Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One thing that strikes me is that flirting and sex itself are playful. Hence, any grimness or guilt are anathema to them.

In fact, too much analysis, ditto, for as soon as one starts to analyze play, it collapses and withers.

So, how does one play? The question is inane really, as play is spontaneous, and there is no how.

So, can you play with your own sexuality, can you flirt via your sense of humour, can you play with someone else?

I'm not saying it's easy, but it's thinking it's hard that makes it hard (pun intended).

---

I have never read something I agree with so much in my life. Play is learning, flirting is play geared toward learning about someone you're interested in. (Interesting side note-- in child development, they often call an infant/ toddler's attempts to engage an adult in play "flirting." In this realm obviously it's not sexual at all, it's a way to test out someone's willingness to play back.)

And I'm gonna be real-- I usually suck at flirting. Usually the Queen of Faux Pas. The times I have caught myself somehow miraculously succeeding at it, it has felt like the above.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I was very good at flirting, too good really, so I had to dial back as I got older, and learned to be less charming, as it was kind of persona stuff. Well, it's useful, but it can be phoney.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although, the capability is also good.

---

quote:

---

I think this [the koan story]applies also to relationships and sex and everything.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
There is no "Friend Zone". There are just some people who like you without wanting to sleep with you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Having just said that, it's also true that people sometimes plan to get someone in bed, and they flirt with them quite deliberately, and in fact, seduce them, and so on, so I suppose this is OK, but maybe a bit mechanical?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also true that people sometimes plan to get someone in bed, and they flirt with them quite deliberately, and in fact, seduce them, and so on, so I suppose this is OK, but maybe a bit mechanical?.......
...... their seduction techniques become a bit industrial.

---

I've sometimes wished I was such a person, but I'm not as I usually baulk at the bedroom bit , (mind you kept me out of trouble I guess )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
You can ruin a lot of potentially good sexual relationships by getting to be friends first.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Antisocial Alto: There is no "Friend Zone". There are just some people who like you without wanting to sleep with you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rufiki:
If X is doing the "trying to get to know you" flirting and receives back the "Ilttytb" signal, then X is fully justified in running away.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The Ship seems to attract decent sorts, mostly. Maybe there are tips and pointers there.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The Ship seems to attract decent sorts, mostly. Maybe there are tips and pointers there.

---

But sex is a very indecent activity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:

I suspect it's easy for you to see a difference here because you find women sexually attractive but don't think of men in that way. So you read what they're projecting differently. Why is a woman's choice in designer clothing all about showing off her body but a man's is all about showing his good taste? What you're really saying, ISTM, is that you notice the woman's body and the man's clothing, probably because (a) you find women's bodies, but not men's, attractive; and (b) you know men's fashion, but not women's. That's nothing to be ashamed of; it just means you're a straight male.

I suspect you're doing a perfectly good job at being a decent human being and have little to worry about. The fact that you're worrying about it indicates that.

---

Very well put.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
I've come to this thread rather late, but I can't get through the OP without some comment.

The trouble with the Existentialists, IMO (appealing though I've always found them, especially before I was on antidepressants), is that they forget that we humans are NOT beings of infinite potential, but rather embodied. We are objects as well as subjects. There's no getting around that. Our choices are actually quite limited, given our circumstances and, yes, our physical bodies. IMO, it's a reflection of Sartre's privileged socio-economic (and male) status that he can say many of the things that he says.

---

quote:

---

And your thinking a woman is pretty or ugly actually does not make her so. It doesn't change her a single bit. You don't have that kind of power over her. It may affect your interactions with her. If she notices you looking at her, a lot will still depend on her own cultural milieu, assumptions, self-esteem, etc. That's not to dismiss the reality of double-consciousness, but even double-consciousness can lie sometimes.

---

quote:

---

I think many of the things you say about the well-dressed woman are the same as with the well-dressed man. Both are projecting their taste, their familiarity with customs and brands and what not, and their physicality. How else do men project power if not by some kind of imposing physical presence? I don't mean muscular, necessarily.

I suspect it's easy for you to see a difference here because you find women sexually attractive but don't think of men in that way. So you read what they're projecting differently. Why is a woman's choice in designer clothing all about showing off her body but a man's is all about showing his good taste? What you're really saying, ISTM, is that you notice the woman's body and the man's clothing, probably because (a) you find women's bodies, but not men's, attractive; and (b) you know men's fashion, but not women's. That's nothing to be ashamed of; it just means you're a straight male.

---

quote:

---

I suspect you're doing a perfectly good job at being a decent human being and have little to worry about. The fact that you're worrying about it indicates that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Ariston wrote:
Perhaps true, but when was the last time you saw a man in a sundress? Similarly, why do women who sit on corporate boards and run countries generally wear modified versions of what their male compatriots wear? There's something about how the suit jacket and military dress uniform evolved in order to project size, wealth, and a degree of intimidating power that most dresses, no matter how fancy, just don't have. There's also a way in which the stuffed suits on the slew of general government hangers-on you find in DC tend to work to hide or modify the body of the wearer—padded shoulders, layers of cloth, high collars—rather than follow it or emphasize its shape. Now, granted, DC has been jokingly called "Hollywood for Ugly People," so perhaps my best sample has a couple issues; after all, people who work for sometimes conservative and conformist institutions don't often have issues with a conservative institutional conformity. Also granted, there are a few fashion trends among the more insufferable breed of hipster (which, coming from me, is either slightly rich or tells you how insufferable it really is), like the ultra-skinny jeans that let you tell a man's religion, that certainly don't fit this general pattern.

---

Oh, I've seen a few men in sundresses. And other varieties of gender-transgressive dress, and there should be much more of that!

But sundresses are considered casual attire.

The idea that men's clothing is somehow less tailored to the male physique than women's clothing is to the female physique, though, is easily dismissed once you see women trying to fit into the cassocks on supply at any given church. The male physique—and I suspect this is a point you'll definitely agree with—is still seen as the "norm" from which the female physique departs. But the female physique really requires different clothing. When I was young, and underweight, I could wear men's clothing and it fit me fine. Now I don't even look good in many t-shirts (which are cut for male bodies even when they're supposedly gender-neutral), because in order to get one large enough to fit around my hips, I have to buy one that's too large in the shoulders and so long it could be a dress. Women's clothing designs favor young, skinny women - but men's clothing favors young, skinny men. The power suit loses its power once a guy can't button it around his beer gut. By then, though, the guy's clout and actual status are supposed to have kicked in, making the power suit unnecessary. If that hasn't happened, the guy just looks like an old slob. All of that has to do with judging the male physique.

I'm not saying your point is wrong; I'm just investigating it with you, from my own perspective.

There is, of course, the whole other issue of the way successful women are still judged by their clothes. There's a double-standard there, because women are judged if they dress in ways that make them stand out (since men in the board room or Oval Office tend to wear more conforming outfits), but they're judged if they wear clothes that don't flaunt their femininity. Personally, I get past this by not being successful. (I'm only half-joking on that; I don't aspire to the kind of success that would put me in those predicaments.) Also I get past this by not caring at all.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rufiki:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Having just said that, it's also true that people sometimes plan to get someone in bed, and they flirt with them quite deliberately, and in fact, seduce them, and so on, so I suppose this is OK, but maybe a bit mechanical?

---

Isn't part of the point of the flirting that you're trying to figure out if the other person wants the same as you? If two people are both sending the "I'd like to take you to bed" signal to each other, then they will likely be successful. If X is doing the "trying to get to know you" flirting and receives back the "Ilttytb" signal, then X is fully justified in running away.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That's not practical just for potential relationship reasons, but for enjoyable sex reasons-- guys can have a reasonably good time with anyone of either gender who is reasonably attractive and has an adequate orifice, and they can decide about personality compatibility later.

---

And as we all know, overtly sexist stereotyping is perfectly fine as long as it is about men...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
For some of us, the purpose of flirting is simply to prove to yourself that you can talk to the opposite sex in a relaxed, fun way without throwing up or making a complete ass of yourself.

---

How would that be different from a normal conversation then?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Doublethink: How would that be different from a normal conversation then ?

---

quote:

---

IngoB: Kelly rather seems to be saying that she cannot entertain a normal conversation with men. The only verbal interaction she can have with men that is neither vomitous nor embarrassing is pre-sexual banter.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Kelly rather seems to be saying that she cannot entertain a normal conversation with men. The only verbal interaction she can have with men that is neither vomitous nor embarrassing is pre-sexual banter. That sort of deep hang-up is more up your professional alley, as man who does not particularly identify as talking dildo I'd rather reach for one of my longer barge poles there...

Anyway, I guess we are sort of done with the trials and tribulations of the feminist male. How about we discuss those of the masculinist female now? Any takers?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
Oh, but I should add that I don't see us as arguing against each other here!

quote:

---

Ariston wrote:
Blah blah blah...

---

Oh, I've seen a few men in sundresses. And other varieties of gender-transgressive dress, and there should be much more of that!

But sundresses are considered casual attire.

The idea that men's clothing is somehow less tailored to the male physique than women's clothing is to the female physique, though, is easily dismissed once you see women trying to fit into the cassocks on supply at any given church. The male physique—and I suspect this is a point you'll definitely agree with—is still seen as the "norm" from which the female physique departs. But the female physique really requires different clothing. When I was young, and underweight, I could wear men's clothing and it fit me fine. Now I don't even look good in many t-shirts (which are cut for male bodies even when they're supposedly gender-neutral), because in order to get one large enough to fit around my hips, I have to buy one that's too large in the shoulders and so long it could be a dress. Women's clothing designs favor young, skinny women - but men's clothing favors young, skinny men. The power suit loses its power once a guy can't button it around his beer gut. By then, though, the guy's clout and actual status are supposed to have kicked in, making the power suit unnecessary. If that hasn't happened, the guy just looks like an old slob. All of that has to do with judging the male physique.

I'm not saying your point is wrong; I'm just investigating it with you, from my own perspective.

There is, of course, the whole other issue of the way successful women are still judged by their clothes. There's a double-standard there, because women are judged if they dress in ways that make them stand out (since men in the board room or Oval Office tend to wear more conforming outfits), but they're judged if they wear clothes that don't flaunt their femininity. Personally, I get past this by not being successful. (I'm only half-joking on that; I don't aspire to the kind of success that would put me in those predicaments.) Also I get past this by not caring at all.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is indeed a bizarre reading of Kelly's statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Masclinist female? Oh, you mean shut it and get back in the kitchen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Masclinist female? Oh, you mean shut it and get back in the kitchen.

---

Possibly. We will have to wait for any actual masculinist female to tell us. You do agree however that a world where feminist males are appreciated widely (though apparently not to the point of getting laid much) but masculinist females are little heard of, is lacking somewhat in gender balance?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Doublethink: How would that be different from a normal conversation then ?

---

Are you asking for the difference between normal conversation and flirting? Surely that's obvious. Flirting is more playful, and there is some indirect communication going on on a sexual/relationship level.

quote:

---

IngoB: Kelly rather seems to be saying that she cannot entertain a normal conversation with men. The only verbal interaction she can have with men that is neither vomitous nor embarrassing is pre-sexual banter.

---

I cannot speak for Kelly, but this assertion seems rather weird.

My impression is that there are people who are single because whenever they meet someone they are attracted to, they clamp shut. Either from a fear of rejection, or from not knowing what to say, or whatever. I guess that flirting with people from time to time, even if you wouldn't be interested in pursuing a relationship with them, could be seen as some kind of excercise for this moment.

---

Thank you. And my whole conversation with quetzalcoatl was me processing through all that. It makes it a lot easier to think that flirting is a way of maintaining rapport with people of the opposite sex, regardless of the outcome, than of thinking of it as something with a win-or-lose goal.

And Ingo B, as someone who feels she has taken many opportunities to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when it is VERY difficult to do so, it saddens me that you would reach for the unkindest interpretation of what I said. It seems like you really had to work to turn my flip comment into that piece of ugliness.

(also, general 's for QLib, Ariston, and Churchgeek.)

[ 04. June 2013, 22:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

That's not practical just for potential relationship reasons, but for enjoyable sex reasons-- guys can have a reasonably good time with anyone of either gender who is reasonably attractive and has an adequate orifice, and they can decide about personality compatibility later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And as we all know, overtly sexist stereotyping is perfectly fine as long as it is about men...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Here's the weird thing-- I remember other discussions in which Ingo made very similar statements himself-- statements like "a man can enjoy sex on the same level as enjoying a tasty meal." and "it's the difference between penetrating and being penetrated" so I am not sure why the sudden outrage at me, well, basically saying stuff he's said before-- that men tend to have less of a problem with casual sex than women do.

---

quote:

---

I was just floating the idea that it's less "Guys are cold-hearted cads" and more "Women have to make sure it's worth it." Which is pro-guy, if you think about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Picking up women at bars for sex is an inherently objectifying activity. Or so I hear. *shrug*

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I remember the tasty meal statement as well. Maybe the word "feminist" is just the red flag eliciting IngoB's bull.

---

quote:

---

I don't know about "have to," but seems like women are more likely to have a longer list of things that indicate it's going to be worth it. But I think there are more men out there who have similar lists than our sexist culture would have us think.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Doublethink: I would have thought a friendly conversation would be a good first step in trying to overcome social anxiety.

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: So, Step 1: Getting into situations where you can talk comfortable with the opposite sex

Step 2: Figuring who among that crowd are big old flirts.

Step 3. Follow their lead-- a bit.

Step 4. Next time someone flirts with you, take a deep breath and attempt a return -flirt.

---

Step 5. When you tried this a couple of times and feel comfortable with it, next time you're the one who starts flirting

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is indeed a bizarre reading of Kelly's statement.

---

How so? I assume her "for some of us" includes herself. Next, if you need X to prove Y to yourself, it is reasonable to assume that you are not getting Y otherwise, or at least certainly not with any regularity and ease. In this case X is flirting, and Y is talking to the opposite sex (in an enjoyable way). So what is "bizarre" about my conclusions, and what do you suggest as a more sensible reading?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: I just remembered one of the ways of dealing with the anxiety aroused by flirting, and the whole sexual encounter thingy, which is to say 'I feel anxious about this'.

---

Alternatively, I'd suggest something along the lines of "This sucker isn't going to stand a chance"

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: I just remembered one of the ways of dealing with the anxiety aroused by flirting, and the whole sexual encounter thingy, which is to say 'I feel anxious about this'.

---

Alternatively, I'd suggest something along the lines of "This sucker isn't going to stand a chance"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Kelly rather seems to be saying that she cannot entertain a normal conversation with men. The only verbal interaction she can have with men that is neither vomitous nor embarrassing is pre-sexual banter. That sort of deep hang-up is more up your professional alley, as man who does not particularly identify as talking dildo I'd rather reach for one of my longer barge poles there...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
3 cheers also for the tight red skirt comment by RuthW. There's an awful lot of pomposity talked about objectification of people, as if it's not OK to want to look attractive, and find someone else attractive. It doesn't mean that you're a stone age cave-dweller, that you like looking at a woman, as well as talking to her. Why not do both?

---