From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 17:46:28 GMT

In article <9208130125.AA29602@regal.cisco.com> mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>And gds@cs.ucla.edu writes:
>
>|>Also, you usually want to know as quickly as possible if things will
>|>work out, ie. you want to know if your needs will be met, if you'll
>|>still be able to give the attention you need to other areas of your
>|>life, etc.
>
>This is exactly what I am protesting: the "are we or aren't we and if we're
>not I'm leaving" or "cut to the chase" mentality. People want to have it all
>spelled out in front of them, in black or white, so they can go on to the
>next decision, finish up with this and go on. Sure it may be efficient, but
>it's also very cold, and not much fun.

While I don't agree with the urgency implied in the first quote, I don't
agree with Marcia's implied characterization either. Are we or aren't we
what? SOs, lovers, friends? People draw a line at different places. I might
be more inclined towards expressing *interest* unambiguously and finding out
unambigously whether we are mutually interested in exploring our feelings.
I would walk if the woman insists on being ambiguous about expressing an
interest. Some people might want to have details upto their children's names 
resolved at the beginning. What is fun and what is cold is very subjective.

It is actually the sincerity of the person flirting that creates
problems than what is being expressed. In the "long agos" that Marcia
mentioned, usually the real feelings preceded their expression through
flirting. The feelings expressed through flirting may have been ambiguous
but not insincere. But these days (just look at the flirting on the net),
one doesn't have to take any responsibility to what one expresses through
flirting. In many cases, the flirting expresses intent unambiguously
but with utter insincerity. The only reason people sustain such 
interaction is for the ego-boost that it provides. Outright flattery (not
just sincere compliments) is considered a valid form of flirting. That
may be fun to some people but nauseating to many.

>
>It also doesn't give you an out, or any hope whatsoever of saving face. You
>either are accepted or rejected. One of the nice things about ambiguity is that
>is can be taken multiple ways, and leaves many ways for people to extract
>themselves gracefully from situations, hopefully leaving the other's feelings
>intact. The direct method doesn't do that. As time goes on, the ambiguity 
>is cleared, first from one side, then the other, so when the mist is finally
>cleared both parties should have a really good idea where the other one 
>stands. If they don't like where that place is, they can retreat with dignity 
>and grace.

Flirting also provides a way for people to not take responsibility for their 
actions or words. An excuse for people to say what the other person wants
to hear without having to mean it. An out to say "That was only flirting" and 
if you think that doesn't have the potential to hurt a person whatever the 
earlier understanding might have been, you are very naive indeed. 

One could, of course, assume that whatever one says and does during flirting 
should be taken as a completely reversible and deniable interaction and 
proceed with that understanding but eventually one does reach a stage where 
the ambiguities must be resolved (they just don't happen by themselves since 
the rules are now being changed) and if not handled correctly can cause 
greater amounts of agony and pain than an early cessation of the relationship.

I will agree with you this much. A sincere flirting period leading to
a relationship might be a very enjoyable way to start a relationship, but given
human nature and the personal freedom in this era it is not just inefficient 
but a potentially damaging way to initiate relationships.

Moreover, if you believe that sincere flirting and its accompanying pleasures
end when two people decide unambiguously to be in a relationship, you just
haven't met the right person.

>
>Walter goes on to say:
>|> If you are only interested in discovering the object of your affections,
>|> then why make the affections ambiguous?
>
>I guess most people are, they just want to *be* in a relationship rather than
>*form* one. Me, I find the process of getting there half the fun.
>

For some people, getting into a relationship is not the end but the very 
beginning of a process of discovery and growth and exploration that is far more
satisfying than *any* method that leads to a relationship and hence not worth
risking it or wasting time playing games.

						Walter

What disclaimer?
Newsgroups: soc.singles