Post Card from the Edge

The other night I came home from a late dinner with some girlfriends and found the following postcard above the mailboxes in my lobby. I can't remember the last time I sent or received a postcard but there was something sweet in this analog mess that fascinated me--maybe because it reads like a drunken text.

I've probably read it a hundred times but cannot, for the life of me, figure out WTF Schmoops is talking about. Since I live in Murray Hill I'm guessing the "to Schmoops" and "love Schmoops" references a pair of twenty-something single female friends. But as for the rest of it, perhaps I should start drinking shots of 151 until it makes sense. Does anyone else have a clue? Leave me your hypothesis in the comments and I will reward the best conspiracy with a fun Techromance swag bag in time for the holidays.

Let me know!

Love,
Schmoops

Mistexts We Make

The other day I texted a girlfriend who I haven't chatted with in a while and typed "Hey lazy!" instead of "Hey lady." This social fail isn't so uncommon as I learned recently from the blog Damn You Auto Correct by Jillian Madison -- a curated collection of some of the world's most hilarious and embarrassing mistexts mistakes. For anyone that thinks my lazy comment was bad, check out some of the doozies on her blog. Here's my favorite in the spirit of Halloween week.

Anyone else have any good ones? Browse more blunders in her book Damn You Auto Correct on Amazon.

She's Just Not That Into You

This week a few unfortunate conversations with guy friends left me with a fortunate thought for women everywhere -- she's just not that into you could be the new he's just not that into you.

Although I felt for these blokes, the forever single girl in me was mildly satisfied to observe a power shift and watch guys, like many girls before them, fish for excuses for not getting their affections returned. Now when women make excuses for guys not showing them love they generally channel their creative problem solving skills to come up with reasons why. But when the tables are turned, I've heard guys hypothesize that perhaps the girl is just making them work for it. But most likely this is NOT the case. So for all my male readers and friends, she is not playing ultra hard to get -- she's just not that into you. 

She's Just Not That Into You If...

1. She responds to your text messages as "who's this" because she hasn't programmed you into her phone

2. You have a lot of "Hi"s with blank spaces under them directed to her on Facebook chat

3. She never bothers to cook you anything

4. She never bothers to pay for anything


5.  Her ex boyfriend plays bass in a band you have actually seen in concert


6. You say "we need to go out." She says "definitely." You say "Wednesday?" She never responds.

7. She needs another "girls" night

8. She doesn't show up to your birthday party or comment on your photos from it

9. You try and sext her and she responds "LOL"

10. Her name is Amelie or Noel

11. The thought of you, her and third base immediately conjures up associations with ZogSports 

12. She's going to have a "big night" Saturday, but could be up to hang with you on Sunday

Ladies, do you agree?

Text with the Ex

What's worse than regretting sex with the ex this Valentine's day? Regreting text with the ex. At least sex with the ex comes with some degree of gratification and you know your feelings are recipricated, for 3-5 minutes anyway.

A text to the ex on the other hand, can be unrequited. It can mention cupcakes and old college t-shirts. It can be forwarded. So this Valentine's Day, before your thumbs decide to do the talking check out TextsFromMyXes a twitter feed that streams real texts from people post breakup, reminding all of us that grand gestures are best left for 80s film icons and Glee episodes. Below is a selection of my favorites. The common denominator? Intense paranoia coupled with a LOT of feelings and hyperbole.

Did you make your Facebook statuses private or is it just blocked from me?

I just drove by your work and honked. Did u hear it? I hope that made u smile.

I hope you can forgive me for ever treating you like anything less than my queen.

Seeing you sober in the deli was the most awkward moment of my life

YOU WILL NOT MAKE ME INTO SAMMI SWEETHEART

To overshare your inbox just in time for Valentine's day, send your doozies to TextsFromMyXes@gmail.com. Just don't send them out to your ex.

IM Over This Relationship

In one of the most infamous episodes of Sex and the City, Carrie gets dumped on a post it from Jack Berger. And in one of the most realistic plot lines from the entire series, she goes bat shit crazy. But honestly, who could blame her? If the medium is the message, then his was loud and clear: this relationship means so little to me I will end it on the same sheet of paper I use to jot down my grocery list.

Though I haven't seen this exact scenario play out, I have heard both sexes freak out when they are dumped abruptly over text, email or instant messenger. They usually assume that the person is an a$$hole who doesn't care about them, a p*ssy who is scared of them or so immature that they didn't understand the gravity of the relationship.

While I totally understand their frustration, I have to say that some of the most civil break-ups happen electronically and some of the most unceremonious happen face to face. How do I know? Because they have happened to me. After making plans once to have a guy I was seeing over to cook dinner and watch a movie, he showed up with biscotti and to breakup--he never wanted kids so thought we should stop seeing each other. In shock over his out of the blue bomb, all I could mutter was "but aren't you a Big Brother, that's weird if you don't like kids." We stood in awkwardness as I wondered if he would leave or take the dessert as he deserted my apartment. I haven't spoken with him since.

On the opposite end of the spectrum was a completely "e"-volved break up that I had over IM. He told me he felt like I wasn't making an effort to see him. I said I thought we were growing apart. He said he saw my point and asked if we could still be Facebook friends. I agreed, and we still are to this day. My bottom line: there is NO good way to break up, but know matter what, I'd rather it be over in an Instant.

The New Open Relationships

From Tiger's teXXXts to Jesse James' e-rotic indiscretions the current romanTECH landscape is turning me off (thougth it's obviously still turning others on :).


I used to think women that checked their BFs phones and Fbooks were psychotic, controlling and paranoid. But the other night I became one when I barked at my poor BF who was on Facebook looking at a series of pics from a group of twentysomething girls. When I asked "who are you trolling" he responded with those three little words every gal wants to hear, "my cousin Amy." Whew, I thought for now. But am I turning psychotech?

According to Retrevo a consumer electronic blog 36% of couples in a committed relationship check each others emails and phones. Though I never want to be that girl, I started talking to guy friends and girl friends to see what is normal when it comes to monitoring our significant others' technology.

While I thought the majority would think this practice was crazy a number of girls confessed that they regularly check their BFs phone and two said their guys even let them go through their call logs and texts as a sign of solidarity in their relationship. One of my best guy friends, who is dating another guy, told me recently that a paramount moment of their relationship was giving him the key...to unlock his cell phone. Apparently he has an Iphone and gave his significant other the key to unlock it so he can access movie times and download music when he isn't around. "Why not?" he asked, "the most exciting thing on my phone these days is a travelocity app."

So what do we think about these very open relationship? Is access to each others technology the ultimate sign of commitment or is keeping our partner on a short leash the same thing as treating them like a dog?

To Catch a Tiger

You go Elin.

First you won our hearts by getting crazy eyes and clubbing Tiger when you suspected he was cheating. Now you prove your prowess again by setting up a late night textual "booby" trap using Tiger's own phone to prove his affair.


Today the Daily Mail reports the back story behind how Elin discovered that Tiger was cheating. Apparently Elin was suspicious of his relationship with Uchitel. In a not so brilliant move to prove that he was "innocent" Tiger had Elin chat with Uchitel directly, you know to see that she was just your typicall-girl next door (did you catch that :). After their chat Elin played the blonde, Swedish, nanny card pretending she believed their relationship was platonic while pocketing Tiger's phone and texting Uchitel as if she were him later that night. Love the Tiger trap Elin!

In Defense of Techromance

Last week David Brooks wrote a very one-sided op-ed in the New York Times Cell Phones, Texts, and Lovers criticizing today's dating world as laid out in New York Mag's the Sex Diaries. He applauded Yang's anaylsis saying that "the most interesting part of the diaries concerns the way cellphones have influenced courtship. On nights when they are out, the diarists are often texting multiple possible partners in search of the best arrangement."

Guys, let me interpret that scenario for you: it's called a group text. And what is so wrong with trying to figure out your best option for a Saturday night?


I am here in defense of techromance and to tell Brooks and others who scornfully describe daters today as "using their cellphones to disaggregate, slice up, and repackage their emotional and physical needs, servicing each with a different partner, and hoping to come out ahead” that they are stuck in a time warp and bring an archaic criticism of dating. Fighting technology and dating is as futile as complaining about a crowded subway that you have to get on to. If singles today don't hop on, the reality is they won't be getting off (ha) at their final destination, a relationship.

Today our e-dentities are as developed as our identities, so it makes perfect sense that we use digital personas to express ourselves during the courting stage. In many cases these channels can help us reach out and connect with people in low pressure ways that allow us to be a more sincere self then the one that we project on our 1st, 2nd and third dates. One of my time-stretched girlifriend met a cute equally time-stretched guy on Jdate and decided that their second date was actually their third because they had texted, emailed and chatted online so much it actually propelled them into a more comfortable zone. Two months later they are going strong online and offline.

I am 29 and can barely remember the world BC (before cellphone) but thank my lucky stars that I never have to wait by my landline for a guy to call. In fact my current relationship actually sprung from a Facebook message I sent to him after meeting in a bar the week before, eloquently stating, "hey dude is this you?" after tracking him down on Facebook. He replied quickly asking me out that weekend.

Now we all know that every text, Facebook, video and IM doesn't result in a great romanTECH story. From starlets exploited after sex messaging their boyfriends to real life stories where a Halloween "text from the ex" results in a walk of shame where we damn daylight savings and realize that yes a Pochahantas costume DOES stick out in the east village at 10 am...but that is how it goes.

I am always fascinated, and Brooks wouldn't be the first one, when older generations weigh in on how our generation dates. I mean look at the divorce rate of the baby boomer generation. Do they really have it figured out? The other news flash is that Brooks and others operate under the assumption that dating for us is defined by how people dated 30 years ago, but the reality is techromance is dating to us. It's the only way we know.

Recently I had an interesting conversation with my teenage nephew and I told him about the first time my highschool boyfriend told me he loved me on the phone late one night. At that moment I realized he'll probably hear he is loved for the first time over text message, and I don't think it will mean any less.

Texting Baracks!

Now that we have a president in place that knows how to text message properly, everything else should be cream cheese. Can you name that movie?


Just a quick shout-out for our president-elect for using some of our favorite courting tacTECHS to campaign for American hearts. If you haven't signed up you can still receive updates from Barack via text or twitter: Obama Mobile

Great Textpectations

I am not expecting text messages as inspired as Charles Dickens novels, but I do have certain textpectations--some of them greater than others--especially during the summer, when travel schedules make dating in NYC feel like you're trying to hold a fist full of water. But, if somehow between weekend trips to Fire Island and your share in Manasquan, you are in town the same weekend of your love interest, then its likely that the stakes (and textpectations) are higher. By the time that Thursday text message floats into your inbox, "you in town this weekend" and you respond with something like "at last, i am." And hear those three little words: "let's meet up" you (and they) know its on...Or is it?

Much to my shagrin these premeditated "meet ups" often turn into more of a cat and mouse game of texting that turns a night out with pals into a one of two distractions 1)Trying to lure your love interest to the bar you are at with your friends..."hey guys, how long we going to be here." or 2)Debating whether you should troll out of your comfort zone to eastern locations unchartered since your first year out of college..."is Third and Long the one next to 515?"

Recently I was out with a group of friends and after a series of witty and flirtatious ping-pong texts with a romanTECH interest--who I swear has the opposite summer schedule as me--sent me his sans humor, bottom line at approximately 12:40: "really wanna c u. come here." Me, flattered by his bold choice ditched my crowd to meet the potential boo. When I got there however, potential boo he was not. Instead he was hypnotized by some pay-per-view fight and gave me a hey along with a high five. No joke: I almost blacked out. Believe me, I wasn't expecting rose petals a la Coming to America, but a drink on his tab and glad to see you would have gotten him farther then he probably realized ;) Feeling weird I did the natural thing, grabbed myself a drink, slugged it and said my good-byes. He, acting unaffected by my "ciao for now," quickly shot me a series of text messsages ranging in degrees of desperation from "Why did you leave" to "Where are you" to the simply stated "?."

Maybe it was harsh, but I was let down by the built-up meet-up and even more deflated by the fact that his actions and texts were sending different messages. In some ways I remain traditional in my thinking: actions speak louder than words (even when they are typed).

Let's Take This Conversation Offline...Seriously

Is anyone else getting bored with people that are all tech, no action -- because I am. Maybe "Fitty" said it best: "AYO I'm Tired of All This Technology, Why Don't You Sit On Top Of Me..." Though not a thug myself -- and not necessarily ready to make straddling my romatic call-to-action -- I am starting to embrace his no BS approach.

After my first date with "the object of my a(tech)tion" all signs pointed toward beaux (shame on me). Good convo peppered with forward-looking references "I love Mizu too, we'll have to go sometime," an offer of hitting up a second bar, a lady-like decline (by me) and of course the text, "Had fun, do it again?" moments after I got into the cab. This was a first date no brainer. NEVER did it cross my mind that I wouldn't see this dude again.

Maybe I should have seen it coming when he cut and pasted his grad-school graduation itinerary in an email to me days later (no joke) which culminated in a long weekend in Las Vegas. Still feeling optimistic about our hang-out, I endured 4 days of texting about the electric lemonade at Rehab and crafting e-mails with fun subject lines like "What happens in Vegas..." to which I got responses like "If I win big tonight I'm flying you out here." But when he retured home and was still all winks ;) and XOs, it was official: I was textually frustrated. So after some coaxing by a guy friend, who was sick of hearing me bitch, I woMANed-up with an e-mail that asked the logical question: "Are we going to hang out and see where this two-ring circus is going?" He responded with a prompt yes, suggested a day and then 2 days later, asked "Thursday won't work but I can do Friday and play into next week." At this point I respectfully declined a rain date...even though I liked the way he worded it.

I know, I know this tale is a bit of a bust, but I just didn't have it in me to keep communicating with a guy whose face I could only picture as a Facebook headshot. I mean I thought he was cute, but that picture could also be from undergrad. Guess I'll never know.

The Object of My A(Tech)tion

I finally met someone who can really push my buttons...okay maybe not mine exactly, but he's pretty good with a QWERTY key board.

It all started this past Friday, when my mother -- who has a tendency to get cues from TODAY SHOW segments along with Diane Keaton movies -- decided to confirm that my life has entered a new level of cliche: she would set me up. After sitting down for lunch at American Joe's Grill at the Short Hills Mall she started chatting with a young guy next to her. They discussed weekend plans, the wine list, and of course family, quickly figuring out that "her baby" ie me and his older brother had a lot in "common" -- same graduate school, same college basketball conference and of course same dating status, single.

What transpired though was not common at all. This new dude has become the object of my a(tech)tion...you know the person who's flirty emails/Facebooks/texts put a spring in your step and make you feel like a digital Romeo (or Juliet) as you carefully craft witty/suggestive responses back. And it all started with one simple (but strategically breezy, confident and enaging) text:

"Hey its Jewels, did you hear this story about ur bro and my mom? Funny right?."

Over the past 3 days we have gone from text (first base), to email (second base) though I have held out on Instant Messenger... if you give away your screen name for free who's gonna buy the cow (did I mess that up :) Anyway this Thursday we are going "all the way" to a real date and I'm having a slightly neurotic concern that we have set ourselves up for failure. What if our first meeting can't rival all the fun sexual tension we've created? Is it possible that our romanTECH repoire is too good? I'll report back Friday.

Texting Your Way to Love

If you all haven't seen it, take a look...its hilarious. Thanks to Ricebird for posting!

My favorite insight is that people try and take even a benign comment and make it sexy. Their example about the girl saying: "Work sucks" And the guy saying: "Yeah it does let's run away" cracks me up! What a clever bridge to the sex message. Another classic strategy is to mention anything sleep related:

"You asleep yet?"
"Headed to bed, you?"
"On the couch taking a nap, what r u doing?"

Let me know if you have any good ones...in need of some new material. I kid!

The Drunken Text Message Coalition on Facebook

Someone (quite possibly my soulmate) has started a Facebook group for Drunken Text Messaging. They categorize different genres of drunk texting from blatant booty calls to feeler texts which sound similar to the group texting that we've discussed. Though they touched on black out texting, they forgot to highlight its evil twin block out texting...You know when people claim to have ZERO recollection of sending you an out of context sex message but were simultaneously sober enough to break their record high on Photo Hunt. I digress.. anyway, chiggity check it. I love it. Join with me! Drunken Text Message Coalition

Digital D-bags

I realize I may be shooting myself in the foot these past two weeks by calling out people that are on the roster, but I can't help but share this one with you all. I made the responsible decision to stay in last Friday night, catch up on my Netflix (don't put Margot at the Wedding on you Queue FYI) and pretend to do some school work. I obviously fell asleep early watching Law & Order Special Victim's Unit and woke up to a slew of messages in the am, most from friends asking "Where you @" and letting me know that "Our bartender is working!" but among these "thoughtful" notes was a 917 number that wasn't in my phone: "Hey are you out?"

Though it was a classic group text, I have to admit, I was intrigued by the mysterious digits and thought back thru the rolodex of #s I deleted this year. I know its dramatech but I have a tendency to delete a guys # if 1)They are now engaged/married 2)They flaked more than once leaving me waiting alone at Houston's on a Thursday (a fate that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy p.s.), so I texted: "was asleep, who's this?"

and got the following D-bag response: "Russell stupid"

To which I fired back, naturally: "that's an unfortunate last name"

Get it? Of course you all do! But honestly have we lost all sense of nettiquette? I mean c'mon, this is tech 101, not brain surgery, and interestingly the guy's a surgeon...you'd think he could have figured it out. Anyway, you'll be happy to know that I did save his number this time and I bet you can guess what it's under :)

Mistaken Texts Take 2...

Thank you all for the entertaining responses and stories!

I had to call out one of my favorite responses to "A Case of a Mistaken Text" -- a post that proves we can rise above even our worst techno-pas. And if it makes you feel better anonymous, know that I feel your pain, I once had a close call with two Matts, the 6th most popular name for guys in 1980, the year I was born. Cristina is ranked #15 for girls BTW...don't beat yourself up.

About 6 months ago in a half drunken stupor I sent a late night text to an old girlfriend. I asked her if she would be interested in a late night rendezvous at a bar that we both frequent. Now I have to preface the remainder of this story by telling you that I have in my life attracted an inordinate number of girls with the name Christine... or some mild variation... Christie, Kristen, etc... A very generic name in today's society I know... Much to my surprise the text I sent did not reach the person I intended it for. A completely different girl showed up. This left me with a bit or a moral dilemma... Did I A)pretend that the right girl had shown up, or B) apologize profusely and explain the situation... I went with option C). I didn't think it was fair to lead anyone on so I made up some lame excuse to leave abruptly... not sure if it was the right thing to do, but it definitely seemed like the best way to spare her feelings and I wanted to be a gentleman.

Invisible Relationships

Have you noticed lately that the term "seeing someone" is going out of style? I have. I feel like when I ask friends about budding relationships" So are you seeing each other?" The word "seeing" feels like an anachronism. My own answer when the script is flipped on me is "uh....what do you mean by seeing?" My friend Z used a good term recently when I asked her if she was dating a guy she met in "the Broken" aka Hoboken. She said "well, we're talking." Code for trading flirtatious emails and texts for up to a week in the pursuit of eventually meeting up to "see" if there are enough sparks to warrant an upgrade to unlimited texts for the month. Then realizing there are and trading texts/emails for another two weeks untill you decide to meet again.

To me these are invisble relationships. Defined as any relationship where more than 80% of the time you spend together is through texting, emails, Facebook and IM and the person lives within a 2 mile radius ( live calls don't count, they can be almost as panic inducing as a sober first date). That breaks down, in real world terms, to clocking about an hour of electro-comm per day but then only seeing the person once every two weeks for a block of about 2 1/2 hours-3 hours. Sound familiar? Please note: invisible relationships are not to be confused with booty calls. They are clearly more significant as your invisble suitor spends their daytime hours enjoying your company....over Instant Messenger and will even text you to "talk" about the lesbian drama on Iron Chef. It's almost like they are beside you on your couch, except you don't have to plea for them to hush until commercial breaks.

Some say its a more efficient mode of communication. Check out an excerpt from an IM conversation I had with my buddy Jay after he was ripping on me for enjoying songs like "Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls"...

Jay: you're all about "relationship music"
Jewels: i love 90s ballads...anything from the boomerang soundtrack is amazing, are we still friends?
Jay: not in public
Jewels: this is perfect for the blog topic I am working on, invisible relationships. ones that only exists via technology
Jay: ha, i've had relationships like that before. it's not so bad for awhile, especially if the other person is annoying
Jewels: valid then?
Jay: girls used to get mad at me since i only text (no phone), but more and more these days are fine with that
Jewels: is that a firm rule?
Jay: i've been text-only for probably 5 years now. i find the telephone an unsatisfactory medium, not as efficient as texting, not as robust as in-person
Jewels: do you date less traditional girls who would accept that?
Jay: nah, it just filters out girls who want to yap on the phone all the time and it allows me to compartmenatlize my quality time with them

So what is the net (besides the fact that Jay's declaration of being text-only sounds like a rehab program)? Seems like invisble relationships are more convenient physically and emotionally, allowing us to keep our mates at an arms length away. But I think it's also interesting to consider how invisible relationships can satisfy a need for longer term attachment. Afterall, "seeing" each other in the traditional sense also leads to no longer "seeing" each other. Maybe invisble relationships are ironically a way for us to keep people in our lives in a more prolonged or permanent way. I mean there is never a "need" to break-up; unless of course someone is passive aggresively "away from their computer" all day on AIM.

AIM , e-mail flirting , booty call

Sex Messaging

"Do you have a h*rd *n?" she texted. Funny, (I know) but during a recent converstation on text messaging one of my girlfriends confessed to using astericks when she was embarassed of what she was saying, or rather typing, to the guy she was seeing.

I am not a prudish person, but for me, the world of "sex messaging" opened unintentionally, like a series of NSFW Web sites after a google search titled "sexy Halloween costumes." It started with a fairly innocent text to the guy I was seeing at the time: "getting into my bed, wish you were in it." My subtley provocative lines were followed by an enthusiastic "why? what would you want to do to me if I were there." Jeeeeeez, I was left at a crossroad. In a shameless attempt to buy time I typed "that'll be $2.99 for the first minute, $.99 for each additional minute." Meanwhile, I was plagued with questions: Would I go there? Am I really this uptight and too nervous to type something I do on a regular basis? What followed was the technical equivalent of a little dir-tay talk. It was surprisingly easy and dare I say sexy once I got started....it just took me a minute to get over myself.

I floated my conversation by friends of both sexes and almost everyone agreed that "sex messaging" is basically table stakes in the dating game these days (so either it's a trend or I have a bunch of slutty friends...ha...love you guys)! A male co-worker of mine said that "it removes pain rejection and embarassment, it's better to feel stupid by yourself then next to the person you are having sex with." While some of the gals seem to have a different take, "if I don't feel like going across town, its an easy way out." For me, I think "sex messaging" has given new meaning to the concept of "safe sex," allowing us a low risk way to communicate and explore unchartered territory with our partners. Somehow when words are transmitted via a phone or blackberry we have a technological accomplice, a buffer, that allows us to be a little removed from what we are saying. I mean worst comes to worst you can delete an overly frisky text from your sent messages file, because if its not there then it never happened right?

text messaging , texting , phone sex

Rounding Back on Group Texting

Its like this topic won't die, but I was at a friends apres-work b-day celebration and she was debating whether or not she should text her crush and nudge him to join our group. While he knew about the gathering it was already 8pm and happy hour time was running out. I advised her to fire off a simple text like "status?" I argued it was the most confident choice -- simple and strong. She said she didn't want to come off like she cared that much or that she was thinking of him when she was suppose to be saddling up for the mechanical bull. So between the 6+ ABSOLUT vodka-sodas consumed bewteen the two of us we devised a flawless plan....she would text him "hey we're all here, table on the left," an instructional message that would appear like a group text, but really only be sent to him. This gentle nudge worked perfectly. Within the half-hour he was online at the door texting her to "come get me." Brill. Honestly.

Group Texting: Good or Evil?

Sure, group text messages can be efficient to organize pre-parties, wish friends a happy new year or see who in your inner circle can remember the name of the second bar you went to on the eve of your "quarter life crisis" -- Ace Bar -- how could you forget?! (Thank you Jessica Silverman for the quick reply). But the growing trend of using group text messaging in the dating process is giving the function a bad wrap, and rightly so. Here's what happens: Said single sends vague text to multiple people they are dating. Examples include: "what are you up to?" "plans later?" or "meet up tonight?". How do I know about this? Because I have been on the unknowing receiving end and responded with a reasonable answer -- to their begging question -- and then wound up never hearing back from them that evening. They must have been drinking and just forgot to text me back, right? Wrong. I was kind of stood up.
The receiving (or not receiving) end can certainly be frustrating but what's even worse is that this behavior is also devaluing the text message as a whole. If a single can shoot out a note in 30 seconds and receive a flurry of enticing texts within the hour -- "on LES, come down," and "come 2 apt party in GramerC"-- the behavior is reinforced. Why reserve texts for the people you really want to see? Afterall they may be unavailable, geographically anyway. The UWS just isn't realistic in February...

During a Friday night dinner, I saw how this haphazard text-style can really yield results. My friend pulled out her phone, "let's see what the Scotts are doing." "Are those your family friends in town?" I asked. "No" she laughed "study abroad Scott" and "Gristedes Scott." By the time we got our check, she had locations for both including cross streets. It was like GPS for dating. She responded back to both of them "Gr8 will prob see u later." She never showed up. But she did get off, Scott-free. Literally, she did. Answered a text from a guy she'd been seeing a few months back. "Where you at sexy?" She held up her phone with pride and said, "see its personalized....I know he only sent this to me." "Totally," I said.

Now when I think I'm receiving a blast text, I ignore it. If its that important he'll call right? Yeah, right.