In August, I ran into a friend from the Bay who I knew when I was in high school. We chatted it up and exchanged numbers, and I assumed we may connect for an after work function, at the max.
He has sent me a text message once, after we exchanged numbers, again a couple weeks later and yesterday when his birthday passed.
Is it me or is this inappropriate?
I am not a part of his inner circle and we were close once, but that was more than 10 years ago.
Which brings me to my question, is it acceptable for people who are in (presumptively) monogamous relationships be allowed to have passive contact with someone from their past?
If a male is sexually aroused, his nerves secrete chemicals that increase the blood supply towards the male organ enable all needed circumstances for harder, thicker, longer and viagra no doctor fuller erections in the bed. Avoid taking stress, always check for more info cialis generika live, calm and relax. 2. Several http://robertrobb.com/2016/01/ viagra sale studies have demonstrated that Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory pill is better to use for the patients. As the owner of a business, you need to understand the mechanics of how a man gets an erection. purchasing viagra in canada Is this something that some heterosexual Black men do in 2012?
Am I putting 10 on 2 here?
Do you get random text messages from people?
What do you do? Ignore them?
If the tone of the texts makes you feel weird, I say go with your gut. But I blame the ubiquity of smartphones and constant access for how hard it is for some folks to know how to pick up contact after a hiatus. I just went off this week on someone I haven’t seen in over 20 years for presuming we still had the same relationship now that we did then.
Hard not to make assumptions, though, when you have history.
Yeah. The ubiquity makes it seems like it is all good, and that is one of the reasons why I have real clear social media rules regarding people from my past. Black girls have to protect themselves. 🙂
i know this post is old, but i still want to comment.
based off of the information provided in the article, the exchange of numbers could have been misleading to him. unless it was explicitly stated that your angle was strictly work related, then he could have thought the exchange of numbers was to reconnect, even if on a “platonic” level