1y ago

What's your "old person" trait?

My old person trait is that I think 'ghosting' is completely unacceptable and you owe the other person a face-to-face conversation.

You're viewing a single thread.

722 comments

In regards to OP's comment about ghosting, I just want to ask, are you a man? Because women all-too-often have to deal with men who can't take no for an answer, and some of those men go from mad to violent very quickly. You might say "well, no man should act that way, they should be able to hear 'I don't want to see you anymore' and just accept it and move on" but the fact is they are not all able to do that. So should women do the respectful thing and stop ghosting, even though some of them definitely WILL end up being yelled at/attacked/killed?
(I know my example doesn't cover all situations involving ghosting, like for instance if the ghoster is a man. If you want to modify your claim to be 'ghosting is unacceptable, except in cases where having a face-to-face conversation could put someone in danger' then I guess I'd agree with that statement. It's just that it's really hard to know which person will be dangerous when they are turned down.)
- I agree, ghosting is necessary in many situations. Am a guy, have reluctantly ghosted both men and women (from a casual friend / professional point of view, rather than romantic) not because I think I'll be yelled at (or worse) but if the vibe is wrong, it's self protection - I don't want to engage with them, full stop.
- Yeah, at the very least scratch the "face to face". I'd be more inclined to agree if a message or a call is acceptable, but some guys you really, really don't want to see in person a second time.
- Face to face is not only unnecessary, but often counter-productive. You aren't likely to just already be at the same place, so one or both of you must travel to the agreed upon meeting place, just to deliver the bad news. It also often forces an unwanted and pointless conversation, and draws out what may be a painful subject for both people. And this assumes that it goes well- others have mentioned the risk of violence, extreme emotional distress, etc.
  I (generally) oppose ghosting, but it can be done remotely.
- I'll offer the other side of the coin just to give more food for thoughts, but I will also add that unlike OP I believe a phone call or a polite text would be enough: Should someone ghost in the name of safety, when a dangerous person would still look for you in person anyway or should they consider the feelings of someone they don't like just because they don't know they are a decent human being?
  I understand where you're coming from, but a phone call or a message will keep you safe from a beating or being yelled at, homeboy starts yelling? Block the number. If you ghost someone they might still get really angry and look for you in person, maybe I'm ignorant and stupid but I don't see a lot of extra safety in ghosting unless we assume that to tell someone you're not interested you have to do it in person.
  If you ghost someone there is a chance you avoid their anger, a chance. But there's also 100% certainty that you're going to hurt someone's feelings. Not to mention I do believe that's not the only cause, there's definitely people that ghost because they just don't care about the other person.
  
  There's a wide spectrum of responses people can have to a breakup. Anger to the point of violence is naturally low in most modern societies, but it does exist.
  When you have that breakup moment in person, you force a lot of emotions to flood them all at once. Often, they thought things were going well. This creates a strong sense of rejection, hurts their self-esteem, and puts them immediately on the defensive. It can also trigger a fight-or-flight response, and manifest as anger.
  Ghosting flattens the curve. Over the course of days or weeks, the ghostee more gradually recognizes and comes to terms with the fact that the ghoster is no longer interested in them. This often happens without there being a flashpoint moment to set them off.
  It's still rude, but I absolutely see the value in it
- I don't see the difference in safety between ghosting and sending a text saying "This isn't going to work out, you're just not the one for me"
  Not replying / blocking them after is fine. That's not really ghosting anymore.
  In fact, I'd suggest the safety improved from texting that, since the majority wouldn't bother trying to reach you using other methods, whereas with no reply at all, they may try to reach you some other way like in person.
  
  I don’t see the difference in safety between ghosting and sending a text saying “This isn’t going to work out, you’re just not the one for me”
  You have obviously never dealt with a dangerous man. Rejection like this (as opposed to ghosting, which just confuses them) angers them. Angering them means they will do some crazy shit up to and including stalking and violence.
  It's shocking, yes, but it's true. Ghosting is safer because their anger is subdued because it takes them a little while to figure out they've been rejected, and when they do, it somehow stings them less than a direct rejection which makes them lash out angrily.
  
  Won't the same (or worse) anger happen though, if you just ignore them for long enough?
  It does seem like the person you replied to had the right idea, to be definite in your relationship position.
  If the texting person is the kind of person you describe, a confrontation seems likely to happen sooner or later anyways. Might as well get ahead of it, and not hide from it.
  
  Why are all these people so readily engaged with violent, abusive people in the first place? I've never my life met a man or woman so violent that a text message of rejection would cause them to act out aggressively. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the text message ain't the problem. Ghosting is cowardice and disrespect incarnate to the rest of the 99% of people they're interacting with.
  
  There aren't a lot if you consider your immediate social circle, but social media allows us to reach millions of people and increases our experience database. In all my social circles of maybe a couple hundred people over the last 40 years I have 2 acquaintances that were considered dangerous. One was a husband that fell into meth use, and another was a narcissist boyfriend they couldn't take no for an answer. My extended social circle ranges from nurses and doctors to hairdressers to real estate agents to retired PD to cancer researchers to the trades to high tech folks and everything in between.

722 comments