Circumstance: Unaccompanied woman speaks to unaccompanied man in church or in her home. Nothing untoward happens, because they are both adults interacting on a moral plane; neither makes false charges against the other.
Problem: Gossip sees unaccompanied woman speaking to unaccompanied man, imagines evil, and whispers that evil to other ears who eagerly believe and spread it.
Current solution: Unaccompanied woman is looked on as inevitable source of trouble, no matter how virtuous she is in reality; she is barred from speaking to unaccompanied man under any circumstances; she goes without adequate home teaching, ward socialization, ride to stake conference, etc. Gossip is praised for having spared the Church from evil by a timely warning.

Circumstance: Woman goes out into public.
Problem: Woman is raped.
Current solution: Women are barred from going into public after certain hours; from dressing suitably for appearances in public; from making themselves “too” attractive through careful grooming; from engaging in activities or visiting places that, while perfectly moral and appropriate, are viewed as too dangerous for women, not because of anything inherent in her behavior but because of the evil behavior of others. I.e., all women are punished — in the guise of physical and reputational protection — because of the actions of a few evil men, who likely have not been apprehended and punished for their bad behavior anyway.

In the case of reality, as you describe it, who is the bad guy? It’s the gossiper, isn’t it? The gossiper is the only one who has assumed anything unholy, where no misbehavior has occurred.

In the case of reality, who is being protected? “More often,” as you acknowledge, it’s the reputation of the man.

And in the case of reality, who is being punished? The woman, who can have no association with men unless an elaborate set of protocols is followed. The woman, who can not participate fully in church programs, because she is treated like a pariah (i.e., suffers the consequences — ostracism — for the “perception of evil by others” who are guilty of seeing evil where there is none).

You shame us by expecting that we’re going to make false accusations against innocent men. You shame us by assuming that we can’t keep our hands off the men. You shame us by treating as something less than full members of the society. And you shame us by defending all of this as necessary, right, and appropriate.

Please stop. If you can’t stop in real life, at least stop defending evil practices on this thread. I know you mean well, but you don’t understand how and why you are the problem, not the solution.

I know several sisters who would love to have the missionaries over for dinner, but cannot, unless there is an adult priesthood holder also present. It is sad that a sister that is 65 years old cannot cook for the 2 missionaries, but it is reality of the world. The Church has to deal with perceptions, and the perception of evil is a sad part of that reality.

I wasn’t trying to shame any of you. In fact, in my experience, the gossip is often more against the man, rather than the woman. I just realize that good people, men and women, end up having their names unfairly dragged in the mud because of innocent actions that give the perception of evil to others.

Basically, many (maybe most, but even i’m not that cynical most days) faithful Mormons seem to believe that nonmarital sex is something that human beings have no ability to resist, and therefore we have to build fences around the law by not allowing full-time missionaries into the homes of single women, by not allowing mixed-gender married-but-not-to-each-other folk or even a married and a single pair in the same car, by encouraging our young folk to have incredibly short engagements before getting married (preferably rather young), by having conniptions at the sight of a bare shoulder on woman (or even prepubescent girl!), and so on.

I don’t really get it, myself, but it’s there—and i find it remarkably unhealthy. Not sure what to do about it, though.

Gossip is gossip, and not reality. You are telling single women (or women perceived to be single, as meg is when she is not accompanied to Sacrament Meeting by her husband) to be content with our pariah-like status, with the institutionalized practice that we may not talk to men, or associate with men, or be visited by men, not because of anything we have done, but because of what OTHER PEOPLE might ASSUME we have done. How wrong-headed is that? (Answer: Enormously wrong-headed.)

This practice systematically shames women: we’re treated as if we were such wanton creatures that we can’t regulate our behavior in the presence of a man (or else that men cannot regulate their own behavior, which is no more flattering). It leaves single women without the right to invite missionaries (even two deep) into the home, and without typical home teacher-like services (can’t get a ride to stake conference, can’t get a hand with any home maintenance or other typical appeals unless both men are available at the same time, or can find someone, even a child, to “chaperone”), and even without simple public, proper, social interaction (as meg’s example shows, and as I can testify from my occasional inability to find a seat in Sunday School and at ward social functions because the only chair available is next to a man seated by other men and not his wife — men have actually stood up and moved when I sat down in such circumstances. Apparently even in such a public setting I am too wanton to be trusted unless such a man has his wife’s hand to squeeze on the other side. How humiliating do you suppose that is? Answer: Intolerably humiliating; when I am faced with such a situation now, I leave the room and miss the class/activity).

My acknowledging the reality of the existence of gossip was a show of solidarity with meg. It is not an approval of the status quo. Don’t shame meg and me and countless other women with the spectre of potential gossip: Gossip is a sin that is laid on the head of the gossiper — not a club to swing at the head of the innocent party who is its victim!

It is for this purpose we are encouraged to be so careful in our example. I’ve also known a few instances where a home teacher, missionary, or other was alone with a woman (such as in a baptism interview, or driving somewhere), and then accused later of sexual contact.

When there are two men present, the chance of a bad encounter or gossiping going on is greatly lessened. You wouldn’t want your home teacher or your character maligned for something innocently done, would you?

It has happened before, and your home teacher is just ensuring it doesn’t happen in his case. It has nothing to do with you, but everything to do with gossip, etc. So don’t be so offended by it.

I don’t understand the phenomenon, but I recognize your story as a real one. Like you, I try to laugh it off although I certainly don’t feel like laughing. Until the unfounded, hurtful reality changes (as if it ever would!), we singles will have to stand shoulder to shoulder with each other and know that we know the truth about each other.