After first date who should txt first?

[Tinkyonks]

omg... reading this makes me realise how much stress dating can be! so many rules.

 

i must be weird because i disagree with most of whats here, i think people should stop worrying about who should do what when and just go with it and be honest. if someone has been busy all week, they've been busy, doesnt mean theyre not ready, just means theyre not ready for all these games.

 

urgh why does everything have to be so complicated?

 

i wouldve just said text to say hi, ive been really busy this week but shall we go out and blar blar? if someone gets the hump after one week of not texting then that relationship was gonna be haaaard work!

[notalady]

omg... reading this makes me realise how much stress dating can be! so many rules.

 

i must be weird because i disagree with most of whats here, i think people should stop worrying about who should do what when and just go with it and be honest. if someone has been busy all week, they've been busy, doesnt mean theyre not ready, just means theyre not ready for all these games.

 

urgh why does everything have to be so complicated?

 

i wouldve just said text to say hi, ive been really busy this week but shall we go out and blar blar? if someone gets the hump after one week of not texting then that relationship was gonna be haaaard work!

 

It's not about playing games or not being understanding of someone being busy or being hard work.

 

It's about showing interest.

 

In early dating, I expect guys to show interest by initiating the first few dates. Because generally guys who are interest do, and they do so promptly (either by the end of a date in person or via message or phone, or within a few days). Because they don't want to risk letting you get away and risk things cooling off too much that you might have moved on. After all it was only one date.

 

SO, if a guy doesn't get in touch at all for a week after a date, I would've moved on and assumed he's not all that interested, well clearly isn't interested enough to feel compelled to get in touch within a week. If he get back in touch after a week, I would've probably not given it a chance. Because a) he's not interested enough or b) if he's genuinely this busy that he can't spend two seconds to send a text, how do I expect to maintain an ongoing relationship with him? or c) he's been dating others and that didn't pan out so he's circling back to me, so no thanks or d) he's just bored and want someone to have a chat and flirt. Could be a combination of some or all of the above. It's all legitimately happened or happening to people. That's why it's good to apply a rule for yourself so you're not wasting time.

 

Why couldn't the woman get in touch first?Sure, they can. I've done it before. It didn't lead anywhere. Because as I said, majority of guys who are actually interested will promptly get in touch and ask for another date, at least for the first few dates. Women show their interest by letting the guy know they had a good time and would like to go on another date, I don't know how much clearly can you get. Most guys who are interested would've jumped on that opportunity to ask for a date. They also show interest by showing enthusiasm about being asked on a date and being engaged and showing interest on the actual date. And after a few dates, generally start initiating dates themselves.

[notalady]

ahh ok i guess i understand now.. but she needs to take some responsibility.

 

Responsibility for what?

 

You didn't get in contact for a week, she moved on, so it's not going anywhere, end of story.

 

Let's be honest, you're clearly not all that interested. You couldn't have spared a minute or two before bed to text that you are busy this week but want to go on a second date very soon? What about when you're on the toilet, surely you have a bit of time to spare then? What about when you're doing your daily commute?

[SherrySher]

Ego kills another potential relationship.

It's both of your faults, if you are so into each other and had such a great time, why are you people not talking far more? A text once or twice a day takes mere seconds. Who cares who texts whom first, if you both were into one another this wouldn't even be an issue, you'd be texting and not even thinking about it.

*Shaking my head*

[zeino]

omg... reading this makes me realise how much stress dating can be! so many rules.

 

i must be weird because i disagree with most of whats here, i think people should stop worrying about who should do what when and just go with it and be honest. if someone has been busy all week, they've been busy, doesnt mean theyre not ready, just means theyre not ready for all these games.

 

urgh why does everything have to be so complicated?

 

i wouldve just said text to say hi, ive been really busy this week but shall we go out and blar blar? if someone gets the hump after one week of not texting then that relationship was gonna be haaaard work!

 

I don't believe these are rules per se actually. It sounds more like that when one person doesn't act with enough effort to keep the energy or whetever flowing. Then people start wondering whose effort is missing. Here, it is the OP who didn't call interestingly. Yes, there are certain conventions. But they are more or less everywhere and serve the human bond together - not that they are or should all be unchangeable. But for instance, we sit at a coffee table with the silent expection that they will not leave us in the middle of our sentence there. Or when they go to the toilet, they would coe back. No conventions would make a very interesting life. I think waiting to be called is also protective of the other person in these phases. Sometimes, if we send a positive message, it may be harder for people to say no to us. They may want to ghost instead of saying no. They are not particularly horrible people, they just have a difficulty saying no. That's why I think it's good to give people a chance to act on their words rather than trying to make plans real. I think it offers more freedom and less hassle sometimes.

 

I wouldn't call the OP at this stage, either. Not because I like playing games but the initial phases, first date etc are about me putting in only as much as the other person puts. I don't like compensating for anyone I don't know closely. To me this is not ego or games. To the contrary, it is a combination of humbleness and valuing myself. Again, depending on how that last talk went, if a man has given me the idea that they are planning to invite me somewhere, I wait until they do it. This is because I believe they have the same level of intelligence as me, same cognitive capacities and organization skills. Why should I remind myself to a person? It is highly improbable that they actually truly, seriously forgot because of a cognitive problem. (My BF has this problem. And even then it is not my responsibility to compensate for in matters about me. It is his job to put reminders somewhere because it is his choice to enter into a relationship with me despite his forgetfulness. About his other stuff, I can help him as much as he needs, but not about myself as I will feel like having a relationship with myself or neglected.)

 

But yes, here the problem is not forgetfulness, is it? It is just not calling because other things are prioritized. This says something. I choose to hear it. Why do I need to remind myself to someone who gives this message to me after the first date? I want a man who can "remember" me without me having to make myself "remembered". Actually, I want a man who can text me just one message when he is super busy. Everyone texts during free time, I want a man who can keep connected with one single short text when he is busy. If he is lauching a rocket, I would enjoy a selfie too. This is because I'm a firm believer that people who cannot do small things cannot do big things. Expecting them to step in when there is real difficulty can be a misguided fantasy. If the effort is mutually there - and it's not hard to understand it- then I call, no probs. No ego. Every person knows best what they want. And I believe that people I date are as capable as me in terms on making what they want real. I'm not better than them in this. If they aren't making me a reality in their lives, I cannot force them to or make this for them. No ego. Just calm acceptance. Basically, I don't possess tools that they don't. Whatever I am capable of, they are too. Why should I pretend I can do better for this relationship by compensating for what they aren't doing?

 

Just my two cents.

[j.man]

Why couldn't the woman get in touch first?Sure, they can. I've done it before. It didn't lead anywhere.

Yeah. Give the average guy your account of your effort not leading anywhere and he'll give you five of his own for the same.

 

Guys don't go from interested to not interested because a woman asks him out for the second date. That's a myth (at least in terms of generalities) to reinforce complacency in women and their preference to be courted. Which is absolutely, 100% fine so long as you're not the type to complain about "attracting all the wrong guys" while not taking initiative yourself.

 

Truthfully, you can take every note and preference for assurance of interest than all the women on here have written and it would be no less appreciated if the gender roles were reversed. The OP worded it badly by terming it "her responsibility" to follow up, but the sentiment is sound enough. If you're interested, you express it. I do give him a slight leg up if he was the one to initially put his neck out there. I think it'd be not just a sign of interest, but a courtesy for her to be the one to ask him out the second time around.

 

All of that said, again, there's a difference between things as they are and things as someone feels they should be. The name of the game is the guy footing the risk of rejection. Women get more comfortable when there have been a few dates and that risk is limited. Until more women assume that risk and control themselves, any man who wants to have the most options is going to have to be OK with inviting. And that's not meant as a whine fest. In my mind, it's incredibly easy and worth swallowing your pride and just doing.

 

You start using your dating life as a front for a cultural war on gender norms and you'll find yourself pretty lonely.

[Ms Darcy]

I'm going to be perfectly honest. Being so busy that you can't sped 5 minutes to reach out over 7 days is SUCH a turn off.

 

I have no interest in dating a guy who is too busy to see me, and therefore I can assume he's too busy to see me if he's too busy to text me.

 

Re-evaluate your life and determine if you're actually in a place to date.

 

I completely agree. I would say it doesn't even take 5 minutes to text. I'd move on if I were here. It sounds like you have a habit of long droughts before asking her out.

[Ms Darcy]

I was legitimately busy. When i'm focused on something especially my work that's all i think about. I'm not mad that she hasn't text me but i'm a little concerned that i hope she's not mad..although, she hasn't responded to my latest text i'm going to assume something is going on. she always responds.

 

Then you don't have time to date. Because a gf would expect you would have 5 minutes to text or call her and expect more time in person.

[Ms Darcy]

omg... reading this makes me realise how much stress dating can be! so many rules.

 

i must be weird because i disagree with most of whats here, i think people should stop worrying about who should do what when and just go with it and be honest. if someone has been busy all week, they've been busy, doesnt mean theyre not ready, just means theyre not ready for all these games.

 

urgh why does everything have to be so complicated?

 

This is not complicated at all in my opinion. If a guy gets the green light that a girl wants to see him again, and he likes her a lot, he asks her out.

 

Very simple.

[katrina1980]

j.man, in theory I don't disagree with your post^, you're right.

 

But I don't disagree with notalady either, you've both made good points, just from a different perspective.

 

But let's look at the OP's situation.

 

His reason for not contacting and asking her out again for at least a week was because he was "too busy and didn't get around to it.". Fair enough.

 

But then he admits later he realized he just "wasn't ready" anyway.

 

Call it a sixth sense or whatevs, but no doubt most of the women on this thread already knew that, after his first post.

 

I know I did, which is why I called him out on it (sort of), which he denied, but then a few posts later admitted it.

 

So where would this girl have been if she *had* asked him out for the second.

 

They would have had that second date (maybe) only for OP to realize he just *wasn't ready.*

 

And either told her that or faded or ghosted, whatever is his usual MO.

 

Depending on how into him she was, she either gets hurt or not.

 

Yes it's a risk to initiate for both genders.

 

And both genders need the other to show interest.

 

She did show interest by being the first to call after the date and tell him she would like to see him again.

 

She has probably learned, or been conditioned or whatevs, to believe that IF he were interested, which includes "being ready", that he would run with that and make that happen.

 

Since he did not, she presumes he wasn't all "that" interested and/or "wasn't ready."

 

The latter of which turned out to be exactly the case! He wasn't ready!

 

So she was smart. Intuitive. She avoided potentially wasting her time on a guy who *wasn't ready.*

 

Translation - not all that interested.

 

His situation is just an example but I think this is why women (in general) hesitate to initiate very early on.

 

Because they have learned or been conditioned to believe that when a guy is interested and "ready" for something real, substantive and not just a quick whatever, HE will take the initiative for the first few, given the woman has indicated her interest.

 

Not saying this is right or wrong, it just is what it is, as they say.

 

I think it's important that both genders at least try to understand the other's perspective and how our respective experiences (and society - unfortunately) has shaped our perspective.

 

As for me, I find my views with respect who does the approaching, and pursuing are changing.

 

I am starting to understand the man's perspective in all this, his feelings, and how difficult it is for men too.

 

As such, I actually asked my current boyfriend out the first time for a drink! He kicked it up to dinner and we have been together ever since.

 

I did give him many signals that I wanted him to ask me out, but he needed me to, being that this is our second time round and I was the one to end it the first time.

 

But nevertheless I still expected him to be the one to ask me out! Since I had been sending him the right signals that I wanted him to.

 

Anyway, I know I am rambling .... I guess my point is that again it's important that we try to understand each other more, play it smart, but that it's okay to step out of our comfort zone once in awhile too.

 

For me I took a risk, and it worked out.

 

Maybe next time it won't (if there is a next time) .. which is okay too.

 

Dating, relationships, it's all one big risk anyway.

[notalady]

Yeah. Give the average guy your account of your effort not leading anywhere and he'll give you five of his own for the same.

 

Guys don't go from interested to not interested because a woman asks him out for the second date. That's a myth (at least in terms of generalities) to reinforce complacency in women and their preference to be courted. Which is absolutely, 100% fine so long as you're not the type to complain about "attracting all the wrong guys" while not taking initiative yourself.

 

Truthfully, you can take every note and preference for assurance of interest than all the women on here have written and it would be no less appreciated if the gender roles were reversed. The OP worded it badly by terming it "her responsibility" to follow up, but the sentiment is sound enough. If you're interested, you express it. I do give him a slight leg up if he was the one to initially put his neck out there. I think it'd be not just a sign of interest, but a courtesy for her to be the one to ask him out the second time around.

 

All of that said, again, there's a difference between things as they are and things as someone feels they should be. The name of the game is the guy footing the risk of rejection. Women get more comfortable when there have been a few dates and that risk is limited. Until more women assume that risk and control themselves, any man who wants to have the most options is going to have to be OK with inviting. And that's not meant as a whine fest. In my mind, it's incredibly easy and worth swallowing your pride and just doing.

 

You start using your dating life as a front for a cultural war on gender norms and you'll find yourself pretty lonely.

 

Jman, I didn't say they lose interest because I texted, I'm saying they aren't interested enough in the first place. Not initiating contact for days after is merely a symptom of that.

 

And to be honest, I still wouldn't mind sending a "how are you" or refer to something we talked about on the first date, to start another conversation if the guy hadn't been in contact for a few days after the first date. I'm saying that any time this has happened, the guy simply wasn't interested, hence the days of silence. I also usually either say or text at the end of the date that I had a great time and that we should do it again, short of suggesting a day and time, I think that is a pretty sufficient in saying "ask me out again".

 

On the topic of equality, I can give you another example of things that women can initiate but don't - proposal of marriage. I'm sure women could also propose to men. But most guys I know would not feel comfortable with being proposed to and would not have said yes. Maybe because of the act itself but maybe not, maybe it's simply the fact that they are not ready (or don't want to at all), and when they are, they would do it. That's why most women don't do it. However women do bring up the topic of discussion as a way to indicate "I would like to so you can ask me any time."

 

What I'm say is that I think men and women just have different preferences of how they show initiative or indicate interest. Some people of both gender prefer another way and that's fine, but it makes things trickier if the other side prefers the "traditional" way.

[Ms Darcy]

Behind almost every man's proposal is a woman "talking" about marriage for months if not years.

 

There are not many relationships where the women isn't doing something to "move things forward" (whether subtly or not so). Questions about "where is this relationship going?" Talks letting him know she is interested in marriage in the next couple of years. Nagging about moving in together. It runs the gambit. But women making lots of efforts to move relationships "forward" - however they define that - is most definitely there.

 

Thus, I am not so concerned with whether women are initiating the first two or three dates. On balance, holistically, women are definitely putting in equal energy.

[Sportster2005]

Nobody is too busy to fire off a ten second text. This isn't about too busy. It's about power plays and gamesmanship.

 

If you like someone, pursue them. I don't why there is so much verbiage on this thread.

[katrina1980]

Nobody is too busy to fire off a ten second text. This isn't about too busy. It's about power plays and gamesmanship.

 

If you like someone, pursue them. I don't why there is so much verbiage on this thread.

 

Absolutely agree.

 

The OP's issue was that he felt *she* could have just as easily fired off a ten second text as well. Suggesting, why is it always the man's job to do so?

 

Since he sent the last text, he felt or expected that it was her turn to reply, saying if she had, he would have asked her out then.

 

So much verbiage on this thread?

 

Same reason so much verbiage on other threads discussing gender roles. It's a hot issue.

[Sportster2005]

Absolutely agree.

 

The OP's issue was that he felt *she* could have just as easily fired off a ten second text as well. Suggesting, why is it always the man's job to do so?

 

Since he sent the last text, he felt or expected that it was her turn to reply, saying if she had, he would have asked her out then.

 

So much verbiage on this thread?

 

Same reason so much verbiage on other threads discussing gender roles. It's a hot issue.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think we have to observe some gender roles. They are in constant evolution, especially the last few decades. But I think we need to start throwing away the idea of gender rules, or rules in general.

 

The OP was unsure of her interest. Instead of wondering and debating he could have easily sent another text and found out. He claimed he was too busy, he wasn't. Yes she could have, she could have also been wondering why hadn't he called/texted to setup another date. Unfortunately it's seems often these days people are more afraid than ever to make themselves vulnerable. How many relationships never happen because two people wonder and hesitate instead of taking a little risk and seeking clarification.

 

Ha ha, yeah I know, Do as I say, not as I do

[mustlovedogs]

Fair enough.

 

I think we have to observe some gender roles. They are in constant evolution, especially the last few decades. But I think we need to start throwing away the idea of gender rules, or rules in general.

 

The OP was unsure of her interest. Instead of wondering and debating he could have easily sent another text and found out. He claimed he was too busy, he wasn't. Yes she could have, she could have also been wondering why hadn't he called/texted to setup another date. Unfortunately it's seems often these days people are more afraid than ever to make themselves vulnerable. How many relationships never happen because two people wonder and hesitate instead of taking a little risk and seeking clarification.

 

Ha ha, yeah I know, Do as I say, not as I do

 

I don't think this is a gender issue at all.

 

She said she wanted a second date (that's a lot of initiative IMO) and he said "yeah, let's do it again"

 

In my opinion, that left the ball in his court. He implied he wanted a second one without setting it up, so he should set it up when it's convenient. If she asks him out, it's basically expressing interest twice without reciprocation

 

She expressed interest, he kind of did, it died. When a guy says "let's do it again" without followthrough, in my experience that's just a nicety to avoid rejecting someone. I'm sure she felt the same way.

[katrina1980]

Fair enough.

 

I think we have to observe some gender roles. They are in constant evolution, especially the last few decades.

 

Unfortunately it's seems often these days people are more afraid than ever to make themselves vulnerable. How many relationships never happen because two people wonder and hesitate instead of taking a little risk and seeking clarification.

 

Once again I agree! 100%.

 

Speaking personally, I know I am getting braver. At least in my new relationship.

 

Not so afraid to share how I feel and what I want. With new guy, so far so good!

 

It's funny, the way I am acting now, I don't even recognize myself sometimes!

 

It is so different from how I used to think and act, how I had been conditioned (by previous boyfriends and society) to think and act (i.e. men chase/pursue, women respond).

 

I think I might be rebelling against these rigid (and antiquated?) gender roles. Following such a rigid script was not making me happy!

 

In the past, especially this year, I have some regrets in that I just walked instead of communcating.

 

Maybe I shouldn't regret though, cause it all lead me to where I am now.

 

My present and new year's resolution is to continue being brave! And stop being so damn *scared* of having feelings or expressing them.... beng vulnerable.

 

Like I said, it is ALL a risk. No guarantees no matter who does the initiating.

[katrina1980]

I don't think this is a gender issue at all.

 

She said she wanted a second date (that's a lot of initiative IMO) and he said "yeah, let's do it again"

 

In my opinion, that left the ball in his court. He implied he wanted a second one without setting it up, so he should set it up when it's convenient. If she asks him out, it's basically expressing interest twice without reciprocation

 

She expressed interest, he kind of did, it died. When a guy says "let's do it again" without followthrough, in my experience that's just a nicety to avoid rejecting someone. I'm sure she felt the same way.

 

Yeah, re this situation you are right.

 

He wasn't interested, he admitted later in the thread he "wasn't ready." Which we all know means, not interested.

 

Most of us knew that, no doubt she did too.

 

BUT, this idea that "the ball was in his court.". I dunno, I am tired of this mindset, just me.

 

Dating is not a tennis match... and shouldn't be compared to such or any such "game" imho.

 

I am tired of games and *rules", ugh, trying to get away from that.

 

If *she* were really into him, KNOWING he was up for a second, she could have sent a quick text too, just saying "hey" or whatevs. Indicating interest.

 

I don't think either of them were all that interested.

[sd95]

If the guy paid for the date then it should be the woman. If both went dutch then it shouldn't matter who

[sd95]

After the first date who should text first?

Had a first date, she text me immediately after i dropped her off, she said she wanted to see me again, i text back telling her i had fun and we should do it again..

 

7 days pass

 

Ive been very busy so i haven't had a chance to text her for like a week. she hasn't txt me either. I finally got around to txting her and she hasn't responded for like a day. its not like her.

 

did i screw up?

 

 

Could have since most times no contact for 7 days is a indirect message of not wanting to see someone again.

[katrina1980]

If the guy paid for the date then it *should* be the woman.

 

Then it *should* be the woman? Says who?

 

I mean I know you do, but is it written in some book somewhere?

 

That if a man pays for first, then the woman *should* ask out and pay for second?

 

I am not against the idea, I am just not a big fan of *should*.

[katrina1980]

Could have since most times no contact for 7 days is a indirect message of not wanting to see someone again.

 

Yeah, which is what OP was thinking too, about her ....since she didn't text either.

[mustlovedogs]

All I'm saying is he indicated interest without followthrough. Women get pegged for being crazy and clingy, so realistically, should she have texted again after his somewhat passé response? I wouldn't have, most wouldn't I don't think, so all I'm advocating is for awareness of what OP said and how it can be perceived. That's all.

[katrina1980]

All I'm saying is he indicated interest without followthrough. Women get pegged for being crazy and clingy, so realistically, should she have texted again after his somewhat passé response? I wouldn't have, most wouldn't I don't think, so all I'm advocating is for awareness of what OP said and how it can be perceived. That's all.

 

I get (and got) what you were you saying mustlovedogs. I understand it completely!

 

I am kinda done debating this. Only to say (generally speaking) I hardly think shooting off a quick text mid week saying "hey, how's your week going?" or something like that would be considered 'crazy or clingy'. He sent the last text after all.

 

But like I said, in *this* situation, he sounded meh. As it turned out he was meh.

 

I probably would not have texted either in the same situation.

 

Or maybe I would have responded back *immediately* after he said he would like to see me again too.

 

Something like, "Sounds good. Have a great rest of weekend and chat with you soon"! Showing some enthusiasm. Assuming I really dug the guy.

 

But in this case, she did the right thing, cuz it turned out he wasn't ready/not interested anyway.

[sd95]

Then it *should* be the woman? Says who?

 

I mean I know you do, but is it written in some book somewhere?

 

That if a man pays for first, then the woman *should* ask out and pay for second?

 

I am not against the idea, I am just not a big fan of *should*.

 

 

 

It would be nice on her part, not saying she must