this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
24 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23246 readers
466 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
call me oldschool but if you've had a conversation about it with your partner and they don't mind, a bit of flirting is nice as a treat.
I'm really asking about the perspective of the third party. I'm OK with it, my partner's OK with it. What I want to know is the stranger in the bar OK with it. I know every stranger is different, but in general, how big a deal is this?
yeah and I'm saying in my opinion its not even a factor
just like accepting a drink from a man doesn't obligate a woman to have sex with him, neither does flirting with a person obligate or necessitate that you be available for further romantic complications.
Dating already sucks and is miserable. Self-consciously going into an interaction with the goal of deceiving someone for attention is a shitty behavior. No, that does not oblige you to fuck them or whatever, literally no one here is saying that and such an idea is ridiculous and disgusting. What some people (myself included) are saying is that that initial action, the pre-meditated deception, is hurtful to people for no good reason.
Thats not what flirting is and I'm concerned with how transactional some people seem to see it being.
That's a horseshit accusation. Obviously that's not what flirting in general is, and I never made a claim to the contrary. From the OP:
What is the relevance of mentioning or not mentioning their partner? Might we glean that the OP acknowledges something about the social nature of their behavior?
What sort of transaction are you trying to accuse me of asserting? I don't want to fuck some asshole behaving deceptively toward me, I just don't want to be deceived in the first place. I have no interest in any sort of "transaction" here, I want to be treated with an extremely baseline respect, not on a transactional basis but because I'm a human being, just like me treating other people with baseline respect should not depend on them doing something for me first or being somehow bound to do something for me after.
Where does this deception you keep harping on even come into it? There is no deception in flirting with someone even if you don't plan to form a romantic relationship with them. It's just playful banter, it's not a promise to take it any further than the flirtation itself. The fact that you default to flirtation without a desire to take it further as being some form of deception is what makes it sound like you think there is something transactionable about it. It makes it sound like if someone flirts with you, that you then have an expectation of them that they want to go further than just flirting, when that need not be the case.
Just as flirting doesn't bind anyone to to do anything later either. So again, where is the deception in flirting with someone when you don't actually want to pursue a relationship with them? I would guess that most flirtation doesn't mean the person initiating it is seeking anything more. You talk about baseline respect, but I think flirtation is inherently respectful when done right, it is giving another person positive affirmations.
read OP again.
monogamous relationship OP is asking about flirting with people for some kind of external validation with no intention of disclosing relationship status or unavailability.
this is directly and explicitly deceiving and using the unwitting person.
If an omission would change someone else's behavior, it seems deceptive.
that is what OP literally described doing
flirting implies the further complications are possible to begin with. the whole social purpose of flirting is a plausibly deniable offer to escalate towards them.
it is incredibly cruel to dangle something in front of someone when you have no intention of following through.
it's one thing if you flirt for a while and don't feel it, but it's evil if you go into it misrepresenting your intentions.
At what point is flirting so obvious that it's dangling in front of you but is also at the same time "plausibly deniable?"
a successful run goes something like
opening move -> reciprocity -> escalation -> escalation -> escalation -> etc -> romantic and/or sexual entanglement
so i'd say 3 is where you have the opportunity to say thanks and move on having had an exchange of compliments rather than necessarily flirting, and if you stick around for the second round of escalation then you're indicating you're potentially down for something and somebody like OP would be there in bad faith.
and again this is about the case where OP is deliberately being a vampire, if you're flirting with somebody for a while and decide not to continue for whatever reason that's fine, but you shouldn't start the process if you're completely closed off to begin with.
I suppose the framing of flirtation in the OP is necessarily different than something you may not even realize was happening until 2 weeks later because of the intention.
I don't really understand the flowchart but i see what you're saying. There's a point where both parties are aware that explicit flirting is happening and if that wasnt where OP wanted to take it there wouldn't be a question.
The amount of times I've had someone tell me I've been flirted with or thought about an interaction weeks later where "...wait were they flirting or just being nice?" Made me think OP was gonna go around complimenting people and seeing if they got a nice response...