Wherein texting guy does not poof completely, AGAIN

Texting guy canceled our tentatively planned date last week -- via text -- even after this conversation took place. Ironically, I also canceled it via e-mail 15 minutes later before having seen the text. We did not speak for five days, and I thought this was poof for sure.

This evening I get, guess what? Another text, asking me if I'm going to this seder that he knew I was going to go to, and had previously said he was thinking of going to. I did not respond.

Of course, he was there. Problem: my brain has basically already nexted the guy, my instinct is to want to flirt and have fun, and I did so waaay too much tonight. Like, engaging in innuendo-y banter with him and tolerating him feeling my leg under the table. This is all bizarre to me because I think it would be a stretch to even say I've even reached first base with this guy. My eighth grade boyfriend and I had made out more by time we'd "dated" this long.

Texting guy was not the only one I flirted with at seder - I flirted with a couple of my friends pretty shamelessly too. A Practicing Rules Girl has warned me about this issue - she enjoys flirting, as do I. So when we've written a guy off (for whatever reason), we seem to mentally exclude him from the Rules and therefore allow ourselves this guilty pleasure. But if I read Rule #1 correctly, Rules girls really don't flirt at all. If you're interested in the man or may be interested, you may not flirt; if you're not interested in the man, there is not a whole lot of point to flirtation, and you could be jerking him around. I told PRG that she needs to rein in her flirting instinct to be within the spirit of the Rules, and clearly I do too.

Other than the whole under leg-under-the-table/what-do-I-get-if-I-find-the-afikomen thing, I did a good job of not clinging to texting guy. He initiated conversations, he insisted I sit next to him. At the end I sort of made a bit of an effort to leave with him (bad), but took off without lingering when I got to my car (good). On the way to the car, he joked that he counted this as our 5th date.

Texting guy is a player, I'm fairly certain. I've somehow avoided players up to this point in my life, and consider myself lucky that the Rules crossed my path before this one did.

Meanwhile, I went out on a ridiculously awkward date with eharmony guy and a wonderful date with facebook guy. I am leaving town for an extended business trip, not a moment too soon.

Texting guy called again

And he wasn't passive-aggressive this time. I stayed on the phone for a whole 15 minutes, 5 minutes over the limit, because I felt a little bad for all the unresponsiveness. Good conversation. Hm.

Other weekend activities: original facebook guy was kind of spazzy and disappointing, and I met one other guy who facebook messaged me.

OMG quit txting me

This text message thing is getting ridiculous.

The most recent ones--all from the same guy, of course--have contained direct questions of the sort that are at least quasi-reasonable to ask via text message. That is, "are you back in town" and not "hey, why don't we go out on [weekday]" Each time a new one comes in (this is all the same guy we're talking about here), this is what goes through my head, in approximate order.

Oh, look, it's a direct question. And a reasonable one at that. I've got to answer this time.

It would be totally rude of me not to answer. How can I not answer?

I think Sherrie and Ellen would let me respond to this one as long as I wait awhile. OK, I'll wait awhile.

But I'm supposed to be doing this STRICTLY. I am trying to figure out how well the Rules work, even if it drives him away.

Awwww... but I feel so BAD! And he's going to lose interest! He even hinted he would last time on the phone!

OK, hold up. This guy has still not asked me on a proper date. He keeps asking me to block off time, offers to come up with something in the interim, and then comes up with something lame and that requires him to make minimal effort.

Notably, he has carefully avoided suggesting a weekend evening for dates 1, 2, or 3. Instead, he suggests questionable time blocks, at least at first, indicating that he doesn't really care to sacrifice any premium slot.

Once he asks me on a Saturday night date, I can text him. So really, it's at least partly his fault that I can't respond to his text messages.

Yeah, he doesn't know the Rules, so one could argue that it's not fair of me to apply them without telling him.

However, the Rules are designed to protect me from ending up in a frustrating situation with a lazy, selfish man whose own convenience is his clear priority. Been there, done that. This way is guaranteed to avoid ME ending up disappointed, insecure, and anxious.

Conclusion: unequivocally worth it, even if I have to blow him off.

He already started getting passive aggressive about it during the last conversation, so I'm gearing up for a poof or some kind of confrontation about it. As far as I'm concerned, if he's going to get pissed instead of trying a more thoughtful approach, next.

The response I have prepared for in case he does say something about my never responding:

Oh, I'm just not much of a texter. I figured if you want to talk you'll call.

Thoughts? Are there any boys still reading this? Am I horrible? Am I behaving contrary to universally accepted 2010 social norms? Do you think Sherrie & Ellen would relax their Rule from a couple of years ago?

Partial topple off the Rules wagon

I think the Rules are starting to piss off this guy, who has neither poofed nor asked me on a proper Saturday night date. I sort of believe he came into my life as blog fodder.

I am by and large rising to his repeated Rules challenges. Most recently, he texted twice after our second date (I did not respond), then called (I was busy and did not pick up). When I called back the next evening, I kicked ASS. He made a couple of jabs at my non-responsiveness ("Oh, I thought we were breaking up"; "Wasn't gonna contact/text you again, thought I might be pestering ya"). I resisted the urge to justify myself beyond "oh, I was out late last night." In fact, after a particularly out-there comment I was just silent! This is big for me. Anyway, he tried to ask me out with his usual hey, book some time for me in your next opening and we can figure out what to do later, and I pushed back, made him try to pick the day, and was less forthcoming about why I couldn't make it on certain days. He suggested a bunch of different times within 4 days of the call including "[weeknight] after 9:30" ("um, that's kind of late for [weeknight]"); and"Saturday during the day if I don't go to [big drunken St. Patrick's day event at local pub]" ("I can't this week" - resisted urge to say "No, I will have to decline your conditional invitation to hang out with me tomorrow and ditch me by nightfall"). He did not suggest this or next Saturday night. Eventually we settled on Tuesday lunch. I ended the call at just over the 10 minute limit.

I was extremely proud of that conversation, although I have to admit it's getting easier to Rules this one because he's exposing himself as a "turd," to use Sherrie and Ellen's word.

So how did I celebrate? I threw the Rules out the window for the rest of the night. Kind of like an ice cream binge after a good weigh-in, I guess.

I hit on the cantor at services; well, by Rules definition I hit on him. I looked at him frequently. I beamed at him whenever he looked at me. During oneg I tried to walk around, but ended up planting myself in a conversation circle Right Next to him. I acted like a little schoolgirl when he talked to me. Hey, I managed not to be the one starting the conversation at least. I expressed interest in attending a class he's teaching. To be fair, it's a class he's teaching at an event I'm already going to. But still. Not my finest Rules hour.

Next, I went to a male friend's house after services with another male friend and a male acquaintance. I was exceedingly flirtatious and affectionate with all of them. I made myself the center of attention, was a sarcastic funny girl, and fished successfully for compliments from them. I even slept on one's shoulder as he drove me home.

In some way, I think my behavior this particular evening demonstrates the internal tug of war I have with the Rules. To my own amazement, I am embracing their spirit more and more each day. But on some level I simply must reject them at the extreme, and as applied to every guy in my life. Hence I rebel. Sometimes silly and boisterous me simply must break through when I am around XY chromosomes.

The Insidious SMS

Text messaging is not addressed in The Rules for Online Dating, but there is a bit of guidance out there on the subject. The one time I received a text from a dating prospect during this experiment, I did not respond per this article:

The only way to make a guy take things to the next level is to keep some things sacred. With texting that's impossible. Until he asks you out for a Saturday night date, do not reply to his texts.

Whereas the Rules permit a return e-mail after 24 hours, they forbid replying to texts at all until a Legit Date is on the radar. This seems extreme. Since the article's publication date in August of 2008, texting has become much much more common, and it's not as easy just not to respond. In 2008 I seem to think it was a realistic possibility that someone might not have signed up for texting on their cell phone plan; today, not so much. It's also generational; Fein & Schneider are from a generation that just doesn't use texts as much. I am from a generation that uses them all the frigging time. I myself prefer texts to phone calls for logistical matters.

That said, I think that absent special circumstances, the no-texting rule is spot on. By texting you indicate constant availability. I have single girlfriends who are avid texters, and the relationships that develop as a result always seem to be disappointing - often casual and dead-end.

Plus, the texting rule doesn't lend itself to the 24-hour rule the way e-mailing does. If you have your phone with you all the time as almost everybody does, you saw his text message before 24 hours were up. Given that text messages are so quick, there's no real reason to wait to respond other than game-playing, including being too busy, an excuse that might work for the first text, but will likely become transparent rather quickly. This is a bit of a fiction, given that many people get e-mails the way they get texts nowadays and the type of e-mails you're allowed to send are also extremely quick. For now though, it is a fiction that people are willing to put up with.

While setting up a date over e-mail has become accepted (as acknowledged in the Online Dating Rules, Rule #14: Don't Force the Relationship from E-mail to Phone), setting up a date over the instantaneous and low-commitment text still seems lazy, crude, and just wrong. This video seemed apropos even though it's a different kind of relationship maneuver.




In early 2009, one guy wrote an article aimed at female SMS victims:

[A]long comes text messaging, beep beeping like a beacon of light towards the shallow world of manhood, offering the perfect weapon against verbal interaction. We can make you feel desired whilst having a beer with our mates at the pub. We have time to deliver the perfect funny line. It enables us to absorb your probing questions and reply with confidence. Even end the conversation with a suggestive rendezvous, without committing to a date, and still come out looking good...

So what’s the answer if you really like the guy? Stop making it easy for him to keep you at arms length. He’s riding Message Street and there’s no sign of traffic. If you want him, you have to turn the tables. It’s time to get out of the frozen party pies, and into the pepperoni. It means taking text to the trenches. Where the hunter becomes the hunted and one false move can be fatal.

The author proceeds to recommend a protocol for taking the relationship off text. You start by ignoring a guy who midnight texts you for three days, then send a short reply saying you've been busy. When the guy responds, you can respond and suggest he call - the Rules would not approve. Then the author includes this excessively metaphorical gem:

When he calls, be friendly but not over-enthusiastic. If he asks to meet you within the next 3 days, stick him on a plate, Glad Wrap him, and plonk him behind your box of choccy’s and half finished bottle of bubbly. If he suggests next week, pull him off the hook, tell him to kiss your proverbial goodbye, and throw him back in the sea.

Putting aside the groan-worthy style, this passage is intriguing. This is (I think) a guy essentially advising girls when the guy is a schmuck, but in a way that is the exact opposite of The Rules. The Rules suggests that asking for next week = booking time with you in advance = good. This dude seems to think asking for next week = lack of interest = bad? It's not really clear. Plus, I honestly have no idea what is meant by "kiss your proverbial goodbye" or "Glad Wrap him." However, it is a guy, wouldn't he know better than a couple of middle aged women what indicates interest and not?

Dating coach Evan Mark Katz similarly writes:

And as long as you let them do it, they will continue to do it. Because texting is only enabled by the person who writes back to the text. If you don’t respond to texts, guess what? You’re letting him know that it’s a poor way to reach you.

...

[T]he truth is, Rikki, you don’t need men who won’t call you. It’s a self-selecting process. If he’s a good man who is genuinely interested in you, he will make the kind of effort that reveals this. If five minutes on the phone is too much work for him, it speaks for itself.

This guy's approach is a little more flexible, suggesting that you might even go so far as to tell him that texting isn't a good way to reach you or that you prefer phone.

The flip side is the advice guys are getting on texting.

The best usage of the post-first-date text is its perceived innocence. Acceptable messages would be: “Hey, I had a great night with you. I can’t wait to do it again,” or, “Just heard someone laugh exactly like that woman we sat next to the other night, except this time she was 60 and had a German accent.” Little tidbits are reminders that you haven’t lost sight of the time you spent together, but avoid formalities that should be settled in person.

Under no circumstances should a man plan his second date with a woman through text. Things like, “Hey, can I pick you up at eight o'clock on Tuesday for a follow-up?” can be detrimental to an early couple’s dynamic. Leave second date plans, or any follow-up plans for that matter, for the traditional phone conversations we all know and love though increasingly try to avoid.

I think the Rules would approve of Askmen.com's take, but would not permit the girl to respond to the post-first-date text unless perhaps it had a direct question in it. If it had a direct question, The Rules might permit a response after the date.

As mentioned above, I only have one piece of anecdotal evidence so far, and it's mixed. I did not respond to a post-meeting text that was similar to Askmen.com's recommended post-first date text. The guy did not call. Some have suggested that by not responding to the text I indicated a lack of interest and discouraged him from calling. The Rules responds that if so, the guy is weak and deserves to be nexted.

Aside: in trying to google for this article, I found my blog.