A (Quasi-linguistic) Note on Flirting
Flirting is, in terms of content, highly stereotypical, and undeniably includes an element of the ridiculous. Formally, however, flirting is very different…

A specialized manner of interaction, flirting is composed by a ‘thesis’ and an ‘antithesis’, which are differentiated: only the thesis is actually flirting-proper, stereotypical. The antithesis, by contrast, is unpredictable, variable. In a sense, only one person at a time actually flirts – there is a ‘flirter’ and a ‘flirtee’. The object of the stereotypical utterance by the ‘flirter’ is simply to allow for the formal exchange, which in turn allows the ‘flirtee’ to reveal something about themselves. (Even if invented, it is always a sort of revelation.)
This is the reason we tolerate the ridiculous in flirting. Because flirting is not constantly ridiculous, but only intermittently: it always seeks to reveal something about the other person, to enable us to learn something hitherto unknown or obscure.
This is, furthermore, the reason flirting is only really possible in the very beginning of a relationship. When we have come to know each other fairly well, this particular form of exchange becomes impossible, because the stereotypical thesis ceases to function: the antithesis has nothing further to reveal.
Now you know why what sounded good when first proposed – revitalizing your relationship through ‘reintroducing’ yourselves – seems ridiculous when enacted; when, for example, you actually attempt to ‘date’ a long-term companion. This is also the answer to your bewilderment when something you used to do, to which you ascribed the almost magical quality of having won his/her heart, now fails to arouse the other person, and even provokes an angry, ‘don’t be stupid’ kind of reaction.
(This might look like the beginning of an agony-aunt column in a pop-linguistics journal, or simply a rather un-Chauceresque way to the familiarity-breeds-contempt idea, but there it goes. Tough luck, isn’t it?)


