it doesn't matter if my boyfriend minds

[juldea]

I am a flirt. Most of you know this. What can I say; I enjoy attention. This sometimes leads to people trying to gauge the possibility of actually becoming involved with me in whatever way (romantic, physical, etc.), and in many of these cases, leads to a comment structured as so: "Well, I could [say more|be more forward|make a move|prove it], but your boyfriend might object."

This is wrong, and you should never do it.

I am in control of my body. Not anyone I am dating or otherwise involved with. Whether or not you and I flirt, kiss, make out, fuck, whatever, is my decision to make, and the only person you need to worry about approving or disapproving is me.

I am also in control of my relationships. If you want to be involved with me, you don't sit down and work out the arrangements with my SO. You work it out with me. If my SO objects to anything I discuss, commit to, or do with another person, that is my problem to deal with, not yours.

My body and heart are not anyone's property but my own, and no one but me can make decisions about it. So quit passive-aggressively hinting that you have intentions towards me that my SO might object to, and instead perhaps ask me what I think? I mean, I know that by flirting I am inviting people to think about being involved with me, and when that happens I do want to know if someone is interested (for the ego boost if nothing else!) But there are ways to communicate interest and query for response, and I find the above to be a bad way to do it.

Edit: This rant is specifically directed at the situation wherein the person saying the above is not anyone who has a relationship of their own with my SO that they might worry about. Also, I want to point out that so far, most of the comments from men I've received have been related to this lack of clarification, and most of the comments from women I've received have been YES YES YES THIS. Heh.

Edit 2: I am editing this post continuously in response to feedback I'm receiving about how I'm communicating. Just be aware.

Comments

[sjo.livejournal.com]

Amen to this!

[ysabel.livejournal.com]

This. Yes.

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

Except for the fact that you seem to be discarding the person's concern for their relationship with your SO, I understand where you're coming from.

The context suggests this conversation occurred outside the presence and\or awareness of your SO, and therefore it may be a moot point, but if I knew a certain thing bothered your SO anywhere he saw it, I would refrain from doing that thing with you, because your SO might object and that could damage my relationship with him.

Of course, I've never met Dan, and I generally try to be as inoffensive as possible (with some gigantic caveats, I admit) so what I am thinking is, I am sure, not even remotely what you're thinking, but hey, there's the loophole in your argument.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Good point. I am indeed making this point centering on situations where the person making that comment does not know my SO at all and thus is not concerned about their relationship. I don't count that a loophole, just that I have not been sufficiently clear as to the context of comment that I am ranting about.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Generally when I say "...but your boyfriend might mind", it's a naughty joke instead of a sincere flirtation.

Also, in a lot of cases, guys saying that generally are saying "While I would like to have sex with you, I don't think the pleasure in that would outweigh the pain of the resulting fistfight."

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I object to the convention that my SO should fight/be upset with the guy instead of me. If I were raped, sure. If I went out and slept with some dude? Not the dude's fault! Thinking it's his fault turns into "her body belongs to who she's sleeping with."

re: I don't think the pleasure in that would outweigh the pain of the resulting fistfight

[etherial.livejournal.com]

It's true. juldea has a mean left hook.

[rax.livejournal.com]

Also, in a lot of cases, guys saying that generally are saying "While I would like to have sex with you, I don't think the pleasure in that would outweigh the pain of the resulting fistfight."

Such a statement still lacks any concern as for the consent or enthusiasm of the you in the sentence. If your main reason for not having sex with me would be that my spouse will kick the shit out of you, either you're assuming that I'd like to have sex with you (hella icky), or assuming that my lack of interest is less worth mentioning than my spouse's displeasure (hella icky). Contextually this can still be funny, among the right people, I'm sure; juldea is presumably getting it in contexts she doesn't find funny.

[diego001.livejournal.com]

This, yes. Also, I sent ysabel here.

I think that means you have to make an edit. :P

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Edit made. :P

[getoffended.livejournal.com]

I concur with your observations. Hence my never asking if you SO objects. I worry about if my SO would object, that's my adult responsibility.

In the end as long as you are happy and talk about whatever you need to with whoever you need to the world would be fine. It's sad that so many men have a difficulty being direct and honest with a woman. I've found in my life that if you just lay it on the line, there is little need to be coy.

Besides, most women are not interested in a man in any way who can't have a strong and honest opinion and still be respectful. If anyone as a man finds themselves unable to strike up a conversation with women... it's not the women...

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure you made some comments in the past about londo objecting, but it was probably in jest long after understanding was reached between you and me. ;)

But yeah. Geez. Directness + honesty for the win. Also, I'll point out that men using this method make it easier for women to not be honest back at them: it gives me an out to say, "Yeah, he'd mind," rather than, "It doesn't matter whether he minds, I'm not interested in you that way," which is better for both of us to have said!

[zdenka]

Oddly enough, my comment would have been close to what rax said, although from a different perspective. So I will simply add that I think that "If someone wants to flirt with me, but the person's S.O. is not comfortable with it, I'm not going to do it (unless/until they mutually agree upon boundaries that make it okay)" is a valid position, because it respects the commitment that people in a relationship have to each other (not one "owning" the other), whatever the nature of that commitment may be.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

But you making that decision is different from a statement to your flirtee of, "I'd take this further, but your boyfriend might mind." (The use of the subjunctive is pretty critical here; it becomes my problem to let the flirter know which case it is, thus validating their belief that that case is the only deciding factor in whether or not it's taken further.)

I've made the decision plenty of times to avoid flirting with someone because it would cause them grief with their SO. I hope I've never indicated to someone that whether or not I get with them is solely determined by the opinions of their SO.

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

This frustration reminds me very strongly of a pet peeve of mine, specifically, one that's such a hot button that I have come pretty close to writing an entire post about it (and may yet). In fact, it's prominently on my mind because someone recently said it to me.

"If you hurt her, I will hurt you."

Almost exclusively said to men dating the 'her' of the sentence. Usually said to said men upon first meeting them, by a self-identified close or best friend.

It's a tremendously insulting statement to just about everybody involved. The 'her', since it's a direct affront to both her decision-making ability and her coping ability, the 'you' because there is an immediate implication that he is going to do something so hurtful that physical retribution will be required, and the 'I' because it indicates that he is a thug who knows no better means of emotional support than beatin' up 'bad guys'.

It's also a completely rotten way to make a first impression.

Assholes.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yep. Been the 'her' of this, and been unsettled by it for similar reasons.

Also, ALL relationships are going to hurt sometime. Seriously. Case in point: you hurt me. But if any of my friends had attempted to retaliate in any way, physical or not, against you for it? I know who I'd side with.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I've been "her". I try to take it as a compliment it's intended as.

[witticaster.livejournal.com]

Do you have a problem with people verbally admitting that fact to new SOs, or to the sentiment in general? I find it rude to point out, but I generally assume that being violently protective of one's friends is an unstated and understood truth.

[zdenka]

gaudior once jokingly made that threat to a guy I was dating. His response: "Yes, but then I'll have hurt lignota, and that will be worse."

I considered that the correct answer. :-)

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

Not everyone is poly, and being involved with someone poly is fine with me, and being involved with someone who's cheating is not. So at some point in a flirtation, the issue of other people we're involved in and agreements with them is going to come up. I hope I've never done this in the way you're ranting against. I think I tend to bring the subject up by talking about my SO's and my agreements with them, which seems inoffensive.

Is it the tacit assumption that of course your boyfriend would not be ok with it, and that his opinion and not yours is what matters, that's so galling? I could certainly see that.

While I haven't been in exactly the situation you're talking about, one thing I've noticed that people don't 'get' in other situations, which I think applies here too, is that humor does not grant a blanket get-out-of-offensiveness-free card. In fact, a joke that relies for its humor on an implied sexist assumption can be more offensive than a direct statement of the sexist assumption, because it's harder to confront the assumption in response.

[faerieboots.livejournal.com]

I admit, my initial reaction to this post is, "People do that?" followed immediately by "Wow, how tacky."

I suppose I find it baffling that this might be considered a useful pick up line. What is the individual attempting to accomplish or convey in that instance?

(Ah, the things I miss by sending off very strong "no really, don't hit on me" vibes)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

From a discussion with someone I know to be a reasonable and nice human being but who used this line on me and I called him on it, he claimed it was a way to keep from putting the entire ego on the line by coming out and saying, "Hey, I'm into you," and instead stating it inside of a joke that could be backpedaled on.

[phoenix-rinna.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think most men who say that don't genuinely mean those implications when they say it. I think it's a standardized, if maybe sleazy, format for a guy to check if a girl is available, and that they personally aren't actually inherently making the assumptions that you outlined here. I think the guy is more likely making a (probably ill-advised) assumption that if you're being flirtatious, it means you're interested, and thus he can safely assume that you'd be okay with it as long as you're available.

Perhaps it's a problem that it simply didn't occur to them that it could be taken that way, but I think it's more a problem in the context that it propagates a negative stereotype about gender roles in relationships. I think it's more important to point out to a guy that what he's saying isn't appropriate than to demonize him for saying it, because hell, he may well honestly not be conscious of how he's coming off by saying that. That said, your entry hopefully serves just that purpose for some people; I just don't think most of them actually have that total lack of concern for you and your decisions in mind when they say it. Anyway, If they're that sleazy to begin with, then I think there is some responsibility on our part to just walk away rather than continuing the flirtation. (Also, if a guy is clearly getting the wrong signals, he probably needs to be informed)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

The point of my post is to point out to people what the thing is that they're communicating, i.e. what I hear, when they say what they say. This way they know how it's coming across, and they can knowledgeably decide if they want to continue using that phrasing in the future (and if they do, know that I will be upset.)

And it is a DEFINITELY ill-advised assumption that flirtation = interest. Flirtation is FUN, and all it indicates is that I'm interested in flirting. :P

[udalrich.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I've used this sort of line, but I know that I don't do it regularly. If I have used it, it was probably with someone that I knew or suspected was not poly and that we had gotten to the vicinity of the boundaries of what they could do. (The last is often a mixture of guesswork and were I would put boundaries in a mono relationship, but it's also at a point where I start to get uncomfortable without more explicit permission.)

That said, there are a few points that I can see in favor of this sort of line. It does remind you that you have an SO and some sort of agreements about what you can do with other people. If you want to cross a line that you said you wouldn't cross, that is your decision, but you should consciously cross it. Mentioning your SO means you are actively thinking about them (at least for now), and we're not going to slowly slide into forbidden ground while enjoying the sensations of the moment.

It can also be a useful for saving face. I enjoy flirting, even if all it leads to is more flirting. In this situation, I am reasonably certain that we have reached (more or less) the limit of what can happen at the moment. You have (probably) enjoyed what has happened so far, and would probably be willing to repeat it in the future. The limit may be because you don't want to go any further with me, you have agreements not to go any further or both.

"I am not interested in doing X with you" is, at some level, an insult in a way which "my SO would be upset if I did X with you" is not. In the former, there is something about me which is causing the refusal, while in the latter, it is the current circumstances that are causing the refusal. Whether there is something wrong with me is vague in the latter form.

(In the preceding two paragraphs, "you" is a generic recipient of the line, not a specific person.)

Politeness can be a matter of deciding which truths to tell and which to leave unspoken.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Hrm. The things that you seem to find polite are the things that I find actively damaging. :/

(I am also using generic 'you', for the record.)

If you think you need to remind me of my SO and our agreements, you are dishonoring me. It should be given 100% assumption that I am an adult who is honorable to my commitments. I guess if there were some kind of inebriation going on, sure, but that can also be phrased as, "Would your bf mind?" instead of, "I would be making out with you, if only your bf didn't mind."

As for the saving face... it's not politeness. The phrasing of, "we'd be doing this if not for your SO" forces me into one of two responses: simple agreement, which is a lie because the thing that is holding us back from action is in fact more the fact that I'm not interested in doing more than flirting, OR to come out and say this fact, which allows the guy to say, "What a bitch! I was only expressing interest in her relationship!" which is a lie. It's a statement that's a trap, intended to protect a guy's ego, relying on my inherent desire to not step up and metaphorically slap them in the face.

[darkoni]

Well, you seem to have generated some monster thread of comments here. I haven't read them yet, so I'll give you my first thought before I do that, and may have a different thought afterwards.

It seems as though the approach someone in that situation should be doing is, "I could say more, but I don't know if you're exclusive."

It sounds like what the person is trying to do is sound out whether they are intruding. Asking whether you are exclusive seems like a better way to do that. Unless you post signs or something saying you are exclusive or in an open relationship, most people have no way of knowing. That would be a straightforward way to find out.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

And your statement there, "...but I don't know if you're exclusive," is... mostly fine. It's asking me about the dynamics of my relationship and showing interest. But it's still bypassing the question of, "Are you actually interested beyond just flirting?" which is not something that should be assumed, EVER.

[doompuppy.livejournal.com]

I read "Well I could (x), but your boyfriend might object."

As "Please define for me what agreements/commitments exist between you and you boyfriend. I would like to explicitly know what (for example x) would be a faux pas."

Less on the fear of getting beat up or removing a person's right to their sexual freedom, more with the trying to understand the nature of the relationship.

I do however see how the statement can be construed as offensive and my reading could be far more easily conveyed.