>
>And don't get it twisted. She's definitely attracted to him.

I really don't get that vibe. But who knows I guess, since we don't know the people involved in real life

>you don't exchange long ass text
>threads with somebody you not attracted to.

I have and do on a regular basis lol

Do yall not have platonic friends?? There's all sorts of non-sexual stuff to text about. Work, work gossip (especially working somewhere where the chats/emails are monitored and stored), the day's cafeteria special, politics, sports, concerts, jokes, memes, etc.

Yall must be mad boring if the only substance you can muster in your text conversations with women is sexual innuendo


>
>In your case, since you go so hard about this professionalism
>shit, you probably made your boundaries clear, whereas my
>assumption is OPs girl was either intentionally or
>unintentionally vague with it.
>

Now see, we can agree that his girl appears to have been vague in her signals/boundary-setting. BUT I think we disagree on the possible reasons why.

To me she just sounds like she's trying to fit in at the job and she's had a lot going on outside of work and her relationship.

I definitely DON'T think the vagueness is a sign of her deep-rooted emotional and secret attraction to her married coworker she only met a few weeks ago.