Spring Cleaning

The Conversation Continuance Rule

Once in a while, two people will meet at a social gathering of some sort, and find themselves deeply involved in an intriguing, intellectual conversation. As the conversation may progress, the details and direction of the talk may take a more personal turn as the two parties involved may start to get to know each other better, having carried on such a stimulating exchange. Sometimes, the comments from one may be a little suggestive or coy, but at the same time may remain innocent on the surface. It is just around this point when it may be confirmed or denied that the two talking might have a future together as a dating couple, however without direct questioning, this confirmation may never be received. Why? Because of the Conversation Continuance Rule.

This rule is an unspoken rule that is understood to mean that the conversation must be continued as long as possible (due to its intriguing and intellectually stimulating worth) even if certain details must be omitted. This rule usually comes into play when one of the parties of the conversation who is currently committed in a romantic way senses that the other party is romantically attracted to him or her. While the conversation is good, the attracted party is suspected of only holding a conversation due to the magnetism being experienced and yet there is no reason two people cannot carry on an exchange without feelings involved. Therefore, the un-attracted and attached party will omit any details of a relationship with a significant other until questioned directly about it.

Why be so evasive? If the conversation is good, then why disrupt it? Also, why act on suspicion when the blame of attraction can be both incorrect and embarrassing to both parties. The method of evasion is initiated to keep a conversation going, and to assume that there are reasons other than trying to mate to talk to another person. It is also so that incorrect blame is not placed on innocent bystanders.

Ah, but the plot thickens; what happens when the omission is instigated and then played for so long that the other party then assumes the freedom of the first and begins an assault of flattery and flirtation that the first cannot fend off simply because they are not asked the right question and have lost the chance to inconspicuously make the other aware of a previous engagement? How to tactfully disarm the situation without too much damage to the prides of either side? A question left to be answered another day...
...

I write too much. I found this on Jenny somewhere and found myself so intrigued I couldn't stop reading it. I don't remember much about writing it, though I do remember thinking it and discussing it; not necessarily with a member of the opposite sex that I was attracted to. :)