I’m sure whatever you just said was interesting/important/funny/touching, but I’m on the phone. I’ll be with you in a sec. You’re a doll.
Yeah, I had a feeling he’d pop in once I read Lez’s post 
Utter dealbreaker. Unless it was a true and honest REAL EMERGENCY. No way… how rude.
Quick show of hands: is it more amusing or sad that RR can’t understand why we are not more impressed with his - ahem - work ethic? 
Yep, no distinction at all between a doctor being on call and a lawyer… :rolleyes:
And I didn’t catch if the OP expressed his gut feeling whether the texter was a high powered tax lawyer or just some phone-addicted slob. (Sure, they may look normal, but if you look closely into their eyes, you can see one of them is lacking a soul…)
Hmm, it is after noon, and I realize I haven’t even turned my cell on yet - which I vastly prefer to what some might consider being important and successful.
Is this a trick question? Can’t we vote "both?
Speaking as the kid of two docs who were on call 3 of 4 weekends per month - and the majority of holidays - I can assure you that getting an important call happens less than you think on average. Most people are addicted to their technology, and the self-importance that comes with it.
I do realize that line in my post came off bitchier than I intended it to. That was by no means an insult towards jgoddess, it was an insult towards people who would actually spend an entire first date checking the score of the game on their phone, texting their buddies, ect. To me, that’s really f’n rude. Based on the majority of responses to this thread, I’m not alone in my opinion.
If a guy did that to me on our first date, I’d think he was a self important jerk or I’d assume he totally wasn’t interested in me and didn’t give a shit if I thought he was increadibly rude or not. If you think that behavior is totally fine and don’t think you’re interesting enough to hold someone’s attention throughout the entirety of a dinner (again, not an insult, jsgoddess said that herself in her post), your standards are probably lower than most, at least where certain codes of conduct are concerned.
Or, you know, that I have different standards for what is acceptable and different ideas of what dating is for.
When I text friends or whoever, most of the time it’s for conversational, entertainment-like purposes. It’s not like I have some time-sensitive, hugely important information that I have to communicate to them RIGHT NOW, and neither do the people texting me.
So to me, shooting off texts here and there at the dinner table would be like bringing a book or newspaper to read at the dinner table. Most people can probably spot right away how bothersome it would be for someone to split their attention between their first-time date and a book, but for some reason, it becomes less obvious when its an electronic device. The offense, IMHO, is no different, though.
In my experience, people who have to text/email for work purposes are usually apologetic about it because they’re aware that they could potentially be offending someone. People who text recreationally in the middle of a date aren’t polite about it because they see nothing inappropriate about their behavior. They think its perfectly normal to carry on invisible side-conversations with other people while ostensibly trying to get to know you.
To me, it’s like talking with the waiter, or with a friend who is passing through the restaurant, or like stopping the conversation to listen to the piano player or to focus on the dessert.
Yep, this. A book or a newspaper require concentration - following the thread of the story, etc. Much more distracting than just reading “OK here are pix of the 2 dresses I like, which do you like best?” and quickly responding “The blue one for sure! You’ll be so cute in it!”
Except those are actual people standing right in front of you whom it would be rude to ignore. It’s not rude to not immediately answer a text message, since one could conceivably not have their phone in their hand.
I mean, it’s nice that it doesn’t bother you, but I’m with you with the face. Recreational texting during a date essentially says to me 'there are people I’d rather be talking to than you", and I say by all means, go join them.
But…if you ignore Kelly’s text, she might get the red dress instead, which would look bad on her - in which case you’d be a bad friend. Or she might get miffed that you ignored her.
Or she might be having a weepy breakdown because her BF dumped her a month ago, and “their song” just came on the radio, and all of a sudden the hurt is fresh and raw again. She needs to tell someone how horrible she’s feeling. Again, if she’s in need and you ignore her for the chump-of-the-week, you’re being a bad friend. You had no way of knowing that song would come on, nor did she know how she’d react to it, so no way to predict. A quick “Awww honey I’m so sorry. That sucks. hugs”, or even a couple follow-up texts, shouldn’t distract majorly from the date.
The other person at the table can also enjoy the piano or the banter with the waiter. Generally speaking they can’t join in on your text exchange.
Maggie, my friends aren’t that needy. Which may just be another indication of my fogeyness.
I think this example really brings home the idea of a first date being an example of any time you spend together. I think that a lot of the people in this thread who would be offended by texting someone on a first date would see this sort of texting as being OK if the “date” was between two people who consider each other as significant others having a normal dinner together.
I can still feel as though I am special to the person across the table from me without needing to be treated as though I am the only other human being on the planet. That certainly isn’t how the rest of the relationship is going to go.
Not similar in the slightest way to me. See, the waiter is actually there to perform a function and both people will interact with them. Same with the friend or musician.
Not remotely similar to having your companion completely remove themselves from the moment and send a text.
Outside of emergencies or importent work related issues (that the texter should apologizefor) I find it hard to believe that people are defending this rude behavior. My only guess is because they do it themselves.
You’d be mistaken. The fact that a type of behavior doesn’t bother me doesn’t mean I can’t be respectful to someone who DOES find that behavior troublesome.
I get where you are coming from, especially with the “start as you mean to go along” bit, and one of the ways I mean to go on is sometimes having my partner’s undivided attention.
I’m ok with dating the on-call person who has to be available at a moment’s notice but can go for days between crisies. Or who is only scheduled to handle those emergencies that occur on Tuesdays, or the second weekend of the month. Or anytime during July, but not those which occur in August.
I am emphatically not interested with the person who never sits down to dinner out without checking for e-mail before and after each course. I don’t care how important the job is, if we can’t eat dinner without electronic inturruptions, I don’t want to be in your life that badly.
To me cronic texters/cell phone users think that where they are at isnt as interesting or important as something/someone somewhere else. And its like that nearly wherever they go.
Whatever floats your boat, but personally I find that pretty damn sad.
Exactly. And the other person isn’t cut out of this interaction, either; they presumably are included because that waiter or whomever is talking to you both. Unless they’re pulling one of you aside to have an wholly unnecessary sidebar chat, which would be rude.
A texter is carry on a dialogue that you can’t really participate in. So it’s as though they’ve checked out of the scene to go socialize with someone else. They have essentially bought some reading material to preoccupy themselves during your date. No different than reading Stephen King’s latest novella at the table.