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.