Am I Wrong For Asking My Girlfriend To Text More Often

[ValidExcuse]

We currently text for around 4-5 minutes at a time once an hour or so. I work 9-16 hour shifts and only text when I get the rare moment to myself. She does not work and spends all of her time at home. Chatting online with randoms. Or watching TV. I don't make any demands of her but I do ask that she text me more often but she refuses by either not texting more or making excuses for why she cannot. Such as suddenly needing to feed her cat.

[hc4361]

I can't see that the girlfriend has much to text about - home all day doing nowt.

[goodgoalie]

Strange choice of Best Answer. I'll try answering questions with just 'yes' or 'no' in future

[New Judge]

“The AB generation, including myself, consider texting as a bit of a strange way to communicate whereas for V’s generation, it’s as natural as breathing.”

It’s not the texting per se that many find strange, Zacs. It is the obsessive need to communicate. Texting is simply a convenient medium. As I said earlier, if the communication was undertaken verbally over the phone it would seem extremely strange for a person to have to contact their partner every hour and speak for five minutes. Another couple of respondents reinforce that view:

“It is as natural as breathing- people are busy.”

It is not as natural as breathing. There is nothing remotely natural (or perhaps “normal” is the more appropriate word) about obsessive communication. It is a mental illness. If you’re so busy, why get involved with inane and unnecessary drivel for five minutes every hour?

I accept that in this instance there are probably problems with the relationship which are clouding the issue. However, there are cases of obsessive communication where no such issues exist. People walk with a phone clutched in their hand and as soon as the device makes any sort of noise it must be examined immediately (even if the holder is in the middle of the road). It is not normal behaviour to have your life so easily disrupted by such trivialities. It is my view that many people are suffering to such a degree with domination by these devices that they really need professional help in the form of a “de-tox”.

[jim360]

Can I offer at least one suggestion for this? In an age where instant communication wasn't possible, at least not quite so easily, it doesn't seem at all natural to worry when someone isn't replying instantly. If you have to send a letter, wait for it to go through the post (twice) and in between allow your correspondent to reply, then there's no point in being obsessed about whether or not they'll reply instantly, because it's literally impossible. I suspect, though, that if you allowed for the wait then after, say, a week, you might start scratching your head.

Similarly with phone calls: they are around, or aren't, and if they aren't able to answer your call because they are out then, again, what reason is there to be stressed if they can't answer? I think sometimes you weren't even aware if you'd missed a call, there was no notification.

Contrast that with today. Everyone* carries a phone with them everywhere** they go, and instantly*** can be in touch with anyone**** from all over the world no matter what they are doing. Suddenly, instant communication becomes possible. What's more, you can even be aware quite often of whether or not the other person has seen your message, your attempt to communicate or not. If you call them, the phone will at least let them know that they missed a call. If you send a message, then some indication that they have read it will show up on your phone in reply. It's actually rather intrusive to both sides, but the point then is that if you have sent someone a message, and you know they've seen it, and you know they are in a position to reply, and if you know that they also haven't, then not doing so can become rather significant. You might naturally get a little more worried about why someone hasn't replied in such a situation.

That's not quite saying that it's reasonable, but I think you have to make allowances for the fact that the interaction itself is almost tailored to be far more instant than maybe you yourself aren't used to, NJ, before criticising people in this position.

* Exaggeration.
** Also an exaggeration.
*** Another exaggeration.
**** Exaggeration again.

[New Judge]

"That's not quite saying that it's reasonable,..."

No it (to expect instant responses) certainly is not reasonable, Jim. And that's where I think the problem lies. People have stuff to do. It usually extends beyond dealing with what are (predominantly) inanities. To initiate such tripe and then to wonder why somebody you contacted with it does not respond in an instant is extremely unreasonable. People that continually act unreasonably are either extremely inconsiderate or have some sort of problem. I tend to lean towards the latter, hence my remarks.

[jim360]

Well, possibly, but I think you ought to be a little more empathetic is all. Being able to communicate instantly with anyone is about as close as you can reasonably get to standing next to someone without having to be in the same room as them; if someone didn't reply to your face then it would be pretty rude, and it's not always easy to recognise that actually that's *not* what's going on.

But to be clear I'm not blaming the girlfriend in this situation. It's not reasonable to demand attention as often as the OP does -- and, indeed, as often as I kind of do sometimes, which is why I probably have rather a better understanding of his question than most people seem to -- and that's something that OP has to deal with, but understanding where it's come from is important if you're going to address it.

[Flonska]

Is it possible that the need for prompting more frequent texts is connected with Valid's own observations that "she spends all of her time at home - chatting online with randoms?"

[New Judge]

"...if someone didn't reply to your face then it would be pretty rude,"

Yes it would. But they are not standing next to you are they?

"..and it's not always easy to recognise that actually that's *not* what's going on."

And if you cannot recognise the difference between communicating with somebody face to face and doing so via remote electronic means then (and I'll say it yet again) you have a serious problem which needs addressing so as to bring you safely back to planet Earth.

[jim360]

Like I say, you ought to be more empathetic.

[Flonska]

I still think that Valid may need to consider his need to require for a higher frequency and regularity of texts from his girlfriend.

[New Judge]

"Like I say, you ought to be more empathetic."

I'm sympathetic, Jim, that somebody has what I consider to be a medical problem. But I cannot empathise with somebody who behaves that way because I don't suffer from the malady myself.