Calls & Texts Text Message delay "truce"—possible?

[Marty]

Hello gentlemen,

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the following concepts:

Evolutionary arms race

Red Queen hypothesis

Basically the relevant point here is that two species (e.g. predator/prey, parasite/host) or two members of the same species (e.g. competing males, competing siblings, or even male/female) have to put so much energy into "beating" the other that it costs them dear in the long run, but are condemned to continue doing so because there is no way of introducing a "no-compete clause" that they can trust the other to keep to without welshing. It occurs everywhere in nature... Colt even alluded to it in another context here.

So it is in the battle of the text messages: at least before intimacy occurs, each sex is determined to show the other that he or she is "desirable" and "in demand", and cannot reply too soon for fear of coming across as "needy" and "too available" to the other party. Yet each knows that it would be so much easier and less anxiety-inducing for all concerned if the arrangements took place swiftly, for example with not more than 30 minutes delay for each side to reply.

Is anyone aware of a method to introduce a "truce" into this "arms race" so that replies don't get strung out for longer and longer? Or are the male and female condemned to raise each other's anxiety levels right up until the point they become lovers?



-Marty

 

[Franco]

Marty,

First of all, you should definitely check out the funny video I posted on this topic if you haven't already: https://boards.girlschase.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4283

Now that you've had a good laugh, the short answer to your question is no, and the longer answer to your question is... well... no.

Trying to introduce a truce in its own right comes from a place of neediness. Strong, confident men that have many options for women simply text another woman if one doesn't respond. Women instinctively know this, so what they also know is that, if a man tries to mention anything about having a "texting truce" and replying to each other in timely fashion, it means he probably doesn't have many other women in his life that he feels the need to introduce such a topic. It's also completely unnecessary to do if you actually do have options in your life and if you know how to properly move quickly over text and get women on dates.

So, in a way, it is a never-ending battle because women want men who have options, and men who have options don't come across as needy by requiring "rules" during the communication period. Likewise, women actually do have other options at all times (especially attractive women) because they can just go out on a given evening and get approached by new men. In this sense, it is a stalemate that cannot be broken!

So the best thing to do is just to learn to text correctly and efficiently to pique the interest of women and get them out on dates.

- Franco

 

[Marty]

Thanks Franco! Your answer makes intuitive sense, but I expressed myself badly. I did not mean to suggest explicitly introducing an agreement: obviously such a proposal would be suicidal.

Rather, I was wondering if there was a way for the man to imply that he is not playing games and thus set the woman's mind at rest on that score too: for if anything, a woman as an emotional creature is likely to be even more prone to anxiety herself than the man is. Perhaps by always replying promptly and to-the-point himself, he could communicate confidence while implicitly getting the message across that he has no need of such games, as an experienced and in-demand man. Does that make any sense?

 

[Franco]

Marty,

Perhaps by always replying promptly and to-the-point himself, he could communicate confidence while implicitly getting the message across that he has no need of such games, as an experienced and in-demand man. Does that make any sense?

It does, but the answer does not change. My answer was all-encompassing for both implicit and explicit methods. Simply put, what determines whether or not the woman can sense that you are a "no-nonsense" type of guy is that you state your intentions clearly (by asking her out) and you follow through with what you suggest (congruency). If a woman tries to deflect your clear intentions, then your aloofness is what communicates the fact that you do not play games when it comes to getting together because you have other women who are more interested in meeting up with you. If you wanted to be implicit about your "no games" attitude, then that is how you do it.

There's no way to "manipulate" a woman into contacting you after a certain period of time, however, and that's what you would intentionally (or unintentionally) be trying to do. You do not control her schedule, nor can you control her emotions via text. Some women may feel comfortable responding to you in a short period of time, and others may take days to respond. That's just how it works!

Also, if you watched the video I linked above, you'll notice that it doesn't help that women are "trained" (by friends, online articles, or magazines) to not respond too quickly to men's texts for the sake of not appearing "needy" themselves. So trying to convince them otherwise, whether explicitly or implicitly, is not going to get you anywhere. You have to learn to accept that that is the way it is, and you have to find how to deal with it as efficiently as possible. =)

- Franco

 

[hey_lover]

How about just sending her the video that Franco posted?

Wouldn't that express the point you want to make?