Truth317 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 I do find it a bit strange that she continued to call you so many times like that in a course of 5 or 10 minutes. But... I still don't understand what was the big deal of not answering your phone. It takes a lot more time to send a text message back then it does to simply answer with a quick, "Hey, I am in line, lemme hit you back." You don't really owe her an explanation or anything, but it's just odd that you ducked 3 phonecalls and couldn't at least answer once and say that you were in line. Just seems a little suspicious. I think you both kinda blew that one, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth317 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Nobody is required to answer the phone when it rings. I often let my phone go to voicemail, and I think in this particular instance it was the right thing to do. He was in line, he had another person with him, and it's just incredibly inconsiderate and rude to pick up the phone in that scenario, in my opinion. She would likely have started talking and he probably just didn't want to deal at that moment. Just because a phone is ringing doesn't mean it has to be answered. Why is this such a formal outing all of a sudden? The person he was with was just a lunch buddy. She wasn't a client or girlfriend, just a person from work whom he's having lunch with. What's the big deal of answering the phone and simplying saying, "Hey I am at lunch right now, let me call you when I get back to the office." That's his fiancee' calling. And true, you don't always have to answer but I find that very strange that he let his phone constantly ring without accepting the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibenhad Posted December 15, 2008 Author Share Posted December 15, 2008 Just to clarify one last time. My cell was on vibrate as to not bother people around me in the food establishment because I feel that it's rude to talk on my cell in a crowded public place. It took 2 seconds to txt and I disrupted no one. My decision to be a courteous person. No one else but me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth317 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Just to clarify one last time. My cell was on vibrate as to not bother people around me in the food establishment because I feel that it's rude to talk on my cell in a crowded public place. It took 2 seconds to txt and I disrupted no one. My decision to be a courteous person. No one else but me. The blame is mutual. Because she didn't have to continue to blow your phone up like that after you texted her. But on the otherside of the coin, you could've quickly answered and said, "Let me hit you back." That would've taken two seconds, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girl79 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Yeah why didn't you just answer and tell her you are at lunch and you'd call her back? Did you not want her to know that you are having lunch with a female coworker? She is your fiancee after all, and it would have taken 2 seconds to let her know you are busy. Granted she shouldn't have called you repeatedly but you should not have ignored the calls either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 No I don't think the blame is mutual at all. I fail to see why a person is obliged to answer the phone when it's not an emergency. I often miss calls. Big deal. Sometimes I purposely don't answer (whether it's from my bf or anyone else) because I don't want to or can't at that exact moment. I always call people back within a reasonable amount of time when I am available to talk. If I call my bf and he is in the library, he'll probably text me saying he can't talk because he is in the library and you can't talk on your phone there. Obviously, he could if he wanted to call me for two seconds and tell me and probably no one would even notice or make a big deal out of it. But why? It's not necessary. And I would not persist in calling him. If someone needs to get in touch, call once and leave one message, then leave the person alone. It's really quite simple and cuts down on all sorts of potential drama in a romantic relationship or any other kind of relationship. In this situation, the guy did not need to respond immediately but he did anyway by texting her. Yet she persisted in calling. I fail to see how he did anything wrong whatsoever. Ibenhad, I hope that the therapy is helping her and that she has or will apologize to you and really understand that her behavior is potentially quite destructive and that it's controlling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COtuner Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 This thread is EXACTLY why I rarely use my cell phone except for work related purposes. I also explain to everyone that I keep it on vibrate and generally will call you back right away if you leave a message and let me know what you need. I rarely am in a situation where I can pick up a cell phone for a casual convo. My BF knows this and dosn't react at all if I don't pick up. He'll leave a voice mail, let me know what's up and if he's available to talk, and I call back as soon as I get 5 minutes of time to myself. Or he'll email me with what he was going to say. I do the same for him. It works fine for both of us. I personally hate cell phones at this point because they are disruptive and intrusive due to people abusing them so much. (coming from someone who used to have an old Motorola briefcase size phone back in the 80s in college when it was still cool to have one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COtuner Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Yeah why didn't you just answer and tell her you are at lunch and you'd call her back? Did you not want her to know that you are having lunch with a female coworker? She is your fiancee after all, and it would have taken 2 seconds to let her know you are busy. Granted she shouldn't have called you repeatedly but you should not have ignored the calls either. I disagree. No one should HAVE to answer the phone to respond. No one should be on a tether by phone - it's stressful enough to be on call 24-7 by the office these days, let alone people in your personal life now. And her repeatedly calling could have set off some loud and obnoxious ringtones that annoyed everyone else around the OP. I only drop everything to answer the phone if it's my boss or immediate coworkers because the job I have means there could be emergencies and deaths involved (and I will quickly run to a private spot so as not to disturb others). I ask the people close to me to text "911" if there's a legitimate emergency (like in the days we carried beepers) and I'll excuse myself and call them. Friends who are bored at work do not constitute an emergency, my mother having trouble hooking up her DVD player is not an emergency, and my BF confirming plans for the night is not an emergency. None of them get answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloudyday Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 No, you aren't obligated to answer every call, but if you aren't busy, why would it be so much work just to pick up? Are your friends/family/significant other that much of a bother? I don't use my cell often, and I don't answer every call, but I do try to have the courtesy to answer when I can or at least tell them I'm busy. Of course everyone is free to use their phones however they like and if you don't like to be bothered like Cotuner does, then tell do as she does and tell them beforehand. Also on the flip side, if I do reply to someone with a message saying I was busy, it is rude for them to keep blowing up the phone with calls or messages, which is why I say both sides could handle things in a manner that doesn't alienate the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Truth317 wrote: You don't really owe her an explanation or anything, but it's just odd that you ducked 3 phonecalls and couldn't at least answer once and say that you were in line. Just seems a little suspicious. Yup, I agree. Looking at this from a guys perspective, something is odd about that. ibenhad wrote: It took 2 seconds to txt and I disrupted no one. My decision to be a courteous person. Courteous to who? Your friend from work or the strangers at the restaurant? Shouldn't your fiancee take precedence with your considerations of courtesy? I don't think what she did is right, but I get the sense that she isn't the only one with control issues in the relationship... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Courteous to who? Your friend from work or the strangers at the restaurant? Shouldn't your fiancee take precedence with your considerations of courtesy? I don't think what she did is right, but I get the sense that she isn't the only one with control issues in the relationship... I don't get why his fiancee should have taken precedence in this situation when it was not an emergency of any sort and he could have called her back once he got to the office. Not like he was going to let a long time pass before getting back to her. And I don't see how the OP has displayed any control issues...care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Lady00 wrote: And I don't see how the OP has displayed any control issues...care to elaborate? Sure. He hasn't even entertained any opposing point of view within this thread without aggression, but relating to his actual issue... Well, I think one could argue the point that purposely ignoring calls when there is no reason to ignore them is a form of control. Lady00 wrote: I don't get why his fiancee should have taken precedence in this situation when it was not an emergency of any sort ... I am of the belief that your fiancee takes precedence even if there is no emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Sure. He hasn't even entertained any opposing point of view within this thread without aggression, but relating to his actual issue... Well, I think one could argue the point that purposely ignoring calls when there is no reason to ignore them is a form of control. I am of the belief that your fiancee takes precedence even if there is no emergency. Oh I see. Yes, we have very different views on this. As for purposely ignoring the calls, I would do the same because I would be upset and would not want to say something I'd regret and secondly I would not find it appropriate to get into a possible confrontation with my SO while out to lunch with colleagues. Third, I don't like being controlled. If I am not able to take the phone call, I am not able to take it at that time and I don't think that I should have to answer calls, even if repeated. I think this is rude behavior and I would not validate it by picking up the phone. Of course, thankfully, my SO would not do this to me because he does not like it done to him. Back in the day when I was younger and a lot less mature, I actually once did this to my SO (we dated in the past as well) and he was furious and told me to knock it off and that he felt controlled. I don't think that in this particular situation an SO takes precedence. Sometimes I don't take my SO's calls, for various reasons. Same goes for him. Can't see why this would change if we became engaged. I think he should stand up for himself and not accept blame for this situation. My fear is if he accepts any blame whatsoever for it, she will think her behavior is OK and do it again in the future. I think she needs to realize that she was out of control and that she needs to snap out of it. I think the way for a person to show that the other's behavior is not acceptable is to not respond to it, wait until they have time to be less annoyed, then talk to the other person about why they don't like the behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Lady00 wrote: If I am not able to take the phone call, I am not able to take it at that time and I don't think that I should have to answer calls, even if repeated. I think this is rude behavior and I would not validate it by picking up the phone. I agree. If you are not able, then you are unable, it's simple. If you are able and decide not to, I have a feeling whoever is on the other end of the phone trying to get ahold of you would think that being snubbed, for no reason in particular, is also rude behaviour. Repeatedly calling someone is not the solution, no doubt about that. Lady00 wrote: we have very different views on this. Maybe, maybe not. I'm trying to see the situation from a point of view that is different than my own to see if it holds up. It seems to be. Lady00 wrote: I think the way for a person to show that the other's behavior is not acceptable is to not respond to it, ... I disagree with that, but that's off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DN Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 The fact is that he did respond - by text. That should have been enough to end the calling then - had the call been urgent she could have texted to say so. A text response is acknowledging the call, says that the person is busy or not able to talk right now and will call back when convenient. The point that some people appear to be missing is that the person who initiates the call does so when it is convenient to them - so why can they not extend the same privilege to the person receiving the call? If they are busy doing something they wouldn't pull out their phone to call and yet they seem to expect the person they are calling to interrupt whatever it is they might be doing to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Lady00 wrote: I agree. If you are not able, then you are unable, it's simple. If you are able and decide not to, I have a feeling whoever is on the other end of the phone trying to get ahold of you would think that being snubbed, for no reason in particular, is also rude behaviour. No, I don't think it rude to not take a call if I don't want to. I may be doing my nails, watching tv, reading, whatever. Clearly I am "able to" pick up. I am often able to pick up the phone but choose not to. It's not rude. If it's urgent, they leave a message telling me so and I'll drop what I'm doing and call them right back. Since when are people required to be at the beck and call of others and drop everything to answer a phone call that is not urgent? Sorry but I'll never understand the logic behind that. In this particular case, the guy did respond. He responded that he could not talk at that moment. She should have understood. Still not sure how he did anything wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 The point that some people appear to be missing is that the person who initiates the call does so when it is convenient to them - so why can they not extend the same privilege to the person receiving the call? If they are busy doing something they wouldn't pull out their phone to call and yet they seem to expect the person they are calling to interrupt whatever it is they might be doing to answer. I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 DN wrote: ...yet they seem to expect the person they are calling to interrupt whatever it is they might be doing to answer. That would be in reference to someone that calls incessantly. The average person doesn't expect anything from someone they are calling.... I think we all agree that calling over and over again was wrong. It happens to be in this case we already know he could have answered the phone. That changes the hypothetical scenario of: "..expected to drop everything because he is too busy to pick up" to "...chose not to pick up, then became annoyed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 It happens to be in this case we already know he could have answered the phone. That changes the hypothetical scenario of: "..expected to drop everything because he is too busy to pick up" to "...chose not to pick up, then became annoyed." Yes, he was physically able to call and he could have stepped out of the line or out of the restaurant in order not to be rude to others in the line or to the people he was at lunch with. I guess I really just don't see what is wrong with not picking up and then getting annoyed when the other person persists when he is doing something else and can call back later. Just because a person's SO is calling does not mean they are under an obligation to answer the phone or are being rude if they choose not to answer and to call the person back later. In most situations in life, a person is able to pick up. Unless you're in a plane and your phone is off or a similar situation like that arises, people are generally able to pick up. Doesn't mean it's convenient or that it's rude if they elect not to pick up and just decide they'll call the person back when it's convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DN Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 DN wrote: That would be in reference to someone that calls incessantly. The average person doesn't expect anything from someone they are calling.... I think we all agree that calling over and over again was wrong. It happens to be in this case we already know he could have answered the phone. That changes the hypothetical scenario of: "..expected to drop everything because he is too busy to pick up" to "...chose not to pick up, then became annoyed."Well constantly calling would not have been an issue has he picked up the first time. But my point still remains the same regardless of how many times someone calls. To make an assumption that it is convenient for someone to answer, or should be made so because it is a fiancé calling, is not reasonable in my opinion. Of course, SO/s are important in one's life but they aren't exclusively important - or shouldn't be in a balanced relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 DN wrote: Well constantly calling would not have been an issue has he picked up the first time. But my point still remains the same regardless of how many times someone calls. To make an assumption that it is convenient for someone to answer, or should be made so because it is a fiancé calling, is not reasonable in my opinion. I don't think we disagree, because I am not saying what she did is right. If there was some misunderstanding about "his fiancee taking precednce", that was in repsect to his comment of courtesy not to say that it should make him obligated to dance to her flute song whenever she calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Lady00 wrote: Just because a person's SO is calling does not mean they are under an obligation to answer the phone... There are some communication issues here. I will assume it is on my part and I am not explaining myself clearly. I think we may still disagree, but i will leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Lady00 wrote: There are some communication issues here. I will assume it is on my part and I am not explaining myself clearly. I think we may still disagree, but i will leave it at that. You stated that it was rude not to take a call if you are able to. I read that as meaning that because the someone, such as the OP, is physically able to make a quick return phone call, they should or they are being rude, even though it was not convenient for him. Sorry if I misunderstood you. That is what I was responding to. I don't think it is rude, regardless of who is calling, so long as the person receiving the call returns the call within a reasonable amount of time, when it's convenient for them to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Lady00 wrote: You stated that it was rude not to take a call if you are able to. Actually, I did not say that. I said I have a feeling that some people may think that, because it seems his fiancee and at least one poster on this thread said that. I also said that I am thinking about this information from an opposing point of view from my own to try to understand the situation better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady00 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 If you are not able, then you are unable, it's simple. If you are able and decide not to, I have a feeling whoever is on the other end of the phone trying to get a hold of you would think that being snubbed, for no reason in particular, is also rude behaviour. That is what I interpreted that to mean. Again, sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were saying that it was rude. But it seems you are saying that some people find it rude. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.