A year ago today, I put up a guest post by a philosophy professor writing under the pseudonym “Alex Rails”.

Rails’ post was about the ethics of sexual relationships among people in academic philosophy, couched in terms of advice for how people could virtuously navigate this tricky terrain, or, as they put it, how to be “a strong player.”

It was a controversial but widely discussed entry in a series of guest posts last summer. Some people really appreciated it. Some absolutely hated it. It generated some offense, some reflection, and some amusing social media commentary.

Rails recently got in touch with me again about a follow-up post on flirting at conferences. The problem it takes up is this: If the optimal amount of flirting at a conference is not zero, but flirting at a conference is morally risky (with possible hazards for the flirter, the flirtee, and third parties), how should flirting at conferences happen? Their post is below.

As I said with Rails’ last post, discussion is welcome, but, given the subject matter, I ask you to exercise a bit of care with your comments. The comments section is not the place to out named individuals, either for flirting well or badly, or to otherwise remark on specific people’s personal relationships.

Note that if you wish to comment using a pseudonym but you’ve commented here previously under your real name, be sure to enter both a new name and a new email address when you comment, so your identity is not inadvertently revealed (email addresses are not made public but are recorded by the commenting system). If you want to reach out to Rails personally, you can do so by email to [email protected].

Pietro Longhi, “The Meeting” (detail)

How to Flirt at a Conference: a Harm Reduction Post
by “Alex Rails”

There are so many sweet philosopher couples, some of whom even work in the same department or write papers together. My last post here drew some outraged comments because I talked about being a philosopher who likes to seduce other philosophers. If flirting in a professional setting is not done, as some of the comments suggested, where do all these sweet couples come from? Did they all meet outside of work?

Not every fling becomes a relationship, and not every flirtation becomes a fling. So, given the number of philosopher-couples, it’s reasonable to conclude that there’s a lot more action going on. And it goes on for a good reason: passionate, romantic, and sexual relationships are, for many people, the stuff of the good life. Since academic jobs tend to encroach on a large part of our time, can we be blamed for finding that stuff within the sphere of our work?

This topic is taboo. And taboos cause horror-excitement loops. The idea of flirting in a work setting is exciting to some people, and this excitement further upsets those who are already upset by the idea, whose upset further heightens the excitement. As soon as something is “forbidden” it becomes much sexier. I can only be grateful for the extra excitement this has brought to some of my flings.

Despite this, it is important that outrage about something taboo does not become directed at the vulnerable and the victims. I assume that many of the people who feel anger at the thought of someone flirting at conferences do so out of concern for victims of sexual misconduct. However, the anger can become directed at those victims when it targets all sexual activity within the discipline. Many victims do not fit the mold of the perfect victim. Some start the journey willingly, thinking it will be fun, harmless, or educational, before ending up harassed, stalked, or trapped in, say, toxic mentorships and subsequently blamed for it too. Meanwhile, philosophers are still flirting at conferences, despite the taboo and perhaps even because of it. Some of you have flirted with me since my last post here.

I have discussed academic workplace relationships and flirting at conferences with many people, including some who reached out to me by e-mail after my last post. A question that intrigued many readers was: is it possible to flirt at a conference without causing harm? Consider this an applied ethics post, based on those conversations, about how to flirt at conferences like a strong player.

Before we start, let’s clarify what flirting is.

What is Flirting?

Making sleazy comments is not flirting. That’s just sexual harassment. The distinction is very important. When we equate flirting with sexual harassment, it becomes possible for sexual harassers to say “I was just flirting” and “you people just don’t like flirting.”

I looked for a philosophical account of flirting and found a helpful book chapter by Lucy McDonald. According to McDonald, flirting is a dance where both parties take turns inviting the other, through their speech or behavior, to cross the line between a more distant acquaintance and a more intimate one. The dance consists of push and pull moves from both flirters. First, I might approach you as a colleague, but then I approach you, for a moment, more like a close friend or lover, implicitly inviting you to respond to me in a more intimate manner. If your response suggests you’re interested in my invitation, I might pivot on the edge or playfully pull back into colleague mode again, before venturing further into the intimate territory our exchange is creating. You push forward into intimacy and perhaps “play” at withdrawing, too. As McDonald says: “This behavior is what gives flirting an element of ambiguity; interlocutors keep each other on their toes, by introducing elements of uncertainty and making the common ground precarious. In doing so they insure themselves against being described as too forward, and they make the interaction more entertaining.”

Sexual harassment is characterized by repeated unwanted and unreciprocated push motions towards someone. Flirting, crucially, requires that there are two people actively participating. And there should be some background relationship or activity which is non-flirty to retreat into.

From that perspective, a conference is an ideal place to flirt (to be clear, McDonald does NOT say this, I do). As far as academic activities go, conferences are likely the safest place for it, since you are likely to meet people that are not your direct coworkers.

Flirting must take place under the radar, in a way that is imperceptible to outsiders, and even plausibly deniable to the other participant. Otherwise, it loses the fun and ceases to be flirting. This means that flirting should not corrupt the context in which it occurs. It should not turn a conference into a singles night. I have found that there is one style of flirting that is particularly suited to maintaining the integrity of the conference setting. This style is what I call sapiosexual flirting, or flirting aimed at the ideas or intellect of the other.

Sapiosexual Flirting

Let me demonstrate what I mean by negative example. I once had someone approach me during a conference reception and say “Hey, I wanted to tell you something. You said something at the Q&A today… It wasn’t even what you said but just the way you said it, the way your eyes were glistening, as if you were very enthusiastic about the topic. And I felt that I wanted to get to know you.”

They seemed sincere, but I was revolted. This is because they seemed to say, “It wasn’t really what you said that interested me. You were just so cute while you said it.” In this attempt at flirtation, they disengaged from my ideas and moved the focus to some other feature of me, in an attempt to pull me out of philosopher-mode and into some other mode where they could more easily flirt with me. But I go to conferences to be in philosopher-mode, with the occasional bang, of course. To me, this (poor) attempt at flirtation disrupted the conference context and even felt degrading.

If they had been interested in my ideas, they might have asked what I meant with what I said at the Q&A, and we might have gone off on a philosophical tangent together and found beauty in each other’s ideas. From a place of genuine interest in the other’s thoughts and ideas, careful, sapiosexual push-and-pull moves can be made. And if the other does not reciprocate, then you have simply had a good conversation.

However, I cannot recommend conference flirting without addressing the following serious dangers:
1. Creeping someone out
2. Creating a sleazy atmosphere
3. Losing a good colleague

Creeping Someone Out

Flirting is a mutual game. However, someone must initiate it. And initiation is a high-stakes action. Foolhardiness on this front can be prevented by imprinting into your mind that you too can be a creep, no matter how good your intentions are and how attractive you are. Not being creepy requires self-awareness and self-awareness is both introspective and extrospective. As Valerie Tiberius puts it “The self-aware person is committed to discovering her real motivations and has the ability to see herself from a third-person point of view.” (This is from a chapter in her book. To be clear, she is not talking about flirting at conferences, I am.)

First, train yourself to become aware of your real motivations for thinking or doing something. Do not fumble and throw out flirtation attempts and realize only 20 seconds later that you have done so. Be intentional about the pushes and pulls. Second, stick to the one-shot rule. If you make a push-motion, and the other does not reciprocate, retract, err on the side of professionalism, and don’t try with that person again. Imagine how your behavior looks from a third-person perspective and make sure that nobody could reasonably find you a creep.

Here’s an example of how a careful flirtation can be retracted. Once, I attempted a clumsy flirtation with someone at conference dinner. I remember making a comment about the beauty of their system of thought, coupled with a look, that was a little intense, nothing extreme, but the intention was, perhaps, palpable. My discussion partner smiled distantly and disengaged from the topic. I had an immediate moment of micro-mortification and took this as a clear sign that my intensity was not welcome. I straightened my posture, smiled back and gave them space. Years on, I maintain a good professional relationship with this person, my hope is that they did not even notice or do not remember.

I’d also done myself a favor by making sure that others did not hear this push-motion. This is as it should be. Even if your flirtation goes over well, others present are likely not willing bystanders. If the flirting is conspicuous, this might erode the otherwise pleasant professional atmosphere for others, which brings us to the next danger.

Creating a Sleazy Atmosphere

Certain types of flirtatiousness can contribute to a sleazy atmosphere. Sapiosexual flirting (where the focus is on a person’s intellect and ideas) is less likely to be sleazy. But flirting in a way that puts the focus on the other person’s body or demeanor is more likely to offend. Hence, I would avoid the latter in general. Flirting should also be targeted and non-conspicuous. It is better to direct a flirtation to one person and carefully check their response, rather than casting a wide net, which is likely to come across as sleazy and desperate. In fact, I think that casting a wide net is probably the most common flirting faux pas that I’ve seen at conferences.

Here is what it looks like: At a certain point at the dinner or reception, especially when the alcohol flows, some people begin to broadcast their push motions to whomever is there to hear. It is almost as if a person is trying to flirt with the entire company that they are with, at once, inviting everyone to step over some line. There is a wilding of the eyes, a loosening of the posture, a mischievous expression, leaning in a little too far, a familiar tone and sometimes even indulgent revelations about one’s love life or a too comfortable use of language (as if talking about fucking or even saying the word fuck might magically bring about its semantic contents.) There is nothing wrong with having a drink and relaxing a little, but there are ways not to radiate sleaze as you do so. Basic etiquette goes a long way. If alcohol makes it difficult not to, then make sure you practice drinking in another setting first.

Sometimes we feel the urge to rebel against behavioral norms. This can be justified in cases where norms are oppressive. But in many other cases, the urge to rebel has more to do with our own self-oppressive personal circumstances than whether the norms are just or not. One can often understand why the inner swine insist on making itself heard at the conference reception: a professor with little time for other pursuits, overworked, and in an unhappily sexless marriage with another workaholic. Or imagine: a PhD student who feels that they screwed up their talk and is searching for something to override the painful memory. The inner swine seizes its opportunity. This is not good for the atmosphere.

How can we guard against this? First, the professional guise is not separate from one’s personal life; it begins with one’s personal life. Therefore, make sure that you have some way to channel your inner swine, and that professional events are not the only time you can let loose. Secondly, if you feel the professional atmosphere collapsing you can help preserve it. Look around and take stock of who you are with. Are you a man in the company of four other men and one woman? Are people getting drunk? If the vibe starts to turn locker-roomy, straighten your posture, brighten your expression, select which jokes you laugh at and which you don’t, which topics you engage with and which you don’t, show your discomfort. I have seen colleagues do this in different ways: visibly cringing at something someone says or even saying “I’m not sure I feel comfortable with that remark” or a slightly lighter “too far!” Good manners will never make you less attractive either.

Flirtations often lead nowhere. But sometimes they lead somewhere consequential. Other times they lead nowhere but their impact ripples into the future. This can have consequences for you professionally. Before you flirt, be acutely aware of the fact that it may cost you a good colleague.

Losing a Good Colleague

Many people think that flirting, and anything sexual, with a colleague, or even a friend for that matter, is likely to cause a nasty tangle in one’s social circle. Even if you don’t think that, the person you flirt with might think so, and you will have to respect that. This means that flirting with someone can potentially cost you a good colleague.

Furthermore, flirting can, by its nature, complicate certain kinds of existing relationship or preclude the possibility of such relationships in the future. Especially relationships that involve some significant professional power dynamic and heightened vulnerability (such as mentorship or subordination) we tend to think of as not mixing well with anything sexual. Other types of relationships are more easily combinable without risks.

Which relationships mix well and which don’t are on a sliding scale from morally easy to morally difficult: we might see flings with colleagues at different institutions as being on the easier end of the gradient and subordinates or mentees on the extremely difficult side, with other types in between. Someone senior to you will generally be easier than someone junior to you. So how far into the morally difficult deep end can you permissibly venture?

This depends on the refinement of your moral skills. Yes, I am saying that some people may permissibly sleep with colleagues and others not. I realize there will be some readers who think that morality permits, requires, or prohibits the same actions of everyone, and hence disagree with me here. On my view, though, virtuous people justifiably have a license to do more morally difficult things. Such a license is one of the rewards of virtue, granted because to be virtuous involves having the skills that allow one to do morally difficult things well.

Before you flirt, therefore, try to determine where on the easy-to-difficult gradient that flirtation would be. Subsequently assess, with the self-honesty of someone determining whether to jump over a mile deep precipice, how skilled you are at managing such relationships. Have you flirted before? Have you had flings before? Are you psychologically in a place to be getting into morally difficult and vulnerable situations? Or are you insecure about your career? Are you insecure about your sexuality? How comfortable are you with being rejected? Do you have friends you can talk with honestly about these things? Have you been able to maintain good relationships with people you’ve flirted with or had flings with in the past? Do not venture too far out of your depth.

I tend to stick to the following: no one more junior than me, no subordinates and no direct coworkers. This of course means that me flinging with someone senior to me would require them to do something that I wouldn’t do. I do not hold myself responsible for the more senior people that decide to flirt with or have flings with me. If someone more senior decided that the connection with me is worth the risk: I assume that they are highly skilled and therefore trust that they know what they are getting into. I am responsible for my own choices and of those making riskier choices than me I demand more virtue. People in positions of more power, and who make riskier choices that are more morally difficult: I expect more of them.

Senior scholars who choose to have flings with me are not sharks that I’ve enticed by wearing a meat suit. If their desire for me leads them to act unprofessionally, then I am not responsible for that, they are. In fact, holding me responsible for their screw ups is exactly the problem. Blaming sex rather than the inappropriate conduct of people in positions of power gives power abusers an easy pass and does not encourage the development of sexual and sexual-social virtue. Again, flirting is not sexual harassment, and a fling with a colleague is not an abuse of power. It is crucial that we differentiate between them.

Some believe that by tolerating sex in a professional environment, we perpetuate gender-based violence, because immature men will inevitably end up ruining things for women. I understand that deeply pervasive patterns of gendered violence that skew our world against women from the get-go are hard to uproot, and sometimes the best we can do is ameliorate by making things a little safer, even if a little less hedonistic. However, I cannot shake the sense that by expecting immaturity of men, we might be encouraging precisely that immaturity. What if we stopped expecting immaturity from men in positions of power, and instead expect virtue, and expect even more virtue when they choose to enter morally difficult situations?

License to Play is the Reward of Virtue

I still believe that we should be talking about relationships in the sphere of our work more, even if talking about conference flings might not be good publicity for us. Some might say that it sets a bad example for our students. However, philosophers are in the business of investigating the truth and what is right, not in the business of good publicity. Talking about what is going on, if anything, should be a good example for aspiring philosophers.

My message to those young philosophers is that one should not see conferences as just another place to get laid. My point is that it is a high-risk place that requires lots of understanding of professional roles, self-awareness, and self-control. Flirting at conferences, therefore, also provides an opportunity to refine one’s moral skills on these fronts.

The thing with any difficult skill is that one needs to practice it, and practicing difficult skills generally means taking risks. Every performing musician has their first show, every ski jumper their first jump, and every surgeon their first operation. These risky feats are done at the moment that the learner is ready and has had enough practice. So it is with flirting in morally difficult settings.

Some virtue ethicists think that virtue is hard to develop because virtue tends to be dull, whereas vice glitters like black obsidian. I do not agree with this. Virtue is hard to develop but it grants the possessor the ability to live fully in peaceful coexistence with one’s inner swine, and a license to play with fire.