. Follow the customs in dress so far as they conform to health principles. Let our sisters dress plainly, as many do, having the dress of good, durable material, appropriate for this age, and let not the dress question fill the mind. Our sisters should dress with simplicity. They should clothe themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety. Give to the world a living illustration of the inward adorning of the grace of God. {CG 414.1}

Follow Prevailing Customs if Modest, Healthful, and Convenient.--Christians should not take pains to make themselves a gazingstock by dressing differently from the world. But if, when following out their convictions of duty in respect to dressing modestly and healthfully, they find themselves out of fashion, they should not change their dress in order to be like the world; but they should manifest a noble independence and moral courage to be right, if all the world differ from them. {CG 414.2}

If the world introduce a modest, convenient, and healthful mode of dress, which is in accordance with the Bible, it will not change our relation to God or to the world to adopt such a style of dress. Christians should follow Christ and make their dress conform to God's Word. They should shun extremes. They should humbly pursue a straightforward course, irrespective of applause or of censure, and should cling to the right because of its own merits. {CG 414.3}

Avoid Extremes.--Do not occupy your time by endeavoring to follow all the foolish fashions in dress. Dress neatly and becomingly, but do not make yourself the subject of remarks either by being overdressed or by dressing in a lax, untidy manner. Act as though you knew that the eye of heaven is upon you, and that you are living under the approbation or disapprobation of God. {CG 415.1}

Thank you, dedication. It was quotations like these I had in mind.

dedication said:
I asked:
dedication replies:You said that men were "created" differently. Do you think that God created men to be more tempted by sight than a woman? I don't think so. Our observations are of post-fall humanity. Before the fall, there would be no temptation, not even a thought to transgress the law to commit adultery. Our current state is post-fall. When you say, "men are programmed", I would agree. How are men "programmed"? It is in the DNA. Are are preprogrammed to transgress. We inherit these tendancies. They are not orginal, they were not placed there by God. There are indeed genetic studies that can show our propensites to sin. The same studies imply that our genetics to not force us to have specific behaviors, but our genetics give us the propensity. If it is in our DNA, and God did not create it, then where did it come from? I think science has given us the the clue, if we interpret the data from a Biblical viewpoint.

Why?

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/why-india-bad-for-women

How can you avoid covering the knees when the dress reaches between the ankles and the knees?

Do you think it was possible for Adam or Eve to have committed adultery when just the two of them existed in the Garden of Eden?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you think they would remain the only two forever?

You don't seem to have much respect or trust for God's handiwork. Without the fall, there would have been no adultery, not even the temptation even with 10 billions humans around.

Much of the to do about women's equality, women in the workplace, and women being ordained centers on the modern Eves' rejection of their God-assigned duties. An interesting statement from the pen of inspiration which touches on this is the following from Ministry of Healing (1905).



This statement highlights distinctions in duties between men and women. Women who do their noble work in the home would not be temptresses for men who are laboring outside the home.

Tragically, many modern women feel that "housewifery" is beneath them. They want to do everything that a man would ordinarily do.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It so happens that my wife has four sisters, all of them are now past the age of 70. Two of these are widows, and both of them had to "bury" the car with their husbands, who had firmly believed that driving a car was only the task of a man. Neither one of the other two are able to drive the car, due to the same convictions. Now that their husbands are getting older they are not always able to drive.

My wife and I take turns driving, and this is a great relief for both of us. Today we will drive to town to visit a sister who has been a widow for 26 years without a car.

Would we have a better world if no females could drive a car?

Two ditches:

One of legalism & intolerance, the other of liberalism & cheap grace.

________________

I'd like you to show from Ellen White's writings where mini-skirts are healthy. Or is this just a thought since they don't drag the streets?

If you are looking for a specific mention of miniskirts, you won't find it. Mrs. White does not mention them. They were invented in the 1960s. However, if you are looking for a reference to a healthful skirt, note the following statement.



In agreement with the principles outlined above, a miniskirt is not heavy, does not catch the dampness of the ground, and does not impede free and natural movement. As it does not provide much warmth, it would be unsuitable in the winter. But in the summertime, there is no reason provided in the above statement to prohibit it, and much, in fact, to promote it.

Please understand that I am NOT promoting miniskirts. My object here with this example is to illustrate the need of balance in interpretation of the spirit of prophecy, and this balance necessarily includes taking all of the statements on a given subject together in their totality. One statement alone is often insufficient to provide a clear view. Another statement will add to it and help us to understand better.

Note that the statement I quoted above is focused strictly on health and makes no mention of modesty nor of morality. So from a health standpoint strictly, miniskirts would not be prohibited. But when we move to the modesty issue we have a clear prohibition against such an article of clothing.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

From a health perspective, EGW could not have endorsed mini-skirts (or t-shirts, etc.)
because this would contradict her counsel to keep all limbs covered to balance circulation, regardless of season.
________________________

Right, but it's a part of the miniskirt fad to wear the leotards/tights as well. That would fulfill that portion of the counsel. I'm not sure that Ellen White would have required that limbs be fully covered in summer either. Where do you find that?

If you work in the tropics, are you required to wear long sleeves?

I've never enjoyed seeing women's armpits (or men's for that matter), in any season. But I have no issue with short sleeves. Covering the armpits is simply for modesty...well, and maybe for aesthetics too. But there's no need to cover the arms to prevent the cold when the weather is in the upper 80s to 90s and the humidity is so high that your sweat just sticks to you while your body nearly overheats.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you have a good quotation for this exact measurement of people?

To obey is better than sacrifice.
__________________________

Another interesting statement is this one:



Except for the paragraph I italicized, the miniskirt would be fully acceptable. It would be healthful, per the standard given above. The italicized paragraph, however, does not address health so much as modesty.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Many years ago I saw pictures of the Reform Dress Ellen White advocated for a while. As far as I recall the skirt reached some inches below the knees, but the women would wear trousers underneath which reached down to the ankles.

As far as I recall she later abandoned that Reform Dress, and one of the reasons she did that was that she did not want to dictate exactly how women should dress. That should be left to each individual to decide.

Do we have better prophets today than Ellen White?



Take note that she speaks of continual reform. Does that call for a static type of dress?

Continual reform means building on the light given.
___________________________________________

And why do so many Church employees insist (to their own harm) that God's prophets were wrong and abandoned their inspired counsel?

This makes of no effect God's instruction, calling them false prophets.
_____________________

As defined by whom?

What do you have in mind?

Honesty & transparency from those on the payroll would go many miles to restoring confidence among church members.
_________________________

This is particularly true because they have to work among so many illiterate church members as far as the doctrine of salvation is concerned, who use the Scriptures or Testimonies to judge others without a basic knowledge of what these contains.

I know, because I have had to fight my own way through this inherited mist. Having a devoted mother holding me on her lap while reading to me from the Testimonies, working through the Conflict series on my knees, going through school where the writings of Ellen White and the Bible were our basic textbooks, was a help and a great blessing. And still all of this was worthless without the message of Jesus Christ becamoming a living and personal experience.

One of my great danger periods was when I thought that now I had mastered it all, and I thought that as a young preacher I had all it took to thunder the message from the pulpit to my congregations. (I had nine churches in my first district as a pastor.) Things changed when I started sharing what this massage was doing to me and I saw the converting power in the lives of other people I was dealing with.

Even to a preacher the conversion must be a daily new message. There are too may sincere church members who with their judgments divert you attention away from Christ, and you feel you need to defend yourself.