brighn
|
|
response 56 of 73:
| 
Jan 6 18:33 UTC 2002 |
In party I gave one example. I had invited a friend from Maine for a weekend,
and it was clear that that weekend would involve sex. A mutual friend from
Saginaw also wanted to visit. Both me and the woman from Maine asked the third
person repeatedly if she was interested in a threesome. Her words, repeatedly,
were, "We'll see" and "Maybe." We told her repeatedly that it was cool if she
didn't want to have sex, no problem, just tell us so we didn't get our
expectations up. Nope, "we'll see" and "maybe." Weekendcomes and goes, no
threesome, which was cool, but she admits later that she never had any
intention of having sex with us, and that she wasn't that sort of girl, etc.
So one "reasonable expectation" is, if I ask you if you're interested in sex,
and you say, "Maybe," then the reasonable expectation is that you haven't yet
ruled out the possibility. The direct approach, but most people are too shy
for the direct approach.
Another example: If you ever see me in party with mooncat, there's a
better-than-even odds that I'll hit on her, or make some other sexual
innuendo. She and I have an undestanding: She's not interested, I'm interested
but realize she isn't and don't really mind, and she doesn't care how much
I flirt with her as long s I keep my hands to myself and not sabotage any
serious relationships she might have. Groovy. I have no expectation of sexual
readiness on her part, so if she flirts back with me (which she does), I don't
consider that cockteasing.
Another example: A week or two back, oval, you asked me here, in this
conference, if I would have sex with you. I answered honestly, because I don't
know you well enough to know whether you were joking, flirting, or serious
(I assumed you were either joking or flirting). Since the question was not
part of a string of flirtations, I didn't consider it to be a profound
indication of sexual readiness, but if you'd followed my answer up with,
"Cool, wanna meet in party and see where it goes?" I would have taken THAT
as a proposition.
If you want a clear set of rules that handles every scenario, I can't give
you one. There ARE clear examples of creating an expectation (or not), but
there are likewise many scenarios where the only way of determining
expectations is by asking. Another example: I was flirting online with a guy
who, as far as I knew, was heterosexual and in a monogamous marriage. As far
as I was concerned, those two details meant that any flirting I did would be
taken as "just playing." He surprised me when he telled me with: "Sorry I'm
not flirting as much with you today. I'm trying to figure out how to tell my
wife about this." [paraphrase, it's been a long time] My initial reaction was
to laugh at him (remember, I admitted to being a cocktease myself, in the
past), then realized that, while I was fully aware of what my intentions were,
someone else could have made other, similarly reasonable conclusions. So I
try not to flirt with people I'm not interested in, now (at least willing to
consider the potential for sex). But I also keep in mind that many people DO
flirt with no intention, and that's ok.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 57 of 73:
|
Jan 7 04:03 UTC 2002 |
I'm honest enough to admit that I am the worst kind of flirt at
times....mostly with guys (although I do have my moments with women), and
while it's sometimes mild flirting, it's not always. But the people that I
do massive flirting with are people that I'm comfortable with, and that know
me well enough to flirt massively back, while knowing that it's all in fun
and we'll never end up in bed. This does include having my hands on people,
although usually in the manner of a back rub, or hugs, or laying my head on
their shoulder or something. The reality is, I'm a very tactile person. I
*LIKE* having my hands on people/things. But if I'm not comfortable around
you, then my hands aren't on you. And I'm usually not comfortable around
people that I'd like to get into bed....too nervous. :)
(for those of you who have dealt with me in the touchyfeelyflirt mode, you
can agree or disagree with me as you see fit....I'm just seeing it from my
angle. :)
|
ssjgoten
|
|
response 63 of 73:
|
Oct 23 22:36 UTC 2002 |
well i am new to this bbs, but if you want my opinion ,i think manogamy is
better because then you can have that one person and you dont have to worry
about pleasing so many people, but non-manogamous relationships you dont have
to worry about just one person, if you piss one person off, there's allways
someone else, just a thought
Goten Sayain
email me at: ssjgoten@cyberspace.org
|
otter
|
|
response 70 of 73:
|
Feb 16 17:45 UTC 2003 |
resp:62
Actually, polyamory (to be successful) requires that people communicate
very openly and honestly regarding feelings, expectations, limitations,
and a thousand other things. Open communication makes emotional issues
infinitely more "manageable", no matter how many people are involved.
When there are just two, it becomes far too easy to let communication
lapse in favor of assumption. *That's* where I've seen relationships
get into serious trouble.
|