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.