DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am currently dating a lovely young gentleman who is sweet, caring and tall. Recently, however, another gentleman who is much more, shall we say, spicy, has begun paying unasked-for attentions to me.

I do greatly enjoy his company, but in my current relationship, I am unwilling to see him as anything more than a friend. On the other hand, I cannot help but become confused and unsure of my feelings in such a situation. What are your thoughts on the matter?

GENTLE READER: Your current problem -- namely, “Tall or spicy?” -- is not one that etiquette can answer. Once you have made that decision, Miss Manners would be happy to answer the etiquette problem that will inevitably ensue.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I connected with an old girlfriend from way back in the past. She lost her husband several years ago. We have been chatting via email for a while, and things are going great. She is reserved and quiet, but very chatty online.

Neither one of us is on social media. I feel it is time that I asked that we exchange pictures. Should be pretty simple. I guess nerves have got the best of me. What do I say/how do I word it? I guess I’m afraid of scaring her. Silly me.

GENTLE READER: Not having a social media presence has not, unfortunately, inoculated you against some of the less pleasant expectations the online world has created around romance.

It is now often possible to learn the appearance, financial situation and other specifics about a person before actually meeting. But that does not make doing so polite -- or flattering. If you want to know if she looks as good as you remember, you may have to ask her out for coffee. You could accompany the request with “before” and “after” photos of yourself, humorously suggesting that it will help her recognize you when she sees you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Often at lunch, and occasionally at dinner, fast-casual restaurants will serve a meal on a plate with the messiest dish, such as a stew, in a bowl on that plate. The plate is already filled with perhaps salad, beans and rice. Further, the bowl is already up against that rice, and some of the rice has stuck to the bowl.

If I leave the bowl on the plate, it is awkward to eat the other foods. If I set the bowl on the table and use it as a serving bowl, I get rice on the table. What is the proper way to eat such a dinner?

GENTLE READER: Eat one of the outside items until you have cleared enough space that you can then slide the bowl to the edge of the plate (without actually dismounting it). This can be repeated with the remaining foods and containers. As each item is consumed, subsequent maneuvers will become easier. With restaurants making tables smaller and putting them closer together, you may find yourself doing a similar dance on your way out the door. This is not Miss Manners’ idea of an enjoyable evening out, but presumably enough customers like it to justify the practice.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

GENTLE READERS: Now that sexual harassment has been more clearly identified, it would be well to define legitimate courtship.

The very term seems old-fashioned, although there is plenty of evidence that the old pattern is firmly fixed in the imagination. Just look at the stories couples present in their accounts and videos about getting together, now a routine fixture of weddings.

These stories often begin with love at first sight, although the actual first sight may have been while flipping through staged photographs of multiple strangers, probably before reading their other attributes. There is the surprise proposal, with the gentleman down on his knees proffering a diamond ring while the lady is beside herself with astonishment, although the question of marriage has likely been long debated in their mutual household. And there is the declaration of how eager they are to begin their new lives together -- although not before they have spent months, if not years, planning a showy festival while they go on with their joint lives, possibly even to the extent of having children.

Miss Manners has no wish to strip away such romantic notions. On the contrary: She is hoping to encourage romance at the earlier stages.

This is not a subtle or a patient age. But the idea that courtship begins with a frank show of desire, when no personal preliminaries have been mutually established, is the harasser’s excuse. And that has been unfortunately bolstered by the belief that love can be handled efficiently.

At the same time that social manners invaded the workplace, businesslike methods were introduced into courtship: classified advertisements, resumes, short interviews, quick decisions.

This speed eliminates the delightfully inefficient and noncommittal stage known as flirting -- the charged glances, the ambiguous overtures, the budding sense of compatibility -- from which love can grow, but also, because it is ambiguous, from which either party can retreat at any point with honor.

Is this a waste of time? Perhaps, but those who have tried it will tell you that there is hardly a more pleasant way to waste time. And most of all, it provides a clear signal, without the awkwardness of asking outright, about whether or not further intimacy will be welcome.

Lunging is no more a courtship technique than hugging is a businesslike one.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a lady who met a guy on one of the dating sites. Just after two days, he proposed to me. We have never spoken verbally. He claims he works for the military and is based in one of the African countries, and he claims he can’t have verbal communication for security reasons. He claims he will resign soon and come to my country to meet me.

How do I know if this person is real and not a human trafficking person? Please help.

GENTLE READER: The frequency with which Miss Manners reads about ladies who believe in love to the extent of bankrolling strangers prevents her from treating your question with the skepticism she recommends to you.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

GENTLE READERS: This is probably not the year to celebrate Valentine’s Day at the office.

There never was a time that even innocent romance belonged in the workplace. If it ends badly, there will be suspicions of retaliation. If it ends happily, there will be suspicions of favoritism.

But when a show of affection is condoned as ordinary office behavior, abuse becomes easy. Miss Manners was shocked to read of a prominent feminist who, discussing harassment, was quoted first about hating “when that dude hugs me” -- then, when a “no touching at work” rule was proposed, said, “I think that’s crazy.” She then talked about how she always hugs her colleagues.

What if some dude hates it when she does that?

It is not Miss Manners’ job to discipline outlaws. Dealing with sex crimes and misdemeanors is the responsibility of the legal system, with its severe punishments, although it has been noticeably slow to do so.

Etiquette is intended to regulate human behavior in the communal interest, but it is a voluntary system, which does not deter those who are determined to behave badly and feel no shame. It lacks weapons other than social disapproval and exclusion -- and these have been in short supply in the era of instant pop therapy and re-entry.

But as we have now seen, social pressure is essential in motivating those who do have power to enforce obedience. Unfortunately, it does not always operate for the good. That it long discouraged victims of harassment from seeking redress has now been thoroughly exposed.

That has been publicly acknowledged. But -- and here is where Miss Manners expects an argument -- well-meaning people continue to foster a dangerous environment. That includes the adorable-sounding fantasies about colleagues all being friends, if not one big family; jobs providing opportunities for leisure as well as work; and those unsolicited hugs being welcome and beneficial to all.

Thus professional manners were abandoned in favor of social manners: first names, casual clothes, birthday celebrations.

There was an excellent reason for opposing the old rules: All the respect and leeway they provided was accorded only to the male hierarchy. They were addressed by titles and surnames, but called any female, minority or low-level employees by their given names. Whatever socializing there was on office time, such as lunches or golfing breaks, was strictly for them. Their suits and ties -- not jeans and hoodies -- constituted the status look.

But when a need to modernize is recognized, it never seems to be done by applying the higher standard to all. And revisions in office behavior occurred at a time when the sweet idea was wafting around that personal friends are happier and more productive than mere colleagues.

Of course, that means that you don’t get to choose your personal friends; the boss chooses them for you. They may also be your rivals. And if you spend nonworking time with them, you must subtract that from time to spend with people you did choose.

So it does not seem to be a great sacrifice to expect cheerful but professional manners at work, so that those who are so moved can distribute their hugs on their own time.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have been given grief for wearing peep-toe shoes in February. It’s warm enough here, and they match the outfit. Is there a faux pas for wearing open-toed shoes before spring?

GENTLE READER: The faux pas is giving people grief for any decent choices of costume. But while it may be warm enough for you, Miss Manners imagines that the sight of your toes makes others shiver.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)