My "in my generation" rule really means, "in my decade" (til I near the upper end). It's essentially a 10-year window that should fall around my age. I dated older guys for a long time, and I kept going older and older, and when I left that relationship I decided I wanted to give guys my age a real try. If you aren't aware of fears that are running your life, then you aren't really allowing them (consciously) to run it, are you? And of course some fears, like say car accidents, are actually kind of reasonable. So, in general I'm not a big phone call person. Although I pass my required hearing tests I don't have great situational hearing. Often on phones it would be even worse. I basically stopped calling boys after high school until I met and swooned over a guy who would call me just to talk whenever he had a spare moment. I guess he liked phone calls. Even then I never took up the habit for myself. I'm not a big caller even among family. So I guess my stance on phone calls is I don't make them - unless I need something immediately, like directions or someone isn't answering their texts. I'll take them, sure, if it's convenient, and I'll talk for as long as the conversation goes on, but I could take 'em or leave 'em on the whole. With the texts, I really hate feeling like I am hanging around always checking my phone JUST IN CASE specialpersonx has decided to hit me up. I'm going to go out and have fun. I don't want to get hung up on "Oh I texted him an hour ago and I didn't hear back." My solution to that is I text once, maybe twice, and don't text again until I hear from the person. And like I said, if I'm the one always texting first I cut that shit out. kleinbl00 is spot on about dating/power, except I've always thought that the person who cared less had more power. Not caring about texts/contact was in my mind an outcrop of that. Though recently it's come to my attention that some guys I are perhaps a bit thrown that I don't initiate texting them. It's like they expect the girl to open up the lines of communication - but once they're opened, communication goes freely in each way. For some reason I guess the girl is supposed to start it? I guess girls text more. I don't know.
I don't speak for all men, but i doubt your perception of our texting expectations is totally accurate, for most of us at least. In fact, I've always understood men to traditionally be the initiators for any relationship stuff. But for me and just about every guy I know, texting is mostly a situational thing. If I feel like talking to a girl, I'll text her. Likewise I assume that if she feels like talking to me, she will text me. Everyone's happy, problem solved. It has nothing to do with always awarding the responsibility to one gender or the other. Having an attitude like that makes texting so much more stressful than it has to be. I am a bit thrown when you say you don't initiate texting, but not because I expect you to do so all the time, I'm thrown because you say it with such finality. Your original post made it sound like you expect the man to always open up the lines of communication, but if you're right about men expecting the same, then you would never send or receive any texts(to/from men). I may just be attributing my own relationship issues to your words. I'm sorry if that's the case. My girlfriend has a mentality similar to yours in that she wants to talk but feels uncomfortable initiating the conversation, and I just don't think that's fair. Although I guess casual dating works differently than a committed relationship. And if you're being ignored by the person that's a completely different story. I guess, to tie this into the thread prompt, I love it when a girl isn't afraid to express interest in me. I hate the "chase" or whatever that is expected in the initial courting phase. I'm also pretty shy and the beta-ist of beta males so a girl who is willing to join me outside of our comfort zones, in the form of an occasional text out of the blue or just plainly saying "T-Dog, I am interested in you romantically" is infinitely more desirable to me than one who doesn't make any attempt to meet me halfway.
The finality was a bit of a miscommunication. I will initiate texting. I will not repeatedly initiate texting. i.e., if I don't hear from you unless I text you first, in all circumstances, then I'm going to text you less. I don't want to be the one who is reaching out 100% of the time. I am willing to initate texting first even like let's say 70% of the time but I need the guy to reach out to me of his own volition at times. Otherwise it doesn't feel like he is interested. So I moderate my texting in response to how other people text me, but I don't unilaterally not text. I observe whether I am extending myself way more than the other person, and if I am, I scale back. I totally believe in the middle zone. When I stop initiating text conversation with a given person I am giving that person the opportunity to meet me in the middle and seeing how long it takes. Same with multiple texts - I won't text a person if they don't respond after, generally, two texts. Either they are busy or they are ignoring me and in either case it's reasonable not to text until I get a response.
ah, thank you for clarifying. that does make me think that we're more on the same page. The most reasonable arrangement is a 50/50 sharing of responsibilities, but as i said before it's always situational. Personally, i'm often willing to put myself out there and make up for the missing effort of the other person, with the assumption that their lack of effort does not reflect a lack of care, it just means that something has come up which demands more of their attention - people go through shit independently of my relationship with them and there's nothing wrong with that. I just hope that they one day return the favor when i go through my own phases. Like you said, it's once it becomes a trend that i scale back to see where the relationship stands. Although, admittedly, this is kind of a counter intuitive strategy, isn't it? It's meant as a means of self defense but man, it was a very sad day for me when i realized all my friends were only my friends because i forced them to be.
I wouldn't say it's counter-intuitive. If people actively want to talk to you they'll pick up the slack, to a certain extent. Sometimes all it takes is initiating a conversation to get things back on track, others times it doesn't. It's interesting being on co-op away from friends and seeing which people are more active in talking to you be it through texting, phone calls, skype, etc.Like you said, it's once it becomes a trend that i scale back to see where the relationship stands. Although, admittedly, this is kind of a counter intuitive strategy, isn't it? It's meant as a means of self defense but man, it was a very sad day for me when i realized all my friends were only my friends because i forced them to be.
Ideally, yes. You'd think that in a healthy friendship, their response would be to pick up the slack when you gave them the opportunity. The reason I say it's counter-intuitive is because historically it hasn't worked out like that for me. Usually, my choice to pull back is indicative of a disconnect between me and the other person that has already been growing and has only then come to my attention. At that point, more often than not, me no longer initiating only results in us not talking at all. So In some ways I end up more hurt than I would have been if I just continued to do all the work myself.
Rules are personal and usually arise from learning more about oneself and what one needs. kleinbl00 says this below: "My experience has been that those who refuse to so much as pay lip service to the power struggle at the heart of the dance tend to end up with fellow socially-maladroit individuals." What is the power struggle at the heart of the dance? kb will have his own definition, but when _refugee_ decides not to initiate texting -- she perceives herself to have less "power" in the relationship dance than the other person. In other words, she has more to lose. If she initiates a text, wants a response, but doesn't get one, she feels crappy. She can protect herself by creating the rule not to initiate a text. Does that not make sense? I think we are talking her about the pre-relationship phase. Once a relationship of relative equality is established, the dialogue changes. You, T-Dog, make an excellent point. With shy people, there is much less of a power dynamic. The shy person probably perceives him or herself as having no power in the situation. Someone has to take the risky first step and INITIATE something. Sometimes the hints and social cues are totally missed and the girl has to say, "Lie on my back and rub against me." Did you ever see my love story for shy people? I should write a verson where the shy person is the boy. Last point: The question what are your rules/guidelines for the dating stages of relationships could be reframed as: How do you protect your heart?
I hate that we have to consider there to be a "power struggle" in the first place. I mean, yeah, there's a system of giving and taking and gestures that are offered and then reciprocated. But perceiving not only power, but a struggle for that power just seems to create arbitrary competition over something that no one can win anyway.
If refugee ceased to think of herself as having more or less power and just thought of conversation as pleasant and natural interaction between two human beings, the hard and fast rules about who should do what wouldn't be necessary. Yeah, it makes sense to not want to feel vulnerable, but the existence of the rule is in itself the source of so much disappointment that i don't think it's worth having (in my personal experiences as least). I would rather accept vulnerability as a necessary element to a successful relationship than something i should try to protect myself from. For me, that is the core of all intimacy... my choice to become vulnerable is the best way i know to express my interest in someone. So, to answer the question of how i protect my heart: poorly! But the fact that i'm in a happy, stable relationship makes me think that i've done something right. I concede that you and kb undoubtedly know more about all this than i do. It's entirely likely that i sound totally naive, but oh well. I noticed that kb said people who acknowledge the power struggle are more equipped to cope with it, but i wholeheartedly believe that the struggle only exists if you want it to. Speaking as a paralegal for a divorce attorney (if that even counts for anything), i've observed that it's entirely possible to have an equitable, fulfilling relationship without keeping score. Doing so doesn't make the relationship function any better, it just makes the value of the intimacy worse. Although which option is more healthy in the long run i can't say for sure. kb and plenty other people would probably consider my romantic endeavors clumsy. And they're probably all right. But i would much rather be clumsy and happy than careful and upset.
Well . . . we don't have to consider a situation to be a "power struggle" if we throw out the notion that power is something that is won. Power is dynamic and fluid. Negotiating power dynamics is something we do all the time on the small scale. Many languages deal with abstract concepts kind of sloppily (no surprise). For example, in English many of these concepts are expressed in a way that implies permanence or a static state. Furthermore, this lends itself to the idea of "winning" and "losing". If we consider power to be something that is dynamic and that must be continually negotiated for, then we can get out of this mindset that when we don't have power that we have somehow "lost" instead of found an opportunity to renegotiate our position. By imposing rules, we then resort to the mindset of, "what rights do I have?" vs. "what rights do you have?" In a rights-based frame, we are again confronted with the "win/lose" dynamic, which of course means that if one side wins, then the other loses. That's a pretty shitty way to relate to someone, in my opinion. Another frame we might resort to is a relational frame, wherein the people involved try to collaborate in order to foster the relationship. In this sense, I'm using "relationship" in a greater context than "a romantic relationship". For example, you might be familiar with this frame in the context of friendships. Let's say that you and your buddy agree that you are hungry. Your buddy wants to go to his favorite place and you want to go to your favorite place. It might turn out that your buddy really just wants a burger and you want a slice. Therefore, you might decide to go to a place that has good (or good enough) burgers and slices. Or, through conversation, you might find that you both want to try that new place, or could go for nachos instead. Note that this is not a compromise, but a renegotiation. A compromise implies that at least one party must lose something, which often does not have to be the case. The thing is, the relational frame only works if all the people involved are willing to play. That said, this is something that people only use when they're interested in maintaining or continuing the relationship. If that's not the case, then an interest-based frame might be the way to go.I hate that we have to consider there to be a "power struggle" in the first place. I mean, yeah, there's a system of giving and taking and gestures that are offered and then reciprocated. But perceiving not only power, but a struggle for that power just seems to create arbitrary competition over something that no one can win anyway.
It's more complicated than that. When Refugee decides not to initiate texting she's starting the bid at "I matter more to you than you matter to me." Obviously, if the other person bids an equal amount, the relationship is deadlocked. What follows is ornate and complicated. Just google "3 day rule" to see how complicated. The short version is that it is assumed that women are going to play the "I matter more to you than you matter to me" card because tradition. Men, therefore, must play the "you matter to me but not so much that I'm going to demonstrate it to you" card. Note that this is just second contact. The whole tawdry affair rockets through an untold number of iterations until the couple is truly a couple... and sometimes, well past that point. It's a power dynamic. Both people want to be together but it's important to establish the shape and bounds of that dynamic. It basically gives you a starting point from which to explore each other, and it's anything but solvable by inspection. Thus my statement: the people who know how to do this end up with people who know how to do this. The people who don't end up with each other. And the people who understand the game, are willing to put in the time, and recognize that it is a game but that the score does matter tend to be better at resolving relationship issues because they accepted more of them at the get-go. Disagree. Wit shy people the power dynamic is a lot more passive-aggressive. Both people are still telegraphing the same subtext, they're just doing it in a clumsy fashion.but when _refugee_ decides not to initiate texting -- she perceives herself to have less "power" in the relationship dance than the other person.
With shy people, there is much less of a power dynamic.
kb - I truly believe you have that wrong. You see her decision as showing power, when it is actually showing fear. She is deciding not to text out of fear that she will APPEAR to like the other person more that the other person likes her. She's afraid she will be disappointed. However, if the other person texts first, she knows that she is desired and there is less to risk. You don't know this yet, because you are not a girl (yet). We'll have to let _refugee_ have the final word. I could be wrong.It's a power dynamic. Both people want to be together but it's important to establish the shape and bounds of that dynamic.
This has not been established. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If she knew for sure that the other person desired her, texting would not be an issue. How do you know that for sure? Wait until they text first.
As is your prerogative. Long have I been pissing off the Internet with my dating advice. You can disagree all day without hurting my feelings one iota. Doesn't matter which is which. Fact of the matter is, her decision is showing a lack of interest. If you can pretend that's by choice, you win. If you telegraph that it's by inhibition, you lose. And a confident person, as opposed to a shy person, would know that she will appear however she chooses to appear. So? Everyone is afraid of disappointment. The point being: sexual dynamics hold that the man is the one who must test his disappointment more often than not. See previous statement about 3-day rule. How many girls have you dated? How many girls have you slept with? How many girls have you entered relationships with? How many girls have you had relationship-ending fights with? It's patently irresponsible and hostile to wall off knowledge about sexual dynamics behind a wall of vaginas. I don't know you. That much is for sure. I don't know anybody specific to this discussion. But if we're talking hypotheticals, I'll betcha I've dated a lot more girls than you have. Not sure why you'd assume I wasn't paying attention to any of them. If they don't it doesn't matter. Now we aren't talking about a relationship, we're talking about a false start.
You couldn't be more wrong. If she knows for sure that the other person desired her, and texted him immediately, the power dynamic would change. These games continue well past the point where the two people in question have slept together. I used to fuck on the first date all. the time and boy howdy - the games get no simpler until you've settled into a relationship. That, more than anything, is the point of a relationship - so you don't have to go through courtship bullshit unless you want to. I think it's funny that the crux of your argument is that the woman shouldn't be required to act first because it's a "fear" issue instead of a "power" issue without recognizing that the person who actually has to do something is the one without power, regardless of the motivation.kb - I truly believe you have that wrong.
You see her decision as showing power, when it is actually showing fear.
She is deciding not to text out of fear that she will APPEAR to like the other person more that the other person likes her.
She's afraid she will be disappointed.
However, if the other person texts first, she knows that she is desired and there is less to risk.
You don't know this yet, because you are not a girl (yet).
This has not been established. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
If she knew for sure that the other person desired her, texting would not be an issue.
How do you know that for sure? Wait until they text first.
Right now, though, I'm only trying to explain what ref meant and I believe she is not saying You are unimportant to me although I agree that by not txting, she is sending that message. Anyway, she can explain herself by herself. We will wait for her response (or not). There's some lovely points above that I don't entirely disagree with...and will write more later. thxI think it's funny that the crux of your argument is that the woman shouldn't be required to act first because it's a "fear" issue instead of a "power" issue without recognizing that the person who actually has to do something is the one without power, regardless of the motivation.
I'm not arguing that the woman shouldn't be required to act first. Whoever is willing to throw caution to the wind SHOULD and WILL act first. After a while, one is willing to take risks and handle rejection. How to make that possible is another topic.
kleinbl00 I choose not to text because I would rather appear not to care than appear to care too much. I would rather feel I have control over myself and my emotions than feel like I am putting out wasted effort. If a guy is not interested in me enough to initiate any conversation, and/or text me back (or attempt to contact me in any format) after reasonable periods of time, then I am not interested in him, regardless of how interesting he may be. The stopping texting rule is a rule to establish that I am not the one making all the effort. That I am not the one having to do things and that, therefore, I am not the one without all power as following kb's Hypothesis Of Power (the person who has to do something is the one without power). So yes. It is about power and establishing that I don't lack it in the relationship. That i have some "pull" on this other person at least enough that they are willing to use a phone, send off a relatively effortless missive, and thereby contact me. I realize not texting does not make me look like I am afraid and that is why I do it. If I wanted to look afraid, I would do what I have observed my female friends do, a behavior that makes them look desperate, clingy, and insane: they text, text, text. They don't get a response? They text about not getting responses. They have a crush on someone they think doesn't like them? Two beers becomes an excuse to text this person. It is desperate, it is unattractive, and it will only drive people away from you. Silence is a message and it is a loud one. If a guy goes silent on me I will hear that message. I won't bombard him with texts until he finally actually tells me stuff. I'm smart. I can infer things. If a guy never thinks to initiate a conversation with me he's not thinking about me. He's not interested in me. I don't need to be told twice. I would rather cut my losses and move on. I will not fixate on someone and beat any possible positive feeling they have towards me out of them until they hate it when their phone dings and my name pops up. I initiate text conversation at first. But I also see if the guy does. If the guy also does so, or texts back enough and appears interested, I'll keep initiating. But if it becomes clear I'm the only one putting my foot forward I will take my fucking foot back. lil yes it's about fear. sure it's about protecting my emotions. I tend to be very intense at first. Then I stop being interested. (I'm trying to change that.) I used to text way, way, way too much. This helped me moderate it. But it is also about power, and knowing about whether it's worth it to continue trying with someone. You could call it a "test" of sorts. Though admittedly I hate to be a girl who 'tests' guys. If a guy doesn't like me enough to give up a little power by way of contacting me, then you can stop at the seventh word in that sentence. He doesn't like me enough. He's not worth my time. To be clear I give guys time before I do this. I'm not demanding someone be super totally into me right from the beginning. I notice trends and I respond to them and modulate my behavior accordingly.
I think that a lot of people feel like this and personally, I'm not a fan. Phone calls are more human than texting because the participants get to hear each other's voices and the nuances of their speech. Plus, when it's over, it's gone (unless you've recorded it). The way things are now, a phone call means that someone needs something and if people are only calling each other when they need something, why answer the phone at all? I've heard some make the argument that phone calls are slow, but to me it makes sense to take some time to communicate. The other thing I don't like about texting is that it lends itself to attribution errors and it's there to be read and re-read until it's become something much more than it might have ever been intended to be. I guess it's what we've got for the foreseeable future, but I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with it. Again, I feel like a lot of people subscribe to this and I don't like it. Not caring about things doesn't lend anyone power, but it does help people be jerks to each other. Power is dynamic, not static. Withholding things to gain control greatly limits interactions and possible outcomes. As part of a social toolkit, I think it's fine, but if it's the only thing in the box, then I think that's a problem. I'm not at all saying that I think that's the case for you, but it does seem like I've met a whole lot of people with that one hammer who wonder why things fall apart so often. In my experience in other cultures, a universal thing seems to be that males are expected to initiate interaction, but females are expected to be the ones that communicate. Everyone walks around with biases and expectations, even if they're unaware of what they entail. I suppose those guys you're talking about had certain expectations that you didn't fulfill. Personally, I'd think that that would be a good entry point for a conversation about expectations. People's expectations can tell us a whole lot about them, after all.So I guess my stance on phone calls is I don't make them - unless I need something immediately, like directions or someone isn't answering their texts. I'll take them, sure, if it's convenient, and I'll talk for as long as the conversation goes on, but I could take 'em or leave 'em on the whole.
I've always thought that the person who cared less had more power. Not caring about texts/contact was in my mind an outcrop of that.
Though recently it's come to my attention that some guys I are perhaps a bit thrown that I don't initiate texting them.
I think the argument that phone calls are slow is silly. It's much easier to provide detailed, longer blocks of information over the phone. There were times that I resented the implication of a phone call (this related to the boy that broke me in to phone calls). A phone call expects you to be immediately available, willing to drop what you're doing, and talk to whoever's calling for an unknown period of time. In a way when you make a phone call you're assuming the other person is free enough to do those things and likes you enough that they'll do them. That might sound like a weird assessment. I don't know. On the other hand, I'm having a bit of a communication issue with someone, and I'm trying to blame it on the fact that it's been over text message. Otherwise this person may end up being annoying in person as well, a recent development. I'll report back when I can. We can see if it's all the text messages' fault. I try to be cautious but genuine in my dating habits. I hate feeling like an idiot. Always being the one to reach out, or texting often without getting responses, make me feel like maybe the guy's not that into me. It's more about protecting myself from becoming overly invested and/or just feeling dumb because the guy's ignoring me than about actual withholding/power struggles with me. If a guy I like texts me, I text him back. If I have something to text him about, I'll text him. But I'll certainly stop texting him long before I have my third rum-and-diet and think that sending four texts in a row is a great idea. Because tomorrow morning it won't feel that way to me. I guess I more accurately meant "more power to walk away." "More power to avoid getting hurt" or "more power over one's choices" as opposed to "more power over the other person." It sucks to be toyed with and played. As for those guys, they are both former interests on my side but apparently - not so former - on theirs. They both burned through their chances so I'd cut contact. I guess I was supposed to get drunk and tell them I missed them or something. One texted me drunk and I responded in the hopes of mending bridges and that opened a floodgate of hit-ups. Like as soon as he heard from me the doors were open. So it's not really an opportunity to talk about expectations with either as there aren't any, but I was surprised by how one response seemed to easily spur both on. I don't know.
I can only go on what you're saying, but this: ¦it's not really an opportunity to talk about expectations with either as there aren't any, but I was surprised by how one response seemed to easily spur both on.¦ and this: ¦As for those guys, they are both former interests on my side but apparently - not so former - on theirs. They both burned through their chances so I'd cut contact. I guess I was supposed to get drunk and tell them I missed them or something. One texted me drunk and I responded in the hopes of mending bridges and that opened a floodgate of hit-ups. Like as soon as he heard from me the doors were open.¦ don't seem to agree with each other. Clearly, there are still expectations, if only of opportunity and availability on their side. That "flood of hit-ups" seemed counter to your expectations as well. Edit: I guess I don't have the ability to quote on my phone. You get the idea . . .