A single woman, I moved to a new town and became friendly with a married man who then told me that he was romantically interested in me. He said that while he wasn’t in an open marriage, his wife knew how he felt, and they were negotiating some arrangement that might allow him to pursue his feelings if they were shared. I was attracted to him but made it clear that I wouldn’t have an affair in secret and that I had no desire to cause a rift between him and his wife (whom I didn’t know as well but liked). At one point we saw a movie together, and we continued talking at work; we’re adjunct professors at the same university. It quickly became clear that his wife took a far more traditional view of their marriage, and although I thought I was being fairly responsible, I was pilloried by his wife, by her friends and by a close friend of mine for encouraging his attraction. I was told that I had no girl code, that I was antifeminist, that you just don’t do that to other women. Is a woman who has chosen not to marry really responsible for acting as a custodian of another woman’s marriage? My behavior may have been self-serving, thoughtless or any number of things, but I don’t believe it was ethically objectionable, at least not on the grounds that were presented. NAME WITHHELD

Amy Bloom: I don’t think the issue is that this is antifeminist behavior; the issue is that it is self-serving, self-deceiving and thoughtless behavior. I am all for grown women who take the ‘‘sisters before misters’’ approach. Lots of grown women say this — I wish more stuck to it. As soon as she found out that this was not an open marriage, she should have removed herself from the situation, which means you don’t go to the movies and you don’t have little private conversations. There was a mutual attraction, and she knew that she was playing around the edges and it was gratifying and exciting.

Kenji Yoshino: Feminism has nothing to do with this. If a single man were consorting with a married woman, the man wouldn’t be breaking a girl code, but he would be breaking the code of the marriage vow and hurting another person (the married woman’s spouse). The friends’ objection seems to be misplaced in focusing on the gender of the parties. The letter writer actually seizes this when she says, ‘‘I don’t believe that it was ethically objectionable, at least not on the grounds that were presented.’’ So the wrong grounds have been presented — but she is intuiting that there might be an ethical problem on other grounds.