If you are with me, you don't have to act normal.

[ghoul]

If you are with me, you don't have to act normal.

I want to use "be with someone" in a literal sense, meaning, in the sentence above, to tell another person they don't have to try to act in line with social conventions when they're calling or hanging out/texting with me.
The issue, however, is, I see a lot of dictionary definitions for it, including "to have sex with one" and "to be in a romantic relationship with one" (1) which worries me a bit because of possible misunderstandings when freshly meeting someone. Now, one may argue that the context should make it clear what is meant but I'm imagining a situation where the the other person doesn't know you and you've met at a weird-people place. Who knows, perhaps you're that guy who marries them in their fantasy after just a single conversation.

So, to be able to better decide if I should use "be with someone" literal meaning, I'd like to know how often it is used in such sense compared to its' other meanings.
Lastly, I'm open to alternative suggestions.

 

[ghoul]

Is bumping threads fine?

 

[Tarheel]

I had read this one, but I didn't know what to say. Coincidentally, I just wrote a humorous rhyme on that subject. (See below.)

When I can't think of anything to say then I probably will say nothing.
Like yesterday when I saw you and you weren't wearing anything.


I might say that they can just be themselves. I don't think "You don't have to act normal" is very natural.

 

[ghoul]

I had read this one, but I didn't know what to say. Coincidentally, I just wrote a humorous rhyme on that subject. (See below.)

Fine.

When I can't think of anything to say then I probably will say nothing.
Like yesterday when I saw you and you weren't wearing anything.

I might say that they can just be themselves. I don't think "You don't have to act normal" is very natural.

Noted. Why though?

 

[jutfrank]

Here:

You don't have to act normal (when you're) around me.

 

[emsr2d2]

If you are with me, you don't have to act normal.

I want to use "be with someone" in a literal sense, meaning, in the sentence above, to tell another person they don't have to try to act in line with social conventions when they're calling or hanging out/texting with me.
The issue, however, is, I see a lot of dictionary definitions for it, including "to have sex with one" and "to be in a romantic relationship with one" (1) which worries me a bit because of possible misunderstandings when freshly meeting someone. Now, one may argue that the context should make it clear what is meant but I'm imagining a situation where the the other person doesn't know you and you've met at a weird-people place. Who knows, perhaps you're that guy who marries them in their fantasy after just a single conversation.

So, to be able to better decide if I should use "be with someone" literal meaning, I'd like to know how often it is used in such sense compared to its' other meanings.
Lastly, I'm open to alternative suggestions.

Whilst "to be with someone" can be taken to mean "to have sex with someone", bear in mind that you're not going to be using those exact words when talking to the person in question. Saying "You don't have to try to act normal when you're with me" suffices. When using the "having sex" meaning, the sentence is likely to use some verb form of "be with". For example, "He accused me of having been with her".
What you're using is simply "be" + "with me". I might not be explaining it very well, if I'm honest!
(Cross-posted with jutfrank)

 

[ghoul]

Here:

You don't have to act normal (when you're) around me.

"When" instead of "if" to imply it's not unsure whether them being around me will happen, right? And you shortened it, nice.

I may be wrong but I feel like, to an extent, people use "if" and "when" interchangeably just to refer to conditions in general. What's your observation on this?

 

[jutfrank]

I may be wrong but I feel like, to an extent, people use "if" and "when" interchangeably just to refer to conditions in general. What's your observation on this?

The two words are similar and so there are are times when both could be used, yes, but they're also different in meaning so they're not simply interchangeable. When I read your original sentence, I wondered whether you may have been translating from the German 'wenn'.

 

[ghoul]

The two words are similar and so there are are times when both could be used, yes, but they're also different in meaning so they're not simply interchangeable.

Can you show me an example of when they could be used interchangeably?

When I read your original sentence, I wondered whether you may have been translating from the German 'wenn'.

I didn't actively think about it but yeah, a condition-word that doesn't give information on the certainty of what it refers to, that's how I intended to use it.
Maybe Yugioh made me unlearn what "if" and "when" actually mean.

I thought about this again, are you sure I should say "when" instead of "if" in my first posts' sentence? "When" refers to the time of a future situation we are certain of (1) which I wasn't with that person since I expected them to cut contact after one conversation like most other people I've met online.

I suppose, you assumed the friendship was more established and that there was certainty of another conversation?