Does he think everything is fine just by looking at the calendar?

Is silence always a passive thing? What if it’s an inwardly focused active process? Like a conscious, deliberate attitude of "I will pause now and reflect on this issue"? Not every silent person is avoiding something; perhaps they simply do not want to generate an answer right now. Why is it so hard for the other party to accept this?

Perhaps what the other side struggles to accept is the idea that silence is not a norm, but a temporary pause. In other words, no one can justify a relationship where they can remain uncommunicative forever. "I will stop now" is one thing, but when will you return? If there’s no exit plan, can we even call this thinking?

The problem is that the person who says, "I'm going to stop now" does not say when they will come back or share their plan. It turns into testing the patience of the waiting person. It's okay to be quiet, but why is it left open-ended? If you're carrying out a process, it's unfair to leave the other completely in uncertainty.

Uncertainty is unfair, but people may not see each silence as a regular process within themselves. Why does the person waiting and asking, "How long will this silence last?" usually present it not as a serious demand but as if it were a request? Perhaps the open-endedness is losing its context because the asking party is hesitant to seek certainty.

"How long will this silence last?" is already a troublesome start. Because the waiting party positions themselves as the "one who is patient" and unknowingly gives the other side an advantage. Perhaps the issue is not about the duration of the silence, but rather asking whether the relationship can withstand such communication breakdowns. How will the process get back on track without discussing equality?

Well, it seems like while everyone talks about the process, we've forgotten what the issue is? I mean, does this silence stem from indecision, discomfort, manipulation, or being thoughtful? This issue won't be solved without questioning both the "duration" and the "cause."

Well, is the person you're talking to ready to explain? Some people may not even fully understand the reason for their own silence. If both the duration and the reason remain uncertain, perhaps one should start not with that person, but with their own boundaries. It feels like you're trying to understand the other side without knowing where to stop, and that can be exhausting.

What if silence is already a message on its own? I mean, the kind that doesn't have a plan or duration, that directly says "I'm not part of this issue." Maybe the person you're dealing with has long since disengaged from that communication, yet they don't even form a sentence to say it. Should we consider this assumption right from the start?

If silence is a message in itself, how will you know whether you understand that message or not? Sometimes a person misinterprets their own silence. Maybe it’s not just "I’m not in the know about the topic," but rather "I don’t know what to say." There’s a huge gap between the two. Is it unfair to ask for clarity? I don’t think so.

Wanting clarity is not unfair, but the constant pressure from the waiting party to understand creates a tiring cycle. If there is uncertainty in this silence, why can't it be resolved between two people? While everyone searches for solutions at different poles, where does the real communication end up?

Perhaps instead of asking about the "reason for the silence," it's more important to consider how the other person perceives their right to choose that silence. In other words, is there a possibility that even while being silent, they can share their thoughts and feelings in their mind? Or is silence for them an escape or a comfort? Communication takes shape according to these intentions.

Let's understand the right of the other person to choose silence, but should respecting this right mean accepting silence forever? Silence may convey something, but how long should we allow space for someone who refuses to communicate? After a certain point, there is nothing left that can be resolved without speaking.

Silence might convey something, but if the person choosing to remain silent is trying to resolve something within themselves and doesn't involve you in that process, where does the shared responsibility stand? Isn't a relationship the effort of two people? Even if the person across from you is not ready to talk, shouldn't they somehow express that?

I find it a bit misplaced to assume the intention of someone who chooses silence among so many different comments. Isn't the purpose of communication to avoid guessing, to ask open questions? Why does this ambiguity persist without asking, "Can you talk about it, or do you want to resolve it within yourself?"

You might ask, but what if there's no answer? The very question can lead to a passive retreat. Sometimes a person cannot clarify anything with words, so one question isn’t enough. You look at their behavior, you look at the process. What’s in the silence reveals those behaviors stretched over time.

You say you're looking at behavior, but isn't behavior itself open to interpretation? Just like silence, there are countless possibilities in actions that unfold over time. When a person chooses to remain silent, aren't they also conveying a message by "not acting"? We're returning to the same ambiguity.

Searching for a message in silence is already a tiring situation, and trying to analyze behaviors on top of that makes it even more complicated. When you're constantly trying to figure out what the other person is trying to say, you can get worn out over time, and you might even make wrong assumptions. Have you ever thought that maybe staying in a relationship that requires such complex analysis should be questioned from the start?

Perhaps the issue is whether the person choosing silence feels heard or not. Are we exhausting ourselves with the worry of, "What if they are excluding me with their silence?" instead of waiting for constant explanations? Maybe the reason for their silence should be considered as much as your own fatigue.

We are allowing the person who chooses silence to do so for their own reasons, but what about the needs of the other party during this process? If a relationship involves two people, how can one expect the other to wait while they quietly seek a solution? Is there no limit to the waiting period?

Choosing to embrace silence is fine, but silence is not an indefinite right. Let’s say that when someone opts for silence, they’re trying to work through something—what about you? Where will you place your feelings while waiting? If one person chooses inaction for a solution, will the other constantly learn patience for a solution? This seems a bit unequal.

You say there should be a limit to silence, but according to which rule will that limit be determined? Everyone's thinking and processing time is not the same. Perhaps it's necessary not to take silence personally and to focus on one's own needs during that process; otherwise, both sides will become exhausted and worn out.

You say not to take silence personally, but not every silence has a neutral meaning. When the other person is quiet, the question "Why am I the only one responsible for communication?" can also arise. In this case, does turning inward and focusing on your own needs become a fair solution, or does it make you feel like the relationship is a one-sided burden?

Maybe the issue isn't "silence," but rather how compatible the communication preferences are. One person tries to solve things by talking, while the other remains silent. But if both methods exclude the other party, then there is already a mismatch. So, should the relationship continue in this dysfunction?

One must differentiate according to the reason for the silence here. If someone is quiet in order to seek a solution, that’s fine, but if they're silent with a passive-aggressive attitude, that’s another story. Without making this distinction, everyone seems justified in their own way.

How do we plan to understand whether someone is being passive-aggressive or not? Isn't trying to guess the intention behind the silence already a form of miscommunication? In my opinion, a person who remains silent may want "to be left alone" rather than "to be understood."

But what if the silent person doesn't want to be abandoned, but rather wants to be understood, yet doesn't really know how to express it? Silence isn't always a clear choice; sometimes it's a reflection of feeling lost. In this case, how should we approach silence? Should we leave it entirely to the other party's guess about their intentions?

Even if silence is a quest for a solution, how can we keep it within the relationship without conveying the "wait" message to the other person? If they want to be understood, silence is not a solution; it leaves the other party in uncertainty. Hoping to be understood without saying anything is a bit too much to expect, isn't it?

If we can't decipher the intention of someone who remains silent, we can only move forward by setting our own boundaries. "How long can I wait, and what does this process make me feel?" For silence is a choice, and the right to expect an answer is also a choice. If the two are not balanced, the relationship will change shape anyway.

But is the person who prolongs the silence aware that they are leaving the communication responsibility to the other party? In other words, let's not jump to conclusions, but can this "uncertainty" also reduce the desire for mutual communication? Is someone who only thinks about their own recovery really handling the relationship as well?

Silence, if it's a choice, always carries a message, but not sharing that message openly is a problem. If one cannot communicate, how will they carry the responsibility of the relationship? If the game is being played on "connecting" or "breaking" through silence, it doesn't give trust to either side.

If a person's intention is unclear when they remain silent, you say that miscommunication increases, but not everyone can have the same communication skills. Perhaps this person is mishandling things while trying to sort them out. The question is: how long will the other party wait for the silence to end? Because this waiting period also defines the relationship.

We're focusing on the duration of silence, but I think the real issue is how that silence affects trust. If the person you're waiting for is misusing their silence or manipulating you, is it even worth it to engage if the time is up? If silence starts to spread rather than help to resolve things, the relationship is already wearing thin.

Even if silence is not manipulation, it means saying "carry" to the other party in a sense. So, is the person who remains silent aware of what they are carrying? Or of what their counterpart had to carry in the process? If communication is not just about speaking, but about sharing burdens, does silence equalize this share?

In silence, everyone writes their own story; isn't it exhausting for both sides? If one person's struggle to recover fragments the other, whose story is being written? Even with good intentions, indefinite silence may make one forget that the relationship is a "partnership."

If silence is about recovering, then you also need to think about what to do once you've recovered. In other words, you can't keep the other person waiting forever by just saying "my own process." At some point, it turns into saying, "don't mess with me." Then everyone should be clear enough to stop messing around.

People always say that silence is about "gathering things together," but no one clarifies what that thing is. Maybe the answer that comes after the silence won't satisfy you at all. What they gather isn't the relationship, but just themselves. So is it really worth waiting this long?

During the silence process, everyone says they are "getting it together," but it's unclear whether this is about continuing the relationship or just for their own comfort. If someone claiming to have gotten it together can't explain what they will do regarding the relationship afterward, what is the meaning of this process? Are you ready to face the possibility of dealing with someone who is not "getting it together" but rather just "stalling" in uncertainty?

The question of whether they are "dragging their feet or recovering" is important in uncertainty, but isn't waiting the way to understand this? Expecting people to be clear in every situation is somewhat of a fantasy because sometimes they themselves don't know what they're doing in that silence. Perhaps where the question needs to be clarified, what is the limit of maintaining silence?

We are discussing the limits of maintaining silence, but who determines what is "just" silence and what is "unjust" silence? What may be recovery for one person could be a direct escape for another. How do you understand this distinction when setting boundaries, and what criteria do you use to define it?

Isn't there a responsibility even in what we call "recovery"? If you're maintaining silence, it's also your job to explain that process later or to address the impact it has left on the relationship. It's not just about saying, "I have recovered, let's move on." If you have exhausted the other person during the silence, this is also something that needs to be resolved. So, is the person who remains silent ready to account for this?

Before the silent one is ready to account for their actions, there's also the question of whether the other party will even demand such an account. In other words, if someone says, "I’ve gathered myself, let’s continue," and the other replies, "okay," they skip over discussing any damage that occurred during that process. At that point, who is more problematic: the one who remains silent, or the one who willingly accepts the situation as it is?

Just because someone says "okay" doesn't mean they've processed it. Sometimes, it's said to "let's continue" because there's no courage to finish. Then, those things done in that "silence" blow up from somewhere else. Doesn't anyone think about this?

"You say that things done in silence explode from somewhere else, but maybe nothing is being done in silence? Someone might just be using the excuse of 'I'm getting my act together' while actually doing nothing. How can you tell if something is being resolved or not when it's truly silent?

Perhaps the issue isn't whether something can be solved in silence, but whether what we call silence is something a person can resolve on their own? Some people try to tackle problems solely in their heads, but sometimes that problem is too big to be solved alone. The way to see that "nothing is being done" in silence is to recognize the absurdity of trying to solve this task alone from the very beginning. How realistic can the excuse of someone who lacks this awareness be when they say they're getting it together?

I think the way to understand whether it has been resolved in silence is through the behavior that comes at the end of the process. If someone says, "I got myself together," we need to understand how they did that from something tangible. If the same cycle follows the silence, what value do the explanations made during that process hold?

The moment the silent one says "I've gathered myself" is already like a checkpoint. But I think the issue lies in whether they clearly express how long this process will take or what it aims for at the beginning of initiating the silence. Because if both the process and the outcome are uncertain, waiting for the behavior that follows the silence is a very risky investment. By the time you say "I've gathered myself," maybe the other party has already made their decision?

Sure, taking time to gather oneself in silence is fine, but doesn’t someone ask: On what basis do you think you deserve this silence? After all, you are putting the relationship on hold. Is there a guarantee that the other person will choose to "wait" for your chaos? I think the issue is not just about the outcome of gathering yourself, but where you place another person in that silence.

Okay, but doesn't resorting to silence already require permission from the start? Communication breakdown in a relationship is an action in itself; imposing it under the pretext of "I'm just getting myself together" feels a bit one-sided. Just like declaring silence, shouldn't it be clarified beforehand whether the other person is on board with that?

But do people always have to clarify everything with the other side? Silence is a form of defense, often used to either avoid escalating a conflict or to protect oneself. Presenting this as if it were a decision that must be approved feels a bit too demanding, doesn’t it?

Silence can be a defense, but is it fair to take a unilateral decision to remove the other person from a relationship that is supposed to be between two? This becomes an escape rather than a solution to prevent escalating conflict. A person can choose their own silence, but they must also accept that it will change the dynamics of the relationship; is that risk worth it?

Well, it is true that the person resorting to silence should "acknowledge that they will change the relationship dynamics," but what about the other party? Should they completely passively accept the declaration of silence? Instead of waiting in a way that they cannot express themselves, is it not our right to be involved in the silence process or question this process?

Until the silence is declared, communication has already broken down. So, how is it perceived when someone who takes a step to break this silence says, "I am also trying to resolve this"? In other words, if the other party is trying to establish control in silence, how is it fair to respond to this intervention? If both sides claim in different ways that "I am getting my act together," whose claim is true?

If someone who declares silence initiates this process without speaking at all, they must accept that the other party has the right to start their "own recovery process" as well. But if there isn't a communication plan in place, doesn't it turn into chaos when both sides try to resolve different things in the same silence? How can they be sure of what continues besides their own silence?

The most interesting part in silence is this: Does the declaring party think they have pressed the "pause" button in the relationship, or do they believe they have completely stopped the game? Because while they are pressing that button, the other party may have already started writing another scenario. Trying to manage the process without communicating is not just freeing people to dwell in their own assumptions, is it?

It's very clear that the person who declares silence doesn't consider what's happening in the other person's mind. But the real issue is how much the person who remains silent expects to find the same relationship when they "return" at the end of this process. Silence can only be perceived as a process, but for the other party, it can be a "consequence"; people often have already ended the relationship in their minds while waiting in uncertainty. How can they keep the relationship, the bonds, and trust alive in silence?

But does the person resorting to the silent treatment consider that the other side might make new decisions regarding the relationship during this process? In other words, silence could mean not just a break, but also giving the other person a chance to think or leave. If this situation contradicts the intentions of the one who declares silence, then what will happen?

Isn't it strange to think that the person who declares silence has also locked the other party's right to react into silence? I mean, in that process, I think a kind of transparency is necessary, like "you do this, and I do that." Otherwise, wouldn't it just be about setting your own rules and expecting the other person to comply?

The person who initiates the silence is actually letting go of the strings somewhere, yet still thinks they are in control. When the other side tries to fill this void, they may encounter a reaction like, "you're deviating from the script." Well, if you've left the rules of the game ambiguous, isn’t everyone going to write their own game? Perhaps silence is not a method of relationship from the start, but a confession of contradiction.

Is the person declaring silence perhaps acting under the delusion that they can "maintain a connection through mental energy"? Because expecting silence to serve as a substitute for communication is quite an empty hope. Choosing not to communicate and believing that the relationship will simply remain in limbo seems contrary to human nature.

There seems to be a belief that a person’s "waiting" side will always remain fixed in silence. But people don’t just think in silence; they also experience emotional changes. How can one assume that the other person's feelings towards you remain frozen during that silence? Perhaps during that silence, they decided they didn’t want to "stay in the relationship." Is that risk considered at all?

Anyone who declares silence needs to consider whether the other party will still want the same things at the end of the process. But what if, when they return to break the silence, the other party has already gone quiet? Doesn't this situation create a "cycle of silence"? It becomes a muddle of who started it and who ended it.

Then it can be questioned: Is the person who initiated the silence really intending to maintain the relationship, or are they trying to end it and avoid taking responsibility? Because cutting off communication is a clear action; when no note is left saying "I'll be back," it can actually be perceived as an end. Perhaps silence is a way of testing the other person's resolve?

Declaring silence sometimes feels like allowing someone else to determine the direction of the relationship rather than ending it. Is the silent person really resigned to whatever the other side does? Or is it completely a passive manipulation attempt? It's really hard to separate this.

Here's another thing: Could the person who remains silent be trying to gauge how much effort the other side will put in for them? In other words, silence turns into a sort of attachment test. But regardless of the outcome of this test, doesn't it wear down the relationship more than it strengthens it?

But in silence, is what is being "tested" the effort of the other party, or the limits of their patience? Because I think it’s quite difficult to repair the break that occurs when patience is strained in this way once the silence is over. In trying to keep the relationship alive, it’s like laying a mine for oneself.

I don't think there's any "test" in silence; it’s more about escape. It’s about hiding in the corner out of fear of confrontation. What I don’t understand is this: if someone who declares silence expects the other side to remain active, why do they themselves resort to passivity? It’s not an equal game.

Silence sometimes feels less like a direct "let go" and more like a "sneaky abandonment" to me. It’s like cutting off communication and gradually cooling things down without the other person noticing the end. So is this an inability to speak openly, or is it an attempt to come out clean?

The intention of the person initiating the silence can vary, but sometimes it's not just a process of "sneaky abandonment" but also of "evaluating one’s own feelings." Not everyone may be ready to talk at any moment; perhaps they are not sure about how they feel. However, thinking that this process will last forever tends to leave the other party in uncertainty, which is another matter.

But let me say something, when the person declaring silence says they are "weighing their own feelings," could they be completely excluding the other person's feelings from this equation? I mean, okay, let's say they are collecting their thoughts, but do they really care whether the other person is being worn out by the uncertainty during that time? Is it fair to make someone wait for your own internal reckoning?

It's fine to weigh your own feelings, but there should be a limit to this "leaving in uncertainty" process. On top of that, can't we at least outline a framework by saying, "I need some time alone" instead of completely cutting off communication? I think sometimes silence is just a cowardly escape.

We need to consider this "silence" situation from another angle: Is the other party completely silent or are they indirectly sending messages? You know, like sharing something on social media or leaking info through mutual friends. Is the silence we refer to a complete disconnect or another form of communication?

Drawing a frame, indirect messages on social media… Nice, but don’t you question this part: Could this planned silence actually be a passive-aggressive display of power? Like, I’m silent but I’m watching you, guiding you, testing your patience. Isn’t the silence supposed to be a bit of a self-reflective process? If it veers into controlled manipulation, it becomes something else.

But what if there is an intention to try to understand whether the other side is making sacrifices during the silence? Like, maybe they are passively testing whether "are they still thinking about me, do they value me," but doing it without saying so. In this case, could silence not only be manipulation but also a form of seeking approval?

I think the whole testing issue is a bit dangerous. Using indirect ways to understand the other person's feelings feels like a mind game. But what if not everyone is testing in the same way? You could completely lose trust with the wrong signals while trying to set the rules, instead of valuing the person.

This "testing" idea is already problematic in itself. People’s feelings are not an algorithm; not everyone reacts the same way to the same input. Let's say the other party is unaware of the test or misunderstood it, then what will happen? Silence is not a strategic move; it's a lack of communication. Bread is not tested, it's eaten.

If such intricate calculations are being made to design "silence", then it has ceased to be a natural process. Why does establishing relationships with people turn into code-breaking? If you can't express what you want to say clearly, neither will your test yield results, nor will the other party trust you.

Consider the issue of silence from this perspective: what if the person in front of you isn't capable of such a fine plan? Maybe they're just genuinely confused, and remaining silent is their easiest way to escape. Does every silence have to carry a strategy or a test behind it? Sometimes, things can be simpler.

I'm going to ask something: we're putting so much thought into searching for a strategy, but maybe silence just means "there's nothing to talk about"? I mean, it's not confusion or a test, it's just plain emptiness. Does everyone's silence have to feel the same?

But what if silence is not a state of "absence", but a state of "waiting"? That is, perhaps they have already made their decision, but they are just waiting for the right time to act. Don't you consider such a possibility as well? Silence may not always indicate uncertainty; sometimes it can be a way to conceal a clarified situation.

So, if silence is a "waiting state of a clarified decision"... why isn't it expressed clearly? In such a situation, aren't you inadvertently creating more distance by leaving the other party in uncertainty? If a decision has truly been made, how does keeping it a secret influence the relationship?

Silence is a state of concealing a decision, so why this concealment? If the decision is correct, why is the explanation postponed? If the decision is unclear, why should silence be considered a "waiting" state? It then becomes outright indecisiveness. Silence alone means nothing; you can't derive meaning without looking at the remaining clues.

I don't think there's anything that requires as much context as silence. Who was silent, when did they go silent, and in response to what did they become silent? The same silence can signify a decision in one place, fear in another, and manipulation in yet another. The way to understand which it is, is to observe the silence and unravel the "why" question. Saying "They're doing something, it must be this way" seems too easy.

There is nothing quite as misunderstood as silence, really. Sometimes people just want to remain silent, that’s it. But if you interpret this as a "test" or a "strategy," you end up unnecessarily exhausting both yourself and the other person, assigning greater meanings to it. Perhaps the other person’s silence is something they need to resolve internally, and it might not even be related to you. Asking whether it is or isn’t and clarifying seems more sensible.

If silence is allowing the other person space to figure themselves out, how will the other side understand that? I mean, is it really that hard to say, "this isn't about you, it's about myself"? Even if you choose to remain silent, if you just show your intent, everyone would actually feel more at ease. You can't communicate with silence.

Sure, but isn't explaining the intention behind silence a form of "communication" in itself? So why do we see it as an additional issue when someone who chooses silence also doesn't explain their intention? Some people may not even have the energy to explain, and I guess we don't really think about that.

If silence is not a strategy and a person does not choose to express their intentions, then I believe there is already a communication problem in the dynamics of that relationship. In other words, if you cannot talk about things with the other person, you also cannot decipher the meaning of silence. In this case, the issue is not silence itself, but rather the form of communication.

If you are a person who perceives silence as "respect" and tries to resolve things internally while waiting, and you feel scattered in the meantime, how will this balance be achieved? I mean, sure, everyone has the right to collect themselves, but does the other party have the luxury of disrupting that? Silence is nice, but what will the other person do in the meantime?

Silence is fine, but will the other party know what to do during that time? Should they wait, question it, or come to their own conclusion? If the person who chooses silence is trying to resolve their own issue, they can give a small sign without leaving the other person feeling dependent. Otherwise, both people end up getting lost in silence at the same time.

We thought we’d put a little sign in the silence, but what if the other side interprets this sign in their own way and comes to the wrong conclusion? Sometimes, while saying you won’t leave things unspoken, aren’t you actually causing a more complex perception? Even the meaning of the sign can be debatable.

Putting a mark on silence seems like a solution, but is a mark always perceived clearly? If the person in front of you tends to chaos, even a word or behavior can be misinterpreted. Perhaps instead of a mark, setting a framework before the period of silence would be less exhausting?

Can everyone foresee creating a framework before the silence? I mean, people might just be quiet because they can't deal with something during a moment of silence, so isn't it a bit idealistic to expect them to have planned a framework or something at that moment? The person you call chaos-prone might be getting even more confused precisely because of that missing framework.

Why does the person who chooses silence not think about leaving a sign or explanation? Is this just due to energy, or is it related to their own lack of skills in managing relationships? Silence is a choice, but don't interpersonal connections require responsibility?

During the silence, the expectation of a "little sign" or "frame" was discussed to alleviate the confusion of the other party, but what if the person who remains silent becomes even more stressed because of this expectation? In other words, doesn't adding the "obligation to leave a sign" on top of the already burdensome silence create an additional problem for that person instead of being a solution? Who determines that burden?

I agree that staying silent creates a burden for the other side, but let me ask this: If silence is not a solution, then why is it chosen at all? I mean, no matter how personal the matter is, can one continue to act as if it is purely individual if it affects the relationship? It seems to me like a way of remaining silent and avoiding responsibility.

Silence can be a choice, sure, but doesn't it create a necessity for conversation afterward? I mean, no matter how much you try to escape, there will inevitably be a reckoning at some point. Doesn't that turn into an even bigger knot with someone who has misunderstood silence as wrong or incomplete?

I want to say something, silence is fine, but why is it always the "silent person" who gets the blame here? Doesn't the other side take any responsibility for their own interpretations? Does everyone have to read silence as if it's a crisis?

Silence doesn't necessarily have to be perceived as a crisis, but it is not a form of communication. If we say that the other party has the responsibility to interpret, think, or come up with a solution, then this situation turns into a guessing game. People aren't fortune-tellers who can read the mind of someone waiting to convey a message through silence.

You say silence is not communication, but why is it not seen as a right to reach out? I mean, if someone is silent, they might be in a different state at that moment. This doesn't necessarily mean that the other party is obligated to play the fortune teller. On the contrary, always interpreting silence as passive-aggressive or as avoidance makes that person seem a kind of "malicious." What if they are just silent because they want to be?

Silence is not communication, but a state of communication. You may want to stay silent and turn back to your own process, that's fine, but if you leave that as a "blank space" for the other person, you are actually accepting that comments or burdens may arise there. If this burden is not shared, doesn't it create more stress for both parties?

But the person who remains silent completely withdraws into their own world, so they do not determine what the other side should do in this "empty space." Therefore, it is very contradictory to choose silence while also expecting, "do not misunderstand this." If the moment you turn inward touches someone else's boundaries, can it still remain 'completely personal'?