Avoid "private conversations with single women? Really??

I worked for a member of Congress who's one of the most upstanding fellows you could meet, but he was sucked into a lifestyle I didn't like, which is why I left.

Washington is nothing but a Chinese buffet of seducements, all of which are based on the same ingredient: power. I don't think it's merely difficult to resist, I think it's impossible.

As a former staffer I couldn't agree more. Kathryn can get a bit tedious and these "rules" scream, "I caught him with the scheduler" (a point left out - female staff are often the issue). The good guys don't need rules, they already know them.

If you want to flirt, try doing so with your wife/husband. Being good at that kind of flirting makes your marriage stronger, not weaker. Use text messages and phone calls several times a day to flirt with her/him.

Remember what is says in Matthew 5:27-28. When you look at an attractive member of the opposite sex, are you looking or shopping?

Where I live, we call this a "tie your shoes" memo. Translation? If you're stupid enough to need this, you're too stupid to work for me!"

This is absurd. It sounds like Congressmen basically should never interact with single women. Why don't we just enforce a Saudi style segregation of the genders and keep those single women locked up at home? What about married women, we better keep them away from the men too, right?! If your husband is so much of a scumbag that he's ready to drop his pants when he comes in sight of any woman, you married the wrong man, and these rules aren't going to save your doomed marriage.

Although I can't be 100% certain, I'm about 98% certain that the enjoinder to avoid private conversation with singles applies only in the context of the rule's headline, "Receptions are a danger zone." Having grown up in DC I'd say that's both entirely correct and entirely reasonable. For career-obsessed Washingtonians, a reception offers near-irresistible "work" cover for what is actually a social scene, one where many single (and, unfortunately, non-single) people meet their future spouses. For a married person, it's especially important to be crystal clear at these events that you're "off the market."

With respect, these folks here and out in the world all basically applying the "Everybody Does It" excuse are off base. Bigtime.

Let's go back to basics, shall we? Remember your basic Liberal Tenets Of Social Behavior And Crime 101 class from the last 30-40 years or so? If "r*pe" is a "Crime of FORCE, not S*#" and if every scandal we've seen in all areas is "about POWER and control, not s*#" as we've been told, then clearly it isn't the s*#ual issue that's foremost, it is the POWER and CONTROL and FORCE one.

If you are given, earn, achieve, pick-your-verb a position of power and control over the lives of others, whether it is as a boss or supervisor or as a politician or military officer or whatever, you have a responsibility to temper interactions, public and private, s*#ual and non-s*xual, with an appreciation of that power and control--Man or Woman, no matter the level of authority.

When you do not, no matter whether the authority angle comes from the other person's admiration or desire for reward or from your desire for gratification, you are out of line and undeserving of that authority, period. It isn't about the fact that people may throw themselves at you or not. It is about how you RESPOND. It is about how you USE that authority.

Weiner used it dishonorably. And no matter how much "everybody" may "do it" every single time somebody is exposed doing it, lies about doing it, cheats and sneaks and otherwise uses his or her power to do it, we, as a society have two choices: DO we say "Oh, well, that's life" and look the other way? Or do we say, "Sorry, but that's just plain WRONG."

That choice is important. And if we are capitalists about economics and government and taxation and say that you will get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax, then we have to apply that to behavior too and say "If we choose to ignore, we are encouraging, and we should only do that if we want MORE of this in our public officials, our authorities, and our social fabric."

DO we?
DO we REALLY want MORE?

Do not ask for whom the Weinergate twitters....because it could twitter for YOUR daughter next.

A university professor and religious leader told me the following story:

When he was younger, he was told never to be alone with a single women after he got married. He followed the advice without any real difficulty for several years. Then, there was to be a conference in another town and agreed drive a car pool for several of his colleagues, once of whom was a young (single) women. Come the day of travel, everybody dropped out of the car pool except the young lady. Not wanting to be rude or inconvenience his young colleague, the good doctor was tempted to break his rule just this once. They did travel to the conference in separate cars and she was upset with him.

Several months later, the young lady suddenly quit. On her way out, she accused several of the professors of s*xual harassment and various improprieties. She tried to accuse my friend, but everyone knew that that would have been impossible because he had NEVER been alone with her. Had he, just once, broken his rule for convenience sake, he could have lost his job and his religious standing.

As silly as K-Lo's rules may seem at first glance, they are a measure of protection, as are most rules. And there are few places more dangerous in this country than Wash DC.