Is Flirting Tolerable in Steady Relationships?

[zoobyshoe]

If this forum had karma you'd get one.

Always a prize to see people realize that one situation can have many different causes, too seldom it is observed.

I'm not sure what "karma" is in forum-speak, but it sounds like a good thing, so thanks!

 

[Norman.Galois]

No offense but I sense a lot of judgements here are made through personal insecurities which is no better than the flirtie.

I'm friendly with both sexes. I smile, I touch them, and so on. If someone can't handle that, clearly I can't handle them and I cut the rope.

I can not tolerate insecurity.

Sexual flirting is also ok in my books but ONLY if the person has a handle on their sexuality. I see most guys will sleep with any girl period. That guy has no control. If a girl is sexy, I won't shy away from saying it. My girlfriend would think I'm dumb if I didn't check out a hot girl walking by but then again we have different tastes. I won't shy away from saying a guy is good looking either.

Just beware not to make decisions and judgements based on insecurities. I've been a roamer in this forum long enough to know that insecurity is very high here. But that's typical in the general population anyways.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If no, you first have to decide if it's part of their personality, and if you are the kind of person that can handle that. For some people, a flirtatious, charming demeanor is just a part of their personality.

This reminded me of something I forgot to put on my list. It applies to both men and women:

6.)They are establishing their worth, value, status, for all to see. (Providing the flirting is reciprocated in all cases,) they are sending (or trying to send) the general message that they are high status, generally attractive, popular people: alphas, leaders, celebrities.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

While musing on this topic at work I remembered a funny and somewhat relevant anecdote.

I was thinking about some women that I have known that were incredibly affectionate and "touchy feely" people. Many unfortunate men fell into the belief that these women were attracted to them due to the manner in which these women interacted with them, myself not excluded. These women were also often undeservedly labeled as sluts because of their rather open and "flirtatious" habits. It might seem by my description that they were just manipulating and using men, many felt that way, but they were really just genuinely sweet and happy people that liked to smile and laugh a lot and get and give hugs and sometimes pecks on the cheek.

Of these women there is only one that to this day I have no idea whether or not she was actually interested in me. At the time I was still incredibly shy and the experience of having been shot down by every single girl I had ever got up the gumption to ask out, which subsequently led most of them to no longer speak to me, left me rather afraid to risk what pleasure I had in spending time with her by actually asking her on a date. The real torture came in the several painfully ambiguous situations with her that I found myself in. That night when she told me she wanted me to come over so she could show me her CD collection I raised an eyebrow and when she followed that up with "Don't worry, my parents aren't home" I could not keep myself from laughing. Knowing her I am certain that she was actually rather keen on showing me her CD collection and that the "coast is clear" signal was really because her parents were oppressively protective of her; we were not allowed in the same room together alone with the door closed.

Its now been about ten years since the last time I was in communication with her, but... just about two years ago I saw her again for the first time at a movie theatre. The problem was, and the point of interest in all of this is, that I was there on a first date with a woman I had recently met. I had already somewhat gotten to know my date before this and I was aware that all of her exboyfriends had cheated on her and she was rather insecure about men and dating. So walking out of the theatre together holding hands I looked up to suddenly find myself faced with, on my first date with this lovely and admittedly insecure woman, a rather unpleasant dilemma; Do I, or do I not, break away from my date and approach a drop dead gorgeous redhead, who will likely light up and throw her arms around my neck, so I can ask her for her phone number and then face the further question of just how upright and honest a fellow to be under the inevitable "Who was she?" line of interrogation? From the opening of this paragraph I am certain you can figure out what my decision was. And my blissfully unaware date of that evening decided two weeks later that we should not date any longer.

Incredibly frustrating, though I can still laugh about it. :-)

 

[Kajahtava]

I think zoobyshoe's post was pretty correct. There are a bunch of reasons why people flirt, but I think the important thing to consider is: is the flirting intentional?

If yes, then you have a problem, and you guys have to talk about something, because intentionally trying to attract someone else while in a relationship means there is probably an issue with the relationship/person.

That, or the relationship is so strong that either of you just doesn't care about stuff like that too much?

Claiming you're not attracted to other people and only like your partner is more often than not just lying to your partner and yourself, let it out, it's healthy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Claiming you're not attracted to other people and only like your partner is more often than not just lying to your partner and yourself, let it out, it's healthy.

I think that it is a puritan throw back that (here in America at least) we are culturally programmed to believe that when in a committed relationship we are only allowed "platonic" friendships utterly "clean" of any perceived sexual context. It seems to lead people to deny that there is any sexual element to their relationship with people who are "just friends".edited for blasphemy

 

[Kajahtava]

I think that it is a puritan throw back that (here in America at least) we are culturally programmed to believe that when in a committed relationship we are only allowed "platonic" friendships utterly "clean" of any perceived sexual context. It seems to lead people to deny that there is any sexual element to their relationship with people whom are "just friends".

People lie to themselves a lot more to gain a socially correct impression.

It used to be a mental illness to be able to be turned on by porn, how can that happen when about all people are? Probably because in those days people just all lied to themselves and to others that they weren't and those that were honest were labelled freaks, while in fact all people could be attracted to porn. Reminds me of those Enterprise episodes about the Vulcan restoration, that they can all mind-meld even though they all think almost nobody can, and as much as being able to do it is considered a crime.

whom are "just friends".

Blasphemy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Blasphemy.

Pardon. :-)

 

[Kajahtava]

You know what you did wrong, right?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You know what you did wrong, right?

Yes, and it has been edited. For some reason I have programmed myself with an improper aversion to flirting vowels.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It used to be a mental illness to be able to be turned on by porn...

I have to call you on this. Got a link or anything?

 

[Kajahtava]

Yes, and it has been edited. For some reason I have programmed myself with an improper aversion to flirting vowels.

Many people mistakenly assume that if 'who' is at the start of a clause it should automatically be 'whom' I guess.

I have to call you on this. Got a link or anything?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/pictophilia/intro.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/pictophilia/intro.htm

You said "It used to be a mental illness to be able to be turned on by porn..."

The link, however, describes it (pictophilia) as:

# Sexual arousal gained from pornographic pictures or art

# Recurring intense sexual fantasies involving pornographic pictures or art

# Recurring intense sexual urges involving pornographic pictures or art

Clearly they are not talking about being aroused by a pornographic image, but about being addicted to arousal by pornography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction

Which, however, is not in the DSM (i.e. is not an officially recognized mental illness).

So, neither being aroused by pornographic pictures, nor even being 'addicted' to that kind of arousal, has ever been classified as a mental illness. Individual therapists might agree to treat someone for it, but they'll agree to treat you for anything you claim is a problem for you.

 

[Kajahtava]

Ah yes, my mistake it seems. Maybe there was something like that though, there've been more strange things like that in the past.

 

[GreatEscapist]

*digresses further*
Why is it that we hold a double standard, for the most part? Girls in relationships can flirt, but guys get labeled and scorned for harmless flirting...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ah yes, my mistake it seems. Maybe there was something like that though, there've been more strange things like that in the past.

That's true, and I thought you might have been referring to something I hadn't happened to hear of from the very early days of Psychiatry.

 

[zoobyshoe]

*digresses further*
Why is it that we hold a double standard, for the most part? Girls in relationships can flirt, but guys get labeled and scorned for harmless flirting...

That double standard exists only in the mind of Lisa!.

 

[GreatEscapist]

That double standard exists only in the mind of Lisa!.

Lol. But we do, it's very true. At least we do where I live.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Lol. But we do, it's very true. At least we do where I live.

I don't find there's a double standard here, where I live. People object, or they don't object, on a case by case basis.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't find there's a double standard here, where I live. People object, or they don't object, on a case by case basis.

There is sometimes a double standard in the perception of the objection. Women who object to a man flirting are generally seen as only standing up for themselves against the macho and insensitive male while men who object to a female flirting are often seen as macho control freaks. It is though perhaps an artifact of culturally defined roles in flirtation. Where male forms of flirting are generally "assertive" female forms of flirting are often more "receptive/submissive". If one is merely being receptive to attention it is much easier to rationalize the defense, "Well I didn't really do anything."

 

[GeorginaS]

I'm sorry. I cannot just blurt out the inner workings of the male psyche. You'll have to earn your insights into it through blood, tears, toil, and sweat, just as I earned what meager understanding of women I possess.

Did all of that and moved beyond all of it to sheer apathy. It's comfortable here. But if someone else wants to share their thoughts with me in list form, I'm all ears. Or eyes and squishy brain stuff.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Then again, I guess most things have a double standard. Some are even warranted.

*undigresses*
I think flirting is natural, normal, and as long as it is playful, not harmful or wrong.
I mean, come on. Could you really not flirt with someone? Even if you are in a relationship? To some people, like someone posted earlier (I forgot who) said, it's a perception, flirting is. (That was a great sentence. Props to me.)

Which is the problem with deciding whether things are wrong or not. "IT'S NOT WRONG. BECAUSE MY PERCEPTION VIEWS IT AS THAT."

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is sometimes a double standard in the perception of the objection. Women who object to a man flirting are generally seen as only standing up for themselves against the macho and insensitive male

Even by most men?

while men who object to a female flirting are often seen as macho control freaks.

Even by most men? It sounds like you're only giving the female perspective.

In actual situations where someone's flirting becomes an issue, my experience is that you'll hear every variety of opinion about who's crossed the line. In some cases the same people will express different opinions depending on which party they're talking to. Life can be a real soap opera with a cast of monkeys.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think flirting is natural, normal, and as long as it is playful, not harmful or wrong.
I mean, come on. Could you really not flirt with someone? Even if you are in a relationship? To some people, like someone posted earlier (I forgot who) said, it's a perception, flirting is. (That was a great sentence. Props to me.)

My own opinion is that I would want any woman I was involved with to be a successful flirt as she goes about her daily routines when I'm not with her. I would be pleased to hear affirmations of how lucky I am to be involved with such an attractive person getting back to me. Flirting with other people right in front of me, though, is where it gets iffy. It's not a problem if you know you're solid with them. They might even fly off and work the room if you're confident they'll be back at the end. If there hasn't been that solidness established, though, it can be anxiety provoking. It sends the message that you haven't clicked all the right buttons yet, the buttons that would make them consider settling down and getting solid.

So, I think the issue is not whether flirting is right or wrong, rather, you should ask yourself what it means in a given situation, view it as a behavior that needs interpreting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Even by most men?

Even by most men? It sounds like you're only giving the female perspective.

In actual situations where someone's flirting becomes an issue, my experience is that you'll hear every variety of opinion about who's crossed the line. In some cases the same people will express different opinions depending on which party they're talking to. Life can be a real soap opera with a cast of monkeys.

People in general tend to back up their friends so getting a perspective from the actual people involved and those who care about them is going to lead to a rather biased view.

Yes. Men will stand up for women. It may be on principle, it may be because they are friends, and it may quite often be a "white knight syndrome". And if you would like a look at a cultural view that is not directly involved you can see it every where; in the common view that young men can not be the victim of statutory rape, that men can not be the victim of rape in general, that men are responsible when it comes to sex and alcohol, that a man checking out a woman is often a buffoon or a creep, ect, ect. Society tends to hold men more accountable and will usually back up the man only when the woman is "obviously" a "psycho"/"slut"/"golddigger". We can even see evidence of this in the view of legal cases where it is the law that the character of a woman who claims rape may not be impinged and we usually only see it happen when the alleged assailant is a celebrity where upon the woman has suddenly become a "psycho golddigging slut".

 

[zoobyshoe]

People in general tend to back up their friends so getting a perspective from the actual people involved and those who care about them is going to lead to a rather biased view.

Yes. Men will stand up for women. It may be on principle, it may be because they are friends, and it may quite often be a "white knight syndrome". And if you would like a look at a cultural view that is not directly involved you can see it every where; in the common view that young men can not be the victim of statutory rape, that men can not be the victim of rape in general, that men are responsible when it comes to sex and alcohol, that a man checking out a woman is often a buffoon or a creep, ect, ect. Society tends to hold men more accountable and will usually back up the man only when the woman is "obviously" a "psycho"/"slut"/"golddigger". We can even see evidence of this in the view of legal cases where it is the law that the character of a woman who claims rape may not be impinged and we usually only see it happen when the alleged assailant is a celebrity where upon the woman has suddenly become a "psycho golddigging slut".

You're right that the current PC default interpretation reflects a double standard. The better you get to know people, though, the more they drop the PC mask and say what they actually feel. (And some of the people I'm acquainted with go way out of their way to blaspheme against all that is PC.) So, I suppose I disregard PC sounding comments so automatically I have a near agnosia for them, and wait till a person says what they really think before I even register it. I screen it out, like chit chat about the weather, I guess.