>>
The proposal, as I see it, is to expand society's definition of "single but not looking" to allow a person to still engage in the behaviors of looking. I believe that the key lies in the original post, e.g. "my flirty nature." It is also possible that "relationship" has not been sufficiently defined, either in the OP or in our society.
It is sometimes advisable to begin with a joke. I recently saw on a sit come a man who would wine and dine a female friend, complete with joking and flirting, yet had no interest in a relationship with her. Obviously the fanbase of the show was divided on the subject of their relationship, but the female friend was in a relationship and the man was accused of being a "fluffer." I will not explain the term, but it seemed that while a male friend provided the courtship elements of flirting, the boyfriend provided the courtship elements of having sex and being officially in a relationship with the girlfriend. This was deemed inappropriate, the boyfriend failing to perform all this duties and the female friend being in a pseudo-relationship with another man, and I am not advocating a new form of relationship.
However, unless we were to invent a new form of "flirting only" relationship, we must work with ideas about relationship invented long before our time. In a time before our time, a lady seen flirting with a gentleman might be accused of harlotry if she were not in some sort of relationship with that gentleman that had marriage as its end goal. Marriage was expected to be a life-long partnership, so a minimum period of courtship was expected so that no one would rush into anything they might regret later. Now it could be that you, by openly flirting with a young lady, were putting her in a difficult position where she had to pressure you to define your relationship for an old-fashioned relative. However, you also may be suffering from the loss of this "minimum courtship period" and its accompanying gestures. During this courtship period, a man was required to prove his interest with flowers, gifts, and other gestures to back up his flirting. Without these gestures, or rather without their requirement, it becomes difficult to distinguish casual flirting from more ardent pursuit.
The best option for OP might be to always be in a small group of people and flirt with all members of the opposite sex equally. This would show that they have a "flirty nature" because he does not single out a "true love" and lavish her with all his attention. Another option might be to keep his flirtations extremely shallow, leaving praise for the more intimate details to the one who "really sees her," to him who is actually seeking a relationship with her. This may not actually solve the problem, which is always a concern when applying an old system to a new problem.
If not,
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
]
[
class /
co /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w /
zom
]
[
a /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
wp /
x
]
[
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fag /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sm /
ss /
unf /
v
]