Why do men think a woman keeping in touch with them is somehow a sign of disinterest?
If it takes a week to reply, it means she's not interested. If she takes a day, it means she's not interested. A few hours = she's not interested. Hell, I've even seen guys say that just because she responds instantly doesn't mean she's interested. Even though the fact she's engaging with them at all kind of contradicts to this.
And this doesn't appear to be exclusive to messaging. Men apply this thought-processing to basic *any* form of human contact. It's like men think paying attention to them is somehow expressing a lack of interest.
What the fuck are you even trying to say? Make sense, cunt
Ryan Brown
theyre just doing damage control so they dont get hurt as bad when their insecurity inevitably leads women to lose interest in them
Kevin Ward
If a woman is actually interested in you, she's not gonna take a fucking week to respond to you. A few hours could be overlooked if she was actually busy though
Wyatt Barnes
It's not a sign of disinterest, but it's not a sign of interest either cause women are mental
Nolan Long
People do that all the time. It's called being an adult. Adulthood generally means responsibilities, so you have to push everything to the side for weeks on end.
Andrew Thomas
If you're not making someone at least enough of a priority to have some contact with them regularly, you aren't interested in them. Do you not understand the definition of 'interest'?
Xavier Nguyen
You're being insecure and projecting it on the men you talk to. Stop being such a tranny
Jose Cook
>If you're not making someone at least enough of a priority to have some contact with them regularly a). A weekly basis is still a "regular" basis. b). Again, this just means you're an adult doing adult things. You have a lot of important things to get to, not just social relationships.
>Do you not understand the definition of 'interest'? Which generally means putting some kind of effort into keeping in touch, even if there's weeks or other long gaps of time in between. A lack of interest would be not contacting them at all.
Andrew Miller
>A lack of interest would be not contacting them at all.
Interest isn't a binary 'have it or not', it's a sliding scale. If you already have an established relationship with someone, talking to them every few weeks to stay up to date is reasonable. If you're talking to a new person, they'll think you've ghosted them before a week goes by. Even when you eventually get around to them, they'll see it as a clear signal that you just don't have time for them.
Nobody takes multiple weeks off from talking to everyone in their life because of 'adult things'. If you're not talking to them, they won't assume it's because you were like super busy, they'll assume it's because you were talking to other people that you actually have some interest in. That goes double (or more) if you're not very social in the first place and definitely don't have a bunch of other people in your life to talk to. In that case it becomes obvious that you have some sort of social phobia and are just pretending to be busy to cover for your psychological inability to put effort into interpersonal relationships.
Aaron Wood
>Interest isn't a binary 'have it or not' It actually is. It's interested, or not interested. Very little in-between, or any other option for that matter. If they bothered to contact you at all, then there's some interest involved.
>If you already have an established relationship with someone... ... then you would keep contact with them in some consistent way. Taking weeks, or other long gaps of time, is still consistency.
>Nobody takes multiple weeks off from talking to everyone in their life because of 'adult things'. Most normal people do this, user. It's actually one of the most common, normal social practices people partake in. Being so needy that you have to throw a fit over people not paying attention to you (see , , ) is neither normal nor adult.
>If you're not talking to them, they won't assume it's because you were like super busy They do, because they also have busy lives they keep up with, so will assume the same of you by default.
>they'll assume it's because you were talking to other people that you actually have some interest in That's a needy/clingy mindset that no normal adult would harbor.
Aiden Hall
>Most normal people do this, user. It's actually one of the most common, normal social practices people partake in.
It's really not, and pretending your behavior is normal doesn't make it so. It's amusing that you point out most of the posters in the thread and call them 'abnormal'.
>They do, because they also have busy lives they keep up with, so will assume the same of you by default.
I have a full time job, a relationship, and multiple pets and I still have plenty of time to talk to new people because I don't establish more friendships than I can maintain.
Hudson Brooks
>Being so needy that you have to throw a fit over people not paying attention to you Lmao no one said this. If you're "so busy" that it takes you a week to send a 2 second text, you're obviously not in the position to be trying to talk to new people.
Sebastian Cooper
>It's really not It is. Try growing up for once.
>and pretending your behavior is normal doesn't make it so The pot said to the kettle.
>It's amusing that you point out most of the posters in the thread and call them 'abnormal'. On a board that regular identifies as abnormal. Hmmm.
>I have a full time job, a relationship, and multiple pets You have to actually have these things in order to claim them.
>and I still have plenty of time to talk to new people See above.
>because I don't establish more friendships than I can maintain. No one was talking about you, user. Not only is this another example of a needy mindset, but a narcissistic one at that.
Joseph Cook
>Lmao no one said this. And no one would. This is something you express and show, not say.
>If you're "so busy" that it takes you a week to send a 2 second text Then you're an average, normal adult with a busy schedule. Welcome to the world, user.
Chase Taylor
Oh, you're just baiting. You're really good at being retarded, user.
Luis Martin
>No one was talking about you, user
I'm sorry, are we only supposed to be talking about you and not about interpersonal communication in general? OP was talking about how men think about female interest and it turns out they hold women to the same standards they hold themselves. Isn't that shocking?
>You have to actually have these things in order to claim them.
I do have these things, because I understand how to maintain adult relationships (both personal and professional). If you lack them, maybe you should consider to what degree your lack of consideration for people you're 'interested in' impacts that.
Landon Taylor
>Oh, you're just baiting. That's a cop out of an argument when you can't think of anything. You're just wrong and inexperienced, user. That's all.
Tyler Diaz
>are we only supposed to be talking about you No one was talking about any specific individuals, but instead general collectives. Learn some reading comprehension, too.
>OP was talking about how men think about female [...] That would be about general collectives, not specific individuals.
>I do have these things Again, you actually have to have them in order to claim this.
>because I understand how to maintain adult relationships Someone who throws hissyfits because others won't pay attention to them is not someone who can main adult anything.
>If you lack them i.e.: (You).
Kevin Rodriguez
>No one was talking about any specific individuals, but instead general collectives.
There's this new tool they came out with around 10,000BC called 'examples' that's all about using individual experiences to better understand the behavior of collectives. You should try it some time.
>Someone who throws hissyfits because others won't pay attention to them is not someone who can main adult anything.
I mean, I don't throw hissyfits, I just move on. There are other people in the world and it's not a good use of time or energy trying to sperg out at someone who isn't interested in me.
>Again, you actually have to have them in order to claim this.
You pretending I don't have these things isn't going to make them go away. The fact that you don't like the things I'm telling you doesn't mean they're not true.
Sebastian Butler
I'm assuming when you mention lack of interest you are referring to something intimate? Taking a week to reply to someone who you are pursing is definitely a sign of lack of interest. I'm not sure where you are from, but most people would agree on this in terms of dating if a good reason wasn't given before hand.
Adam Kelly
i sometimes take weeks to reply even to my only friend, i'm just retarded and not that socia.
Alexander Nelson
>There's this new tool they came out with around 10,000BC [...] You're basically resorting to non-sequiturs.
>using individual experiences to better understand the behavior of collectives That's not how collectives work at all.
>I mean, I don't throw hissyfits You're doing it right now.
>There are other people in the world and it's not a good use of time or energy trying to sperg out at someone who isn't interested in me. You say this while sperging out over people's perceived lack of interest in you.
>You pretending I don't have these things Can't pretend if you don't actually have them.
>The fact that you don't like the things I'm telling you doesn't mean they're not true. But them not being true either way is what makes them false.
