The Couch

Does flirting feed sexual fantasy?

Comments on Does flirting feed sexual fantasy?

Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
Posted 04/03/09 - 9:17 AM:
Subject: Does flirting feed sexual fantasy?
So; you've read the title and dove straight in to se what juicy nuggets may be in this thread. Please share your ideas.

I came across a women's magazine once (no pun intended rolling eyes ) which recommended that married women should fantasize that they were making love to their favourite male celebrity when having sex with their husband - just to spice up their love life. This seems something pretty common - thinking about someone else when having sex - alone or in company!

Why rule out 'favourite guy they flirt with' instead of 'celebrity'?

And the same goes for guys fantasizing about what ever woman they wish to.

What do you think? If ther is flirting, then there is sexual attraction...otherwise it wouldn't be enjoyable... hmm
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 04/03/09 - 3:17 PM:

Xanthos wrote:

I came across a women's magazine once (no pun intended rolling eyes ) which recommended that married women should fantasize that they were making love to their favourite male celebrity when having sex with their husband - just to spice up their love life. This seems something pretty common - thinking about someone else when having sex - alone or in company!


An utterly destructive practice.

If you can't be bothered to engage your partner on a personal level physically and spiritually, then you have no right to be sharing such an intimate experience with them.

If you 'need' or 'want' to fantasize about other people when you're doing the deed, then that's a pretty clear indication that you need to go out and get with those other people, and stop being dishonest with yourself and your partner.

A very inauthentic way of being.


Xanthos wrote:

Why rule out 'favourite guy they flirt with' instead of 'celebrity'?


Far too personal. At least a 'celebrity' is, primarily, only an icon, a representation, and, in effect, not a 'real' person. But someone you know--your coworker, your neighbour, you partner's sibling--that's bordering on affair.


Xanthos wrote:

What do you think? If ther is flirting, then there is sexual attraction...otherwise it wouldn't be enjoyable... hmm


If a peson is seriously flirting in order to feel sexual excitement or to excite someone sexually, that's walking on the thin edge of a razor. It's a very short walk from 'flirting' to the motel 6 for an 'affair to remember'.

Flirting is courting behaviour. It's not appropriate for platonic relationships, work relationships, or for people who are already in committed relationships, unless they are planning to change that.

8)
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 04/03/09 - 3:18 PM:

hi xanthos,

this is a topic that's been on my mind of late, i was actually thinking of starting a thread on it myself.

i think as long as there's mutual consent, anything is fair. obviously there are people who can maintain clear boundaries between flirting and acting on flirtations. then again, there are people who have trouble with this. so of course it always comes down to the two people in the relationship and what they feel comfortable with.

as for me, the idea of fantasizing about celebrities is kind of weird. mind you, i do think certain celebrities are hot, but in all honesty i would rather fantasize about someone i'm in love with.

one of the reasons i was thinking about starting a topic on this has to do with the question of whether we have the power to willfully affect others with the things that we think. prayer is one example. but relating the concept a little more directly to the topic, what about imagined infidelities? is a person guilty of some degree of infidelity if they've deliberately fantasized about it? i think it depends on what kind of boundaries you set for yourself.

obviously thinking about doing something and doing something are not the same thing; this is terrain we covered pretty extensively in the thought crimes thread. and i don't think people should be punished for thinking about whatever. nonetheless, do our willful thoughts affect people? i'm thinking they do, at least sometimes.

speaking strictly for myself, fantasizing about someone i know personally (other than the person i might happen to be in a relationship with), especially when i feel strong psychic connection to that certain individual, would be dangerous water to tread. it definitely feels like i'm opening a certain door to a person by entertaining fantasies about them in my mind. if visualization truly is the path to manifestation, then clearly it makes for a dangerous first step if you don't intend to act on it.

how about you, what are your thoughts xan?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 04/03/09 - 4:18 PM:

In the gospels, Jesus says that people can and do commit adultery of the heart, merely by entertaining these notions.

It's about planting a seed, no doubt. If we keep focussing energy on it, it will grow, and either force us to act, or come into direct conflict with one or another of our cherished values.

libertygrl wrote:


one of the reasons i was thinking about starting a topic on this has to do with the question of whether we have the power to willfully affect others with the things that we think. prayer is one example. but relating the concept a little more directly to the topic, what about imagined infidelities? is a person guilty of some degree of infidelity if they've deliberately fantasized about it? i think it depends on what kind of boundaries you set for yourself.

obviously thinking about doing something and doing something are not the same thing; this is terrain we covered pretty extensively in the thought crimes thread. and i don't think people should be punished for thinking about whatever. nonetheless, do our willful thoughts affect people? i'm thinking they do, at least sometimes.

speaking strictly for myself, fantasizing about someone i know personally (other than the person i might happen to be in a relationship with), especially when i feel strong psychic connection to that certain individual, would be dangerous water to tread. it definitely feels like i'm opening a certain door to a person by entertaining fantasies about them in my mind. if visualization truly is the path to manifestation, then clearly it makes for a dangerous first step if you don't intend to act on it.


I often wondered something similar. If we are essentially energy beings, what kind of energy are we projecting into the environment through our thoughts? Especially the ones we focus on the most? Am I polluting the psychic environment with lusty designs? Or does it just reverberate back to me, weakening me and degrading my resolve and objectivity?

8)
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
Posted 04/04/09 - 12:13 AM:

Thanks Peeps.

First off - this wasn't some kind of guilty admittance by me - it was a general sociopsychological inquiry.

A very inauthentic way of being.

I agree that, morally, fantasizing about someone else while having sex is not healthy and not something I want to do.

Why rule out 'favourite guy they flirt with' instead of 'celebrity'?

Far too personal. At least a 'celebrity' is, primarily, only an icon, a representation, and, in effect, not a 'real' person. But someone you know--your coworker, your neighbour, you partner's sibling--that's bordering on affair.

Do you really think so?

I have heard of cases where people in relationships have fantasized about their partners' best friends, and I don't think it ended in an affair - often it's the 'untouchableness' that seems to give that fantasy it's power. Fantasies always seem to be better than the real thing, and people often know that so they don't tend to 'go there'.

If a peson is seriously flirting in order to feel sexual excitement or to excite someone sexually, that's walking on the thin edge of a razor. It's a very short walk from 'flirting' to the motel 6 for an 'affair to remember'.

Flirting is courting behaviour. It's not appropriate for platonic relationships, work relationships, or for people who are already in committed relationships, unless they are planning to change that.

I thought we would have to bring a dictionary definition in at some point - just to get everyone on the same page. I have come across people saying flirting is not sexual in some situations, so here goes:

Flirt
1: to move erratically : flit
2 a: to behave amorously without serious intent b: to show superficial or casual interest or liking <flirted with the idea> ; also : experiment <a novelist flirting with poetry>
3: to come close to reaching or experiencing something —used with with<flirting with disaster><the temperature flirted with 100°>

Amorous
1: strongly moved by love and especially sexual love <amorous couples>
2: being in love : enamored —usually used with of<amorous of the girl>
3 a: indicative of love <received amorous glances from her partner> b: of or relating to love <an amorous novel>

When flirting is seen in the contexts of the above underlined definitions - it does indeed seem inappropriate for those already in relationships, and for those single people (or single-to-be) involved in non-leisure contexts, to flirt.

That said I rarely see it NOT happening in the wider social domain - whether single or not (!) whatever

It seems I may have 'replied' to your various points above, libertygrl.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 04/05/09 - 10:44 AM:

Xanthos wrote:
That said I rarely see it NOT happening in the wider social domain - whether single or not (!) whatever

infidelity seems to run pretty rampant too, sadly.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
Posted 04/05/09 - 7:14 PM:

Indeed.

So; we've covered flirting exists, and it's sad, and yet most people seem to do it, so what about the experiences of flirting being stored as 'material' for sexual gratification at a later date? sisyphus

Can flirting exist outside of this domain?

If people very often use fantasy in their sex life - fantasy which involves a person who is not present - and flirting is a sexual activity, then it seems natural that the 'material' gained from flirting would be used during sexual fantasy when that person was not around. Is there something I am missing here?

If flirting is the dangling of the sexual carrot (pun not intended again rolling eyes ), and such teasing and tempting leaves a hankering in the individuals concerned, then what would stop them from taking a nibble when they are alone?
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
Posted 04/06/09 - 6:09 AM:

Mhmm. I'll have a new take on this, if I may..


Is it a good thing to have strong ties between men and woman? There's a virtue called loyalty involved, of course, but let's put that on the cupboard for a minute.
I'm not so sure if we need to have such strict liaisons as are common in most of the world.

(Don't get me wrong, this is an antropological standpoint. I'm perfectly happy with my one partner.)

The issue is that, because men are physically stronger, in a strict one-on-one relationship, they mostly get the upper hand. (Not in a sufficiently civilised world, but as a principle.)
As soon as woman are able to cut loose of any difficult, unloving, abusive or any relationship, the scores are completely different. Here the males would have to constantly exert themselves to keep the benevolence of the female. (Which is the way they like it, as we all know. ^^)

When a society loosens up on things such as divorce (and adultry - the loosening up on that part usually comes along): the females develop and gain influence more quickly than you can say 'a woman on the cover of time magazine'. Especially in the strictly social relationships.

An extreme of this is a female-dominated society, where the females revisit their decisions on their male counterpart every day. The balance of power is in completely the other direction here, because the females have complete control over their own social ties and so also over the social status of the males.

As for flirting, well. I'm sure you can imagine how that fits in. smiling face
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
Posted 04/06/09 - 5:46 PM:

Fun topic. What if the fantasies DID communicate themselves to the iconic persons--the celebrities who were their objects? How many people worldwide fantasize being with someone like, say, Brad, who is on the cover of every scandal magazine? What would life be LIKE for him? kooky Zum
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/06/09 - 6:36 PM:

As for flirting, well. I'm sure you can imagine how that fits in.

Sorry Smokin; you lost me pretty early in your post... I think we live in very different worlds, where gender dynamics are concerned at least! sticking out tongue

Fun topic. What if the fantasies DID communicate themselves to the iconic persons--the celebrities who were their objects?

Ha, a good point. I do think that this is half the 'buzz' for them, however. I don't think Brad and Jennifer, for example, got together because of some kind of mysterious destiny - I think the public's fantasies had a lot to do with that!

What better way to maximize on one's potential mating partners than to induce sexual obsession in whole swathes of a population? I think a lot of non-celebrities probably operate on this level also... it seems rather natural.
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/22/09 - 8:27 PM:

Wow. If I make love to A while fantasizing B, say, though I'm not, strictly speaking, practicing polyandry (or polyamory), I'm practicing up for it, going into training for it, predisposing myself for it. (In this post, I'm actually appreciating Monk's point of view.) If I were A and being made love to, while my partner was fantasizing B, AND I FOUND OUT, my, wouldn't I be disappointed and angry! As a social communication (which is one of the things it is), love-making indicates (not precisely says): you. (Something about "you": it might be "I love you" or it might not. Depends on the context... But, something.) Seems like there could be contexts, then, in which love-making-while-fantasizing-somebody else would be (kind of) a lie. Such an act would violate one's integrity, not just on a verbal level... On perhaps an even more serious level...
This is interesting... Zum
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/23/09 - 1:41 AM:

Women always have to have all the attention. rolling eyeslaughing
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/23/09 - 5:42 AM:

Seems like there could be contexts, then, in which love-making-while-fantasizing-somebody else would be (kind of) a lie. Such an act would violate one's integrity, not just on a verbal level... On perhaps an even more serious level...

Indeed, 'body language' seems to go beyond it's use alongside vocal communication - even to the extent of direct and obvious physical actions.

When I stamp on a bug, I generally communicate to everyone "I hate this bug" (or something similar). If I admitted to a psychologist that I was actually thinking of stamping on a lit cigarette butt, then they may have a thing or two to tell me...

The same goes for having sex with a person - a message is communicated, but if one is thinking of someone else, then what the psychologist will tell one in general will probably be pretty similar to the bug murder example, I am guessing... hmm

When our body language is out of tune with our verbal messages; i.e. - "I love/fancy you", while fantasizing about someone else when expressing that message physically, then a mixed message is present, and the fantasizing person could be either said to be a liar (in the case that they are creating confusion on purpose), or a bit psychotic (in the case they are doing it without knowing).

But anyway; what about flirting - after all this discussion, what do people think - does entering in to sexual zones with other people without any mutual sexual commitment feed a fantasy world? Can it feed a fantasy world? And is this dangerous? Or do you think it is just 'harmless fun', as most people would seem to put it...?
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/24/09 - 1:10 AM:

As with other forms of communication, the meaning--therefore, the possible danger--of flirting varies with the context, if any, and with the individual. Most contextless flirting is easy to read: you don't know them; there are no nuances, no previous conversations, no previous encounter of any kind: the meaning is conventional and universal. There is no doubt what's being said. But in some contexts there can be light flirting, engaged in for fun; nothing is supposed to happen afterwards. I saw a guy who worked at Starbucks flirting with a female customer; he was a talented flirter, enjoying himself; he was doing it for fun or practice; it was very kindly meant; he was flirting with a person much older, who probably would not misunderstand; they may have known each other; she took her latte and went away: different deal. Context clues set up a possibility of reading the nuances of flirting... Zum hug
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/24/09 - 2:20 PM:

hi zum, nicely stated. smiling face

i think flirting is fun. it can be a boost to your self-esteem to know people find you attractive. but there's always the danger of being misled, so in that respect it is definitely not completely harmless. and yes, i would say that it can feed a fantasy world if the people involved are inclined to indulge in that direction. i don't think there's anything wrong with that, though, as long it doesn't violate a pre-existing commitment of exclusivity to another person.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/24/09 - 10:53 PM:

Thanks for the discussion here; I think these points are fundamentally important to people's lives - especially romantic lives.

zum wrote:
As with other forms of communication, the meaning--therefore, the possible danger--of flirting varies with the context, if any, and with the individual.

It seems you are muddying the waters somewhat here - the meaning of flirting appears to be never misunderstood if it is flirting: 'to behave as if strongly moved by love and especially sexual love without serious intent', as per the dictionary definition I posted.

It's as if you are saying that if one kills someone in different contexts, then they are not actually killing anyone . Context doesn't change the act of killing; killing is killing, it may change motives, but at the end of the day, someone is dying as a direct result of one's actions. Yes; it may be manslaughter or murder, but in both cases 'they were killed' remains the more complete truth. In the same way that killing someone can never really be given a positive or 'safe' angle, it seems a person in a monogamous relationship can not safely behave as if strongly moved by love and especially sexual love without serious intent with anyone else than their partner... raised eyebrow

zum wrote:
But in some contexts there can be light flirting, engaged in for fun; nothing is supposed to happen afterwards.

Well this is the point I was highlighting - nothing is supposed to happen afterwards.... but often we hear that things do happen. Somewhere I read some statistics about monogamous women with plain/relatively ugly male partners being incredibly likely to 'paste on' a more handsome face over their partners' when having sex, for example. So who's face would it be? The handsome stranger they flirted with in a shop? Of course it could be.

zum wrote:
I saw a guy who worked at Starbucks flirting with a female customer; he was a talented flirter, enjoying himself; he was doing it for fun or practice; it was very kindly meant; he was flirting with a person much older, who probably would not misunderstand; they may have known each other; she took her latte and went away: different deal.

Who is to say she isn't going to hit the 'edit' function later that night when her wrinkly old hubby is getting down to it....? Maybe the Starbucks guy knew this goes on, and this is why he was enjoying himself so much wink, however, the tables will be turned when he is in Mr. Wrinkly's shoes later on in life and he may be too paranoid about his wife to enjoy himself... Also, the conscience associated with crapping on someone else's relationship may not make us feel too good, and that has health risks in itself.

Zum wrote:
Context clues set up a possibility of reading the nuances of flirting...

Sounds like excuses to me. *nerd*

lib wrote:
i would say that it can feed a fantasy world if the people involved are inclined to indulge in that direction. i don't think there's anything wrong with that, though, as long it doesn't violate a pre-existing commitment of exclusivity to another person.

Indeed, and yet what are these particular 'exclusivities' that one commits to? It seems if we go half-hearted in to monogamous relationships - i.e set down conditions, we already raise something else up above the human heart which has been courageously placed in our hands. For example, if one sets the condition that the relationship will not interfere with career, then suddenly career is more important than another human being's devotion, which includes their fertile years (for a woman, and much later possibly a man) - it's like putting a price on humanity; it can't really be done without going back to the days of slavery and feudal heirarchies.

It seems as soon as we put conditions down, the relationship becomes a 'deal', rather than a romantic union of sorts. And as soon as deals involving sex are in place, it's basically nothing more than live-in prostitution... hmm
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/24/09 - 11:36 PM:

hi xanthos,

the idea of restricting the meaning of flirting to not include serious intent is kind of weird to me. surely two people who are dating, or in an amorous relationship, flirt with each other, would you not agree? and if it is not flirting, what would you call it?

to me, flirtation is, in some cases, something which occurs naturally between people who are attracted to each other. i think this is a common conception of the word, in spite of what the dictionary says about it.

this is where context becomes important, because if two people are single and mutually interested, then flirtation may grow into a more formal relationship. on the other hand, someone may be known as flirtatious without having serious intent, and as such his or her friends and acquaintances are not likely to think much of it. such an individual may be simply thought of as a friendly person.

Zum wrote:
Context clues set up a possibility of reading the nuances of flirting...

X wrote:
Sounds like excuses to me. *nerd*

excuses for what?

X wrote:
Indeed, and yet what are these particular 'exclusivities' that one commits to? It seems if we go half-hearted in to monogamous relationships - i.e set down conditions, we already raise something else up above the human heart which has been courageously placed in our hands. For example, if one sets the condition that the relationship will not interfere with career, then suddenly career is more important than another human being's devotion, which includes their fertile years (for a woman, and much later possibly a man) - it's like putting a price on humanity; it can't really be done without going back to the days of slavery and feudal heirarchies.

It seems as soon as we put conditions down, the relationship becomes a 'deal', rather than a romantic union of sorts. And as soon as deals involving sex are in place, it's basically nothing more than live-in prostitution... hmm

i think people naturally enter into relationships with certain expectations of the relationship. those expectations vary from individual to individual, that's why it's good to become mutually aware of what the expectations are early on. these ideally will structure whatever commitments may arise to help establish a foundation of trust from the beginning.

in one past relationship i had (one of my ventures into "open" relationships), it was agreed that we could both see other people, as long as we were always honest & up front with each other about it. this kind of expectation is very different from one in which both partners agree to be monogamous.

the idea that a discussion of expectations could actually eclipse the bond of love in a relationship speaks to me of an apparent weakness at the outset.

i agree that it's impossible to spell everything out and anticipate all the challenges that will confront a relationship during its growth. but i also think that two people who have learned a lot from previous relationships probably have a good idea of what they're looking for and what is fair to commit themselves to.

cheers,
lib
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/26/09 - 11:08 PM:

i can't imagine imagining someone else during sex. the whole point of having sex WITH THEM is to experience them- and with them.

at least for me. i think it's very good to fantasize about other people alone, and flirting definitely helps. i don't think it always does anything though. some people do it for a laugh, and i don't think it's always given a second thought.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/27/09 - 4:40 AM:

lib wrote:
the idea of restricting the meaning of flirting to not include serious intent is kind of weird to me. surely two people who are dating, or in an amorous relationship, flirt with each other, would you not agree? and if it is not flirting, what would you call it?

Good point - I guess one could call it a foreplay of sorts... whatever .. that keeps the dictionary definition
for 'flirting' in place.. There is this other definition of flirting which I posted; "to come close to reaching or experiencing something" - and I think this is often mixed up with the sexual idea - (this is how NLP works btw - using words which sound the same but have different meanings depending on contexts which can overlap wink ). If one member of a couple knowlingly 'comes close to reaching or experiencing' something seriously sexual from their partner, then they could be said to be flirting, but not necessarily in the way single people would (!) kooky

I really do believe that this is where a lot of misjudgement and confusion arises around the sociopolitical dynamics of 'flirtatious behaviour' - which one are we talking about when this topic arises? 'Flirting with danger' or 'flirting to sexually arouse'? The two have different contexts.

The former 'flirting with danger' seems more of a generally private, non-communicated behaviour - where something is mulled-over in one's thoughts, while the sexual flirtation tends to be a more public behaviour which is communicated to the person being 'flirted with (sexually)'.

lib wrote:
excuses for what?

Crapping on another person's relationship, or behaving immorally/disloyal to one's monogamous partner in general.

lib wrote:
it's good to become mutually aware of what the expectations are early on. these ideally will structure whatever commitments may arise to help establish a foundation of trust from the beginning.

Agreed, and yet there appears to be enough 'science' around these days to give logical arguments which support the need for unconditional love being fundamentally displayed (or practiced with effort) between 'romantic partners', or else all is doomed from the start hmm. I can give you particular examples if you wish, but I have been putting forward many arguments on this forum already.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/27/09 - 11:22 AM:

HC wrote:
i can't imagine imagining someone else during sex. the whole point of having sex WITH THEM is to experience them- and with them.

word.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/27/09 - 11:28 AM:

X wrote:
'Flirting with danger' or 'flirting to sexually arouse'? The two have different contexts.

flirting with danger & flirting to sexually arouse seem like the same verb, same meaning, to me. the object of flirtation is different, obviously, but the action is the same, like a dance of enticement. flirting with danger could be likened to tempting fate.

i wrote:
excuses for what?

X wrote:
Crapping on another person's relationship, or behaving immorally/disloyal to one's monogamous partner in general.

do you mean to suggest that the only reason people flirt is to be unfaithful or to disrespect other people relationships?

X wrote:
Agreed, and yet there appears to be enough 'science' around these days to give logical arguments which support the need for unconditional love being fundamentally displayed (or practiced with effort) between 'romantic partners', or else all is doomed from the start hmm. I can give you particular examples if you wish, but I have been putting forward many arguments on this forum already.

i'd be interested in hearing your examples when you have time. the concept of unconditional love is not something i support in romantic relationships. one of my favorite quotes is alice miller, from the drama of the gifted child:

Alice wrote:
As adults we don't need unconditional love, not even from our therapists. This is a childhood need, one that can never be fulfilled later in life, and we are playing with illusions if we have never mourned this lost opportunity.

to me, unconditional love suggests that we should tolerate any extreme of behavior from one's partner: abuse, addictions, adultery, what have you. once upon a time i subscribed to such an ideal and learned the hard way how far from a demonstration of love it actually is in comparison to two people who share a self-respect.

of course, this calls into question how one defines love. love as a form of appreciation can certainly be extended unconditionally, if it only refers to how you feel about a person, the way that you can accept a person without judging them. but love as a verb, as a tangible act of giving, is a different matter. to give unconditionally, ie. without expectation, is a beautiful thing when we feel inspired to do so. not so beautiful, though, when such a thing is taken for granted. and i think that's the danger that comes with setting it up as an ideal context for a relationship.

i'd love to hear your thoughts.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/27/09 - 10:20 PM:

HC wrote:
the whole point of having sex WITH THEM is to experience them- and with them

In theory - but that's not what we find in many reports from long-term relationships..sad

lib wrote:
flirting with danger & flirting to sexually arouse seem like the same verb, same meaning, to me. the object of flirtation is different, obviously, but the action is the same, like a dance of enticement. flirting with danger could be likened to tempting fate.

Flirting with another person sexually as a behaviour is always communicated, while flirting with the idea of having sex with them can be merely a private fantasy - there is a big difference there. The dictionary definition for sexual flirtation said "to behave amorously without serious intent" - this means an expression of fantasy. Sexual flritation then, can never be a private fantasy, while other forms of flirting can - we can fantasize sexually inside our heads, but this is a different kind fo sexual flirtation - it is flirting with a sexual idea in private, and that's not what the dictionary is talking about. If your idea was true, then we would be able to say to two businessmen from different companies discussing a deal: "Stop flirting with each other!". Their reaction would be quite amusing, I am sure! nod This is because the sexual idea of flirting is widely recognised as something different from the private 'mulling over the possibility' doomain, and part of them may wonder which definition you are referring to - in fact I have sen someone use such a statement to separate two male friends who were enjoying themselves. Sexual flirtation is a cards-down expression of an intent to behave sexaully with another person (an un-serious one), and can have varying degrees of subtlety (which can, agreed, overlap in to the more private worlds of fantasy when the subtlety becomes undetectable).

do you mean to suggest that the only reason people flirt is to be unfaithful or to disrespect other people relationships?

If either one of the people flirting is in a monogamous relationship, then yes, I do believe that - new sexual loyalties are being formed and lost - promises are being broken and hearts are being trampled on. Some people call it teasing or creating a chase - a mating ritual - but that can happen before promises are made. I don't think the promise of one's heart to another person should be made in to a trivial matter. It's like people want to behave like teenagers with one another, but with the promises of adult behaviour... it's a contradiction.

lib wrote:
i'd be interested in hearing your examples when you have time. the concept of unconditional love is not something i support in romantic relationships. one of my favorite quotes is alice miller, from the drama of the gifted child:


Alice wrote:
As adults we don't need unconditional love, not even from our therapists. This is a childhood need, one that can never be fulfilled later in life, and we are playing with illusions if we have never mourned this lost opportunity.

Indeed; this is what I come across in almost every case, and it is saddening because I don't think it has to be this way.
I am a bit strapped for time right now, but I'll come back and put across my logic on unconditional love in romantic relationships another time (should be soon).
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/24/09 - 1:01 AM:

Hi - sorry about the delay - I've written my ideas about logical unconditional love on a new trhead! eek

Here it is: Romantic aspirations towards unconditional love
http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1273

Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.