...and Thoth, I'm glad you said something, because I didn't want it to feel like I was dogpiling in some way (and I still don't)...so hopefully this comes across first and foremost as an attempt to explain and add context. I don't want to be hurtful either--I just think this is worth the time it took to write out, and hopefully the time it takes to read as well.

Two things:

-he's said he could used a female beta so long as there's a second person there. The rule prohibits one-on-one contact, not any and all interaction with women; a chaperone of sorts makes it acceptable. (Neo, do feel free to correct me, but as far as I can tell from the information you've given--and extrapolating from the version of this that I've run into--this seems accurate.) He didn't let go of the rule so much as finding an acceptable compromise that already exists. He's still not saying he'll correspond with a female beta one-on-one.

--supporting side point: this is much like how he's been communicating here and in the Discord chats--to my knowledge this has never come up before, and that's presumably because both the Board and the Discord are public-ish mixed gender settings, so he's been able to participate without breaking the rule.

-This point extrapolates more from the version I've run into (see my earlier posts for context, but essentially I think I'm talking about a very similar rule from a different religion), so, once again, Neo should absolutely feel free to correct me, but: I don't think the "we all have desires" bit is necessarily a conclusion he arrived at on his own when thinking about why this rule exists. In the version I know, it's one of the reasons why the rule was codified...sometime early on in the past two thousand years. It has to do with the modesty of both men and women (yes, I'm aware there are other genders, but the original ruling wasn't written acknowledging that), and I think preserving reputations as well? And not to distract men from religious study? A lot of factors go into it in the version I know, is my point--and my other point is that because the rule came in so long ago, it's phrased as though everyone either is or has the potential to be a sexually interested cisgender man or woman, regardless of the reality. Rules were also often made based on the majority (or the visible majority), to a certain extent, which that particular category was implied to be considered (I say this primarily because there are comparatively few mentions of anyone who didn't match that description, and a ton of discussion treating the category as the norm).

--an extra point: in the religion I've been talking about, at least, rulings were frequently made taking appearances into account. Individual cases could be decided at the discretion of the local leader, but that was different: you'll often see something like "one shouldn't do this lest someone else see and believe that person is breaking a certain commandment." Thus, had someone come to them with the question of "can I spend time alone with this woman, given that we're both asexual and have absolutely no interest in each other past talking excitedly about baking," it's possible they would have responded with "no, because others may see and become convinced that that isn't the case and you're behaving immodestly behind closed doors." Like I mentioned earlier--rulings, especially religious ones, were often made with what was viewed to be the majority of the community in mind. (There were even cases where a majority tradition became codified because it was so popular--and a bunch more where traditions became cultural laws of sorts despite not being officially put in place, but that's a tangent.)

I do understand that (and why) that particular implication bothers you. However, I'd like to raise the idea that that's part of how the rule was explained to him, rather than something he came up with in a vacuum. I've never researched this particular area much, since I don't follow this type of rule myself (except to some extent around people who do)**, but I'm sure there are groups who have been thinking about how it could/should be adapted in this modern age. There certainly are for all sorts of other religious concepts, across many religions. The idea of a further apology doesn't sit completely well with me because, at least from my context, it feels like asking for an apology for following and citing a traditional religious rule that, while using what's now considered exclusionary language, wasn't intended to offend or degrade either on his part or, as far as has been passed down to is, on the part of the people who codified it. While I can think of other traditional rule situations where I would be strongly on the side of further apology, this case seems more like one where it might be nice if he said that he hadn't intended offense with that line, and maybe that he'd think about different phrasing to use in the future to avoid this happening again. But to have to apologize a second time for saying that at all, when it came up in the context of explaining what was going on and what the rule was trying to prevent, seems a bit much to me.

And that's my five cents. Hopefully that both helps in some way and is readable--I've tried to go over it, but I'm not at my best today. Still, as someone who's come into contact with this type of religious rule before, in both life and in courses, I thought I'd try to bring in another perspective and some context.

~Z


**I can elaborate on that if you want me to/are curious, but essentially it boils down to respecting people who do follow that set of rules wholly or partially by following suit while interacting with them; a more minimal version of that around people who I think might follow some of this ruleset; and occasionally running into people who think *I* might follow it and not seeing an easy way to correct them or even feeling it's necessary, whether because I probably won't see them again or because I don't mind not shaking hands with them in that moment and probably won't see them again. That's as far as I go, though, generally--I just wasn't raised that way, and have never really felt strongly that I should take it on.

Again, I can elaborate--probably should, since I'm mostly talking about a different rule in the set now, and this kind of discussion (as well as the connected one about how people frequently dress to portray their religion *and different divisions within the same religion*) fascinates me--but I want to finish this message and post it sometime soon, so further tangenting can wait. Absolutely do ask if you want me to elaborate, though--and also if anything I wrote in this entire post is unclear or doesn't make sense. Like I said, I'm not at my best today.

I read that implication as well and would also like further clarification.