Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're either cheating or wasting someone's time. It depends on how you flirt. If you flirt with no intention of treating the person you're flirting with more romantic interest than any other member of the general public, you're leading him on. You're using him for an emotional rush of some sort. But you're not cheating.

This assumes the person you are “flirting” with doesn’t know you are married and is under the impression this will turn into a romantic or sexual situation. IMO people often flirt (as defined by smiling, laughing, trying to be charming/funny and general banter) with others they know and who know they are married and not interested in anything.

A big part of this is that I think flirting is defined very differently by different people. For me, harmless flirting would include banter and maybe a vibe of some sort but it’s not really one of those things that is concrete and measurable. I don’t think most people would be aggressively flirting to the point of sexual innuendos or giving out their number. To me, this would not be flirting it would be actively pursuing.

It also assumes the other person isn’t in the exact same situation - married or in a relationship with no intention of cheating or pursuing anything. And yes, there’s a huge difference between flirting as you and I define it and actually pursuing someone.

But why flirt,? You know it's not going anywhere. So why do it? What's the point?

Still waiting on an explanation

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're either cheating or wasting someone's time. It depends on how you flirt. If you flirt with no intention of treating the person you're flirting with more romantic interest than any other member of the general public, you're leading him on. You're using him for an emotional rush of some sort. But you're not cheating.

This assumes the person you are “flirting” with doesn’t know you are married and is under the impression this will turn into a romantic or sexual situation. IMO people often flirt (as defined by smiling, laughing, trying to be charming/funny and general banter) with others they know and who know they are married and not interested in anything.

A big part of this is that I think flirting is defined very differently by different people. For me, harmless flirting would include banter and maybe a vibe of some sort but it’s not really one of those things that is concrete and measurable. I don’t think most people would be aggressively flirting to the point of sexual innuendos or giving out their number. To me, this would not be flirting it would be actively pursuing.

It also assumes the other person isn’t in the exact same situation - married or in a relationship with no intention of cheating or pursuing anything. And yes, there’s a huge difference between flirting as you and I define it and actually pursuing someone.

But why flirt,? You know it's not going anywhere. So why do it? What's the point?

Still waiting on an explanation

Anonymous wrote:No, not in the way I define flirting. I wouldnt and wouldn’t want DH hitting on people though. Smiling, laughing, having fun a group but not sliding up to women and chatting them up for their number (not flirting)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're either cheating or wasting someone's time. It depends on how you flirt. If you flirt with no intention of treating the person you're flirting with more romantic interest than any other member of the general public, you're leading him on. You're using him for an emotional rush of some sort. But you're not cheating.

This assumes the person you are “flirting” with doesn’t know you are married and is under the impression this will turn into a romantic or sexual situation. IMO people often flirt (as defined by smiling, laughing, trying to be charming/funny and general banter) with others they know and who know they are married and not interested in anything.

A big part of this is that I think flirting is defined very differently by different people. For me, harmless flirting would include banter and maybe a vibe of some sort but it’s not really one of those things that is concrete and measurable. I don’t think most people would be aggressively flirting to the point of sexual innuendos or giving out their number. To me, this would not be flirting it would be actively pursuing.

It also assumes the other person isn’t in the exact same situation - married or in a relationship with no intention of cheating or pursuing anything. And yes, there’s a huge difference between flirting as you and I define it and actually pursuing someone.

But why flirt,? You know it's not going anywhere. So why do it? What's the point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're either cheating or wasting someone's time. It depends on how you flirt. If you flirt with no intention of treating the person you're flirting with more romantic interest than any other member of the general public, you're leading him on. You're using him for an emotional rush of some sort. But you're not cheating.

Exactly.

Disagree. I think lots of people enjoy friendly banter that could be interpreted as flirting on its own. No one is indicating anyone should pretend to be single or give the impression they are available to date or sleep with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're either cheating or wasting someone's time. It depends on how you flirt. If you flirt with no intention of treating the person you're flirting with more romantic interest than any other member of the general public, you're leading him on. You're using him for an emotional rush of some sort. But you're not cheating.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:You're either cheating or wasting someone's time. It depends on how you flirt. If you flirt with no intention of treating the person you're flirting with more romantic interest than any other member of the general public, you're leading him on. You're using him for an emotional rush of some sort. But you're not cheating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're either cheating or wasting someone's time. It depends on how you flirt. If you flirt with no intention of treating the person you're flirting with more romantic interest than any other member of the general public, you're leading him on. You're using him for an emotional rush of some sort. But you're not cheating.

This assumes the person you are “flirting” with doesn’t know you are married and is under the impression this will turn into a romantic or sexual situation. IMO people often flirt (as defined by smiling, laughing, trying to be charming/funny and general banter) with others they know and who know they are married and not interested in anything.

A big part of this is that I think flirting is defined very differently by different people. For me, harmless flirting would include banter and maybe a vibe of some sort but it’s not really one of those things that is concrete and measurable. I don’t think most people would be aggressively flirting to the point of sexual innuendos or giving out their number. To me, this would not be flirting it would be actively pursuing.

It also assumes the other person isn’t in the exact same situation - married or in a relationship with no intention of cheating or pursuing anything. And yes, there’s a huge difference between flirting as you and I define it and actually pursuing someone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I find the framing pretty interesting. Paraphrasing: “If someone takes it too far I just mention I’m married or my husband.” Why is the answer simply not “I’m not interested”?

It’s almost like the same women who will talk however they want to whoever they want lose all agency the moment they’re confronted with the conflict and instead rely on their relational status to a man to resolve the conflict.

The simple rule is the still the best. If you wouldn’t behave that way if your spouse was present then you shouldn’t do it just because your spouse isn’t there.

I think you are missing my point. I WOULD behave the same way if my husband was present. All I am doing engaging in conversation with smiling and laughing. If my husband is present, that makes it easier for men to understand I’m not available, but if he isn’t i bring it up. The answer is that it is nicer to me to mention my husband and continue having a conversation because it draws a boundary without rudely cutting someone off and saying “I’m not interested in you or conversation with you.”

This thread is right: men can’t handle rejection.

But there is a related point this response illustrates (and the one right after it): women can’t handle rejecting men.

A lot of the issues OP’s question gets at rest within the gray area of BOTH genders not being direct.

Related question, would it not be equally nice to others to never allow them the misunderstanding that you may be interested in the first place. I just don’t get the “I’ll talk to whoever I want however I want, but I would never be direct about my lack of interest and instead I’ll be nice by sending a signal that I’m married which doesn’t actually conclusively establish the point I’m trying to make.”

I don’t think it’s an issue so much of “women can’t handle rejecting men” as much as it is “women fear angry men’s reactions and sense of entitlement to women’s bodies and affections.” It’s impossible to guess which man is going to retaliate when they’re rejected. Letting men down easily tends to be a safer course of action.

Case in point: the concept of needing to reject someone after flirting with them. Flirting means absolutely nothing, so the idea tha a man thinks he has some claim that I’d need to reject after a little flirting with someone who happened to be sitting near me at a bar over the course of a drink or two is ludicrous. If I flirt with someone while having a drink and they act like I own them more of my time or conversation just because we happened to sit near each other in a public place, my instinct is to get away safely. That doesn’t usually include direct confrontation; saying I’m off the market let’s him know to stop without challenging his manhood. After being in a situation where a man feels like he deserves more, it’s pretty easy to understand why many women choose that as their default setting. If you’ve never experienced it or have found a better way to handle it (other than social isolation), good for you. Consider yourself lucky.

+1 Like, what does PP think it means that men can’t “handle” rejection? That they go home and cry and eat Ben and Jerry’s after somebody declines to give them their number?

But also indirect conversation isn’t always bad. Like if I sense somebody wants to be friends, and for whatever reason i don’t want to be friends with them, I’m not going to tell them that. I will just decline their offers of spending time together. I am sure some don’t consider that direct enough but when I make an overture of friendship I sure as heck don’t want somebody to say “I am not interested in spending time with you.” I can take a hint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but I also want to note the perception of the behavior, if you are laughing, giggling and bantering with a guy...that is going to be perceived by others and myself as flirting.

Whether it is innocent, light flirting or not.

I think the perception adds to this consideration.

I know some of you guys and girls are doing it as "innocent" and in your heart it's not the type of communication to lead to more while you are in "the act" but the perception shows something different if that makes sense.

I'm one of the PPs whose standard mode of interacting is apparently flirtations and I don't care about this. If somebody thinks I'm flirting with them, what's it to me? I'm not going to try to modify by behavior with all men just in case somebody thinks I'm flirting. If I did get the sense that somebody was interested in more, I would just mention that I'm married (and back in the day when I dated, I just declined to go on dates with people I wasn't interested in).

Anonymous wrote:No, not in the way I define flirting. I wouldnt and wouldn’t want DH hitting on people though. Smiling, laughing, having fun a group but not sliding up to women and chatting them up for their number (not flirting)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I find the framing pretty interesting. Paraphrasing: “If someone takes it too far I just mention I’m married or my husband.” Why is the answer simply not “I’m not interested”?

It’s almost like the same women who will talk however they want to whoever they want lose all agency the moment they’re confronted with the conflict and instead rely on their relational status to a man to resolve the conflict.

The simple rule is the still the best. If you wouldn’t behave that way if your spouse was present then you shouldn’t do it just because your spouse isn’t there.

I think you are missing my point. I WOULD behave the same way if my husband was present. All I am doing engaging in conversation with smiling and laughing. If my husband is present, that makes it easier for men to understand I’m not available, but if he isn’t i bring it up. The answer is that it is nicer to me to mention my husband and continue having a conversation because it draws a boundary without rudely cutting someone off and saying “I’m not interested in you or conversation with you.”

This thread is right: men can’t handle rejection.

But there is a related point this response illustrates (and the one right after it): women can’t handle rejecting men.

A lot of the issues OP’s question gets at rest within the gray area of BOTH genders not being direct.

Related question, would it not be equally nice to others to never allow them the misunderstanding that you may be interested in the first place. I just don’t get the “I’ll talk to whoever I want however I want, but I would never be direct about my lack of interest and instead I’ll be nice by sending a signal that I’m married which doesn’t actually conclusively establish the point I’m trying to make.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I find the framing pretty interesting. Paraphrasing: “If someone takes it too far I just mention I’m married or my husband.” Why is the answer simply not “I’m not interested”?

It’s almost like the same women who will talk however they want to whoever they want lose all agency the moment they’re confronted with the conflict and instead rely on their relational status to a man to resolve the conflict.

The simple rule is the still the best. If you wouldn’t behave that way if your spouse was present then you shouldn’t do it just because your spouse isn’t there.

I think you are missing my point. I WOULD behave the same way if my husband was present. All I am doing engaging in conversation with smiling and laughing. If my husband is present, that makes it easier for men to understand I’m not available, but if he isn’t i bring it up. The answer is that it is nicer to me to mention my husband and continue having a conversation because it draws a boundary without rudely cutting someone off and saying “I’m not interested in you or conversation with you.”

This thread is right: men can’t handle rejection.

But there is a related point this response illustrates (and the one right after it): women can’t handle rejecting men.

A lot of the issues OP’s question gets at rest within the gray area of BOTH genders not being direct.

Related question, would it not be equally nice to others to never allow them the misunderstanding that you may be interested in the first place. I just don’t get the “I’ll talk to whoever I want however I want, but I would never be direct about my lack of interest and instead I’ll be nice by sending a signal that I’m married which doesn’t actually conclusively establish the point I’m trying to make.”

I don’t think it’s an issue so much of “women can’t handle rejecting men” as much as it is “women fear angry men’s reactions and sense of entitlement to women’s bodies and affections.” It’s impossible to guess which man is going to retaliate when they’re rejected. Letting men down easily tends to be a safer course of action.

Case in point: the concept of needing to reject someone after flirting with them. Flirting means absolutely nothing, so the idea tha a man thinks he has some claim that I’d need to reject after a little flirting with someone who happened to be sitting near me at a bar over the course of a drink or two is ludicrous. If I flirt with someone while having a drink and they act like I own them more of my time or conversation just because we happened to sit near each other in a public place, my instinct is to get away safely. That doesn’t usually include direct confrontation; saying I’m off the market let’s him know to stop without challenging his manhood. After being in a situation where a man feels like he deserves more, it’s pretty easy to understand why many women choose that as their default setting. If you’ve never experienced it or have found a better way to handle it (other than social isolation), good for you. Consider yourself lucky.