# Is not texting / participating in social media a deal breaker for a potential mate? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 22, 2015, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061 "2015-12-22T02:40:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/121 "2015-12-24T17:17:57Z")
If you think paying for the privilege to receive things you didn’t necessarily ask for is “right” then by all means forget I said anything. It’s not just Europe, BTW. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/122 "2015-12-24T17:28:07Z")
> [@WOOKINPANUB](#): > > I can see what everyone’s saying to a point, but it feels like there’s a certain . . . rigidity in place… It does not, however, sound like some people would be willing to meet me (not “me” specifically) half way. Like the way you and jz expect everyone to have a phone, and seem to agree that insisting on snail-mail notification is unreasonable to the point of absurdity, even though you both think expecting texting is unreasonable? Why is it reasonable to expect people to use last century’s communication tech but not basic 21st century tech, and especially why is it reasonable to expect a whole group of people who all use 21st century tech to put in extra effort for the person who insists on sticking to the 1900s? Your (or at least the lone left out office person’s) idea of meeting halfway is that other people will put significant effort into remembering your unique preferences and take responsibility for summarizing the discussion and sending it to you by 1900s tech. That seems pretty rigid and definitely is not meeting half way. Why shouldn’t the last century person take on the responsibility of asking about group plans instead of guilt tripping people for not telling her? Why isn’t refusing to use a tool that’s been in common use for more than a decade the sign of ‘rigidity’? > [@iljitsch](#): > > What you are describing is email. Text messages make my phone beep/buzz and fill up its lock screen and are thus still rather immediate. That gets old fast for stuff that is both relatively unimportant and also not time sensitive. Email makes my phone buzz and fills up the lock screen too. If I didn’t want a buzz and summary for either of them, I’d turn off or modify notifications. This isn’t exactly rocket surgery. ---
**Author:** ![Krouget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b38774/32.png) [@Krouget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krouget)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/123 "2015-12-24T17:30:36Z")
> [@iljitsch](#): > > If you think paying for the privilege to receive things you didn’t necessarily ask for is “right” then by all means forget I said anything. > [@](#): > > So having to pay for incoming text messages is completely unacceptable. I don’t understand why you guys stand for it. As much as this discussion has been about SMS (and this will stray off topic a bit), the money for carriers now comes from data. The issue isn’t relevant enough to stand against, because the market has already responded. Back when the only way to do such mobile communication was through a cellular plan, you saw more reactions, but now? People have mostly moved on to smartphones and there are a number of competing options from data services (Instant Messaging), including iMessage/Hangouts/Google Voice/WhatsApp, etc. to many unlimited text plans rolled into existing pricing, spread across the networks, all cross-platform. See [here](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-21/whatsapp-shows-how-phone-carriers-lost-out-on-33-billion). I’m aware that there are a number of people who do still pay for SMS, but the number has long been on the decline, to the point where I’m now surprised if someone pays anything substantial. If they’re not on a smartphone with any major US carrier (or sub-carrier), they might be on a cheaper legacy plan, altogether. ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/124 "2015-12-24T17:31:26Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > What is “half-way”? If it’s “I will read texts sent to me, but probably honestly maybe three times a day–lunch, after work, maybe again after dinner. If someone asks me out/tries to set up logistics, I’m likely to follow up with a phone call to hammer out the details. If they text me random comments or links, I’ll read them and, if they are interesting, bring them up next time we talk, but I’m unlikely to ever respond with more than a smiley face or a ‘thanks.’ I am willing to use/respond to really practical texts, like ‘text me when you get here, I will be out working in the back yard and may not hear the doorbell’ or ‘I have a table in the back already.’” I think you are fine. I think lots of people use texts like that and no more, and even people who do text more can interact with that. I’ll take this, please, with a side dish of please, if you know I would be particularly interested in something, maybe make a little extra effort to check in on me. If someone knows me well enough to be aware of what I’m into, I hope they are also aware that I’m not too swift yet with text type stuff. No engraved invitation required or anything, just maybe a little extra consideration, as friends occasionally show to one another. ---
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/125 "2015-12-24T17:35:36Z")
But I **do** want notifications for stuff that is important/time sensitive. So having to silence all incoming text messages would defeat the purpose. Of course my iPhone lets me do this on a per-contact basis so if people’s communication preferences annoy me I can turn off notifications or block them when it gets really bad. Still, it’s a good idea to realize that just like some people’s preference of no text messaging at all is far from universal, so is the opposite preference of SMSing with reckless abandon. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/126 "2015-12-24T17:39:42Z")
Totally sympathize with **SeaDragonTattoo** as I have a similar situation. Now I’m a bit younger (35), but more and more the by far preferred event setup is through Facebook Events, with some follow up with group texts (rarely). I have a friend who rarely checks Facebook and she has an older phone that doesn’t get MMS (which is what group texts get converted to). We’d like her to come to stuff, but we just completely forget that she either a) hasn’t seen the Facebook invite or b) can’t see the group text. It’s just something we just don’t think about because the new social paradigm involves those mediums. So… to tie it back to the OP - lack of texting or some social media (I mean you don’t have to do everything that I like doing - Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc, but at least Facebook, I’d say) may indeed be a deal breaker. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/127 "2015-12-24T20:21:35Z")
> [@WOOKINPANUB](#): > > I’ll take this, please, with a side dish of please, if you know I would be particularly interested in something, maybe make a little extra effort to check in on me. If someone knows me well enough to be aware of what I’m into, I hope they are also aware that I’m not too swift yet with text type stuff. No engraved invitation required or anything, just maybe a little extra consideration, as friends occasionally show to one another. You should be fine. You might occasionally miss a party you would have enjoyed, but mostly you will get everything important. ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/128 "2015-12-24T20:54:45Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Like the way you and jz expect everyone to have a phone, and seem to agree that insisting on snail-mail notification is unreasonable to the point of absurdity, even though you both think expecting texting is unreasonable? Why is it reasonable to expect people to use last century’s communication tech but not basic 21st century tech, and especially why is it reasonable to expect a whole group of people who all use 21st century tech to put in extra effort for the person who insists on sticking to the 1900s? First off, I don’t \*expect \*anything of anyone, but to your first point, I think anything either of us is talking about _requires a phone_,no? If I gave the impression that I eschew _phones_ . . .sorry, not what I’m saying at all. Your (or at least the lone left out office person’s) idea of meeting halfway is that other people will put significant effort into remembering your unique preferences and take responsibility for summarizing the discussion and sending it to you by 1900s tech. That seems pretty rigid and definitely is not meeting half way. Why shouldn’t the last century person take on the responsibility of asking about group plans instead of guilt tripping people for not telling her? Why isn’t refusing to use a tool that’s been in common use for more than a decade the sign of ‘rigidity’? Email makes my phone buzz and fills up the lock screen too. If I didn’t want a buzz and summary for either of them, I’d turn off or modify notifications. This isn’t exactly rocket surgery. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/129 "2015-12-24T21:13:35Z")
Okayyyyyyy, well I cockd my last post up nicely (this is why I am not allowed to use technology, people!) The gist is, **Pantastic** is misreading me. I don’t expect, I don’t guilt, and I don’t demand anything of anyone. This thread has morphed from my original topic, (which has been amply and thoughtfully addressed, so thanks all for that) to more of a topic on the mores of communication. In my group of friends(and they are all texters. I must give great bday presents or something because they all have kept me around) we do what works for us, everyone else does what works for them. We don’t gotta fight about it. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061/130 "2015-12-24T21:27:11Z")
> [@iljitsch](#): > > It’s so strange how in the US you have to pay for _incoming_ SMS messages. > > I get it for phone calls. In the rest of the world, calling a cell number is more expensive than calling a landline. But in the US cell phones don’t have their own number ranges so calls to them cost the same as to landlines. But someone has to pay for the airtime, so you pay for incoming cell phone calls. If you don’t want to pay, don’t answer the call. > > But this doesn’t apply to SMS. Those were cell-only from the start. And you don’t get to refuse incoming messages, so you don’t have any control over the amount you end up paying. > > So having to pay for incoming text messages is completely unacceptable. I don’t understand why you guys stand for it. We generally don’t pay for incoming texts. Even the free government phones have free texting. I think I’ve seen some plans where you have to pay $5 for unlimited texting, but that’s about it. (The government phones do make you “pay” for incoming images and outgoing emails, in the sense that they come out of your monthly allotted minutes, but texts are free.) And back before we had free texts, you still only paid for texts you actually opened, just like you only pay if you answer the phone. And, to be honest, It think having both parties pay makes more sense–no more playing phone hockey where you call someone just to have them call you back so that the costs balance out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-not-texting-participating-in-social-media-a-deal-breaker-for-a-potential-mate/741061.md?page=6)