4 ms·
>Also, as other commenters have pointed out, this philosophy completely falls apart unless you genuinely believe that everyone is heterosexual To be fair, the
by sillyfluke 3y ago
>Also, as other commenters have pointed out, this philosophy completely falls apart unless you genuinely believe that everyone is heterosexual
To be fair, the post he was responding to specified the context of the relationship as between a "(M)" and "(F)".
- burkaman 3y agoBut the relationship isn't relevant, this is a philosophy for how to treat everyone outside the relationship. Many of those people are the same gender as you but might still be attracted to you (oh no!), or a different gender but have no interest in you so there's no potential for mixed signals. So the rule a) does not protect you from accidentally leading someone on, and b) does cut off a bunch of potential friends for no reason.
- sillyfluke 3y ago>But the relationship isn't relevant, this is a philosophy for how to treat everyone outside the relationship. I think the relationship is very relevant. For example, the comment would not make any sense either if you don't assume they're talking about about a strictly monogamous relationship. Worrying about giving "mixed signals" to people when you're in an open relationship would be way less of an issue understandably. From the context of their post and the post they were replying to, the comment is about how to interact with people you may potentially be attracted to given the right circumstances (or who may be attracted to you) when you are in a strictly monogamous relationship.