This New York Times “Modern Love” column, He Asked Permission To Touch, But Not To Ghost, describes a very thought-provoking, modern situation.
I disagree with the author’s conclusion. Do you?
The reason I disagree is, while the author has every right and reason to feel poorly treated by her liaison partner, in the end, she and only she can be responsible for communicating her assumptions and expectations about the nature of the encounters. And in this case, she didn’t communicate well enough. Maybe its too much to ask in a first sexual encounter off Tinder. Fair enough. But the second time, she should have said something like, “Um, I had a great time last time and I’m so excited to be with you again but I feel like I need to say, I’m hoping this is a meaningful emotional thing, not just friends with benefits or a sex fling.” And if he then flees, well that’s it then. And if he stays and lies and ghosts her anyways, well, she knows he’s a cad. Or he says, “No promises but… me too. I’m, hoping to find that too.” And hopefully he’s truthful
That is, I believe that if we choose to meet partners on services like Tinder (or anywhere, I suppose) then we need to acknowledge that “ghosting” is an unpleasant but common modern risk. And it’s up to us and only us to announce and police our boundaries. In this story, he did nothing other than what was more or less above boards on the table. She had an expectation he failed to meet… but she failed to communicate. She shouldn’t then be resentful when he ghosts.
Though, for the record, I find “ghosting” rude. I know it’s trite and superficial, but c’mon folks — just answer the text simply and quickly and say, “I’m sorry but I’m no longer interested.”
What do you think?
