Is this normal?

[Coily]

On 8/8/2024 at 10:01 AM, AA1994 said:

However she sometimes takes 4/5 hours to text back but be active on social media in-between these text messages.

This the level of texting my GF and I do, when we're chatty. She could be on social media, during that time, but I don't care. Sometimes we hardly text during a week, neither of us want to use texts as a measure of interest.

Here's how I would suggest looking at texting for either sex; the regularity or response time is irrelevant. It's the content and enthusiasm of the messages. I swear some people would melt down if this was in letter writing days. haha.

[yogacat]

10 minutes ago, Coily said:

I swear some people would melt down if this was in letter writing days. haha.

They'd be shouting, "your carrier pigeon isn't fast enough!!" 😂

[rainbowsandroses]

12 minutes ago, Coily said:

It's the content and enthusiasm of the messages...

^^Exactly.  Quality not quantity. 

[Batya33]

In early dating my interest could be tentative, dependent, fragile such that if the person did or didn't do something - might be related to communication, communication styles, information he revealed - my interest level could decrease (or increase a lot!) -later on my interest was then based on knowing and dating the person so that it had a stronger core. To me early impressions are very important and informative.

[AuthenticSelf]

I had those situations before. I found an easy hack. 

As soon as I get the message from them, text back straight away. They would still be in the message app. 

Then, if they come back straight away, they are interested, keep going. 

If it takes for ages, leave it. Their interested is gone. Girls use long reply time as a way to say "sorry, not interested". 

In your case, she is polite not to ghost you. 

[catfeeder]

5 hours ago, AA1994 said:

I would never go to them lengths its weird and creepy, I also do not stalk the activity as some weirdo above suggested, it just comes up on the newsfeed as im scrolling! I was just curious as to whether to gauge the amount of interest from such situations

Hah! I'm the 'weirdo' who suggested that stalking her SM would be perceived by her as a creepy dealbreaker. And hers was the position I was taking, as opposed to being accusatory with you.

Before anyone meets in person they are strangers, and so a stranger doesn't 'owe' us anything, and certainly not immediate reciprocation of messaging. Strangers aren't even a blip on our radar unless and until we meet, and lots of people who only post privately to friends and family won't even share their social media with a stranger before a first meet, because it's too intimate, and they don't want to encourage a fixation from someone they haven't even met yet.

So I think the overall suggestion here is to back off on fixating on someone you haven't met yet. This is no indicator of how well the two of you might hit it off, it's just a prompt for you to recognize that your concerns are premature, and if she knew about them, they'd likely creep her out. They foretell of someone who is insecure enough to make her life hell by measuring text response times and questioning why she has time for the rest of her life without a response to a typed message. That's overkill on the focus, and it speaks more about you than of her.

Head high, enjoy the meet, and back off on micro-measuring. You'll thank yourself later.

[Batya33]

47 minutes ago, AuthenticSelf said:

I had those situations before. I found an easy hack. 

As soon as I get the message from them, text back straight away. They would still be in the message app. 

Then, if they come back straight away, they are interested, keep going. 

If it takes for ages, leave it. Their interested is gone. Girls use long reply time as a way to say "sorry, not interested". 

In your case, she is polite not to ghost you. 

I am pretty sure I show up as active in a message app when in reality I’m not.  Or I am but then I get called away or pulled away because….life. 

[catfeeder]

43 minutes ago, Batya33 said:

I am pretty sure I show up as active in a message app when in reality I’m not.  Or I am but then I get called away or pulled away because….life. 

Yes! This micro-measuring stuff is the opposite of productive. Somebody posts an idea of measuring response time as an absolute indicator of something, and then it goes viral as a bible of measurement. Buying into that is self defeating. There are too many factors of chemistry that are unique and specific to the two people involved. So holding up any given factor, especially pre-meet, is a ridiculous way to sink one's self into a downward spiral--for no good reason.

OP, I think we're all behind you in the hope that your meet goes well, even while I'm concerned that you have invested all of your emotional eggs in one basket. The idea behind dating is to incorporate all potential ways of scheduling quick meets with strangers, including organic personal meets with online scheduled meets, to screen out bad matches and only include good potential matches into your dating pool.

This diffuses the importance of any ONE given meet, even while it offers 'next' potential matches so that your focus remains diffused until you meet someone who proves actually worth investing in dating. A hyper-focus on any given potential opportunity can sink you into an unnecessary downward spiral. This can harm your ability to bounce back and pursue the next available opportunity.

If this all sounds impersonal, it IS. Rejection speaks of nothing more than someone else's limitations and is not a reflection on your innate and unique value. This value will be recognized by a good match for you. Anything less than a good match should pass early, and with the least possible impact on your confidence that your will find the right person if you adopt the resilience to keep looking.

Head high, and don't get hung up on nits.

[rainbowsandroses]

2 hours ago, AuthenticSelf said:

As soon as I get the message from them, text back straight away. They would still be in the message app. 

Then, if they come back straight away, they are interested, keep going. 

This^ is called have a conversation and imo it's no different from having a phone conversation except it's over text versus on the phone.

I used to love those conversations!   I actually dislike talking on the phone; I am more comfortable and express myself better via the written word (text/email/letter) versus verbally.  It's not all that uncommon.

Even in person, I have a tendency to allow my nerves to get the best of me sometimes (especially early in) and as such can get quiet until I get to know him better although being in each other's presence is super important to me (and him).  So prefer in person instead of messaging for that reason.

But in between dates or before a meet or first date, what I suspect the OP is referring to is him sending a text that may not require a response right at that moment in which case it's OKAY for her to wait a bit before responding. 

Even IF it's to intentionally pace things out so as to avoid text burn out before meeting or a date.

There is nothing wrong imo with intentionally taking your time responding for just that reason - to avoid text burn out or for any other reason.  Just as there is nothing wrong with the initiator intentionally dialing things back for same reason or even if it's to simply match her/his texting style.

This notion of "doing what you want," and who cares if the other doesn't like it, we're not compatible is the wrong approach imo and like I said rather arrogant.

We should all care about and be cognizant of how our actions are perceived by the other and to pay attention to their actions/responses, follow social cues and act/respond accordingly.

Especially early in.  It's part of being a socially aware and intelligent person.  

This reminds me of a guy I had been online interacting with for a bit, I had met him on another forum and he followed the same mantra as @yogacat proposed "I do what I want and if she doesn't like, that's her problem, next."  And that it reflects security and confidence.

The guy turned out to be one of the most arrogant, self-centered, ego-centric and INSECURE people I had ever interacted with, he has never had a successful LTR with any woman (which suited him just fine), it's was always "my way or the highway," the epitome of arrogance.

JMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yogacat]

35 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

This reminds me of a guy I had been online interacting with for a bit, I had met him on another forum and he followed the same mantra as @yogacat proposed "do what you want" and if they don't like, that's their problem, next.  And that it reflects security and confidence.

The guy turned out to be one of the most arrogant, self-centered, ego-centric and INSECURE people I had ever interacted with, he has never had a successful LTR with any woman (which suited him just fine), it's was always "my way or the highway," the epitome of arrogance.

What does that have to do with your suggestion of the OP purposely not responding back for x amount of time if she texts him? What you're describing are 2 different things. I never said to "next anyone," if memory serves me, I said if this woman gets turned off because he replied right away to a text from her, then they're a mismatch.

If he is happy to hear from her and wants to reply right away, 1 hour, a couple hours , tomorrow 2 days etc. He can be a normal hooman and decide whether or not he wants to hear from her and reply.

[rainbowsandroses]

8 minutes ago, yogacat said:

What does that have to do with your suggestion of the OP purposely not responding back for x amount of time if she texts him? What you're describing are 2 different things. I never said to "next anyone," if memory serves me.

If he is happy to hear from her and wants to reply right away, 1 hour, a couple hours , tomorrow 2 days etc. He can be a normal hooman and decide whether or not he wants to hear from her and reply.

I know, I just added that on to emphasize my point, you (and others) can ignore it.

But no worries yoga, I am so sorry @yogacatbut I am having a difficult time following your train of thought; what's quoted above (bolded) seems to be completely different from what you posted earlier which prompted my initial response.

I dunno maybe it's me.  Anyway, I am letting it go, it appears we are now on the same page, and I wish the OP luck.

[yogacat]

1 minute ago, rainbowsandroses said:

I know, I just added that on to emphasize my point, you (and others) can ignore it.

But no worries yoga, I am so sorry @yogacatbut I am having a difficult time following your train of thought; what's quoted above seems to be completely different from what you posted earlier which prompted my initial response.

I dunno maybe it's me.  Anyway, I am letting it go, it appears we are now on the same page, and I wish the OP luck.

Yes, we must be looking at it differently. 

It has to do more with avoiding playing games with not feeling insecure that he has to pretend to be 'uninterested' by purposely showing he is less interested than he really is.

Which is totally different than replying naturally. No dude needs to normalize replying back to a woman because then maybe she won't lose interest because she thinks he might be too interested. If he loses her because he is interested ... Good.😂

[rainbowsandroses]

13 minutes ago, yogacat said:

It has to do more with avoiding playing games with not feeling insecure that he has to pretend to be 'uninterested' by purposely showing he is less interested than he really is.

Yes it seems we are looking at it differently because this^^ is not what I was suggesting or implying at all (if that's what you're referring to by the above).  Not even close.  I cannot stand games and would never suggest to someone they "pretend" to be uninterested or pretend to be anything else.

That is so NOT what I am about, I am like the antithesis of that!

I think a good description of how I feel about it is to read @catfeederpost, clearly she articulated it much better than I did.

Anyway, I apologize for the confusion and propose we just agree to disagree (if that's what this even is), like I said it does appear we are on the same page, it's all good. 😃

 

 

[ShySoul]

Back in the olden days you actually had to make a phone call and hope they were at home. You actually had to speak to a person. You couldn't just expect people to drop their life and instantly replied. And you couldn't track a person's every moment by social media posts. I miss those days.

Stop the games, questions, doubts, worries, fears, insecurities, etc... and just live. Enjoy the conversations you do have. Quality will always triumph over speed or quantity.