Ghosting VS Blocking

[Deleted Member]

I wish I knew myself. Being blocked after confirming someone's Interested in meeting not once but a few times just to be blocked a few hours before meeting has me confused and upset. I'd like to know this as well. Wish I could help.

[Su****]

I get ghosted alot myself after a while it just doesn't bother you anymore , granted it makes it hard to believe anyone's gonna stick around longer than a couple days

[ss****]

I got ghosted for saying you could be my next slave

[Gr****]

Just dealing with being "ghosted." It really sucks because conversations about sex make one so ***. I just keep wondering what I did. I even pathetically messaged him, but received no reply.

[Et****]

Well, surely you didn't deserve it... Did you?

[Ir****]

This!!!!!!!!! I don’t understand! Are we not all adults? Wtf

[Lu****]

I mean ghosting is annoying as f**k too it’s just a passive aggressive approach to not being a grown up. I’d say if you’re getting blocked there has to be a reason?

[Dr****]

It happens all the time with online dating. It's just easier, so you don't have to worry about them anymore

[R0****]

People block others for many reasons unfortunately. But instead of worrying and over thinking the reasoning why. It's better to just shrug it off, maybe sit on it for a bit and go about your business per usual. No need to give them the satisfaction of getting under your skin.

[Deleted Member]

I’ve been thinking more about this post, and I think there’s a missing tie-in that’s worth naming.
In real life, especially at work, “going well” can sometimes be conflict avoidance masquerading as interest. For example, someone accepts unwanted gifts or attention because rejecting them feels risky, uncomfortable, or unsafe. To the recipient, the interaction can feel invasive or even disgusting. To the other person, it can look like encouragement.
Both things can be true at the same time.
Online removes that friction. Blocking and ghosting become a way to end the interaction without navigating confrontation, explanation, or consequence. That’s not inherently bad, but it does introduce something new, control.
I think part of what we don’t talk about enough is that blocking and ghosting can feel empowering. Similar to anonymous posting or trolling, it allows someone to regain control instantly, unilaterally, and without accountability. For people who have spent a lot of their lives managing unwanted attention in shared spaces, offices, gyms, gas stations, social circles, that ability can feel relieving and powerful even.
If you are used to having to tolerate, placate, or carefully manage attention because you can’t just walk away, your threshold for unwanted interaction is probably already maxed out. Online tools then become a pressure-release valve.
That doesn’t make blocking or ghosting morally right in every situation, but it does help explain why it may be so prevalent, and why it can feel so emotionally charged on both sides.

[no****]

Ghosting is annoying, just be honest and say I don’t think we are a good fit. Especially after talking for awhile. We are all adults on here right?

[Deleted Member]

I literally just asked if we were for sure meeting up as it was going to be a 9 hour drive and got blocked. 400 out on the hotel even but oh well. If it gets to that point the day of then you knew beforehand. At least have courtesy to not let it get that far. But whatever I guess.

[ey****]

mind, as often when folk talk about ghosting - they widely misuse the term. 

You're chatting away to someone, and then one day they don't reply... you haven't been ghosted. Sorry. They simply did not reply.  It sucks, it's inconvenient, it's disappointing, so on. But they haven't vanished from your life cos they weren't ever in it.   If you've met someone for a date, sex, play, (or went to) whatever and then returned home and they're ignoring you on socials, blocked your number, so on then you've been ghosted. And whilst there may be a good reason... the two aren't really comparable.  People act like "she stopped replying my message" is in any way comparable. 

Like folk talk about people who ghost as needing to grow up - but, honestly the "waaaah - she didn't reply my message" folk are those who actually need to grow up.  There's multiple good reasons, including more important things in her life, and otherwise - meh, move on. 

[ey****]

4 hours ago, MDQC said:

In real life, especially at work, “going well” can sometimes be conflict avoidance masquerading as interest. For example, someone accepts unwanted gifts or attention because rejecting them feels risky, uncomfortable, or unsafe. To the recipient, the interaction can feel invasive or even disgusting. To the other person, it can look like encouragement.

This is huge.  Like, in real life we often have to deal with people we don't wish to and we make do with that however we need to in order to get by.   Whether that is a co-worker we don't vibe with. A customer we have to serve, but rather wouldn't.  So on.

But like in online world, there are tools to curate experience. We don't have to engage with people who we don't vibe with or don't bring us joy - and - we don't even have to explain to them why we don't wish to engage with them or why they don't bring us joy.  There is zero requirement for niceties or pleasantries because we're not stuck sat next to them for 7 hours, don't have to work on a project with them, don't rely on their custom - so on - so forth.

 

[wo****]

4 hours ago, MDQC said:

I’ve been thinking more about this post, and I think there’s a missing tie-in that’s worth naming.
In real life, especially at work, “going well” can sometimes be conflict avoidance masquerading as interest. For example, someone accepts unwanted gifts or attention because rejecting them feels risky, uncomfortable, or unsafe. To the recipient, the interaction can feel invasive or even disgusting. To the other person, it can look like encouragement.
Both things can be true at the same time.
Online removes that friction. Blocking and ghosting become a way to end the interaction without navigating confrontation, explanation, or consequence. That’s not inherently bad, but it does introduce something new, control.
I think part of what we don’t talk about enough is that blocking and ghosting can feel empowering. Similar to anonymous posting or trolling, it allows someone to regain control instantly, unilaterally, and without accountability. For people who have spent a lot of their lives managing unwanted attention in shared spaces, offices, gyms, gas stations, social circles, that ability can feel relieving and powerful even.
If you are used to having to tolerate, placate, or carefully manage attention because you can’t just walk away, your threshold for unwanted interaction is probably already maxed out. Online tools then become a pressure-release valve.
That doesn’t make blocking or ghosting morally right in every situation, but it does help explain why it may be so prevalent, and why it can feel so emotionally charged on both sides.

Some great insights with the way you related it to in person interactions and motivations people can have for using these tools online. As you describe, it’s much more complicated to navigate at work or other social environments. The risk of negative consequences in the workplace significant in comparison online. It’s easy and effective, no doubt.

[Ne****]

16 hours ago, sss421 said:

I got ghosted for saying you could be my next slave

And when did you make such proclamation? Five minutes into making contact? After ten weeks? Ultimately it doesn't matter - that is a very dehumanizing statement and *should* put anyone off. Most need to feel special, even if part of a harem or such. That's also a super creepy thing to say in today's climate, especially to women, regardless of BDSM affiliations.

[wo****]

37 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

mind, as often when folk talk about ghosting - they widely misuse the term. 

You're chatting away to someone, and then one day they don't reply... you haven't been ghosted. Sorry. They simply did not reply.  It sucks, it's inconvenient, it's disappointing, so on. But they haven't vanished from your life cos they weren't ever in it.   If you've met someone for a date, sex, play, (or went to) whatever and then returned home and they're ignoring you on socials, blocked your number, so on then you've been ghosted. And whilst there may be a good reason... the two aren't really comparable.  People act like "she stopped replying my message" is in any way comparable. 

Like folk talk about people who ghost as needing to grow up - but, honestly the "waaaah - she didn't reply my message" folk are those who actually need to grow up.  There's multiple good reasons, including more important things in her life, and otherwise - meh, move on. 

I agree that the differences in the two examples you used is significant. I do think that online interactions can be more complicated than what you described though. I think that the frequency and length of the online interactions as well as the information, intentions shared, the degree of intimacy expressed by sharing private information typically reserved for close friends or trusted partners, etc are all factors that move things closer to the domain of meeting in real life, possibly surpassing it in significance in some instances.
I agree griping about it isn’t helpful. I’d say the more significant the mutual interest and depth of intimacy as well as time involved the more forgivable, if you will, is the expression of them saying something about it (ongoing griping- not a good look even in long term in person relationships, so yeah doing it over online connections looks much worse).

[Ne****]

23 hours ago, letsget*** said:

I think both ghosting and blocking are coward moves and unkind. Grow a pair and let them know where you stand. A simple "Hey, I'm not feeling this, I hope you find what you're looking for" or whatever the case allows them some closure.

Ghosting is even worse. There is no place for it, yet it's so normalized, sad! Blocking has some places: if someone stalks you, does not take no for an answer, etc. I still think a simple "Hey, I'm blocking you because ___" would be the kind thing to do.

The only time I ever blocked someone was because I was limerent and found myself obsessed, I told them I needed to block them, so I didn't see their content, for my own peace.

Ok, but by this thinking, you're erasing a person's right to choose (to engage, to have you in their space...), to Be Safe, to not waste their time and so on.
Translate it to in-person dealings. Following your thinking, an uncomfortable person should remain in a space with a person(s) when they don't feel safe, or engaged, or perhaps appreciated, or Respected... It's actually courageous to exit such situations, and whether or not it's done graciously, people are still under No Obligation to explain their immediate need to get away.
**especially when so many *people* do not know how to accept "NO."
Folks KNOW how those situations go. Hard enough dealing with pushy, insistent, or even coercive folks with whom they are familiar and or feel safe in the presence of [think fam & friends.] Certainly want to avoid that mess with strangers! Not wanting to engage in thise types of draining exchanges isn't cowardly.

People being insensitive, haphazardly with their interactions (of any kind) are going to continue being ghosted and blocked.
🤷🏻🤘🏽

[wo****]

1 hour ago, NexumSange said:

And when did you make such proclamation? Five minutes into making contact? After ten weeks? Ultimately it doesn't matter - that is a very dehumanizing statement and *should* put anyone off. Most need to feel special, even if part of a harem or such. That's also a super creepy thing to say in today's climate, especially to women, regardless of BDSM affiliations.

I think that the length of time absolutely matters. More interaction, especially over time, gives each person more and more information about the other. I don’t think it’s fair to not take all the information into account before assessing who went wrong where. We have almost no information about the situation. Nothing about him or the other person. I think the intent of the person saying that is a significant factor in assessing whether or not it is dehumanizing. I also think that information known by him about the recipient is a factor as well.
Also, you saying it should put anyone off is actually presupposing your interpretation of the statement is the way everyone should interpret that being said to them. I think that’s kind of like you not respecting or recognizing that the autonomy of people to decide for themselves how to take it. It suggests that you think everyone should take it the way you do.
It may be true that most people need to feel special. Do you think people expecting to be treated that way deserve to be treated that way? Should Mr “you’re my slave, you just don’t know it yet “ or whatever he said has a need to feel a certain way and should that be taken into consideration? Or just the need to feel special people (which you’re post seems to suggest are people on the receiving end of a comment like that- I could be mistaken- it’s not him though, right?)
I get your perspective but I am not sure if most people would say in response to his post the sentiment you convey.
You are strongly against it, you have your reasons. OK. But without even seeking more information from him before talking a strong stance is based on your personal reaction it looks like. OK. I might be more critical of him than you, depending on what additional information I had about the whole picture. I’m not jumping in here to high five him. But it could have been a joke meant to say “I like you” and the other person could have just had the worst day ever which he know nothing about.
If he is supposed to be very careful and always mindful of what he says because it can hurt or upset someone he talks to online, are you also supposed to be mindful of the possibility of hurting someone’s feelings online?

[Deleted Member]

6 hours ago, woburn169344 said:

I think that the length of time absolutely matters. More interaction, especially over time, gives each person more and more information about the other. I don’t think it’s fair to not take all the information into account before assessing who went wrong where. We have almost no information about the situation. Nothing about him or the other person. I think the intent of the person saying that is a significant factor in assessing whether or not it is dehumanizing. I also think that information known by him about the recipient is a factor as well.
Also, you saying it should put anyone off is actually presupposing your interpretation of the statement is the way everyone should interpret that being said to them. I think that’s kind of like you not respecting or recognizing that the autonomy of people to decide for themselves how to take it. It suggests that you think everyone should take it the way you do.
It may be true that most people need to feel special. Do you think people expecting to be treated that way deserve to be treated that way? Should Mr “you’re my slave, you just don’t know it yet “ or whatever he said has a need to feel a certain way and should that be taken into consideration? Or just the need to feel special people (which you’re post seems to suggest are people on the receiving end of a comment like that- I could be mistaken- it’s not him though, right?)
I get your perspective but I am not sure if most people would say in response to his post the sentiment you convey.
You are strongly against it, you have your reasons. OK. But without even seeking more information from him before talking a strong stance is based on your personal reaction it looks like. OK. I might be more critical of him than you, depending on what additional information I had about the whole picture. I’m not jumping in here to high five him. But it could have been a joke meant to say “I like you” and the other person could have just had the worst day ever which he know nothing about.
If he is supposed to be very careful and always mindful of what he says because it can hurt or upset someone he talks to online, are you also supposed to be mindful of the possibility of hurting someone’s feelings online?

I agree with your concern and she did allow for this in the beginning of her reply, creating the 'objective timeline' and how that could change outcomes/reality/acceptance/appropriat-ness, but did a hard pivot (I assume) to align with the result (blocked) and possibly personal experience lens/filter. I think this is a great example of how deep this consent dynamic is and how it's roots extend and embed into online/real life and are fundamentally different experiences from person to person and when viewed personally or objectively. Why is this not a thing taught in school or work for that matter? I mean there is sensitivity training but not like how to ask for consistent intentional consent.

[Ca****]

Simply put... Without all the unnecessary big words. Ghosting is control for the weak

[Ch****]

I think this topic is interesting because it highlights how varied interpretation is. I like the example of how it would be if it were an inperson interaction.

I think that if 2 people are talking in person & both people are talking back & forth in what appears to be a pleasant conversation, & then one person runs away like there's an active shooter in the building, it would feel really weird. I think the original post was describing something more like that; when a conversation was going back & forth natural & seemingly positive, then out of nowhere blocked. If that were an in person conversation, then it would be weird, but it's somewhat of a more acceptable practice online.

I think other posters have talked about different interactions, like when someone is cyber stalking or trolling or using some other type of inappropriate behavior that would feel very dangerous if it were an inperson conversation. Like someone in a bar that keeps following you around asking for a dance or to buy you a drink, & despite your declining repeatedly, they won't stop & you are afraid of anything you do next. How they may escalate. You want to leave, but will they follow you to your car? Is there any security in here & will they protect you if you become more blunt with this person & they escalate to something physical? Online, the danger is less because it's online but can be just as annoying, scary & even harder to escape. Some people will go so far as to create new profiles when they are blocked & just keep harassing you. No one should have to deal with unwanted attention or any kind of ***, whether emotional or physical, if it isn't an established part of their consenting interest.
I think as a Segway i see that alot. Some people who say "oh this is a kink community, I can do whatever I want here". But consent is important. Just saying you like _____ doesn't mean it's appropriate to just treat a person the way that you enjoy. It's one of the grips I have with FET. Filling out a profile often makes people think they know everything there is to know about you, & that's wrong. Just because a person says they are submissive doesn't mean you can just message them with demands like you have had an established relationship with this person where you both consent& agree to play. It doesn't mean you know or understand in what ways they are dominant or submissive.

I think online assumptions & interpretations are more prevalent because you lack the ability to see a person's face ; hear their voice sense, tone, modulation, pausing so on. You can't see their expressions & mannerisms to better see their intent. Some things can be more off than they are. This presents additional challenges in communicating. For the people who disregard any manner or respect for another person & behave like there are no consequences because they are hiding behind their keyboard, they do need to be blocked at first sight. But I also think that alot of other people find themselves blocked simply because alot of people have gotten used to how easy it is to block vs talking to people & interacting with them, getting to know them. I think blocking instantly is important because alot of behavior is attention seeking. Even if it is negative attention, it's still attention. Like the kid that kicks their parent. The parent reprimands them, but the kid continues until the parent chases them to issue a punishment. For this kid, it's playing tag or hide & go seek. For the parent this is serious. But the kid engages in this behavior each time they want attention despite the consequences. It's because what they really want is the attention, even if it's negative. So some people send unsolicited d*** pics or vulgar messages right out the gate because to them its their game they are playing. You not consenting to their fantasy, is irrelevant to them because as soon as you engage, even to scold them or by embarrassing them, they still get what they wanted, it's the attention they wanted all along. Notice me, talk to me because otherwise I'm invisible. If enough people ignore them with the immediate block, they will stop because they are being denied the attention. This blocking must he consistent & unilateral or the behavior increases. It's the psychological equivalent to gambling. The person that keeps putting *** into a slot machine, pressing the bet button in a frenzy, because sometimes it pays out. It becomes a chase to find the next pay out, because the person learns it will eventually pay; you just have to keep pressing the button until it does. Similarly, this type of person indiscriminately sends messages seeking the payout of the one person who gives the desired attention. Anything you say or do in response will only encourage their behavior. Blocking or ghosting is the only way to respond to their behavior. But not everyone fits this model. Some people aren't seeking unhealthy attention & can communicate effectively. Blocking or ghosting them has an opposite effect in isolation & inner feelings of inadequacy. unwarranted rejection often leads this person to be *** to *** because the person that does give them attention may be the type that is perceptive to this person's self conscious feelings & takes advantage. In this way the social nrom of Blocking & ghosting creates a toxic culture that does little to those who need to be blocked, as their behavior gets plenty of negative attention, & many others who are blocked become victims elsewhere.

I think it's those of us that have the intellectual intelligence & emotional intelligence to talk & engage about our interests first, then play when we have an understanding & agree on whatever we share as interests. It's us that kinda get frustrated when people assume something is a red flag or this person is boring because they go to slow. So they instantly block because it's convenient & easier than communicating. I think blocking & ghosting has often become the tool of the lazy & that alot of people get blocked or ghosted because it's easier to organize alot of messages in your inbox by just deleting & blocking the ones that are perceived as boring or eh I have so many messages that I need to simplify these by blocking the old ones & focusing on the newest messages. There isn't always a behavior reason for the block, if someone gets alot of messages ghosting or Blocking is just convenient & easy.

The impact seems minor but it's not. Most people notice how inperson interactions have become less polite. Customer service representatives rarely greet you, it's often Just 'what brings you in today' or 'do you have your receipt' or 'what's your account number'. People have become conditioned to a robotic form of interaction & 'sorting' interactions by value have become common.

I work in the behavior health field & I face complications in interpersonal relationships the most. It's probably the ethos of so many relationship dysfunctions. Inappropriate communication. Some say it's not their responsibility to educate others on how to be or speak or how to treat others. This is true but also untrue.the true aspect is that no one is responsible for parenting other people other than their biological or adopted ***. However, social standards are primarily taught by example or modeling the behavior. For example if you've never been to church before but find yourself in one for whatver reason. Your not religious but would like to be respectful. It's not really anyone's responsibility to teach you how to be religious. If you wanted to be then it's your responsibility to seek the knowledge. But when you see everyone standing at a particular time you may stand out of respect because everyone taught you by modeling the appropriate behavior. When the culture accepts a behavior & performs it, then it becomes taught by being modeled to others. Excessive blocking & ghosting become a standard that is just performed as a 'normal' behavior & is taught to new observers as a culturally acceptable norm. Whatever the reason, good bad or just a person's prerogative. I think its when done indiscriminately, it makes the culture toxic

[wo****]

17 hours ago, MDQC said:

I agree with your concern and she did allow for this in the beginning of her reply, creating the 'objective timeline' and how that could change outcomes/reality/acceptance/appropriat-ness, but did a hard pivot (I assume) to align with the result (blocked) and possibly personal experience lens/filter. I think this is a great example of how deep this consent dynamic is and how it's roots extend and embed into online/real life and are fundamentally different experiences from person to person and when viewed personally or objectively. Why is this not a thing taught in school or work for that matter? I mean there is sensitivity training but not like how to ask for consistent intentional consent.

I appreciate your post. I hope I don’t come across as insulting towards you. I have thoughts in relation to consent in the way you mention it. Consent pertains to conversations between adults that involve planning activity where one or more parties will have physical things done to them. I’ve read postings and threads here that do a good job in explaining how consent pertains to BDSM activities, and the intricacies particular to some of the complexities of these activities on Fet.

The messaging through media about consent has been strongly associated with men violating women and the significant harm caused to women when consent is disregarded. People hear “consent” and associate it to a man raping a woman. That was the context of public discourse in “raising awareness”.

When it is raised as a point of importance in other interactions between men and women, regardless of motives and intent, I see it as an unfair portrayal of a man/men. The word association does this. There is a concept referred to as “concept creep”, defined as “the gradual expansion of harm related concepts to include a broader range of experience, often moving from severe of milder cases, or including new types of harm”. Within the context of interactions between men and women I see this happening towards one sex and not the other. It raises questions about fairness, objectivity, and bias in those who participate.

Your previous post relating to the experiences of some women in real life circumstances, and motives to use ghosting and blocking were insightful. It was communicated without resentment or hostility displayed towards men. I liked the insight and agreed with the message. I didn’t take issue with it at all. I supplement positive feedback.

What I take issue with in this post is the notion of teaching consent, I take it as good faith from you. My concern with it is that I think “teaching” about consent in the context of man woman dynamics is misguided. People who are reasonable, fair minded, and care about the needs and feelings of others don’t need to be taught about consent. Those who are not that way are not going to become that way from teaching the importance of consent or guidelines to follow.
Women, just as well as men, falter when it comes to what is reasonable, fair minded, and caring about the needs and feelings of the opposite sex. Some people show consideration, others show a lack of consideration. Teaching people to be reasonable , fair minded, and considerate is not an easy thing to do. Especially if they think they already are, or have reasons they think they ought not be that way.

[ey****]

2 hours ago, Champ-- said:

I think that if 2 people are talking in person & both people are talking back & forth in what appears to be a pleasant conversation, & then one person runs away like there's an active shooter in the building, it would feel really weird. I think the original post was describing something more like that; when a conversation was going back & forth natural & seemingly positive, then out of nowhere blocked.

The issue always with blocking or (what people incorrectly call) "ghosting" is that we tend to only ever get one side of the story

and that side of the story is always from someone who feels it was going well.  That they were 100% flawless in every interaction and are a good person who deserves constant online attention.

In instances where someone has complained about ghosting or "blocked for no reason" and the person who did it comes up in a thread, it always turns out there was a very good reason.   

There was a thread where someone had said they had a problem, a guy they were talking to was boring the absolute shit out of them - and they wanted advice, and it's funny - because the same folk who were like "nooo, never ghost - always be truthful" instead resorted to "no, you have to respect his feelings, let him down gently, give him another 276 chances, etc" and people don't actually want the truth. Cos, ahem, to quote a famous movie - they can't handle it.

It's never really out of nowhere.

[wo****]

4 hours ago, Champ-- said:

I think this topic is interesting because it highlights how varied interpretation is. I like the example of how it would be if it were an inperson interaction.

I think that if 2 people are talking in person & both people are talking back & forth in what appears to be a pleasant conversation, & then one person runs away like there's an active shooter in the building, it would feel really weird. I think the original post was describing something more like that; when a conversation was going back & forth natural & seemingly positive, then out of nowhere blocked. If that were an in person conversation, then it would be weird, but it's somewhat of a more acceptable practice online.

I think other posters have talked about different interactions, like when someone is cyber stalking or trolling or using some other type of inappropriate behavior that would feel very dangerous if it were an inperson conversation. Like someone in a bar that keeps following you around asking for a dance or to buy you a drink, & despite your declining repeatedly, they won't stop & you are afraid of anything you do next. How they may escalate. You want to leave, but will they follow you to your car? Is there any security in here & will they protect you if you become more blunt with this person & they escalate to something physical? Online, the danger is less because it's online but can be just as annoying, scary & even harder to escape. Some people will go so far as to create new profiles when they are blocked & just keep harassing you. No one should have to deal with unwanted attention or any kind of ***, whether emotional or physical, if it isn't an established part of their consenting interest.
I think as a Segway i see that alot. Some people who say "oh this is a kink community, I can do whatever I want here". But consent is important. Just saying you like _____ doesn't mean it's appropriate to just treat a person the way that you enjoy. It's one of the grips I have with FET. Filling out a profile often makes people think they know everything there is to know about you, & that's wrong. Just because a person says they are submissive doesn't mean you can just message them with demands like you have had an established relationship with this person where you both consent& agree to play. It doesn't mean you know or understand in what ways they are dominant or submissive.

I think online assumptions & interpretations are more prevalent because you lack the ability to see a person's face ; hear their voice sense, tone, modulation, pausing so on. You can't see their expressions & mannerisms to better see their intent. Some things can be more off than they are. This presents additional challenges in communicating. For the people who disregard any manner or respect for another person & behave like there are no consequences because they are hiding behind their keyboard, they do need to be blocked at first sight. But I also think that alot of other people find themselves blocked simply because alot of people have gotten used to how easy it is to block vs talking to people & interacting with them, getting to know them. I think blocking instantly is important because alot of behavior is attention seeking. Even if it is negative attention, it's still attention. Like the kid that kicks their parent. The parent reprimands them, but the kid continues until the parent chases them to issue a punishment. For this kid, it's playing tag or hide & go seek. For the parent this is serious. But the kid engages in this behavior each time they want attention despite the consequences. It's because what they really want is the attention, even if it's negative. So some people send unsolicited d*** pics or vulgar messages right out the gate because to them its their game they are playing. You not consenting to their fantasy, is irrelevant to them because as soon as you engage, even to scold them or by embarrassing them, they still get what they wanted, it's the attention they wanted all along. Notice me, talk to me because otherwise I'm invisible. If enough people ignore them with the immediate block, they will stop because they are being denied the attention. This blocking must he consistent & unilateral or the behavior increases. It's the psychological equivalent to gambling. The person that keeps putting *** into a slot machine, pressing the bet button in a frenzy, because sometimes it pays out. It becomes a chase to find the next pay out, because the person learns it will eventually pay; you just have to keep pressing the button until it does. Similarly, this type of person indiscriminately sends messages seeking the payout of the one person who gives the desired attention. Anything you say or do in response will only encourage their behavior. Blocking or ghosting is the only way to respond to their behavior. But not everyone fits this model. Some people aren't seeking unhealthy attention & can communicate effectively. Blocking or ghosting them has an opposite effect in isolation & inner feelings of inadequacy. unwarranted rejection often leads this person to be *** to *** because the person that does give them attention may be the type that is perceptive to this person's self conscious feelings & takes advantage. In this way the social nrom of Blocking & ghosting creates a toxic culture that does little to those who need to be blocked, as their behavior gets plenty of negative attention, & many others who are blocked become victims elsewhere.

I think it's those of us that have the intellectual intelligence & emotional intelligence to talk & engage about our interests first, then play when we have an understanding & agree on whatever we share as interests. It's us that kinda get frustrated when people assume something is a red flag or this person is boring because they go to slow. So they instantly block because it's convenient & easier than communicating. I think blocking & ghosting has often become the tool of the lazy & that alot of people get blocked or ghosted because it's easier to organize alot of messages in your inbox by just deleting & blocking the ones that are perceived as boring or eh I have so many messages that I need to simplify these by blocking the old ones & focusing on the newest messages. There isn't always a behavior reason for the block, if someone gets alot of messages ghosting or Blocking is just convenient & easy.

The impact seems minor but it's not. Most people notice how inperson interactions have become less polite. Customer service representatives rarely greet you, it's often Just 'what brings you in today' or 'do you have your receipt' or 'what's your account number'. People have become conditioned to a robotic form of interaction & 'sorting' interactions by value have become common.

I work in the behavior health field & I face complications in interpersonal relationships the most. It's probably the ethos of so many relationship dysfunctions. Inappropriate communication. Some say it's not their responsibility to educate others on how to be or speak or how to treat others. This is true but also untrue.the true aspect is that no one is responsible for parenting other people other than their biological or adopted ***. However, social standards are primarily taught by example or modeling the behavior. For example if you've never been to church before but find yourself in one for whatver reason. Your not religious but would like to be respectful. It's not really anyone's responsibility to teach you how to be religious. If you wanted to be then it's your responsibility to seek the knowledge. But when you see everyone standing at a particular time you may stand out of respect because everyone taught you by modeling the appropriate behavior. When the culture accepts a behavior & performs it, then it becomes taught by being modeled to others. Excessive blocking & ghosting become a standard that is just performed as a 'normal' behavior & is taught to new observers as a culturally acceptable norm. Whatever the reason, good bad or just a person's prerogative. I think its when done indiscriminately, it makes the culture toxic

Love your post. Lots of great perspective. I like the way you reflect on the subject matter to incorporate different viewpoints, and how specific factors relate to the degree of reasonableness in the use of ghosting and blocking. Describing two polar opposite situations in real life to ***t a picture of how blocking makes the blocker look in each of those situations is something I hope everyone takes note of.


I wouldn’t say this is a disagreement but I want to add a bit of perspective with an example of my own that speaks to the message that blocking or ghosting sends for people to consider.

The kid who kicks his parents wants more action. Him and a friend decide it will be fun to make some prank phone calls. This is pre cell phone days. Phones plug into the wall and have a handle to speak and listen through, a cord connects that to the base where the handle rests when the phone isn’t in use.
The prank call, a guy answers and the kid says some ridiculous bullsh*t to him. That guy who answered gets all flustered and angry. He lectures the kid, giving the kid a piece of his mind. The kid claps back and engages in a back and forth, busting the guys chops and having a lot of fun. The kids friend is listening the whole time. He thinks it’s funny as hell, laughing like crazy. They can’t wait to tell their friends. When they do its laughter all around. Everyone wants the kid to call him back so they can all listen.

The second prank call, the kid says his bullsh*t to the person who answers. Before the kid can finish they slam down his phone to hang up, obviously angry. It’s funny so they laugh, nothing like the first one though.

Third call. Kid says his bullsh*t to the person answering. While doing so he hears the almost silent click of the person hanging up the phone. No laughter. Slight disappointment.

Who did the best job out of the 3 people they called?
Are they more likely to try # 2 or # 3 to have more laughs?
Do they try # 3 again or move onto another number instead ?