The finality was a bit of a miscommunication. I will initiate texting. I will not repeatedly initiate texting. i.e., if I don't hear from you unless I text you first, in all circumstances, then I'm going to text you less. I don't want to be the one who is reaching out 100% of the time. I am willing to initate texting first even like let's say 70% of the time but I need the guy to reach out to me of his own volition at times. Otherwise it doesn't feel like he is interested. So I moderate my texting in response to how other people text me, but I don't unilaterally not text. I observe whether I am extending myself way more than the other person, and if I am, I scale back. I totally believe in the middle zone. When I stop initiating text conversation with a given person I am giving that person the opportunity to meet me in the middle and seeing how long it takes. Same with multiple texts - I won't text a person if they don't respond after, generally, two texts. Either they are busy or they are ignoring me and in either case it's reasonable not to text until I get a response.
ah, thank you for clarifying. that does make me think that we're more on the same page. The most reasonable arrangement is a 50/50 sharing of responsibilities, but as i said before it's always situational. Personally, i'm often willing to put myself out there and make up for the missing effort of the other person, with the assumption that their lack of effort does not reflect a lack of care, it just means that something has come up which demands more of their attention - people go through shit independently of my relationship with them and there's nothing wrong with that. I just hope that they one day return the favor when i go through my own phases. Like you said, it's once it becomes a trend that i scale back to see where the relationship stands. Although, admittedly, this is kind of a counter intuitive strategy, isn't it? It's meant as a means of self defense but man, it was a very sad day for me when i realized all my friends were only my friends because i forced them to be.
I wouldn't say it's counter-intuitive. If people actively want to talk to you they'll pick up the slack, to a certain extent. Sometimes all it takes is initiating a conversation to get things back on track, others times it doesn't. It's interesting being on co-op away from friends and seeing which people are more active in talking to you be it through texting, phone calls, skype, etc.Like you said, it's once it becomes a trend that i scale back to see where the relationship stands. Although, admittedly, this is kind of a counter intuitive strategy, isn't it? It's meant as a means of self defense but man, it was a very sad day for me when i realized all my friends were only my friends because i forced them to be.
Ideally, yes. You'd think that in a healthy friendship, their response would be to pick up the slack when you gave them the opportunity. The reason I say it's counter-intuitive is because historically it hasn't worked out like that for me. Usually, my choice to pull back is indicative of a disconnect between me and the other person that has already been growing and has only then come to my attention. At that point, more often than not, me no longer initiating only results in us not talking at all. So In some ways I end up more hurt than I would have been if I just continued to do all the work myself.