my boss told me to stop having sex with my boyfriend or quit my job

by Alison Green on April 9, 2025

A reader writes:

I have a question about something that happened early in my career. Obviously there’s nothing I can do to change the past, but I’m curious about whether I had options I didn’t know about due to my inexperience.

Immediately out of college, I was hired to work for a religious nonprofit organization. I started by working in their after-school program and eventually moved in to a supervisor position. My manager, “Simon,” and I got along really well for a couple of years (we were close in age and I’d say I considered him a friend), but in my third year at the organization, his attitude toward me shifted drastically.

I will be the first to admit that my performance really fell off at that time. I had gotten involved in an abusive relationship and was struggling to focus. I wasn’t completing tasks on time and wasn’t keeping up my relationships with my coworkers or the kids I worked with. Simon called me out on my poor performance, but would always circle the conversation around to my boyfriend, “Luke.” He made it clear that he thought I should break up with Luke. Obviously he was right about that, but he was my manager and I didn’t feel comfortable with him having input into my relationship. It was as though he wanted to be my friend but was trying to leverage his role as manager to “help” me.

When my performance didn’t improve, he called me into his office and told me to have a seat. After a moment of silence he said, “I need to know if you and Luke are having sex.”

I was stunned. I am a private person by nature and that’s not something I discussed even with close friends. I didn’t answer him, and so he launched into a speech about the Bible’s teachings on premarital sex (for what it’s worth, I disagree with his theological arguments on the subject, but that’s neither here nor there) and how he had made some poor decisions in that area when he was younger but now that he was married, he realized the error of his ways.

I was so shocked and upset that I began to cry while he told me that if I was involved in a sexual relationship I could no longer work for the organization. He then told me, in a way that was clearly intended as comforting, “The only person who will need to know is [head of organization].” That sent me into an absolute panic attack as I imagined him telling the director of the organization that I was leaving because I wanted to have sex with my boyfriend.

He took my crying as an admission of guilt and left the room, despite my never having uttered a word the entire time. I quit a few days later because I felt so embarrassed and attacked. I knew I would never feel comfortable stepping foot there again.

In retrospect, I wonder if I should have done something. The denomination affiliated with the organization only has rules about celibacy for unmarried ordained clergy (and even those are not enforced). It’s a relatively progressive denomination so there isn’t an emphasis on purity culture or anything. I never signed any forms about my personal conduct outside of work. The only thing mentioned in my contract involving religion was that I must be a member of a church and that I would lead Bible study once a week.

Did Simon’s actions count as sexual harassment? Is a religious nonprofit allowed to fire people for sexual activity, even if it isn’t explicitly stated anywhere? Could I have reported him without having to disclose information on my private life?

WTF.

There are some religious institutions that hold employees to a purity code of sorts, grounded in their religious practice. Normally federal law prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of religious belief or practice, but organizations whose “purpose and character are primarily religious” are exempt from that law. Even then, though, they would need to apply any kind of religious purity code without violating other anti-discrimination laws — so they couldn’t, for example, apply it only to women but not to men.

But based on what you said in your letter, it doesn’t sound like Simon’s edict was based on the organization’s conduct rules, as opposed to his own personal moral code. There’s no law against managers requiring employees to adhere to a personal code of conduct, as long as they apply it evenly and without discrimination. So they could decide they won’t employ anyone who has sex outside of marriage (or who wears blue on Tuesdays, or who likes Drake), but they couldn’t apply that only to women and not men. (It’s possible that a state with very strong out-of-work privacy protections, like California, might prohibit that … although I suspect you’d need a test case to know for sure.) In any case, was Simon applying this to everyone, or only to you? And was this an organization-wide policy or just Simon’s? It sounds very much like the latter.

As for what you could have done, yes, you absolutely could have reported him without having to disclose information about your private life. “Simon is requiring me to quit unless I will agree not to have sex outside of marriage” is reportable on its own; you wouldn’t need to add “and that’s a problem because I’m sexually active.” If indeed this was just Simon’s personal agenda, it’s likely that someone above in him in the organization (or in HR, if they had it) would have shut this down and told him to stop talking to employees about their sex lives.

But I hope knowing that doesn’t make you blame yourself for not handling it that way at the time. You were in an abusive relationship and under stress both at home and at work, and someone in a position of authority wildly overstepped a boundary with you. You’re not to blame for not navigating this differently; Simon is to blame for being an overstepping asshole.

You may also like:
{ 259 comments }

{ 259 comments… read them below }

        1. Miette*

          Ding ding ding we have a winner! Simon mos def had a thing for OP, which makes this even creepier. What a tool.

    2. Hannah*

      Jumping on the top post to say, I do very much appreciate Alison calling a spade a spade on that last sentence! Sometimes a person (especially women who are raised to doubt their own inner voices) need to hear things that clearly.

  2. Pippi's mom*

    Simon is gross.

    I just left a high-control religion that put a lot of emphasis on purity culture and not having sex outside of marriage and the reality is, many men in these situations think they have the right to ask these questions (usually, though not only, of young women over whom they have some authority). Because God. But it’s really because they’re gross and they use the veneer of religion to make it seem OK. I’m sorry this happened to you.

    1. Zombeyonce*

      I grew up in a heavily practicing Catholic family. It was only ever young adult men in a position of authority or older men with or without authority (apparently their age made authority implied?) from the church who asked me very personal, intrusive, and/or intimate questions about my adherence to church doctrine.

      Everywhere I lived, the youth groups were always led by twentysomething men who REALLY wanted all the teens in the group to share the details of their sex lives so they could “guide” us. At one church in particular, most youth group meetings were just the adult leader going around asking each teenager to admit whether or not they’d done anything sexual, what, with whom, how often, and other completely inappropriate questions. Looking back, it’s mind blowing that the parents never got involved.

      1. Ally McBeal*

        When I was in college I fell into the TradCath movement, which was having a moment under Pope Benedict’s leadership. At one point I was hanging out at my (Latin Mass) priest’s rectory with my priest and a friend who had recently left seminary – we occasionally visited after Mass to grill chicken and peppers – and my priest cornered me and told me that my boyfriend didn’t truly love me if he was having sex with me. My bf was Catholic but NOT TradCath, and was also not pleased when I came home that evening and basically told him we were going to be phasing out sex. We broke up a year later and I broke away from the TradCaths about a year after that. He and I weren’t meant to be together forever anyway, but I frequently look back in dismay at how purity culture had so fully warped me by that point that I gave up sex so quickly with the man I genuinely thought (at the time) I was going to marry, just because my priest looked at me funny one time.

        2. Charlotte Lucas*

          So glad to have been raised in the social justice Catholic tradition. We’re way more likely to ask if you’re joining a boycott against a company that mistreats its workers.

          1. Quill*

            I never belonged to any specific catholic tradition before I left, but what I learned from my mom and my great aunt (who was a nun) was how to scold a priest. I feel like more people should learn that.

              1. Oniya*

                Dunno about scolding priests, but scolding ‘preachers’ (often unordained) is second nature to me. It helps when you know their book reasonably well. In OP’s case, the *first* thing I’d bring up is ‘Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.’ due to the focus being on ‘a woman having sex’.

                1. CeeDoo*

                  Unrelated, but the last church I went to before I gave up any pretense was super strict. The preacher’s son in law saw a very famous praise and worship singer at a Chili’s, and the man was drinking a beer with his dinner. The son in law went up to him and lambasted him for “ruining his witness.” The preacher was inordinately proud for that.

          2. Social justice Catholic tradition too*

            As a Catholic, I am always amazed that these folks exist.

            I didn’t realize my family participated in the “social justice” branch until I was an adult.

      2. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Whoa.
        I, too, was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic college with a very religious and spiritual presence on campus, and I was very active in campus ministry and went on several religious retreats. There’s no way in hell (or heaven) that any of the priests I knew would have asked such personal questions about our sexual activity. The priests would preach at Mass that we should refrain from random hookups, because Jesus wants us to treat other people as *people* and not just sex objects, but other than that, they didn’t police our sexual behavior. I’m sorry that you had such a bad experience with your church.

        1. n.m.*

          My Catholic relatives’ particular (branch? congregation?) basically holds that sex can/should only be discussed with ones spouse and ones doctor. I don’t love that rule exactly but at least they have clear boundaries. Still, I suspect a priest, or a boss, asking someone about their sexual activity in that community would not face the same consequences as a person with less power.

          1. Emily Byrd Starr*

            I never heard that. If talking about sex with someone other than your partner or your doctor is a sin, then I think probably EVERYONE at my Catholic college would have broken that commandment!

      3. Dogmomma*

        that’s more than gross and I’m a born again Christian. and lapsed Catholic > which has its own issues.

    2. Fluffy Fish*

      Little side-note but congratulations! I know that was a long hard road and there’s going to be a lot to unpack, but I’m so happy for you.

    3. tina turner*

      The “abuse” seems to be downplayed here by some, maybe including LW. It depends on what this means. We don’t know.

      1. Rainy*

        If the boss had said “You seem really stressed and tired. Are you safe at home?” “Here’s a list of resources, no reason” or anything else like that, and then backed off and let LW seek help in her own time while continuing to support her without shame or judgement (because we know that’s what actually works for people in those situations), fine.

        The boss instead engaged in a thoroughly inappropriate line of questioning *and blaming* that came from a place of slut-shaming, and did so in a way that probably made it harder, not easier, for LW to eventually leave the situation.

        Simon *is* gross. Saying Simon is gross doesn’t downplay the boyfriend’s abuse, and Simon’s grossness wasn’t helpful or coming from a good place. It was harmful and coming from a religiously abusive place.

      2. Na$ty Larry*

        I would hazard to guess that the effects of the abuse LW was enduring at home made her that much easier a target to Simon. We don’t know or need to know the details of the abuse but in so many cases it both puts your self-esteem at a low point and makes you feel a heightened sense of privacy lest anyone discover what you’re going through. If LW was going through that, Simon likely saw it and took advantage of it.

    4. Old Lady at Large*

      I left one like that, too, but it was because I was tired of being seen as a “sinner” because I’d chosen not to have children. I also didn’t go for the “I’m the pastor and my word is law” mindset. In fact, I’m rather surprised that my husband wasn’t asked to “control” me, but he told me, “I’d have said ‘why should I? She’s right.'” My husband is a wise man.

  3. Whoopsie*

    Just waiting for Christian brigade to fill the comments about how it’s their moral duty to dictate other people’s choice because of Hell or whatever.

    Seriously, never work for a religious/affiliated organization if you don’t buy 100% into their beliefs. They’re a mess of dysfunction on a good day and cults on bad days.

    1. amoeba*

      I mean, this sounds like that wasn’t even a belief of the denomination/organisation in question, which makes this even weirder!

      “The denomination affiliated with the organization only has rules about celibacy for unmarried ordained clergy (and even those are not enforced). It’s a relatively progressive denomination so there isn’t an emphasis on purity culture or anything.”

      I wonder whether Simon could have also been reported to that church, if they’re as progressive as they sound, they might be horrified that one of the employees in an organisation affiliated with them oversteps in that way…

      1. Observer*

        I mean, this sounds like that wasn’t even a belief of the denomination/organisation in question, which makes this even weirder!

        Exactly. But also, even in a denomination where they believed that, he should not have been having that conversation, and *certainly* not alone and couched that way!

        To take a bit of an analogy. Say the LW had been working with a secular anti-drug organization that has strict policies against using any illegal substance. And the manager had reason to suspect that the LW as actually doing crack. Would it be ok for him to call her into his office and say “Hey, I need to know if you’re doing crack?” I’d say that the answer is absolutely not.

        1. Zombeyonce*

          Not just “I need to know if you’re doing crack” but also “you need to promise right now to stop doing crack if you are doing it, say you never will, and quit if you won’t make these promises”. No matter what you think about drug use, that’s hugely overstepping!

        2. Strive to Excel*

          I’d say it’d be a lot more reasonable to require an employee not to do crack since taking mind-altering drugs at work can cause employers Issues.

          I’d phrase it even sillier – think of a health food organization and Simon calling OP into his office to prohibit her from ever eating anything with corn syrup in it.

          2. Observer*

            I’d say it’d be a lot more reasonable to require an employee not to do crack since taking mind-altering drugs at work can cause employers Issues.

            That’s kind of my point. Even where it makes sense to have policies against drug use, that kind of conversation should not be happening.

            We had to let someone go a while ago of a drug use issue. I promise you that no one had that kind of conversation with the person. HR *did* meet with them and make it crystal clear that they cannot come into work smelling of Drug and / or visibly impaired. No “I need to know” anything or anything like that.

        3. duinath*

          tbh i’m jaded enough i wouldn’t be surprised if simon was trying to angle himself right into op’s pants, unfortunately.

          hope to be wrong, but some bits of this are rubbing me extra wrong. like, beyond the controlling young women for your own (religious or no) gratification, wrong.

          1. Arts Akimbo*

            This is, sadly, where my mind went as well. Simon was an older, married man, but he was exhibiting all the hallmarks of sexual interest in the LW.

          3. Irish Teacher.*

            Yup, I can’t help feeling that this is less about Simon thinking the LW should stop having sex and more about him thinking she should stop having sex with her boyfriend and start having it with him instead. Maybe I’m cynical but…

          5. Ellie*

            I thought the same. Especially the part where he admits that he did a lot of stuff in his youth that he shouldn’t have…. the implication I went to, was that he’d definitely do it again if OP gave him any kind of an opening. He was trying to take advantage of a vulnerable girl.

      2. Whoopsie*

        Since when does any church actually take action? They just defer and transfer problems around.

        1. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

          Hi from Catholicville! We have had multiple women fired from Catholic schools for having children out of wedlock. It’s easy to get rid of women who can be demonstrably pregnant; it’s a lot harder to prove anything against the men in the church who commit actual abuses and therefore easier to sweep that under the rug. Which is awful and one of the very many reasons I’m a recovering Catholic.

          1. Charlotte Lucas*

            I also know of a very large diocese where the music director was fired for getting engaged to his boyfriend. The parish has a very angry meeting about that but was told the decision stood.

            A few months later, I met someone who also worked as a music director at a few parishes. He’s straight but pointed out that if they’re going to go around firing all the gay music directors, he’d have so much work in music that he’d be able to quit his day job.

          2. Rainy*

            My Catholic MIL once bragged to me that as a high school student she exposed a teacher’s pregnancy with the intent to shame and humiliate her, and possibly get her fired. The teacher was married, but it was the 60s and a Catholic school. If I had done something that malicious and petty even as a teenager I would take it to my grave from shame, but she was proud of herself.

      3. Rocket Raccoon*

        My dad is a Methodist minister and 100% would have been horrified and acted quickly if Simon was one of his employees and this was reported.

        1. JustCuz*

          Yeah I was coming to say I don’t think what this dude did would fly in most Methodist churches – even in today’s Christian Nationalistic culture and the splits occurring in the denomination.

          1. UKDancer*

            Yeah definitely not in the modern UK Methodist tradition which is pretty egalitarian, socially liberal and has had women ministers for ages and women presidents of conference since 1992.

            My godmother was a Methodist lay minister and while she thought it was better to wait for marriage, she would never have behaved like this person or tried to tell other people how to live their lives.

          2. NotAnotherManager!*

            It depends on which variety of Methodist – the United Methodist church I was raised in was maybe one level of conservatism above Universalist Unitarians and far more concerned with community service, music programs, and cultivating a real everyone-is-welcome culture. The congregants of the Methodist church in my husband’s town wouldn’t let their kids particulate in square dancing in gym class.

    2. Spencer Hastings*

      Just waiting for Christian brigade to fill the comments

      You’ve spent a lot of time reading this website and forming an opinion of the community’s demographics, huh?

      1. MigraineMonth*

        I suspect Whoopsie might be new here it they think that’s the way the comment section usually goes.

        1. merula*

          It might be a reasonable assumption for many (most?) other comments sections, but it’s a clear sign of someone being new or not participating in a lot of AAM comments if they think it’s a reasonable assumption here.

          And that’s one of many reasons I’m so grateful for Alison’s moderation and this commentariat.

      2. A different Simon*

        This. Half of us seem to be Jewish based on the responses to previous letters, so Whoopsie’s attitude seems to be borne of (well-intentioned) ignorance.

        1. amoeba*

          Yeah, and most of the other half seems to be culturally Christian but not actually religious. And certainly not many fundamentalists – pretty sure they wouldn’t like the tenor in the comments and leave pretty quickly. (I’m aware there’s religious Christians as well as people from other religious – Islam, etc – here as well, but they don’t seem to constitute any kind of majority…)

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      Honestly, while I see your concerns about working for an organisation affiliated with a religion you don’t fully agree with, my school (and a large percentage of the schools in Ireland) is nominally Catholic. Nobody would dream of telling anybody they couldn’t have sex outside marriage. I have colleagues who are single parents, colleagues who are openly gay, colleagues who are Protestant, colleagues who are atheist… Our school is working hard to be as LGBT+ friendly as possible.

      An Anglican school sacked Enoch Burke…well, not exactly for being transphobic but for insisting the school should be transphobic and well, being obnoxious about it.

      And I really doubt people here are going to fill the comments with how it’s their moral duty to criticise others’ behaviour. While there are plenty of Christian commenters here, I don’t think there are many who adhere to the idea that their morals are definitely right and must be pushed on everybody else.

      1. Strive to Excel*

        I can say that I come from a very socially conservative Christian background and this behavior would be considered WILDLY out of line. Priests are expected to be celibate if unmarried, and monastics are expected to be celibate. If you’re not doing that, you can’t fill the role of priest, and thus can’t be hired as a priest. Beyond that? Nope. What Simon is doing is Not OK.

        1. Lady Lessa*

          I’m from a similar background, and as far as I am concerned the Webb Telescope couldn’t see the line that Simon crossed.

          You can agree that a private organization can set their rules, but how they apply them, AND to whom can be questioned. (and probably should be)

      2. Alyce*

        I also work for a Catholic school where the general reaction would be horror if someone grilled you about your sex life, and people are openly in non married, and non traditional relationships. Even so, if someone wants to be a bully and a creep, and the Catholic organisation they work for isn’t perfect about rooting that stuff out, they might try this kind of thing behind closed doors. OP was in an abusive relationship, had been scolded by her boss, her mind must have been swimming. It’s easy to wonder if the Catholic church’s overall line on premarital sex might be more relevant than you thought.

      3. Timothy (TRiG)*

        Thanks for being clear that Enoch Burke wasn’t fired for transphobia (though he definitely is transphobic). I’ve seen so many people misrepresenting what happened there. (And I definitely agree that he’s obnoxious.)

      4. Grimalkin*

        If nothing else, I think it’s important to make a distinction between a “religious organization” and “an organization with traditional/historical ties to religion”.
        I went to a college that was nominally affiliated with some Protestant sect or another. (Methodist, maybe? I’m honestly not sure without checking.) The college also had an active Hillel, and my friends there included people across a wide variety of religions as well as some non-religious folks, all of whom were perfectly at home there. Those religious ties were definitely just historical/in name only.
        On the other hand, early in my career I considered a job with a Catholic organization, and while they said that my not being a Catholic wouldn’t be a problem, I think it’s a good thing that I, raised Jewish and currently something like agnostic, didn’t end up starting my career there.

    4. Short Sleeves Please*

      No, I don’t see it as my moral duty. But, I also wouldn’t work for a religious organization that would forbid me from eating pork. If I knowingly chose to work for that organization than that comes with the specific choice that I make. I refused to apply to one religiously affiliated social services group that required women to wear three-quarter length sleeves and men not to have facial hair. Taking a job there meant I knew the rules.

      There’s a lot of hoop jumping that only women were told to be chaste. We don’t don’t know that and OP would not be, should not be privy to those personnel conversations.

      I agree. If you don’t support the beliefs when choosing to work for a religiously affiliated organization. But, when you make such sweeping statements about religious organizations you exhibit your own bias.

      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Not being allowed to eat pork in the office because it’s Kosher or Hallel is reasonable.
        Insisting that all employees refrain from eating pork when they’re not at work? That’s not reasonable.

        1. UKDancer*

          Yeah definitely. At university I often went to the Sikh temple for a meal because they would feed everyone a vegetarian meal without charge as a social duty. It was a good way for poor students to get a hot lunch so a lot of us went once per week and had a pretty decent curry. None of us were Sikh but they had an open door policy. That particular temple didn’t allow meat on the premises and it was forbidden to bring it in or store it in their kitchen.

          They didn’t control what people did outside the temple but if you were there for work or anything else, you weren’t allowed to bring in meat. I thought that was fine, their gaff, their rules. If they had tried to stop people eating meat elsewhere then I’d have thought it overbearing.

        2. Short Sleeves Please*

          Local Islamic school has this as an employment condition, along with no alcohol outside of work hours.
          Again, didn’t apply to work there.

      2. Ellis Bell*

        I’m confused. Are you saying that religious organisations would be really open and upfront about the expectations, or that they would come up as private personnel conversations, so that an individual wouldn’t be privy to the general rules, and not know whether they’d been singled out? I’m probably misunderstanding you, but I couldn’t make it out.

        1. Short Sleeves Please*

          Both. All of the above.
          I’ve seen applications where the expectations were spelled out. If you applied you knew the rules and the core profession of faith.

          Also, personnel conversations should be private. If Joe is living with his girlfriend and it’s a no-go. That conversation should be treated as a private, personnel conversation. If Sandra is living with her boyfriend it should be treated as a private, personnel conversation. Neither Joe nor Sandra should ever know from their supervisor that those conversations took place.

      3. Frieda*

        It seems relevant that the LW did not work for an organization that required its employees to be celibate outside of marriage, however. So she did not choose to work for such an organization. Someone she worked with arbitrarily decided that his personal moral code* ought to apply to her.

        * Although I think he was absolutely trying to get into her pants, regardless of what the premise of the conversation was.

      4. NotAnotherManager!*

        It does not sounds like OP was advised of (or signed off on) any moral covenants as a condition of employment nor that there were actually any such required by the employer versus her skeevy boss’s overstep. She does not appear to have taken this position knowing that she would be questioned about her sex life nor told how to behave outside the office.

        I think there is also a difference between working at a religious organization whose mission is religion versus working for, for instance, an indigent services organization that is run by a religious organization (unless the services are steeped in or predicated upon the specific faith AND that is disclosed as part of the hiring process).

    5. Emily Byrd Starr*

      I’ve worked for and been a part of religious organizations that weren’t totally messed up. Some of them are from the Social Justice type of religion that Charlotte Lucas describes above. Others were simply religious nominally and maybe had a crucifix or a cross on the wall, but they didn’t preach to clients or force their beliefs on them.

      1. amoeba*

        Most religious orgs (as well as the churches themselves) here in my part of Europe are that way! Honestly, if anything, they tend to preach tolerance. Pretty sure none of the official state churches (as opposed to “Freikirchen” that are generally considered to be sects/cults) have any kind of “purity” culture or whatever, except for catholic priests and monks/nuns, obviously.

    6. Smithy*

      In a weird way, I’ve always appreciated the religious nonprofits that take the time to write everything down about how you’ll be expected to uphold/live in your private life so you know before you ever interview.

      There’s one religious nonprofit in my sector that does this – and on the work they do (i.e. llama grooming) they’re really well respected, but it’s 100% a religious organization and makes all of the beliefs you need to uphold clear during their application and interview process. For those who aren’t part of the religion but feel like it’ll work – you know at the beginning. And then for someone like me, I’ve just applied at other llama grooming orgs.

      But still, appreciate that they’re upfront.

      1. Short Sleeves Please*

        Agreed. Transparency is best. I won’t agree to it, so I won’t apply there.

  4. Jennifer Strange*

    I have nothing to add other than I hope you’re in a much better place now (both professionally and personally).

  5. Pastor Petty Labelle*

    let me repeat – none of this was your fault.

    Simon even telling you to leave your boyfriend was wildly out of line. Your boss should not be telling you how to handle your personal life — even for your own safety. Directing you to an EAP or making everyone aware of resources is one thing. Saying break up is over the line really really far. Could he talk about your peformance and the need to improve? Yes. But without getting in the why your job is suffering. Even if you told him why, he has no business telling you what to do in your personal life.

    And that’s all before we get into him telling you about what you can and can’t do with your boyfriend.

    This is all on your wildly inappropriate boss. Not you. you handled it as well as you could at the time given everything that was going on.

    1. Observer*

      This is all on your wildly inappropriate boss. Not you. you handled it as well as you could at the time given everything that was going on

      This. 100%

    2. Zombeyonce*

      I suspect Simon didn’t even have an inkling about the abuse, he just made his own assumptions about a young woman in a potentially sexual relationship and went from there. He seems high-minded and oblivious enough.

    3. MigraineMonth*

      Completely agreed. You were in an awful situation, and your boss crossed major boundaries. Even if there were other routes you could have taken, quitting was a completely valid response to your boss being so awful and making you feel uncomfortable.

  6. Four lights*

    Time for Miss Manners response: Look incredibly shocked, clutch your pearls and say, “I beg your pardon?!”

    1. Christmas Carol*

      I love MM, and never fail to be amazed at how many of life’s problems could be solved by her approach.

      1. Generic Name*

        I know. I spend way too much time going over and over in my head how I would respond to various situations where the other person is being a jerk/inappropriate/too familiar/whatever, and I keep going back to the realization that my natural, in the moment reaction is usually just fine. Like saying, “What?” or “ew gross” or “Why would you say that?” or any other expression of surprise/offense is totally normal and I don’t need to have a snappy rejoinder for everything.

      2. Zona the Great*

        I should keep trying MM. I find her kind of nasty, TBH. Maybe I only read her nastier ones?

        1. Christmas Carol*

          She’s changed a lot since her two children have taken over much of her writing.

        2. Charlotte Lucas*

          Go with her older books, when they were being written by Judith Martin. She struck the right tone: good advice while using irony as needed. And she would call out the letter writers when needed. (And in her earliest work, you can get a bit of a window into what things were like during the past century.)

          She also would often discuss the history of certain conventions, which I love.

        3. xylocopa*

          Yeah, actual original Miss Manners was generally smart, funny, and pretty reasonable. (Now sometimes a bit dated, but that’s true of any advice column you look at 20 years later.) Whenever I look at it now the current writers always feel like they’re trying to be On Brand without actually coming at problems in a thoughtful way. I don’t know–that’s not quite right, but I’m not sure how to put it.

    2. Jshaden*

      Or the Carolyn Hax alternative, “Wow!”, and for the really brave “Wow! Why would you say that?”

    3. Three Flowers*

      Or “I’m sorry, I think I must have misheard. *What* did you say?” delivered in a tone of “I am giving you the courtesy of one, and only one, opportunity for both of us to pretend that never came out of your mouth.”

      1. MissMuffett*

        So much easier to do, though, if you aren’t a young woman in your first job being grilled by your older male boss.
        These types of responses come much more easily to people with more life experience or at least a little more power in their jobs. I’d love to think our OP would have had that level of confidence but it’s unlikely from a young woman in that position.

        1. Ellis Bell*

          I’ve got to say I’ve seen bosses do such things that I consider myself unshockable, and I think my own response here would be to burst into tears. My gob would have been totally smacked.

          1. Old Bag*

            I’m 50 and consider myself fairly jaded and unshockable — and I too would most likely burst into tears if this happened to me. I think I might recover a lot more quickly than I would have in my 20s, and been able to regroup and fire back eventually… but I’d be shaking in my boots while doing it. Simon is a creep.

        2. MN_Jen*

          Absolutely. Now that I’m in my 40s and I’ve spend decades dealing with overreaching men, I’d be able to confidently deal with this man and his gross questions.

          As a young woman, I absolutely would have cried through that meeting and quit, too.

        3. goddessoftransitory*

          Agreed. You can bet Simon wouldn’t have tried that crap with an older woman with more power in the organization, and definitely not a man. He pulled this on the OP deliberately and a big part of the reason was knowing her lack of power meant she couldn’t do anything about it.

        4. Marion Ravenwood*

          Yeah, age and experience accounts for a lot here. Like it’s a wildly inappropriate question for a boss (or arguably anyone at work) to ask regardless of the genders and ages involved, but when you haven’t been in the world of work for very long and you’re being asked something so personal and unexpected from someone in a considerably senior position (for multiple reasons), then I absolutely don’t blame the OP for getting upset.

  7. chellieroo*

    Presumably, based upon his misogynistic initiative, Simon has gone on to a position of significant responsibility in current events.

  8. NotAManager*

    I don’t know if LW feels this way, but I just want to add: just because the relationship was a bad one, doesn’t mean Simon was trying to be helpful in this situation. Threatening to fire LW is *not* the action of someone trying to be a friend. Simon was grossly out of line, whether LW’s relationship to her boyfriend was good, bad, indifferent.

    1. Leenie*

      Yup. Nothing like being controlling and abusive toward someone who you suspect might be in a controlling, abusive relationship. I have trouble believing that anything that Simon was doing there came from a good place.

      1. But Of Course*

        I think we all can safely assume that if Simon noticed LW’s decrease in work quality due to the abuse, he attributed it to the degeneracy of unwed sex and had no idea abuse was happening.

        LW, I hope you have better friends and coworkers in your life now.

        1. Silver Robin*

          I read it the same way. He saw a dip in quality, was also not thrilled about the boyfriend, and because he thinks his premarital sex was a mistake, is assuming the sex is the problem. He was being a judgemental twit.

    2. Sloanicota*

      Yeah I feel like there’s a confusing nexus here because the boyfriend *was* bad news but that doesn’t excuse Simon’s bad behavior

    3. Fluffy Fish*

      I’m glad you pointed this out. Women in general but especially in abusive situations internalize somehow it’s at least partially their fault.

      So yes LW – NONE of any of this was your fault at all, period the end.

    4. A Simple Narwhal*

      Yes, and isn’t it pretty well known that a victim losing their job only gives their abuser even more power over them? Heck, loss of income can test even the most secure relationship, it certainly wouldn’t make a bad one better. Simon was absolutely not trying to help OP.

      1. Irish Teacher.*

        Don’t abusers sometimes even try to cause their victim to lose her (or his) job, so that they can further isolate them? So Simon may well have been playing into the boyfriend’s hands.

        1. Chirpy*

          This, I had a coworker whose controlling husband pressured her to quit her job, probably exactly to make it harder for her to leave him – and I know she was thinking about it.

          Simon was absolutely over the line, and if he actually cared about the abuse, he should have made it clear to OP that her job was secure and offered actual help. Not jump to the high-and-mighty conclusion of “it must be the premarital sex destroying your life”.

          OP, this was NOT your fault. This church let you down when you needed their help the most.

        3. Andromeda Carr*

          Yes indeed. I know two different unrelated women whose abusive spouses did this to them.

      2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        THIS. If Simon actually wanted to support the LW with the crappy boyfriend situation, threatening her job / doing stuff that led her to quit is not the way! It closes off an avenue for social connection, takes away a place that’s safer to do exit planning from the relationship, and risks making her financially dependent on this guy.

        Worth considering the possibility that Simon had become more conservative and chose to use his power at work to try to impose his own moral code on others.

  9. Lab Boss*

    If I squint my eyes enough I can almost-not-quite see a boss who knows an employee is in an abusive relationship, encouraging them to leave that relationship. Threading the needle of offering help without being overbearing would be very fine work, but at least the intention to get someone out of a bad situation is something I can understand.

    But just “I’m going to fire you because you’re violating my religious tenets” is just so… I can’t wrap my head around it at all. And this is coming from an active, practicing Catholic who makes no effort to hide the fact, my employees have always known that our professional relationship has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.

    1. Ex-roommate*

      Cutting off LW’s income may very well have driven them into the arms of the abusive boyfriend.

      1. Jennifer Strange*

        YUP. There’s a reason abusers try to limit their targets from having outside jobs.

      2. MsM*

        +1. I am not saying OP needs to put Simon on public blast if he’s still in a position of responsibility, but if someone were to do that, that’d be one of the first things I pointed out.

    2. Crencestre*

      If you’re truly concerned about someone (friend/colleague/employee) being abused by their partner then let them know that there are resources dedicated to helping people in abusive relationships. Collect pamphlets or print out info/flyers for local organizations for battered partners/spouses for the abuse survivor. Be supportive – educate yourself about the dynamics of abuisve relationships (that’ll help you understand why advice such as “Just leave the jerk!” or “Throw them out of the house!” isn’t nearly as helpful as you may think it is.) And recognize that one of the best ways to help an abuse survivor is to stay in touch with them if at all possible; abusers always try to separate their victim from any other sources of support and aid so that they’ll have no one to turn to when the abuse escalates (as it always does if left unchecked.)

      All of the above are useful. Imposing your own personal sexual morality on an employee and passing it off as organizational policy is NOT!

      1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        Yup. The #1 thing is probably to be supportive and don’t do anything controlling yourself.

    3. Annony*

      I’m with you. If it was just telling her to leave her abusive boyfriend I would think the boss overstepped but had good intentions. Asking about her sex life absolutely crosses the line.

    4. Emily Byrd Starr*

      “ And this is coming from an active, practicing Catholic who makes no effort to hide the fact, my employees have always known that our professional relationship has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.”

      Exactly. This isn’t a religion problem, this is a Simon problem.

    5. Ellis Bell*

      I can’t agree that Simon knew of the abuse, or understands anything about abuse. There’s no link between abuse and having sex, so there would have been no reason to go there. He probably made the obvious conclusion that the relationship was somehow interfering with OPs performance and then completely gave way to his own ignorance on multiple levels without any care for OPs feelings or privacy.

  10. Butterfly Counter*

    How awful.

    This is the difference between, “You are obviously struggling and need help. Talk to me and tell me how I can best support you,” and, “You are obviously struggling and need help. Do what I tell you to do based on my narrow worldview under threat of losing your job. I don’t care if it results in you being in a worse place than you were to start, but at least I’m right.”

  11. Observer*

    “I need to know if you and Luke are having sex.”

    Those are words that should NEVER be uttered by a manager to their employee! Even in the very few places where a prohibition on same sex / extramarital relations make any sense, this is not the conversation that should be happening, and it also should not be happening with your manager!

    Given that you weren’t even in that kind of organization, this is beyond bonkers! And totally gross.

    In theory what he did was absolutely reportable, possibly illegal, and definitely bad management. And in theory, it would have a good thing for you to report it, if only to try to prevent him from pulling something like this again.

    I’m also going to disagree with Alison a touch here. Bosses can enforce “purity culture”, but the potential legal problem is that he framed it as a religious issue, which means that in a non-religious institution, he would almost certainly be breaking the law. Given that this was a religious institution, he might have been able to get away with it legally, even if it wasn’t the policy of the organization. But I would expect competent HR to understand that what he did is a really bad look for the organization, and could open them up to problems, even if his behavior was completely legal.

    1. Great Frogs of Literature*

      I did a Peace Corps-like experience through a religious org, which did have a prohibition on extramarital sex. And we had a discussion in orientation to the effect of “You are going to be isolated and emotionally vulnerable and probably lonely/homesick, but it is a Very Bad Idea to let that turn into getting romantically involved with a local. We’ve seen it happen and it generally does not go well for either party.” (And while I had some questions about the org’s lifestyle policies generally, and what they did and did not consider a legitimate marriage specifically, I thought that they were probably right that one should be careful about forming romantic attachments when you were in that vulnerable a position.)

      And I CANNOT IMAGINE my supervisors having a “I need to know if you and Luke are having sex” discussion with one of us. I know for a fact that two of the other volunteers were having sex (together) and it’s very possible that they were not as discreet about it as they thought they were and the supervisors had some inkling of what was going on, or at least that there was a relationship there. I would have heard about it (from my peers) if they’d even gotten a stern talking to (and they did not).

      Even if it were org policy, this is so far out of line that the line has vanished over the horizon.

  12. Not Tom, Just Petty*

    Wow. I am sorry you even have to ask this question.
    I’m glad you are not asking if he was wrong.
    I’m glad you realize that he is out of his gourd.
    I’m glad your question is “was there something I could have done?” vs “what did I do?”

    1. Observer*

      I’m glad your question is “was there something I could have done?” vs “what did I do?”

      That’s a good point.

  13. Benihana scene stealer*

    Simon sounds unhinged, glad you quit. Also I have a hunch Simon’s concerns weren’t religious but probably more personal (as in he was hitting on you)

    1. Antilles*

      +1, my thoughts exactly.
      I suspect if we’d gotten a more complete timeline from OP, the “attitude shifted dramatically” would line up quite well with either OP starting to date Luke (or the Simon learning about Luke’s existence).

      1. XF1013*

        Seconding this. Over the years, there have been way too many letters here about senior men using their positions of influence to “help” junior women, only for it to turn out that their interest was primarily sexual, for that thought not to occur while reading this letter. Simon’s marriage doesn’t make me presume his innocence; it makes me wonder what his wife would have thought about his invasive questions to OP.

      2. A Simple Narwhal*

        Agreed, I’d bet Simon found out someone was “touching his property” and didn’t like it. (Barf).

        I’ve heard way too many stories of women having a man they thought was a friend get real shi!tty when they find out they have a partner.

    2. RegBarclay*

      Yup, that was my thought. It can be harder to recognize these things in the moment (especially since OP was young, and Simon would have denied it for sure) but this feels a lot like he wanted OP to be single & celibate so he could date her himself.

    3. Venus*

      Except that he mentioned being married. I suspect he wouldn’t have said anything if LW wasn’t in an abusive relationship.

      1. Jennifer Strange*

        While I don’t agree that Simon was hitting on the LW, his being married doesn’t mean he couldn’t have been. Also, the fact that he focused on sex indicates to me that he absolutely would have still said something even if the LW wasn’t in an abusive relationship.

      2. Hannah Lee*

        There are partnered people who like the idea of having others in their orbit who are available. I’ve seen it before and it’s icky. They will actively block whoever they are targeting to keep them from finding or maintaining a relationship with others. Sometimes it’s a liner-upper or grooming for future access behavior. Other times it’s just wanting keep focus on them vs having people around them have other priorities (jealousy, greediness, resentment, who knows)

        And being married or verbalizing moral standards means nothing – married people, publicly ‘upstanding’ people who cheat are a dime a dozen.

      3. Fluffy Fish*

        While we will never know Simon’s motivations, married men are not exempt from having inappropriate feelings for underlings and behaving in inappropriate ways because of them.

        Even if they would never enter a physical relationship with them.

      4. Bird names*

        Huh? He obviously was straight-up comfortable demanding LW divulge about having sex with her boyfriend. There were no good intentions from him.

      5. SB*

        Ha, this is where my experience differs from yours. I absolutely have been harassed by an older, married man (with kids!) who was a church deacon. And he absolutely would have tried to pull this type of thing on me if he had had any more authority over me than he already did.

      6. Bossy*

        Idk that kind of seems like a red herring – whatever is going on in your employees relationships is categorically not your business.

      7. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        Either you are very naive or you are buying into the idea that marriage creates some kind of magical force field that prevents those inside it from breaking the rules. So in your mind, no man has ever cheated on his wife? It’s impossible to flirt if you are married?

        Being married has nothing to do with Simon’s actions. His behavior reminded me exactly of a married former friend of mine. Said friend tried to control whom I dated, was really pushy about my behavior with them, tried to control how I interacted with them and then cut me off when he thought I did something inappropriate to a guy I was dating. He was definitely not thinking of his wife while he tried to control my personal life.

        1. goddessoftransitory*

          This. Plenty of this type of wolfish guy sees their marriage as a screen–the Spouse Appliance (to quote the Chump Lady website) provides everything he thinks he’s entitled to–meals, child care, support, a “respectable” front for the world, you name it. They absolutely do NOT see their marriage vows as meaning anything like “I guess I shouldn’t be cornering and terrorizing young women with few resources for my own pleasure.”

      8. Observer*

        Except that he mentioned being married.

        So? Juts because someone spouts religious texts at someone does not mean that they are not going to find some exception for themself. And it’s also possible that he just didn’t like someone “touching his property” (barf!) even though he was too holy to “do anything”.

        I suspect he wouldn’t have said anything if LW wasn’t in an abusive relationship.

        Eh. To the extent that this might be true, and I’m not sure it is, it would only be because if the LW is in a good relationship she’s going to be a fair bit less vulnerable to his shenanigans.

    5. NotARealManager*

      Yeah. I immediately thought Simon was trying to sleep with LW or at least wanted to.

  14. Onyx*

    ‘“Simon is requiring me to quit unless I will agree not to have sex outside of marriage” is reportable on its own’

    I would have thought the detail “Simon called me into his office to interrogate me about whether I’m sexually active” would be report-worthy as well. Was that intentionally omitted in the script, e.g., because the demand for her to promise abstinence as a condition of employment is more egregious or because it already implies nosiness about her sex life?

    To me, both seem important because while it would be egregious for an individual boss to declare a general rule that he will fire someone if he finds out they’re having unmarried sex, it’s less personally invasive and aggressive than isolating an individual employee and accosting them with questions about whether they are currently in a sexual relationship with a specific other person.

    1. So Tired Of God's Specialest Princesses*

      Exactly. It’s giving fathers and daughters at the purity ball, tbh. Hell I might even have suggested calling that out by saying, “Simon called me into his office to interrogate me about whether I’m sexually active, and required me to quit unless I make an agreement with him not to have sex outside of marriage. My relationships with my faith and my chastity are obviously both private, and I’m not comfortable making those promises to someone so wholly unconnected to both.”

    2. Jessen*

      Yup. As someone who has a fair bit of experience with conservative religious organizations, I wouldn’t even go so far as “Simon is requiring me to quit unless I agree to not have sex outside of marriage.” I’d simply say “Simon pulled me aside to question me privately about my sex life.” Even if the LW had explicitly agreed to follow a morality code prohibiting extramarital sex that would be way out of line. And it’s honestly not really about whether you’re having sex or not – it’s that it’s no business of his either way.

    3. Ellie*

      I’d suggest go further. “Simon brought me into his office and demanded to know if I was having sex with my boyfriend. He threatened to fire me if that was the case. I was so shocked that I burst into tears. I’m not having sex with anyone, and I’m utterly horrified to be questioned like this”.

      Frankly, I’d say that regardless of the situation. I mean, the concept of consent is pretty difficult when you’re in an abusive relationship anyway. They’ve no right to know what I do in my personal life. Make it as awkward for Simon as you can.

      Having said all that, if my boss had said that to me when I was 20, I probably would have cried and quit my job too. He preyed on someone who he thought he could get away with it on, and he was right. Simon types are usually pretty good at that.

  15. Former Usher*

    Beyond the entertainment provided by the zany stories posted here, the kindness expressed in the last paragraph is why I am a regular reader of this site.

  16. Anon in Canada*

    Dave Ramsey fired his employees for having sex outside marriage, despite Ramsey Solutions not being an organization whose “purpose and character is primarily religious”.

    Laws only have an effect if the people in charge of enforcing them actually do so.

    I think such firings and religious codes of conduct are going to continue taking place as long as employment is at-will. No matter how “illegal” a firing is, bosses are always going to answer, “well, employment in this state is at will, so I have the right to fire you for any or no reason”. This is why I absolutely detest the doctrine of at-will employment.

    1. Christmas Carol*

      Theoretical question: How does Dave Ramsey KNOW if a certain employee is having sex, within or outside of marriage, unless he’s in the room watching. Which, BTW, he strikes me as the type who would get off on doing that.

      1. Jennifer Strange*

        I was wondering the same thing. The only thing I can think is if an unmarried woman ends up pregnant, so his rule is really only enforceable against women (which I’m sure is a feature and not a bug).

        1. Christmas Carol*

          Well, there is always IVF. And as I understand it, there is a actually certain subset of the “Pro-Life” culture that encourages women, even single ones to “adopt” unused frozen embryos and gestate these so-called Snowflake Babies to term.

          2. Anon in Canada*

            Or artificial insemination, whether intended or not (think of the TV show Jane the Virgin).

            Or, you know, sexual assault. Christianity forbids abortion even in cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape; and Christian politicians in charge of many red states have made this the law of the land. Would Dave Ramsey fire a woman because she was raped and (pre-Dobbs) chose to carry the pregnancy to term, or (post-Dobbs) was forced to do so?

            At-will employment needs to be banished to the ash heap of history.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              Would Dave Ramsey fire a woman because she was raped and (pre-Dobbs) chose to carry the pregnancy to term, or (post-Dobbs) was forced to do so?

              Sadly, I think the answer is yes. I think a person like that could twist into a pretzel finding reasons why a woman in that situation shouldn’t have a job, ranging from “You clearly were asking for it” to “Well, now that you’re a mother you should stay home with your child”.

              1. Irish Teacher.*

                Or even more horrifically, insist that she probably wasn’t really raped and was only saying it to avoid losing her job. A lot of the “let’s punish women for being pregnant/having sex” brigade seem to overlap with the “always assume men innocent and women to be lying” gang.

        2. Judy*

          That’s exactly what happened recently. A single female employee was fired because she became pregnant. There was a big brouhaha because a senior VP had been outed for openly cheating on his wife but only put on administrative leave. But then there was such an outcry that he was finally let go too.

      2. Dahlia*

        I think you’re trying to make an unreasonable situation have reasons. He doesn’t have to KNOW for certain. But he can look at a person who lives with their partner and assume.

      4. Truth Serum*

        In the laswuit against him regarding this policy, Ramsey fired an unmarried woman once it was apparent she was pregnant, i.e. for having sex out of marriage. As Alison mentioned above, this action is protected as long as he applies equal violations of this policy to all unmarried employees.

        The problem he then faced, as evidenced in his deposition, was men do not show outward signs of extramarital sex, and that Ramsey was not firing men, unmarried or otherwise, who had issues with viewing pornography. So when a woman violated his policy, she was fired, but when a man violated the policy to a similar degree, he was not. That’s illegal.

        An even larger problem was that one of his biggest personalities on the show, Chris Hogan, was having extra-marital affairs at work and Ramsey initially did not fire him, choosing to largely hide it but also to mandate marriage counseling for Hogan and his wife. Eventually Hogan had to leave the show because of the legal exposure his continued employment was providing.

    2. Sloanicota*

      Yeah, and if you’re an employee already on this ice it’s even more risky to speak up

    3. Sam I Am*

      Enforcement often requires the person impacted to formally complain, and that can be a barrier, unfortunately.

  17. Ex-roommate*

    I had a roommate candidate once who declined because I wouldn’t agree to not have sex with my girlfriend in the apartment. Even that seemed a bit moralizing, but definitely the best choice for all involved.

    1. Sloanicota*

      That seems to be a pretty different situation to me; they declined to move in with you because they didn’t think they’d be happy. This is more like your landlord forcing you out.

    2. Sarah*

      I was the roommate candidate once about 30 years ago. The woman who owned the apartment didn’t want me bringing any men around, not even my dad. I found another place to live.

  18. Just a Pile of Oranges*

    I don’t think he wanted to be your friend. I think he wanted you to stop having sex.

    It would surprise me if he actually had some idea that your relationship was abusive. Based on the contents of his lecture, I would assume he attributed your struggles entirely to the “evils of premarital sex.” I bet he would have behaved exactly the same if your relationship was healthy and your struggles were related to physical health or family or something.

    LW, you ran into a terrible person while dealing with a different terrible person, and I’m sorry you had to go through that.

  19. Veryanon*

    I wish I could believe this is a fake letter, but I know it isn’t.
    When I was getting divorced in 2008, I worked in HR at a well known company in the Philly area. The general counsel, whom I knew well, asked me to come into his office one day. I sat down, and he said kindly “I’ve heard you’re going through a tough time. Are you ok?” I said I was ok and thanked him for his concern. (I did not share much about my divorce at work besides the fact that I was getting divorced, as I sometimes needed to go to appointments with my attorney, etc.)
    His next comment absolutely floored me. “Do you think if you didn’t work, you’d still be married?” WTF. I muttered something and just walked out.

    2. Finucan*

      A friend of ours worked as a preschool teacher at a Catholic school. She had to pretend she wasn’t living with her long-time boyfriend, because if they knew, she would be fired for living together while not married. This is in the upper midwest, and it was about 10 years ago. I was told it was legal, and I don’t think the friend would have pushed it too much, because it was one of the only places in our area where a preschool teacher also got health insurance included in their benefits. Which she needed because she wasn’t married yet.

      1. Gudrid The Well-Traveled*

        One of my roommates 30 years ago was a Catholic school teacher with a morality clause in her contract and a boyfriend. Our apartment was her cover and she spent most nights at her boyfriend’s place.

    4. wickedtongue*

      I have a similar story from my college years at a Christian university. I was having a hard time for mental health reasons (that were hard to define at that moment) and was crying in a professor-mentor’s office. He learned that I had recently fallen in love and put forth a theory that I might be happier if I took some time off to get married and returned to my studies later. I was a little shocked by the suggestion and waved it off, although i did end up taking off time for a semester…I trusted him a lot less after that.

      Later I found out he had suggested something similar to a mutual friend going through a hard time. Apparently it was a catch-all solution for any female undergraduate in distress…

      1. Sarah*

        Undoubtedly, his logic is that you don’t need a college diploma to pump out babies. Blech.

      2. goddessoftransitory*

        Yes, marriage cures all mental and emotional ailments!

        God, this is just so gross, and so typical from both men and women of a certain mindset, because their OWN marital relationship provides them with social standing and financial security (never mind how their actual spouse might actually feel about things) so they just assume any problem an uncoupled person might have is just automatically going to vanish with the vows.

    5. Dr.OO7*

      My 2nd #MeToo story is of being sexually harassed by one of my graduate school professors, who would repeatedly interrogate me about my personal life and offer me his unsolicited advice and opinions. In one instance, he relentlessly badgered me about my marriage plans despite my repeatedly trying to deflect the conversation by telling him–truthfully–that I wasn’t even thinking about that. From this, he decided it was a perfectly appropriate segue to ask me “is it because you have a bad relationship with your father?”, then LAUGHED when I finally snapped and angrily told him to mind his own business.

      1. Bird names*

        Where to even start with this guy’s nonsense. I’m sorry you had to deal with this over-stepping, self-involved, entitled and thoroughly inconsiderate arse. And using a reference to genuine childhood abuse and/or neglect by a parent as a funny gotcha is just such a shitty move on top of that.

      1. Briana*

        Super sexist, is the rule here that you can be as rude and sexist as you want if men are the target?

        1. Ask a Manager* Post author

          No, the rule is that when there’s an institutional and societal power imbalance against one group, that group is allowed to notice it. Move on.

    2. Ping*

      I have a team member whose performance has dropped off. The only thing I can attribute it to is that she has a boyfriend, because otherwise of course her performance would be of high quality to please me. So clearly she needs to stop having sex with him in order to please me. This is the only logical answer. Especially because getting married solved my obsession with sex. – Simon, probably

      1. Zombeyonce*

        Interesting that we don’t hear stories about that, then. For every one invasive question I got from women about my sex life when I attended a church, I got a hundred from men.

      2. Fluffy Fish*

        Yes, everyone is aware “it’s not all men”. However in this instance we are talking about the significant number of men who behave inappropriately to subordinates.

        1. Database Developer Dude*

          I am a cisgender, heterosexual man, and was not offended by the talk up to this point. I didn’t really see any comment being sexist against men, just talk about the behavior of certain men.

          Just like when I talk about my bad experiences with police, it’s assumed I don’t mean all police, just the ones I’ve had bad experiences with.

        2. amoeba*

          Yeah, like… obviously! We still all (?) have men in our lifes that we think are great! A lot of us even date them and are in relationships with them! Most of us have male friends!

          I really don’t get why some men assume we mean all of them, of course we don’t. We mean the ones that are a problem and the structures that make that problem stay around.

      3. amoeba*

        Sure, unfortunately, internalised misogyny is a thing. Still part of the same problem, though.

  21. Elle Woods*

    Wowza. Simon’s a jerk.

    I hope you’re in a better place personally and professionally.

  24. Three Flowers*

    I’m so sorry you were caught between an abusive partner and a creepy psychologically abusive boss. You needed to get away from both of them and you did! That’s what matters here.

    (I do think many mainline-to-progressive denominations would want to know that their managers were sexually harassing their young employees. But you did not have a responsibility to anyone but yourself and your own safety.)

      1. Hlao-roo*

        Simon wasn’t mainline or progressive in his views, but I think Three Flowers is referring to this part of the letter:

        The denomination affiliated with the organization only has rules about celibacy for unmarried ordained clergy (and even those are not enforced). It’s a relatively progressive denomination so there isn’t an emphasis on purity culture or anything. … The only thing mentioned in my contract involving religion was that I must be a member of a church and that I would lead Bible study once a week.

        Simon’s views/actions were clearly out of step with the denomination’s views/values.

  25. AnonInCanada*

    I know you can’t undo what’s in the past, but this is one circumstance when I wouldn’t be playing a game of “Simon Says.” WTF? If Simon wants to pry into other peoples’ sex lives, he should watch some old reruns of Jerry Springer. Or read about Jim Bakker.

  26. Alan*

    I’m a little skeptical that reporting this would get it shut down. A good friend used to work for a major Christian non-profit and getting in the employees’ business was rampant and taken for granted, not just about sex, but about all other aspects of their lives. My friend bought into it too. When you’re “holding people accountable for the good of the organization and the glory of God”, every detail of your life is fair game for input, especially of the “God told me to tell you this” sort.

    1. Sloanicota*

      Unfortunately, I agree, in a role where OP was expected to lead a weekly bible study – there is a crappy nexus between teachers (even in public schools) and church employees, with a very high standard of public appearance. Teachers have been fired for holding plastic cups in photos, and there was a prior letter where a youth pastor was being blackmailed and had to quit in the end. At the very least, I hope OP doesn’t carry these norms into other roles, because it’s not a typical thing for employees to be policed like this in most fields.

    2. Nethwen*

      Yes. I was reading to see if someone else already commented along these lines.

      What Alison said is what *should* happen. What is likely to happen in a religious organization is 1) the big boss will think Simon was acting reasonably or 2) the big boss won’t understand the problem because if you aren’t having extramarital sex, then there’s no reason not to promise you won’t and if you are sexually active, then you should stop because *reasons.*

      Building on what Alan said, there’s a good chance the people running the organization believe they are doing ministry, which means they think of themselves as less of a boss and more of a pastor, which for some people means that they think that they have the right to ask intrusive questions and get answers.

      For anyone in a similar situation, you do have the right to speak up in protest. Maybe the big boss will do the right thing. It’s also reality that you’ll need to weigh the risks because there’s a good chance you’ll be subject to verbal and emotional abuse and all involved will form opinions about you based on their own ideas instead of facts. The more you decline to share, the more they will form an opinion that is negative in their view. These situations really are case-by-case of figuring out your own risk tolerance and emotional ability to handle the potential fall-out.

      1. Alan*

        Yes, the gossip machine will take off like a rocket. I never understood how my own secular coworkers could be so much more supportive than my friend’s Christian coworkers. His just seemed like a very judgey and petty environment. Along with all the “we pay less because it’s a privilege to be working for God” stuff.

      2. Old Bag*

        Idk… I could see them thinking it was inappropriate for how he phrased it “I need to know” and because he (her older, male, married authority figure) asked her in a private room alone with no witnesses. At bare minimum, I would think they would at least come at it from the angle of trying to protect Simon from any charges of impropriety after.

        But the remedy wouldn’t be to not ask, necessarily. It would be to ask with more people in the room.

        That said, I do know a couple of protestant pastors who would have dressed Simon down severely for this kind of behaviour. I wish OP had one of those and that she had been able to have the confidence in their backing to go to them, had they existed.

    3. goddessoftransitory*

      “As the All Seeing and All Knowing, The Beginning and the End, God actually has my number. If He wants to tell me something I’m sure I’ll hear directly.” Unblinking stare.

    1. Database Developer Dude*

      I mean, sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual attention, so it seems to me that this would qualify.

    2. Do You Hear The People Sing?*

      Yeah, it sure sounds like it to me.

      I’ve had co-workers who belong to purity religions, and the amount some of them want to talk about sex is… really squick. Like, I do not care what you and your boyfriend are not doing nor about where he didn’t put his hands!

      But it sounds like OP did not belong to a purity-obsessed religion, and that OP’s boss was just looking for an excuse to talk about sex.

      1. Database Developer Dude*

        I don’t think it matters what OP’s religion was or is. The workplace is -not- the place to be talking about sex, unless you work at the Mustang Ranch in Las Vegas.

    3. aebhel*

      I do feel like demanding information about a subordinate’s sex life, on pain of losing their job, qualifies as sexual harassment.

  28. Admin 22*

    This is frightening. When any women is an abusive situation they do not need to lose their income. I wonder if he had a clue on how to recognize an employee or parishioner was in an abusive relationship. I think an employer has to talk to the employee about their poor work performance but also recommend the EAP as a private resource for the OP to discuss her situation in a safe place. That man is a walking lawsuit happening.

  29. Jessica*

    I will never understand how women who aren’t bought into the whole Christian submissive complementarian thing can stand to work for conservative Christian organizations.

    I guarantee you that even if the higher-ups see Simon as overstepping, they’re still going to excuse his behavior based on presumed good intent.

    1. TeaAndToast*

      Based on the letter, it seems like the organization’s stance aligned a lot more with the LW ‘s than with Simon’s.

  30. Hyaline*

    A religiously-affiliated college near my hometown ends up being the center of conversation every few years because they have a “lifestyle contract” that all faculty need to agree to (it was a big deal when they removed the clause about absolutely no alcohol to no drinking when they could be perceived as repping the college, for example). It made me wonder–if an employer wanted to avoid charges of discrimination, would spelling it out in a contract given to all employees be a better mode of operation than…whatever it was Simon did here? Randomly applying things in the moment? It seems like, if you strip away the situation itself here, it’s a major issue that Simon decided to decree in a random meeting that there is a lifestyle prohibition wrapped up in working there (even if it truly was an organization thing, not just a Simon thing, which, who knows). Seems like the kind of thing one should have to agree to up front, over and above whether you personally would agree it’s appropriate to require it or not.

    1. Coverage Associate*

      As a practical matter, I think that it would be better for a non religious employer with such an unusual standard for conduct outside of work to spell it out at least at onboarding. Otherwise, they might be firing or disciplining employees all the time for ordinary behavior, like drinking alcohol or spending the night with a romantic partner. And high turnover is bad for business.

      Also, unless the employer gives some thought to what the morality clause or however they put it in the paperwork means, they are unlikely to be able to apply it uniformly. Like how it’s not advisable to ask questions about family status in an interview, because it’s usually illegal to act on the answers. Much easier to avoid being accused of discrimination if you never have information to discriminate about. Much easier to avoid being accused of discrimination in applying a morality clause if it’s clear and objective.

      Incidentally, professional athletes generally do have morality clauses in their contracts, though they prohibit more widely condemned things than premarital sex.

      However, if a religious employer wants to have such a provision, I would still recommend some specificity, especially if they intend to hire lots of people outside the religion, but it would probably have a provision about “other conduct deemed unacceptable by” the relevant religious authority. Because you are never going to think of everything.

      2 my very conservative church have dealt with are a transgender musician (employment continued as it was not considered a ministering or teaching position) and a Musk salute (employment ended). I was surprised that the rector didn’t know what to do about the musician and had to consult the bishop. Churches in this area have been dealing with similar issues since the’90s. I have written church policies about not supporting racism (and had to deploy it just this week when a book I bought for the church library used out of date language about ethnicities other than white and cultures other than European; it was an old book, but I am really careful about such things locally) but “clergy shall not imitate, on television, fascists” is not in our canons or by laws, or wasn’t at the start of 2025. They may have updated them now.

  31. ohno*

    This Q gave me the shivers. Just horrifying. UGH.

    OP I am so so sorry this happened to you.

  32. HailRobonia*

    “I need to know if you and Luke are having sex.”

    Is this lost dialogue from one of the Star Wars movies?

    Yoda: Leia, I have some delicate information for you, but first I need to ask…

    1. UKDancer*

      Yoda would be more like “Size matters not. When young I was, fun I had. Now 900 years old I am, fun I remember.”

  33. Elizabeth West*

    Simon can fuck ALL the way off. Into the sun, at light-speed, stepping on LEGOs all the way.

  35. Emily Byrd Starr*

    I once saw a job posting for a position at a Christian college near me, and the job description sounded perfect for me. I was all ready to apply, until I read further and found out that the college insisted that all employees refrain from having sex with anyone but their spouse, getting drunk, using recreational drugs, gambling, or watching pornography. Now, I don’t do any of those things, as I am a Christian myself, so I wouldn’t have a problem following their rules. However, I didn’t want to work for any employer who put those kind of restrictions on what employees were allowed to do in their personal lives. It just seemed way too invasive and overreaching.

    1. Database Developer Dude*

      Seems like church-based organizations are some of the main perpetrators of this overreach, but sadly it’s not exclusive to them. Employers think that because they pay us during work hours, they own us.

      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Oh, absolutely! It’s not a problem caused by religion, it’s a problem caused by assholes.

    2. Jonathan MacKay*

      Churches which have a prohibition against gambling…. and then host BINGO nights…. leaves me with a LOT of questions…..

        1. bananners*

          If you are paying to play (either for admittance into a bingo night or paying for a card), it is considered gambling under my state law. My extremely part-time, volunteer organization just tried to do a bingo night fundraiser a couple months ago and we were going to have to apply for a state gaming license and purchase official bingo cards, balls, and cage from a government approved distributor (there were only five on the list and all of the “official” equipment was out of our price range).

          1. bananners*

            PS, not trying to be an asshole, just pointing out that bingo is legally considered gambling at least some places.

        2. Silver Robin*

          The basic set up is that you pay to play for the chance of winning money. It is a slightly more theatrical lottery card that also provides a bit of socializing.

        3. Ariaflame*

          Do they get charged per card? Are there prizes for the people who get bingos? Then surprise, they’re gambling.

      2. Database Developer Dude*

        The book Air Force One is Haunted by Robert J. Serling briefly deals with this issue. One of the cabinet members objects to the President wanting to do a national lottery, calling it a sin. When the President points out that Catholic churches run bingo, the cabinet member says “If the Catholics don’t want to follow the dictates their own religion, that’s none of my affair”. The President finds this offensive and forces the cabinet member to apologize or leave.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      Yup, I’d feel the same. I’m aromantic asexual, so have no intention of having sex with anybody or watching pornography. I don’t drink or use drugs just ’cause I don’t want to and…I’ve gambled a handful of times in my life and couldn’t care less if I never did it again, but…I still wouldn’t want to work for somebody who wanted to tell me I wasn’t allowed to do those things.

    4. Old Bag*

      I wouldn’t be interested in any of those activities either but what would give me pause is if they are prohibiting those activities, it stands to reason they will be monitoring for those activities. That gives me the heebie jeebies.

      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Exactly! What are they going to do, install security cameras in their employees’ homes?

  36. Database Developer Dude*

    As a Black man, I’ve worked in places before that my having a white spouse was an issue, so I’m so not surprised that any boss would try to dip in an employee’s personal life like this. Too many employers have the mindset that since they pay us for our time during work hours, they own us. They take far too many liberties.

    Not to mention being interested in an employee’s sex life is creepy AF.

    1. Hroethvitnir*

      That is so horrendous. I hate to think how bad it must be in the current climate (bigots feeling empowered).

  37. Jonathan MacKay*

    Sex is one of those things which is frequently best left on a “Need to Know” basis. No one else needs to know!

    1. Database Developer Dude*

      This (what I’m about to bring up) is a discussion for another time, but sadly, LBGTQIA+ folk being out in the workplace is often -seen- as flaunting sexuality when it isn’t. If I can ask my boss to leave early because my wife got in a car accident, Joe should be able to do the same about his husband, and Sarah should be able to do the same about her wife. It isn’t throwing it in our faces any more than me talking about my wife is throwing sexuality in someone’s face.

  38. Amy*

    Would this be considered a hostile work environment situation? (I think so)

    Secondly, how could LW ‘prove’ they aren’t engaging in any sort of sexual activity?

  39. C4TL4DY*

    My first instinct is that “Simon” didn’t want her having sex out of jealousy, which makes it even more creepy

  40. Southern Violet*

    So the OPs boss at a religious org further hurt her while she was in an abusive relationship. Instead of helping, he pushes purity culture BS.

    Yep that sadly tracks.

  41. My Experience*

    Just need to chime in here from a different religious perspectives. I’m a practicing Orthodox Jew, working for Orthodox employers (not a religion-related business.) About half the employees are not Jewish/not religious. I cannot in my wildest imagination see anyone in the company, and even less so someone in management, asking such a question! They might be shocked or horrified if they found out I had a boyfriend (I don’t – practicing religious, as mentioned) but there is no way anyone would say a word about it. The only time I discussed my dating/marital life with my manager was when I asked (and she graciously agreed) to be a reference on my dating resume*. If anyone ever – ever – mentioned anything sexual, I really think they’d make a good case for firing them for making the atmosphere uncomfortable. That being said, no one has any problem with the non-Jewish/religious employees talking about their boyfriends!
    *If you’rr confused on the resume reference, try googling around for info on the Shidduch System.

    1. Coverage Associate*

      I don’t remember the prohibitions given to Noah. Is there anything normal for someone non observant to do that is less taboo than sex that would still make your employer uncomfortable? Sabbath is commanded only of Jews, so a normal Saturday for a gentile might not even be immoral. Same with kashrut. It would be rude to go on and on about a Christmas ham, but it’s generally not wrong for a gentile to eat it.

      If they expressed support for euthanasia? I know that’s not as normal as driving a car on Saturday, but it would touch on the commands to Noah.

  42. Cat on a Keyboard*

    It’s so interesting reading all these responses from folks saying they come from a conservative religious background and Simon’s intrusive demands would never fly there. I come from a conservative religious background that was obsessed with monitoring and controlling young people’s sexual behavior, and Simon’s demands would have been par for the course.

    He’s gross and out of line, but I only know that because I left my religion and developed my own beliefs. I guess I’m still pretty ignorant, though, because impressed that there are so many religious communities with actual progressive sexual mores (and not just that people don’t adhere to the official stances). I mean what do you even do with all that spare time not spent investigating people’s personal sex habits?! Mutual aid?? What next, altruism???

    1. Irish Teacher.*

      I grew up in 1980s Ireland which was…pretty socially conservative (though not quite in the US way; the church was actually quite anti-capitalist but yeah, divorce was illegal, contraception had only recently been legalised and sex outside marriage was frowned upon) but I still don’t think Simon’s questioning would have been considered in any way acceptable.

      Perhaps for rather different reasons than most of us today would be horrified by it. Back then in Ireland, it wouldn’t have been at all surprising if somebody were fired for obviously having sex outside marriage – a unmarried woman getting pregnant or anybody living with a boyfriend or girlfriend – but I don’t think it would be acceptable to essentially accuse somebody of having sex outside marriage without any evidence. Back then, as far as I could see (and I was a child; things changed quite a bit when I was in my teens, so I may be missing stuff), the assumption seemed to be that of course if somebody was unmarried, they weren’t having sex and I think it would have been unacceptable to suggest somebody was in much the same way, it wouldn’t be acceptable to randomly start asking somebody “are you dealing drugs? If you don’t promise me you’ll stop dealing drugs, you have to quit your job.”

      That and I think it would have been considered unacceptable to start talking about sex like that.

  43. Liena*

    Simon was trying to isolate OP and make her even more vulnerable and dependent on him. He’s a predator. I’m glad you got out of there!

  44. Pumpkin cat*

    This reminds me (just a bit) of an awkward conversation I had with my oral surgeon, who was the father of a classmate, and also in my church. Was getting my wisdom teeth out, and was on birth control (I think I was a freshman in college maybe?). They give you an antibiotic, and he had my list of meds, so he had to tell me I shouldn’t have unprotected sex for the next few weeks (antibiotics can disrupt pill birth control). He was matter of fact about it and not judgmental, but I felt so awkward, so I think I said something like that birth control is for heavy periods or something like that. I don’t even come from a purity culture background (liberal church, liberal parents), but I still felt like I had to pretend I wasn’t sexually active to parental type men.

    1. Hroethvitnir*

      Understandable to feel awkward, but nice to read about someone being professional and kind, at least.

      It is sad how much that feeling of vulnerability soaks in just from the world.

    2. Emily Byrd Starr*

      I think that would be awkward for anyone in that situation, even if they were atheist or agnostic.

  45. Jaunty Banana Hat I*

    The only context I can possibly think of where that question would be something you could ask an employee is if you thought they were having sex IN THE OFFICE/AT WORK. And that’s a very different conversation!

  46. Sindy*

    Simon was a predator that was probably planning to black mail you. You did the right thing quitting.

  47. Do You Hear The People Sing?*

    Wasn’t it also sexual harassment? Because he basically initiated a discussion about her sex life.

  49. None of your business*

    I stopped listening to Dave Ramsey because his business has been known to fire people who had sex outside of marriage. He’s not shy about expressing his religious beliefs during the show by asking the callers “Do you go to church” from time to time.

    Hiring everyone who’s a cookie cutter of you is naive. You miss out on lots of talents. I’m religious myself but am against the Orwellian style monitoring for the sake of purity.

  50. Awesome Possum*

    I immediately went here:
    https://www.askamanager.org/2012/02/dealing-with-domestic-abuse-in-the-workplace.html

    (I’ve shared this OFTEN over the years. I’m an active & happily involved Christian; & I make a point of sharing the above w/friends who have demanding or unsympathetic pastors, who make them feel like they’ve failed Christianity’s rules, & won’t offer help unless they “fix” themselves first. Ugh & blech.)

    To use the phrasing from the above column: it’s possible Simon felt impotent to rescue you from your abuse, & the only way he knew to help was to demand this gross rule, that would hopefully result in a breakup.

    His actions & words were NOT okay. Since it’s so far in the past, I’d like to put a rosy tinge on it & hope he was trying to help thru “tough love”. But feel free to reject that perspective.

    What you could have done, I suppose: said to him, “WTH, dude?! You know I’m in crisis, you know I’m struggling, & your response is to turn this into a blame game & tell me it’s my fault that my life sucks???

    Are you going to be using this approach on future employees in crisis, or on future employees in bad relationships? Bcoz it’s harassment. And quite frankly, I’d rather be harassed by someone I can predict, like my boyfriend.

    Dude, you pay my mortgage and you’re a hopeful future reference for my work life. Do you understand how inappropriate & threatening you will sound, to any future employees???”

    Anyways, that’s my “if I had perfect in-the-moment responses” rant. You have my full sympathy, OP. I’m so proud of you for getting past this, & the abusive relationship! And them for reaching out for advice, to help you understand your past. Jesus bless you, or God bless you, or may you be blessed in every way – whichever one works for you.

  51. Sara*

    I had a somewhat different take from most commenters on Simon’s motive. I thought he just wanted to fire OP for poor performance, so to him, using the religious reasoning seemed like the best way. In his mind, if he could pressure OP into quitting it would be easier than firing, and that is what actually happened. He probably guessed, rightly, that OP would not report him for sexual harrassment out of shame. There was probably a big chunk of self-righteous misogyny involved, but his actions can be explained by straight-forward lazy management.

  52. Bob*

    If my daughters boss did this I would murder him.

    This guy is a top level asshat and I hope the OP is one day in a position to fire him.

Comments are closed.