Don't Go Seiko On Her
How long should a guy wait to call a girl after the first date? One friend waits a week. A female friend said this annoys girls and a guy should call the next day. This contradicts the old "three-day rule." What is the right timing?
--Confused
I like the 30-year rule: "Hello, Tammy, you might not remember me, but I took you out for drinks in 1981." Nothing tells a woman you aren't desperate for her company like taking three decades to call her. That's the point of all of these rules -- for a guy to not seem desperate. A guy who isn't probably doesn't call at 9:01 the next morning, but he doesn't sit on his phone for three days like he's waiting for it to hatch. He might text the woman the next afternoon, saying he had a great time and he'll call soon. Curb your desperation by asking lots of women out (so you won't fixate on one) and just hope some stick. Convey confidence by letting your interest guide when you call. Develop confidence and you could charm a woman by breaking the three-second rule -- calling her before she's even had a chance to get into her car.
I'd save the 30-year rule for first dates where you've gotten laid.
Snoopy at August 9, 2011 7:54 PM
This is so tricky because there is no hard-and-fast "rule," LW. I'd say the correct amount of time to wait before calling is somewhere between when you'd feel desperate and when you'd feel you were playing games by waiting. And pay attention to the feedback you get after you call to gauge whether it was the right choice. Asking out lots of women will help you decide what's right for you because you'll be able to weed out the outliers (women who expect immediate calls and women who want you to play games). That way you'll develop your own style and be able to tell if you're with a compatible woman.
NumberSix at August 9, 2011 9:12 PM
I'm not sure I agree on the date lots of women-thing. I'm afraid you would end up throwing gold away because you mistake it for bronze, while looking for the next shiny object.
That's how it goes for me, anyway. The more options I have, the harder it gets for me to choose.
Jesper Thomsen at August 10, 2011 12:38 AM
Jesper, it's not "date lots of women," it's "ask out lots of women." Unless the LW has some mysterious pull where every woman he asks out says yes, it won't be an overwhelming number of actual dates. And the advice wasn't to seriously date lots of women at once, it was to get practice at first dates. And most of those first dates won't turn into second dates. Getting more practice at first dates will help LW to figure out which ones he wants second dates with by the way the women react to his follow-up.
I'm afraid you would end up throwing gold away because you mistake it for bronze, while looking for the next shiny object.
That's only if he chooses to treat his dates that way. He doesn't have to be on the lookout for a better date all the time. He can still focus on one woman at a time while he's with them. If it doesn't work out with one, he can start asking more out again. The converse of your statement could be that he puts too much time and effort into a relationship because he isn't sure there's someone better for him. There's risk either way and lots of real estate between the two extremes.
NumberSix at August 10, 2011 1:46 AM
Just be aware that with most of today's women—whatever you do will be the wrong decision.
Razor at August 10, 2011 4:58 AM
I've been out of the game so long that I've forgotten the rules! But IIRC, most of the time if the guy called me back within a couple of days, that was a signal he was interested and wanted to go out again. Guys who didn't call me back after a week or more, I wrote off, and if they did call after that, I made sure I was "busy". Don't play head games; if you like the woman and want to see her again, call her within a couple of days and let her know. Even if you don't want to see her again, call her and let her know. Go easy, something like, "I'm sorry but I don't think this will work for me." But don't leave her hanging. That just ain't right.
Flynne at August 10, 2011 5:17 AM
The correct answer to this is to do what you feel is right. If the chemistry was there during the date, call her the next day. If you don't, she might think she misread the situation. If the evening was just pleasant and you want to go out again, call within a day or two. It really isn't rocket science.
Sheepmommy at August 10, 2011 6:26 AM
If I go out with a guy and don't hear back from him within a week, I'm going to take the damn hint and move on.
Although, I do wonder - anyone here have the experience of going on a date that seemed to go really, really well, chemistry and all, and then...poof, nothing?
Choika at August 10, 2011 6:35 AM
"...it's not "date lots of women," it's "ask out lots of women." Unless the LW has some mysterious pull where every woman he asks out says yes, it won't be an overwhelming number of actual dates."
It will do no good to ask women out that have shown no indication of interest. That would not simulate the circumstance that is the norm. When women are intersted they make it very clear. Most men simply don't speak the language. If you do; women Do Not decline the invitation.
nuzltr2 at August 10, 2011 6:41 AM
My first official date with my wife was a walk in the park on a Sunday. We went back to her place afterward, she made supper, we kissed a bit and made a date for the next Friday.
I called her the next night and told her I didn't want to wait for Friday and could I see her the next day. (She worked Wed. night and I had a meeting Thurs. night)
She was all for it and we went for a walk in a different park and I took her out for dinner.
We had known each other for a few months and had become friends, so we had a running start at this. I agree with Sheepmommy that you should do what you feel is right.
Steamer at August 10, 2011 8:28 AM
Flynne Says:
"Guys who didn't call me back after a week or more, I wrote off, and if they did call after that, I made sure I was "busy". Don't play head games"
Am I the only one who notices the irony here?
Reality at August 10, 2011 9:06 AM
Yeah, I know, Reality. But I meant that as in, even if I wasn't busy, I didn't want them to know. If they didn't care enough about calling me back sooner than a week, I didn't care to speak with them. Note that I posted "I wrote them off" Which is not to say I wouldn't have spoken to them if I had seen them out and about somewhere, I would. I just wouldn't leave myself open for rejection by them a second time. Once is enough, IMHO.
Flynne at August 10, 2011 10:13 AM
I'm with Flynne. If I didn't hear from someone for a week, I'd assume he was a player and trying to string me along. If I was wrong, oh well. He got weeded out anyway. I know that if a guy is crazy about me he's probably going to be hard to get rid of, not elusive. And the only guys I was ever interested in dating were the ones who were crazy about me.
Pirate Jo at August 10, 2011 10:33 AM
Although, I do wonder - anyone here have the experience of going on a date that seemed to go really, really well, chemistry and all, and then...poof, nothing?
Yes. Without exception, in the cases when I found out what was going on, it was that they were involved with someone else.
Pirate Jo at August 10, 2011 10:35 AM
Flynne wrote:
"If they didn't care enough about calling me back sooner than a week, I didn't care to speak with them."
If I was interested in a woman, I would contact her within a few days. If there was a disaster at work, I got sent out of town, or even if someone died, it only takes 30 seconds to send a text or an email.
Hi,
I really enjoyed seeing you last week. We had a pipe burst at work and I'm working 18 hours a day rebuilding our servers. I hope things will be back to normal by Saturday. I'll give you a call and see if we can get together.
Steamer at August 10, 2011 10:53 AM
Exactly, Steamer, that's what I'm talking about. There's really no reason not be in touch within a reasonable amount of time, especially nowadays, when there are so many ways of doing that.
Flynne at August 10, 2011 10:55 AM
Well, if you screwed her long and hard on the the first date, you "should" call the next day. But if you don't, she will call you. No worries either way.
If you didn't screw long and hard on the first date--why do you want a second date?
BOTU at August 10, 2011 2:08 PM
Amy, please blacklist this buttfuck dude or tell me where I can find him
ronc at August 10, 2011 4:42 PM
hello
Love your column, first time writer.
I'd say early feedback is important. It's ez to send a text etc. My problem is getting the 1st date. Getting older doesn't make it ezier.
miguel delgadillo at August 10, 2011 6:47 PM
I just went out with a guy on a first date a week or so ago. I didn't necessarily feel chemistry, but he was nice enough to consider another date, so when he suggested it at the end of the night, I told him to call later in the week so we could plan something because I sometimes only know my schedule a few days in advance. He took a week to contact me, at which point he said he hadn't felt "sparks" on the date. I couldn't disagree, and recognized it would have been far easier for him to blow me off completely, so I thanked him for at least contacting me to explain.
I think guys are hesitant about when to call because of the judgment or backlash they may face. So I agree: no games. Whether the guy calls in a day or a week, if you want to say yes to a second date, do it. I think all these questions/issues with calling and what to say would be greatly alleviated with a little kindness and understanding on the part of both parties.
Having said all that, if a guy takes longer than a week to contact me in any way after a first date, I perceive it as a casual interest on his part and generally respond with something like "No, thank you. I don't think there is a strong mutual interest here." I avoid the whole need to be "busy."
meg1571 at August 10, 2011 8:16 PM
It will do no good to ask women out that have shown no indication of interest.
That's a good distinction to make that I didn't, so thanks. I don't advise the LW to just ask out random women for the sake of asking them out. It may be decent practice if he has a fear of talking to women, but it won't be good in the long run if he asks out every woman he comes across. LW, you should also be practicing reading women to tell if they're interested. Amy's advised before not to ask out a woman if you're not fairly certain she'll say yes (or she's at least shown interest and hasn't dropped the phrases "my boyfriend," "my girlfriend," or "my parole officer" into the conversation), and I agree. The point here is to hone your personal radar so you can be surer of a woman's interest and know what feels natural for you as to when to call her again.
I think guys are hesitant about when to call because of the judgment or backlash they may face.
Definitely. LW, if you're not acting desperate or playing the waiting game against your instincts and you get a verbal smackdown over your timing, that is also a valuable lesson: don't put more effort into dating that woman.
Also, the follow-up call doesn't necessarily have to set up a firm second date. Call in a day or two to say you had a nice time and want to talk soon to make that second date. That way you can let her know of your interest (and gauge hers) without nailing down firm plans. But don't be wishy-washy: if you're interested in going out again, let her know, but you don't have to have a plan all ready.
NumberSix at August 10, 2011 11:10 PM
Flynne,
I understand why you wouldn’t be interested in dating someone who “didn’t care enough about calling you back sooner than a week”.
What I am trying to get across is that it is ironic to suggest that if they don’t call you back in the time frame you expect that they are “playing games” only to later declare that it is okay for you to then pretend to be busy when you aren’t. Pretending to be busy is playing games too. You can't justify for your own ability to play games while chastising others for the same types of game playing behavior.
Someone who doesn’t like games doesn’t pretend to be busy just to “get even” for a perceived slight. If a guy called much later than is reasonable the appropriate thing for someone to do who is against playing games would be to simply explain that they aren’t interested in a second date and leave it at that.
You even go so far as to say that what men are supposed to do is call within an acceptable time frame if they are interested, and that if they aren’t interested they should still call to explain that they aren’t interested. You justify this position by saying that a guy should not “leave her hanging” because “that just ain’t right”. In other words, it is rude and unacceptable behavior for a man to ever leave a woman in the dark as to her status no matter what that status is but there is apparently no reciprocal requirement. This is not the perspective of a person who is against “playing games”. This is the perspective of someone who desires to play a rigged game.
Based upon what you wrote one can only conclude that it isn’t that you are against game playing in general, you just don’t like it when men play games. When women play games (like pretending to be busy when they aren’t) then it is somehow all fair and reasonable.
Someone who is truly against game playing doesn’t find it acceptable no matter who the source happens to be, and they don’t make excuses for what I will call “retaliatory game playing” either.
That being said, if a guy does not express a level of interest you are expecting you are perfectly within your rights to reject him on that basis.
Reality at August 11, 2011 12:07 AM
I agree that suddenly becoming "busy" is the wrong way to go. Even if it's to be nice to a guy you just didn't click with, it's not sparing his feelings to play busy. It's not comparable to crying busy to get out of a party you don't want to go to, because that's a fixed time and you presumably will still socialize with some of the people after.
And if the rejection is based on game-playing it's kind of making the guy work for it: if he really wants a second date, he'll ask when you aren't busy and you'll still have to tell him something more final. Either that or he assumes all declarations of "busy" mean the woman doesn't want to see him again, even if that's not the case. I agree with not wanting to go out with a guy again if he makes you wait to hear from him so as to keep you on your toes, but I think there are better and more decisive ways to go about telling him.
NumberSix at August 11, 2011 1:19 AM
What some are calling "game playing" sometimes is just common decency.
The claim of being busy, with just the right tone, can simply get the point across without the need to awkwardly spell out what the receiver already suspects.
I recently invited a very nice woman to a baseball game for a first date. I was surprised to learn that she was also a huge baseball fan and we had a nice phone conversation about it. I was very much looking forward to the date. It turns out that I screwed up and read the schedule wrong (it wasn't in my native language) -- there would be no home game that day. So, I called her with the bad news that the baseball game would be the next weekend, but proposed that we did another fun afternoon activity.
We had a very nice time, but it was clear that the conversation was halting and we just weren't clicking. It was all my fault, by the way, for some reason I just wasn't on my game. She was lovely.
After the date, I received a very nice text thanking me for a fun date and I responded. A few days later, I got an email that very graciously said that she regretfully could not go to the ballgame the next weekend as she had become involved with someone.
I'm no dumb ass. I know that she didn't get seriously involved with someone between Sunday and Tuesday. But, It was a nice way to acknowledge what we both already knew -- that we enjoyed a pleasant day, but it just wasn't anything worth spending time on.
Is that "game playing"? Sure, but who cares. It's proper manners and I hold her in much higher regard for making the effort to be gracious in sparing my feelings.
whistleDick at August 11, 2011 2:44 AM
I'm with Amy and NumberSix on this one. If I'm interested in someone, a brief, non-pushy text the next afternoon - "Thank you for a lovely night, hope we can catch up soon". It makes it clear you're interested without saying "I've just picked out a china pattern for our wedding registry". And it's simply polite.
Flynne - if someone didn't contact me for a week after a date I would write them off too. I don't think there's anything wrong with what you said. To me, it says "I'm just not that into you".
whistleDick - I agree with you. There's a difference between game-playing and giving someone a clear, but face-saving (for both of you) signal.
Ltw at August 11, 2011 3:30 AM
And I thought BOTU's comment was quite sensitive. Of course you should call the next day if you get lucky on the first date! What a sweet sentiment...
Ltw at August 11, 2011 3:35 AM
Someone who doesn’t like games doesn’t pretend to be busy just to “get even” for a perceived slight.
I get what you're saying, Reality, but I wasn't "pretending to be busy" just to "get even" for a perceived slight. First of all, the "slight" wasn't "perceived", it was there. And I was busy because I didn't want to get hurt again - call it "self-preservation" if you want. But as whistleDick says "The claim of being busy, with just the right tone, can simply get the point across without the need to awkwardly spell out what the receiver already suspects."
If a guy isn't interested enough in me to call me within a reasonable amount of time to either just chat or confirm a second date, I don't really think that being busy is being "rude" or playing a game. I think that if I've already written him off before he calls me back after more than a week, I really don't owe him more than "oh, I'm sorry, I'm busy that day/night/afternoon", and threrefore, I'm not going into why I'm "busy". He already knows why.
Flynne at August 11, 2011 5:48 AM
I think saying, "I'm busy" is about as innocuous as saying, "I'm fine" when you don't want to go into your long list of problems. It's not really game playing. That would only be if she was purposely doing it with the intent to make the guy pursue her more, as in "the rules" advice to "act busy" and don't pick up phone calls, etc.
The only problem is that it might have the unintended consequence of making her more desirable. People usually want what they can't have. So, I always felt it was best to say, "I enjoyed meeting you, but we aren't a match". Just to make it clear that it's over.
But, you know, some guys get pissed at that too. They'd rather you say you're busy or met someone. I did that too when I sensed someone needed a gentler let down. Still others would get upset if you lie to spare their feelings (one guy railed at me for still being on a dating site after I'd told him I'd "met someone"). So, rejection is often a no win situation no matter how you handle it.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 6:42 AM
Plus, Flynne, if your argument doesn't fit within the parameters of a logic theorem, the guys here WILL call you on it.
Claire at August 11, 2011 8:00 AM
Oh I know, Claire, that's why I tried to clarify. And lovelysoul actually explained it better than I did.
Flynne at August 11, 2011 8:08 AM
Flynne Says:
“First of all, the "slight" wasn't "perceived", it was there.”
The “slight” of not calling in a particular amount of time is a subjective one, not an objective one. An objective slight is someone running over your cat and not bothering to apologize.
Just because you or anyone else feels slighted by something does not in fact make it a slight, it is sometimes a subjective thing and as such it is “perceived”.
I’m not sure why you would object to me identifying your position as your opinion as opposed to it being an objective and verifiable fact.
It is your opinion, your perception of the events, and there is nothing inherently wrong with calling it that. Not all things in life are objective, this “slight” isn’t one of them.
“And I was busy because I didn't want to get hurt again - call it "self-preservation" if you want.”
Being busy is not a function of a desire not to be hurt. Being busy means you actually have lots of things to do and don’t actually have time to do anything else. I’ve been busy many times before, so busy in fact that I barely have time to sleep or make meals for myself, in those situations I am legitimately too busy to go out with anyone.
Not wanting to go out with someone again because you are afraid they will hurt your feelings does not actually make you busy, that is a cop out.
A better way to protect yourself is to simply tell them that you aren’t interested. What is so hard about that, and how doesn’t it “preserve” you from being hurt again?
The only thing that saying you are “busy” encourages is for the person to potentially call you again in the hopes that you aren’t busy later. You aren’t making things better for yourself or the other person.
This strategy strikes me more as being akin to the following logic:
“That guy left me in limbo for over a week… let’s see how he likes it.”
That is game playing. There is no benefit to pretending to being busy over just telling the person you aren’t interested.
“I don't really think that being busy is being "rude" or playing a game.”
It is if you are not in fact busy. If you are too busy to date one person then you would in principal be too busy to accept a date from anyone else.
As a result, if you are ever in a situation where you could see yourself dating someone, but tell someone else you are too busy to go out… then you are playing a game.
Reality at August 11, 2011 8:44 AM
lovelysoul says:
“I think saying, "I'm busy" is about as innocuous as saying, "I'm fine" when you don't want to go into your long list of problems. It's not really game playing.”
I would completely agree with you if it wasn’t for one thing. I am judging Flynne’s action by her own yard stick. I think it is reasonable for people to have their behavior judged in the same light that they judge other’s behavior, it is a good way to get to the heart of the matter of what things are fair and what things are unfair about their belief set.
Here is why I informed her that based upon her own statements that she was in fact playing games and being rude, this is what she said:
“Guys who didn't call me back after a week or more, I wrote off, and if they did call after that, I made sure I was "busy". Don't play head games; if you like the woman and want to see her again, call her within a couple of days and let her know. Even if you don't want to see her again, call her and let her know. Go easy, something like, "I'm sorry but I don't think this will work for me." But don't leave her hanging. That just ain't right.”
Doesn’t it seem odd that someone would pretend to be busy if they didn’t get called within a particular time frame, and then lump not calling to inform someone you aren’t interested in with being game playing?
She specifically says that men need to call and tell her even if they don’t want to see her again.
So tell me, which is more innocuous… not calling someone you aren’t interest in, or pretending to be busy with someone you aren’t interested in?
My position is that if the first is not proper and that it “just ain’t right”, then surely the second also “just ain’t right”.
All this talk about wanting to “preserve” ones feelings from rejection and that being the reason why it is okay to pretend to be busy is all well and good up until one declares that just doing nothing at all is totally inappropriate and classified as playing head games.
What I am saying is also supported by the position of Pirate Jo:
“I'm with Flynne. If I didn't hear from someone for a week, I'd assume he was a player and trying to string me along.”
What I am trying to get across is that if simply not calling at all makes a guy a game player, then pretending to be busy isn’t some innocuous and harmless action either.
See what I am getting at?
Reality at August 11, 2011 8:57 AM
So, Reality, you never tell a little white lie? If someone asks, "How are you?" you tell them about every ailment and problem in your life just to be completely factual?
A woman saying she's "too busy" is certainly code for "I'm not interested." It's not a game - any more than half the things that occur in the dating world are games. Rejection is tough. Some people prefer it blunt and some like it gentle. As I said, you can't always tell which is which. It's easy to guess wrong and upset the person by being either too blunt or too gentle (sparing their feelings with a little white lie).
In my experience, when someone is really into you, they don't like it either way. If you tell them flat out that you've decided you're not interested, they'll come back with reasons why you should have told them this two minutes sooner and not wasted their precious time with a first date, cup of coffee, or whatever. If you lie to let them down easier, they'll try to pick apart your story or keep after you until you're forced to spell it out...at which point, it goes back to blame number one.
So, it's very easy to "call" someone a game player no matter how they handle rejection.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 8:58 AM
"Doesn’t it seem odd that someone would pretend to be busy if they didn’t get called within a particular time frame, and then lump not calling to inform someone you aren’t interested in with being game playing?"
I agree with you that not calling someone you're not interested in isn't game playing. The problem occcurs when they DO call - after a week or more. That usually indicates that you are way down on the list of preferred dates, but, due to the first, second, or whatever number of higher choices rejecting him, or being "too busy", he's decided to dig out your number and ask for another date.
In which case, I think it's perfectly acceptable, and even advisable, to say, "I'm busy." If a guy waits that long, it usually means he's not really into you.
Of course, she could explain that, but then she runs the risk of getting into a protracted discussion about what it means when a guy doesn't call for over a week, and then he'll probably say she's a psycho.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 9:08 AM
Lovelysoul asks:
“So, Reality, you never tell a little white lie? If someone asks, "How are you?" you tell them about every ailment and problem in your life just to be completely factual?”
Not really, I don’t tell little white lies. I only lie when it is important, little white lies are by definition unimportant.
When someone asks me how I am I give them an honest answer, I usually say something like “things are good” or “I’m tired” or “not so great” depending upon how I actually feel. I don’t feel obligated to delve into the details though. If they asked for details and I wasn’t interested in discussing them I simply say “I don’t want to talk about it” or “I don’t have the time to go into it”. Again, all honest answers.
Not all things in life are factual, I’ve never said otherwise. In fact I just finished writing about how many things are perceptions and opinions, please read above.
Some things are facts, some things aren’t. I just make sure to tell the difference between them.
It gets annoying when people confuse the two, you know?
Someone who convinces themselves that their opinions are facts is someone who need to reevaluate a few things… if you recall we recently had a discussion with a person who couldn’t identify the difference between their opinion and facts.
“A woman saying she's "too busy" is certainly code for "I'm not interested." It's not a game - any more than half the things that occur in the dating world are games.”
I agree with you, but a man not calling is also code for “I’m not interested”. My question to Flynne and everyone else here hasn’t actually been “why is saying you are busy an acceptable practice”.
My question has been more complicated than that, and perhaps it is my fault for not being more clear. I kept talking about irony, but it might not have been obvious what my real question was. So here it is:
“Why is it okay for a woman to pretend she is “busy” when she isn’t interested, but it isn’t okay for a man not to call when he isn’t interested?”
This is the position some people have taken here, and that is the position I do not find justified. It isn’t that pretending to be “busy” is so terrible, it is that is certainly isn’t worse than a guy just not calling at all.
When it comes to your point that it seems like there is no acceptable way to reject someone, I agree with you and could tell you several stories where I tried my best to do a proper rejection and somehow it was never perceived as being correct. I'm sure you and everyone else have had the same experience.
As for me, there is only one situation where I felt I was rejected inappropriately, and I’m pretty sure if I told the story most people would agree with me that the timing was rather crappy.
Reality at August 11, 2011 9:21 AM
What I am trying to get across is that if simply not calling at all makes a guy a game player, then pretending to be busy isn’t some innocuous and harmless action either.
See what I am getting at?
But the two aren't the same. Read what lovelysoul posted.
And what you're getting at is trying to get me to admit that I'm wrong, which I am not.
What I said was if the guy didn't call me after a week, i.e. I hadn't heard from him one way or the other whether he even liked our date, as in, he hadn't called/emailed/texted/whatever, then I wrote him off as NOT INTERESTED IN ME. In which case, fine, I'm done, and am NOT EXPECTING to hear from him again. I'm busy with my life, in other words, and I'm moving on. Then all of a sudden, he calls, out of the blue? Because he couldn't get a date for some function or other?? Well, I've already resigned myself to the fact that he's just not that into me, and therefore, it would be a waste of my time to go out with him. Rather than explain all that to him (and why I'm bothering to explain to you is beyond my comprehension, except that maybe my reasoning is beyond your comprehesion!), and to spare myself from being hurt yet again, because maybe I was really into him, I just say vaguely "Oh, sorry, I'm busy at that time", thus sparing both me and him any awkwardness. Do you understand now? Would you understand me better if I told you that after I put down the phone I cried for the better part of an hour?
Flynne at August 11, 2011 9:27 AM
Just something I am curious about.
What is it that someone actually gains by saying they are "busy" to someone they aren't interested in over simply telling them you aren't interested in them romantically?
When deciding how to handle a situation it isn't enough to simply not choose a poor path, it is important to actively try and select the best path. As a result it seems to me that justifying the "i'm busy" rejection strategy over the "sorry, i'm not interested" rejection strategy requires some extra benefits on the "i'm busy" side.
What are they? and if there aren't any then why hold onto it to tightly?
Reality at August 11, 2011 9:30 AM
To answer your question, Reality, I think the difference is that, in this case, the woman may have been interested until she didn't get called. Then, she realized HE isn't that interested, yet he's calling her anyway.
There's a difference in rejecting someone because you just aren't interested and rejecting them because they've proven they're not that interested in you.
Both happen in the dating game, and all's fair in love and war, as they say. But don't you also think that when the guy does finally call, he's going to probably use the "I'm busy" excuse on her first? Unless he truly has a very good excuse, then he's the one who is playing the headgame. She's just vollying it back.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 9:36 AM
Flynne Says:
"But the two aren't the same. Read what lovelysoul posted."
I did read what she wrote, and I agree with her assessment. The problem is that you didn’t make the distinction she is making.
Here is what lovely soul wrote:
“I agree with you that not calling someone you're not interested in isn't game playing. The problem occcurs when they DO call - after a week or more.”
See, she distinguishes between people who never call at all and people who don’t call for a long time but eventually call.
Here is what you wrote:
“Even if you don't want to see her again, call her and let her know. Go easy, something like, "I'm sorry but I don't think this will work for me." But don't leave her hanging. That just ain't right.”
You are lumping in the guy who never calls you ever into the same boat as the guy who calls you after a month. According to you both activities are improper.
I didn’t put these words in your mouth, you said them. So you have the option to either defend them, or concede that it isn’t actually fair to suggest that guys have to always call and tell you their intentions even if they have no interest in you whatsoever.
However, if you are going to defend your position that a guy always has the responsibility of telling you where you stand, then you also have that responsibility and this “I’m busy” stuff goes out the window.
I don’t want you to admit you are wrong, I just want you to be logically consistent within your own belief set.
You’ve got two options on how to do that that I can see, and maybe more exist, but standing your ground that men have to always be upfront and completely forthright with their intentions while you get to pretend to be busy “just ain’t right”.
In any case, I actually will be busy in a moment, so I'll wish you the best until later.
Reality at August 11, 2011 9:39 AM
Why didn't you read my WHOLE post before responding? I thought I explained it pretty well. I wasn't standing [my] ground that men have to always be upfront and completely forthright with their intentions while [I] get to pretend to be busy “just ain’t right”. He wouldn't have wanted to know how much I liked him if he didn't like me as much, unless he was going to keep playing head games with me. I spared both of us that particular dead end.
Flynne at August 11, 2011 9:51 AM
I see your point, Reality, and I think Flynn does too. It just seems a little nitpicky or splitting hairs or something. It may not be completely consistent...her phrasing might have been off...but I understand what she means. And she is right - a guy shouldn't leave a woman hanging. Either tell her he's not interested or make up some gentle excuse, but just not calling or texting afterwards is rude.
Is her claiming to be busy on the same par? Maybe, but I don't think so. One is purely rude and the other is done in self-preservation.
To admit that she wanted him to call, and was disappointed that he didn't, would reveal too much...leave her emotionally vulnerable. Yet, to say she "isn't interested" isn't true because she actually liked him. So, meeting his, "I've been too busy to call you" with, "I'm really busy too" is a reasonable way to go. True or not.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 9:53 AM
Thanks, lovelysoul. Some people just get a little too obtuse about it all. As far as I'm concerned, it ain't right to leave ANYone hanging.
Flynne at August 11, 2011 10:14 AM
Look guys, I like to take the emotion out of these conversations because sometimes things can hit close to home and then people don't debate the issues, they instead debate the feelings.
I get that dating and rejection are difficult. They are difficult on everyone, it's just the nature of things.
What I am after is a philosophically consistent and fair was of approaching things, and I don’t see that here so far. What I instead see is people arguing from what I will call a “vested interest” stand point.
For example Flynne, you keep bringing this discussion back to a particular instance of where some guy you really liked called you a long time after a first date and it hurt your feelings. That has never been something I’ve been discussing, so while I am sorry and feel for your situation, it is immaterial to the points that I am trying to make which are unrelated. You are generating a straw man.
How you handled that specific scenario is less important to me than your statement that a guy should never leave a woman hanging, that a guy has the responsibility to always call and tell a woman he isn’t interested. This is a position that apparently lovelysoul now agrees with:
“And she is right - a guy shouldn't leave a woman hanging. Either tell her he's not interested or make up some gentle excuse, but just not calling or texting afterwards is rude.”
Now again, I would be absolutely fine with this being the standard of behavior provided that this responsibility for avoiding rude behavior is shared between both men and women.
If it is rude for a man not to call or text after a date to tell a woman where she stands (I.e. make it clear that he is interested or not interested), then it is similarly rude for a woman not to be absolutely clear where the guy stands.
This standard either has to be universal or it is worthless. It makes no sense to demand that men never ever be rude while leaving open the door for women to be rude.
I mean let’s be honest, would either of you really and truly think it was appropriate for a guy to call you up after a date just to tell you that he is “busy”?
Or would that strike you as rude or odd?
And lastly:
“Yet, to say she "isn't interested" isn't true because she actually liked him.”
Except that it is true. She wasn’t actually interested in dating him again at that point. This is true despite the fact that had he called earlier she might have jumped at the opportunity.
Let me use the following analogy to illustrate my point. I like to drink milk in the morning, I am usually interested in drinking milk in the morning. However, if the milk is past its expiration date and has gone sour my interest for drinking the expired milk is gone. This is true even if I wish the milk hadn’t gone bad.
So sure, she was interested in this guy before he passed his expiration date. However, once he “went sour” that interest was gone even if she still wished he had called sooner.
Look, everyone on earth would love to play poker at a table where everyone else has to show you their cards, but you get to keep your own cards hidden. It provides a huge advantage to have all that knowledge while keeping your own secrets.
However, few would say that a game like that wasn't rigged, and fewer still would take a seat to play at that table knowing that was how things worked.
Reality at August 11, 2011 10:15 AM
Reality, please give it a rest. Did you not read my reply to lovelysoul that it is, indeed, rude to leave ANYone hanging? Boy or girl, male or remale, whatever. But I reserve my right to self-preservation in that one instance. And I have always been upfront to the point where I would not accept a date with someone if I were not truly interested in him, and was always honest about why. "Thanks, Sam, but I'm just not interested in you that way." But then I'd get "well then let's just go together as friends" which opened up a whole new can of worms, because I just knew Sam would try to make it more than what it was. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. In Gary's case, I had a crush on him, he knew it, we went out and, I thought, had a good time. But he never called me back until, as I found out later from a mutual friend (and Freddy I still don't forgive you for reading that letter, you asshole! but I love ya!), he was going to try to recruit me for the band he was in at the time, because he was leaving to start another. By that time, I was resigned to the fact that we weren't destined to have a relationship, and in order to save face, I politely declined his invitation for another date. And cried, because I really wanted to go out with him again, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. But I didn't want him to know why. Afterwards, when I saw him out and about at various gigs here and there, I'd still give him a hug and a peck on the cheek. And gave his girlfriend a hug too. She was never the wiser. And she was cuter than me anyway. They made a great couple.
Flynne at August 11, 2011 11:05 AM
Well, it all depends on whether saying "I'm busy" is rude. To me, it's not rude. A woman has a right to decline a date. Besides, she may or may not be sure whether she'd like another date with this person. She might be conflicted about him, especially if he didn't call her within a reasonable time frame after their date.
The rude part would be to leave him hanging continuously, "I'm busy, but maybe next week...call me then," on and on, if she was absolutely sure she never wanted to see him.
Whenever I was conflicted, I might say I was busy but that I would contact him if I could do something in the future...that way he didn't have to keep chasing after me. Plus, the ball was in my court. More often than not, when I was that lukewarm towards someone, I never called. I'd meet someone else who held more interest. Such is dating.
This happened to me too. Things were left a little bit open, which some people feel is easier and kinder than just slamming the door shut and saying "I'm not interested in you." That comes off as cold and rude to many people. Believe me, there were times I wished the guy hadn't been that direct.
If you absolutely know for certain you'll never ever want a date with that person, it's probably best to tell them flat out, but, in my experience, there are a lot of dates who fall into the gray zone. Maybe the date would've been better if certain things had been different...maybe you were too picky...or didn't give him/her a chance...or maybe he didn't call, which left you feeling kind of hurt, but perhaps he might still prove his interest by continuing to call or text over the next few weeks....
At any rate, it's not rude to leave the door open a bit if you're unsure. It's rude not to acknowledge the date at all. Whether I hit it off with a guy or not, I always sent a "thank you for a nice time" text or email afterwards. Guys should do that too. That's basic manners.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 12:05 PM
Flynne Says:
“Did you not read my reply to lovelysoul that it is, indeed, rude to leave ANYone hanging? Boy or girl, male or remale, whatever. But I reserve my right to self-preservation in that one instance.”
This is a self serving philosophical stance when you define things the way you have. That is what I object to and what I am trying to reach an understanding with you about.
I have read everything you have had to say and I understand it quite well, that is the reason I object to some aspects of your stance. My objection is not due to a lack of comprehension, it is due to fully comprehending and still disagreeing with you.
Here is the crux of the problem, you now say that it is indeed rude to leave anyone hanging… with the exception of when you want to have “self preservation”. That is all well and good, but you haven’t adequately defined what constitutes “self preservation”.
I mean, what if a guy doesn’t call you to tell you he isn’t interested after a date because they are reserving their right to “self preservation”?
Why is it okay for you to make up a bull shit story about being “busy” so that you don’t have to deal with an emotionally uncomfortable conversation, but it isn’t okay for a guy to simply not call you and avoid an emotionally uncomfortable conversation?
These situations are analogous to me with the sole difference being on whether the person exercising “self preservation” is the man or the woman.
You can manufacture all of the post hoc justifications in the world to try and explain how these scenarios are different, but that only works if that justification would still be viable if the shoe were on the other foot. As best I can tell you are expecting a different standard of treatment than the one you desire to put forth. That brings me back to my original observation that your stance was ironic.
For example, you say this:
“I have always been upfront to the point where I would not accept a date with someone if I were not truly interested in him, and was always honest about why. "Thanks, Sam, but I'm just not interested in you that way." But then I'd get "well then let's just go together as friends" which opened up a whole new can of worms, because I just knew Sam would try to make it more than what it was. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.”
That is all well and good, but you really don’t think the same thing applies on the other end of the spectrum?
You honestly can’t imagine a guy calling a woman after a first date to explain to her that he isn’t interested in her only to get a response akin to “well then why are you calling me… if you aren’t interested just don’t bother to call”. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
As lovelysoul pointed out earlier, there is no good way to reject someone. You and lovelysoul are claiming it is “rude” for a guy not to call and say “sorry, but I don’t think I want to see you again”, but there are many women who would declare that making such a phone call after just one date would be rude.
This is the pickle both men and women are in, no one likes being rejected, and few people look at the times they were rejected and objectively assess whether ir was done properly or not.
I for example was once told that I was rude for breaking up with someone face to face and that it would have been kinder to do it via e-mail… prior to this I had always been told that it is cowardly and disrespectful to not break up with someone face to face that you had been seeing for a while. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I’m fine with the damned if you do damned if you don’t stuff… what I’m not fine with is people holding differential standards for what constitutes rude behavior for themselves versus anyone else.
If you consider leaving people hanging as being rude behavior that is never acceptable, then claiming to be “busy” when you aren’t and leaving the guy in limbo over what is actually going on still falls into that category. If an exception to that general rule is if you are trying to enact a “self preservation” scheme then you much also permit that out clause for men who don’t bother to call to express their disinterest because that can be a mine field too.
“By that time, I was resigned to the fact that we weren't destined to have a relationship, and in order to save face, I politely declined his invitation for another date.”
That is fine, but the question remains, is “saving face” also a viable excuse not to call someone and tell them that you aren’t interested in seeing them again.
If the answer is no, then you don’t get to use it as an out either, if the answer is yes, then you can’t declare that not calling constitutes rude and inappropriate behavior because someone was “left hanging”.
Reality at August 11, 2011 1:36 PM
Lovelysoul says:
“A woman has a right to decline a date. Besides, she may or may not be sure whether she'd like another date with this person. She might be conflicted about him, especially if he didn't call her within a reasonable time frame after their date.”
I agree with you, but the corollary to this position is that a man has the right to ask someone out on a date when and if he feels like it. If you are going to insist that women get the right of refusal when and how they see fit, then men get the associated right of asking or not asking as they see fit. It is unreasonable to demand that men ask you out how and when women like, but women also get to reject how and when they like.
Similarly, why does it seem so foreign to you the possibility that a man might be conflicted about whether or not he wants to ask out a woman for a second time?
Do you really believe that women are sometimes confused about whether or not they are interested in a guy, but men always know right off the bat how they feel about a woman with utter and complete certainty?
“Whenever I was conflicted, I might say I was busy but that I would contact him if I could do something in the future...that way he didn't have to keep chasing after me. Plus, the ball was in my court. More often than not, when I was that lukewarm towards someone, I never called. I'd meet someone else who held more interest. Such is dating.”
Lovelysoul, what you have described here is in fact the definition of leaving someone hanging. Something which you said was rude for a man to ever do to a woman.
Why didn’t you have to call him back later to explain that you weren’t really interested in him once you figured it out?
I agree that such is dating… but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Don’t complain that it is rude if a guy doesn’t call you when the ball is in his court when you feel perfectly legitimate about just leaving him out there to dry with the possibility that you might call sometime in the future.
“If you absolutely know for certain you'll never ever want a date with that person, it's probably best to tell them flat out, but, in my experience, there are a lot of dates who fall into the gray zone.”
You are absolutely right, but this goes both ways. Sometimes men fall into the gray zone and sometimes women fall into the gray zone.
My only position throughout this entire thread is that if it is absolutely objectionable to you to feel that you are in someone else’s gray zone and you think it is rude not to be told, then you are ethically obligated not to leave other people in the gray zone too.
Similarly, if you are okay with being in the gray zone then it is perfectly fine to leave others in the gray zone.
What isn’t fine is to complain how rude it is to be “gray zoned” only to come up with every excuse in the book why when you “grey zone” someone how it is somehow okay.
As a final comment I will merely point out the white elephant in the room here that everyone seems to be avoiding but you briefly touched on, and that is the following:
If you’ve gone out on a date with someone that you really enjoyed and are interested in going out on another one, why are you just sitting powerlessly by the phone waiting for the guy to call you? Presumably you have their number and can just as easily call them to tell them what a great time you had.
I mean, I am assuming here that in this scenario the guy asked you out, he picked you up, he paid for the evening out… and then when it is all over he has to be the first to call you too?
At what point does it become acceptable for a woman to even call the guy? I’d assume that after date number one it is totally within reason to call or send a message of some variety, if he then doesn’t respond at all then I agree he is being very rude.
I think this “self preservation” theme is being taken way too far… sometimes in dating you have to put yourself out there and if you don’t have the stomach for it then it is time to take up knitting and buy a cat.
Reality at August 11, 2011 1:58 PM
"Lovelysoul, what you have described here is in fact the definition of leaving someone hanging. Something which you said was rude for a man to ever do to a woman."
I didn't say it was rude to leave things open. To continuously string someone along, and jerk them around is rude, but just to say, "I'm busy, but maybe another time" is NOT rude.
In fact, I'm sure Miss Manners and Emily Post herself would confirm that this is how you should decline a dinner invitation from someone whose company you don't particulary enjoy. You don't say, "I'm not interested in you." The bluntness of that would probably, in any book of manners, be considered rude.
It's only in dating where some have decided that this distate for another person must be openly declared. I don't necessarily think it does, and, as I said, I appreciated the guys who kind of left it open. It felt like less of a rejection, as I could imagine they just got hot by a truck or transferred to China. But I DID expect them to call or text a thank you after the date (unless those scenarios actually occured). Just "thank you for a nice time. Enjoyed meeting you" is all that's required to be polite.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 3:07 PM
I normally send a text or email saying "had a great time, hope to do it again sometime". After that, I certainly don't call for well over a week. It's not because I'm not interested, it's normally because I'm looking for some entertaining event to take her to. Is that leaving someone hanging?
I don't have a position one way or the other. I really want to know because I'm not very good at this dating thing. Seriously, is that leaving someone hanging?
Is a week really a long time to be out of contact during the beginning stages of dating?
whistleDick at August 11, 2011 3:18 PM
Lovelysoul and Flynne and anyone else who would like to offer their opinion,
Perhaps now is a good time for me to ask a few questions because I am really trying to understand where everyone is coming from and I want to make sure I don't mischaracterize anyone’s position.
Lovelysoul says:
“You don't say, "I'm not interested in you." The bluntness of that would probably, in any book of manners, be considered rude.”
However, lovelysoul previously said:
“And she is right - a guy shouldn't leave a woman hanging. Either tell her he's not interested or make up some gentle excuse, but just not calling or texting afterwards is rude.”
And Flynne previously said:
“Even if you don't want to see her again, call her and let her know. Go easy, something like, "I'm sorry but I don't think this will work for me." But don't leave her hanging. That just ain't right.”
Don’t you see where all of this taken together presents a serious problem for a guy who takes someone out on a date and then decides that he doesn’t want to see her again?
If he doesn’t call he is the rude one… even if she never bothers to call him either. Afterall, a “guy shouldn’t leave a woman having”, you have to either tell her you aren’t interested or make up an excuse.
If he does call he isn’t supposed to actually tell her that he isn’t interested because that would be to blunt and therefore rude.
This leaves only the option of “making up an excuse”. As a result I’d like to ask what “excuses” are acceptable and not rude ways to reject a woman you don’t like after one date and never intend to see again?
My suspicion is that there will be about as many answers to this question as there are women in the world and that women will not in general reach a consensus about what is an acceptable and non-rude “excuse”… some might even consider making up an excuse to be rude.
As a result I am left with the conclusion that there is no acceptable way for a man to reject a woman and as such a guy should simply do what he believes is right whatever that happens to be and just not worry too much about whether it is deemed acceptable by anyone else… because more than likely someone will have a problem with how it was done no matter what he chooses to do.
Afterall, I think the most important thing here is to do what you believe is best since as far as I can tell there is no objective standard... just a million or so subjective standards.
Reality at August 11, 2011 7:29 PM
There's 'clearly too soon' and there's 'clearly too long', but if a woman thinks bad of you because you 'called on day two instead of day three' or 'day four instead of day three' then frankly she is doing you a massive favor by cutting you off. It's sometimes difficult to see that when you really fancy someone, but it's more obvious to me now in hindsight.
Lobster at August 12, 2011 12:31 AM
"Guys who didn't call me back after a week or more, I wrote off, and if they did call after that, I made sure I was "busy". Don't play head games; if you like the woman and want to see her again, call her within a couple of days and let her know"
Having a 'rule' like 'one-week plus one day is too long', IS a "game". If you liked the guy, and he seemed decent enough, at day three, then at day eight he is surely the same guy still. It was certainly over a week that I called my now-wife back after the first time I met her, and it wasn't that I was "playing games", it was just that in grown-up-land, "life got in the way" and I was plain and simply unable to call her back earlier than that.
Lobster at August 12, 2011 12:35 AM
Apologies, that last comment was a bit snarky. Just one too many experiences with women who put so much creed into their systems of 'rules'. And that just seems to me the luxury of people like teenagers with too much time on their hands, not adults who deal with real-world day-to-day problems, e.g. that week I met my now-wife, I had a combination of problems at my business to deal with, and suddenly had to travel for family reasons e.g. having to travel across the country to help out with a sick and dying mom, plus dealing with a few other things inbetween ... so when I think about that experience and look from that perspective at someone who sits and makes me play a "call me before X days or you've fumbled the ball" game, sorry, it really honestly just looks childish, like someone who has afternoons open and available to think way too much about things.
And if you are making me play by little rules like "you must call within seven days", then sorry, that really is a "game" that you're making me play.
But then that's why I married my wife, she doesn't play such games, doesn't live her life by arcane systems of irrational 'rules' she picked up from magazines or friends, is reasonable and adult and deals with things as they come.
But each to his own. Most people seem to like these games, they seem to be intrinsic to most humans, and if other people find these 'rules' useful somehow in making the most important decisions of your life (such as who you partner up with), then more power to them.
On another note, on rejection, many women like some of those here do try to be polite, but some are downright vicious. I've had downright horrible insults from one I presume I 'called too early', who went from super-warm-and-friendly to cold and mean and insulting in one day. But that's one of those I'm thankful in hindsight, as I didn't see that she was doing me a favor.
Lobster at August 12, 2011 1:04 AM
I don't think anyone here is playing by some stringent "rules". Flynn's way of viewing things was that if a guy waited over a week to call, it was indicative of a lack of strong interest. That is a valid view in this day and age, where everyone walks around with a phone in their pocket. It's harder to say, "Life got in the way". What, of reaching in your pocket and sending a 2 sec text?"
But it's not a set-in-stone rule either. If a guy calls and sounds like he really has been thinking of her, but work, or kids, or a lost phone prevented contact, then I'm sure Flynn would still be receptive to another date.
It's the guys who call and don't really offer much of an excuse, who seem to view you as a standby, who are the ones a woman should probably say, "I'm busy" to...though she doesn't have to if she doesn't want to! Again, there's no hard rule...it's just not a positive sign that he's really into her. We experienced daters recognize this.
A week is too long in modern times. It says something. A guy who is really into you won't wait that long. A woman may still date him, hoping stronger feelings will develop, but that's a choice each woman must make individually.
Now, as far as making excuses or not, I realize my view seems a little inconsistent too, and perhaps it is. I'm an honest person, and, in general, believe people should always be honest.
Yet, looking at it closer, I lie all the time to be polite. Most of us do, as in the dinner invitation I sited. Basic manners dictate that you make up an excuse other than telling an aquaintance, "I find you uninteresting and don't want to attend your party". If you decline often enough, they usually get the hint...or maybe not...but you still can't tell them the truth because it's mean, which is always rude.
However, dating is more implicitly about whether or not you like someone else. That's why it's undertaken. And, with the advent of online dating, where people can have multiple dates in a week, it's become common to tell people flatly that you're not interested...essentially to free them up for others who might be. This is seen by some as being more considerate.
But I still doubt this is how Miss Manners would say it should be done. She'd be all for the convenient excuse that accomplished the same goal. For instance, "I met someone" would be perfectly acceptable. True or not. Because manners isn't about truth. It's about minimizing the discomfort of others.
That said, knowing that something is rude is different than understanding why someone chooses to be rude.
I think it's rude for a guy not to at least text after a date. To simply disappear is rude. But this is also fairly common in the dating world when there's no interest, so I understand. And, in a way, I'm even grateful because it avoids all the unpleasantness of him having to tell me directly that he isn't interested.
But it's still rude. :)
lovelysoul at August 12, 2011 6:15 AM
Oh, the metaphysics of choosing between "I'm busy" and "I'm not interested" after a week of waiting!
Don't worry girls, in 100 years all of us will be dust and ashes.
Mere Mortal at August 12, 2011 7:38 AM
Lovelysoul Says:
“Flynn's way of viewing things was that if a guy waited over a week to call, it was indicative of a lack of strong interest. That is a valid view in this day and age, where everyone walks around with a phone in their pocket. It's harder to say, "Life got in the way". What, of reaching in your pocket and sending a 2 sec text?"
That is all well and good… but what exactly was preventing her from calling him after the date?
I mean, didn’t she also wait a week without calling? What does that indicate?
You can wriggle your hands all you like, but suggesting that after date one a guy has to be the one to initiate contact and within a certain time frame or he is at fault for some grievous ethical violation is actually a game.
At any moment during that time period it is possible for a woman to call or text the fellow in question. If he then proceeds to completely ignore her and not contact her back at all then I agree, he is being incredibly rude.
However if neither one contacts the other over that time period how exactly is the guy being rude and the woman presumably the recipient of being snubbed?
You do not accept the possibility that anything can get in the way of the guy calling, so I am interested in what justification you come up with for what is now permitted to get in the woman’s way of picking up the phone if it isn’t some game she is playing.
“She'd be all for the convenient excuse that accomplished the same goal. For instance, "I met someone" would be perfectly acceptable. True or not. Because manners isn't about truth. It's about minimizing the discomfort of others.”
Alright, now we are getting somewhere.
Now my question is the following, what do other people think of this strategy?
Is the appropriate thing for a guy to do after a first date where he isn’t ever interested in seeing the woman again to call her within a week, tell her what a great time he had with her (even if it is a lie) and then inform her that unfortunately he “met someone” (even if that is also a lie)?
Would everyone find this acceptable, or are there those who have a problem with this approach?
Reality at August 12, 2011 9:22 AM
Oh Yikes! Flynne writes that it's a good idea to call the woman you DON'T want to see again, just to reject her, so you don't "leave her hanging". You're kidding right? Wow. I bet you think you're being a decent guy, when, in fact, this is the game plan of a nasty piece of work. THINK ABOUT IT, kiddo.
Also I reject the whole notion that women are these pathetic losers who sit by the phone, breathless in anticipation of their last date's phone call. Maybe, just maybe, they are at work, at a party, sleeping, writing the great American novel, on a date with someone else, planning a political campaign or laughing about that self-centered jerk they had a first-and-last date with.
If things don't go well enough on a first date to merit a second, don't bother to call. She'll survive and so will he. Move on.
madness at August 12, 2011 10:11 AM
Wow...reading this discussion really makes me glad I'm married to a great guy and don't have to worry about dating anymore! When did all these "rules" come into play...I've been married less than 10 years and certainly don't remember this type of insanity.
Reality sounds like he needs a good dose of it...I would guess by the way he parses out the minutiae of every turn of phrase, he's either an attorney or a civil engineer, and a lonely one at that. I wonder, does he put his dates through the wringer like this, too? Free-flowing conversation must be very difficult for him, especially when, instead of listening to the intent of what is being said he's so busily and actively mentally working on his follow-up cross examination.
twidget at August 12, 2011 10:25 AM
"That is all well and good… but what exactly was preventing her from calling him after the date?"
Nothing, besides the concept that Amy often writes about here, backed by tons of evidence, that relationships work better and women are far more attractive when the guys do the chasing.
I often sent a text afterwards, thanking the guy for dinner or whatever, since usually he paid. That was an opening for him to text back or call me if he was interested.
"Is the appropriate thing for a guy to do after a first date where he isn’t ever interested in seeing the woman again to call her within a week, tell her what a great time he had with her (even if it is a lie) and then inform her that unfortunately he “met someone” (even if that is also a lie)?"
No. If you've already waited a week because you're not interested, don't bother. She probably got the hint. You've still been rude, especially if she sent a text or email, which you didn't respond to, but calling isn't going to change that now.
It would be like calling up a host, after a party for which you forgot to RSVP, to say that you weren't planning to attend anyway. Double rude.
And all we're saying to LW is that his friend is right that waiting a week sends the wrong message if he likes the girl. When there's real chemistry, there's nothing wrong with calling the next day if you feel like it. If you want to play it a little cool, wait 2 or 3 days. But longer than that - barring true emergencies - and you're sending a message that you're just not into her. Only do that if it IS the message you're trying to send.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2011 10:32 AM
Lovelysoul says:
“Nothing, besides the concept that Amy often writes about here, backed by tons of evidence, that relationships work better and women are far more attractive when the guys do the chasing.”
I kind of have to laugh because I was honestly waiting for a response like this.
Firstly, I am quite familiar with the scientific literature on this subject and what I can tell you with utter certainty is that there has never been a study performed on the affect of a woman initiating contact after a first date when it comes to attraction and relationship success.
As a result I see a very spurious and tangential connection here that isn’t yet supported by the scientific literature. Now if a study were to come out which supports your contention I’d be very in reading it and my opinion would adjust accordingly. However at this point in time I see very little connection with a text or a phone call after a first date with some sort of monumental pursuit effort on the woman’s part.
As you previously stated, she would just be practicing good manners and not being rude after being chased and taken out for the first date.
This position is actually quite ridiculous on the face of it because it can be taken to ludicrous limits. I mean, based upon this type of thinking it is NEVER appropriate for a woman to initiate contact with a man even if they have been dating for months.
You honestly don’t equate this type of thinking and behavior with game playing?
Look, if a guy has shown the guts to ask a woman our, has shown the initiative to plan and execute a date, and behaved appropriately through all of those phases, there isn’t an argument against the man or the woman calling or texting to just say that they had fun.
If it is rude for one not to contact the other after a week, then it is rude for the other not to contact also.
In fact, your dinner party is a great example when it comes to manners. If someone invites you over for dinner and you accept, and you then go and bring a gift and everything goes well, the appropriate thing to do is for the guest to call in a few days to thank the host for the invitation… not for the host to call and thank the guest for attending.
You don’t get to flip flop between good manners and the nature of pursuit as it suits your fancy. Either good manners matter and there is an obligation on both parts to do what is right about the event, or naturalistic things matter and we can toss this whole concept of calling out the window because I’m pretty sure our ancestors didn’t have cellular phones or the ability to text immediately after an encounter.
In other words, you don’t get to jump between proper ability to communicate in the information age, and the proper modes of attraction when our ancestors lived on the plains… they didn’t have cell phones and probably didn’t get all cranky if the guy they just “had a date with” went on a two week long hunting excursion with zero contact.
“No. If you've already waited a week because you're not interested, don't bother. She probably got the hint. You've still been rude, especially if she sent a text or email, which you didn't respond to, but calling isn't going to change that now.”
Something tells me you have decided not to actually read the content of what I am saying and are just jumping the gun with what you “think” I am saying.
Here are my actual words again:
“Is the appropriate thing for a guy to do after a first date where he isn’t ever interested in seeing the woman again to call her within a week”
See… I said “within a week”, not waiting a week, not waiting more than a week. I made sure to fit it within your constraints and apparently it was still no good.
This gets back to the real crux of the matter. Women want to do the rejecting, they never want to be rejected. As a result there is no way to appropriately reject a woman… even when I write that I am following the plan you personally just laid out it was still rude and incorrect.
This brings me back to my point, since there is no good way for a man to express his disinterest, he simply has to do what he feels it right and not worry about what the peanut gallery is going to think because invariably he is always going to have been wrong or rude no matter how he handles it.
Reality at August 12, 2011 12:32 PM
"You honestly don’t equate this type of thinking and behavior with game playing?"
I never claimed there was no game playing in courtship. Everyone knows there is. Also, there's game playing in socializing. There are mores and traditions that make very little sense, but we follow them because they are expected and therefore considered polite and appropriate by the majority of people within our culture.
For instance, I could insist on opening doors for every man I see. I mean, it makes little sense that a man should offer to open the door for me, and, in fact, some nutty feminists get all offended over this quaint gesture, but I choose to follow that custom, rather than reverse it.
I, like many women, also follow the age-old custom that men should generally do the pursuing. And, for that matter, I follow the age-old custom that men should lead on the dance floor. Unfair burden on men? Maybe. But I think these standards just help make things easier. Somebody needs to lead; somebody needs to follow. Somebody needs to do the asking out; somebody needs to do the accepting. Traditionally, this has been man to woman.
You are just being willfully obtuse on this now, Reality. What I said was that it isn't rude for a woman to claim to be busy after a guy doesn't call her for over a week. I've cited examples where it is, in fact, good manners to tell a little white lie over the brutal truth, so I think I've proven that this isn't rude. It may not be what you prefer, or the way you believe a woman should handle it, but that doesn't make it rude.
It also doesn't make it "game playing". As I said, long ago in this thread, it only becomes a game if she is doing it with the intent to make him chase her more. But that wasn't what Flynne was doing.
Likewise, a man isn't "game playing" if he lies and says he met someone (although this excuse is best used if the woman contacts him and wants to go out again, not by calling her up to tell her)...or if he says he is extremely busy...or has decided he's not really ready for a relationship...or has decided to go back to his ex...or whatever polite excuse he might make to spare her feelings.
I got all those excuses, and more, while dating, and I handled them well, so it's unfair to suggest that women can't handle rejection. There's a right way to do it and a wrong way, for both genders.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2011 1:07 PM
Twidget Says:
"Reality sounds like he needs a good dose of it...I would guess by the way he parses out the minutiae of every turn of phrase, he's either an attorney or a civil engineer, and a lonely one at that. I wonder, does he put his dates through the wringer like this, too? Free-flowing conversation must be very difficult for him, especially when, instead of listening to the intent of what is being said he's so busily and actively mentally working on his follow-up cross examination."
Why is it always that if someone dissagrees on legitimate grounds with the perspective of a number of women that first of all it must be a guy... and second of all he must be lonely?
But yeah, I get it... I'm not wrong because any of my arguments are flawed. I'm wrong because I am apparently a lonely attorney who has a difficulty with free flowing conversation.
If you dissagree with my points feel free to tell me how and where and make some points of your own. The tactics you are using now don't belong in an adult conversation.
Reality at August 12, 2011 1:45 PM
lovelysoul says:
"I never claimed there was no game playing in courtship. Everyone knows there is. Also, there's game playing in socializing."
Alright, now I have lost track here because the argument seems to be constantly changing.
This entire conversation because because I was noting the irony of Flynne's statement that declared the following:
"Don't play head games; if you like the woman and want to see her again, call her within a couple of days and let her know."
Flynne was the one who came out against game playing, as a result I have taken the position that if game playing is no good for men then it is similarly no good for women.
Now you are acting as if i'm oblivious to the games that go on and that it is odd that I would argue against them.
I'm not argueing against game playing.
I am argueing against one sided game playing.
What I am saying is that both women and men play games and that if one wants to take the position that men shouldn't play games with women that the only appropriate thing to do is not play reciprocal games with men.
If one is fine with the other gender playing games then they are free to play games themselves.
I'm only looking for consistancy, not an end to all game playing or a justification for all game playing.
I simply think it is unfair to go into battle with a gun and then cry about how your opponent it armed too.
Reality at August 12, 2011 1:52 PM
Sorry, I forgot about this part:
"Likewise, a man isn't "game playing" if he lies and says he met someone (although this excuse is best used if the woman contacts him and wants to go out again, not by calling her up to tell her)...or if he says he is extremely busy...or has decided he's not really ready for a relationship...or has decided to go back to his ex...or whatever polite excuse he might make to spare her feelings."
So we are back to square one because now that "excuse" is only useful if she calls him.
So to get back to my question.
Let's say a man and woman go out on a date and the man in question decides he has no interest in dating her again.
What should he do that would be appropriate to not see her again without it being rude?
Based upon what you and others have written we can declare the following:
1 - He needs to at least call within a few days in order not to be rude.
2 - He can't tell her outright that he isn't interested because that would be too blunt and therefore rude.
3 - He can't tell her that he met someone because that would only be appropriate if she called him first and hence it would be rude to call her just to say he met someone else.
4 - Lying to her with some excuse is okay... but we still have no idea what excuse is alright because it seems to me that most will have serious flaws.
The reason I am going through all this is because I honestly do not believe that most women have really thought through what constitutes a good way to be rejected. They know a million and one ways that it can be done wrong, but I have yet to hear how it should be done properly.
If women in general don't know and cannot agree upon the appropriate way to reject a woman it is unreasonable for them to expect a man to know how to do it properly.
Reality at August 12, 2011 2:00 PM
"Don't play head games; if you like the woman and want to see her again, call her within a couple of days and let her know."
You're seeing an inconsistency here that I'm not seeing. That's because you seem to view (and have asserted) that saying, "I'm busy" is game playing. I don't believe it's game playing. To me, stringing someone along or trying to act disinterested when you're really interested...or pretending to be interested when you only want to get laid...is game playing. Rejecting someone who has shown a lack of interest isn't game playing. Flynne wasn't being inconsistent.
"What should he do that would be appropriate to not see her again without it being rude?"
How much clearer can I be? Here it is:
1) Soon after the date, he needs to send a text/email (or reply to her text/email) saying it was nice to meet her and thanking her for coming. Period. He doesn't need to make any excuses or declarations at that point. He needs to leave the correspondence closed-ended...no questions...no "maybe we should do it again sometime?" or anything that would suggest a future date or give her a reason to respond back. She SHOULD get the hint from this that there was no spark between them. When someone sends a closed-ended message, it's pretty clear.
2) If she doesn't get the hint, and responds with some query about whether they should meet up again, he then has the choice to: a) make up some polite excuse, or b) tell her flat out that he doesn't think they're a good match.
Whether a guy chooses a or b will depend on his sense of how well she might take rejection. There's really no right or wrong to it. Just a judgement call.
That's it. He's fulfilled his obligation and has handled things with good manners. If she keeps trying to make contact, he is perfectly justified in ignoring her.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2011 2:27 PM
Reality, thanks for turning this into a complete snooze-fest. At some point, it didn't matter if you were right or wrong anymore. It was just too damned boring.
Rozita at August 12, 2011 3:10 PM
Amen Rozita! I second that.
Ida at August 12, 2011 6:12 PM
Lovelysoul,
I understand that I am seeing an inconsistency that you aren’t seeing. I think that at least partially has something to do with the fact that you keep arguing this from different angles and then when I refute one angle, you jump back and move to a different one again.
Here is what I mean, you have discussed this issue from the perspective of “game playing”, from the perspective of “manners”, and finally from the perspective of “ancestral behavior”.
When I addressed your points in each of these venues you instantly jumped to a different one in the next post without missing a beat and acting like I was the one who was confusing the situation.
Just to get at the heart of things, what exactly do you think I was talking about when I originally said that I thought Flynne’s comment was “ironic”?
Irony requires two components, one component is to make a statement, the other component is to suggest an attitude that was in opposition to that statement.
In particular Flynne stated without any qualification that men shouldn’t “play games” and shouldn’t “leave a woman hanging”.
Those were her words, not mine. She then proceeded to define a number of things that fell into that broad class of behaviors including the following:
1 - If you like a woman and want to see her again you need to call her within a few days or you are playing “head games”
2 - Even if you do not like a woman and do not want to see her again you need to call her and tell her or you are playing “head games”
These are the examples she gave of what constitutes “playing games”. These are not my examples.
However, the ironic part of this was that she had just said that if a guy didn’t manage to call her in the appropriate amount of time she made sure she was “busy”, this was despite of the fact that she also didn’t bother to call them.
Now while I noted the irony in this, you then chimed in that pretending to be “busy” wasn’t actually playing games. That is fine, but you later admit that just not calling isn’t “playing games” either. However, Flynne directly gave that as an example of playing head games, that was her example, not mine.
As such the irony still exists because she is critiquing men for playing games even when they aren’t according to your definition.
So fine, we’ve now established that a guy not calling isn’t actually “playing games”, but then you totally switched gears and started talking about how rude it was.
No one was discussing rudeness until you brought it up. You were simply trying to ascribe wrongness to the guys action irrespective of whether or not he was playing a game. You made this swap without actually mentioning the transition either, first we were talking about game playing and then BAM, we were onto proper manners.
So then I pointed out that if we are discussing manners it still doesn’t help because proper manners would dictate that the person who was extended the invitation is obligated to initiate the appreciation for the invite. Hosts who extend an invitation are never expected to initiate contact with the guest to express gratitude for their presence. That responsibility falls upon the guest.
Then you switched gears yet again to talking about our ancestral behavior back in the environment of evolutionary adaptation. This way you could justify why in this specific instance the host still had to initiate contact with the guest… proper manners be damned I suppose.
That was all well and good until I pointed out that this argument wasn’t consistent with your declaration that men should always call within a week because cell phones and e-mail and text messages are so readily available. It isn’t consistent because back while we were evolving, if primitive man pursued primitive woman and they had a courtship encounter it was completely common for him to them either leave to hunt or head off to battle for weeks or months at a time… and when he returned she wouldn’t throw a fit about how he needed to contact her within less than seven days.
So in summary, our evolutionary past does not dictate that a man needs to pursue a woman within a very tight time schedule in order to be successful, proper manners does not dictate that the host is obligated to initiate contact but instead suggests that the guest should be the one to send their gratitude first, and simply not calling isn’t actually game playing if the guy never intends to see the woman again.
Furthermore, no matter how you slice it, Flynne’s original comment was indeed ironic.
I rest my case.
Now if you are really interested in how I personally feel about all of this, I think it is all a load of crap because people spend FAR too much time worrying about the minutia of exactly how did he call, what time did he call, what exactly did he say. My perspective is to just take it easy and if a man or a woman seems to be decent, it is always best to give them the benefit of the doubt.
This is another irony of this discussion because I keep being accused of focusing on “minutia” and “minor details” by the very same people who are busy dissecting whether or not a guy is a jerk based entirely upon if he calls you in 4 days versus 7 days.
Think about it.
Reality at August 12, 2011 7:55 PM
In the good ole days before computers and texting, we had to rely on telephoning and face-to-face communication. If a first date went down just fine but then there was no further communication, it was a given that there was just no interest. It did not take a follow-up phone call to explain anything, or for the guy to come to the door to say, thanks, but no thanks for any future consideration, it was all just the way things were.
I do not see why a guy would have to text to say it either. If he doesn't contact you, just take it for what it is, and move on! Has no one ever heard the saying "silence speaks volumes"??
But even in these text-heavy days, if a guy i saw once did not communicate with me thereafter, and 10 to 14 days passed, i would probably be sad (if i felt there was a connection) or happy (if there was little to no connection) and either way, allow it to fade into oblivion. Love (and lust) is a 2-way street, and if the guy does not feel it (even if you do) you've got to just let things lie and move on. Again, silence speaks volumes.
Bluejean Baby at August 12, 2011 8:33 PM
I just read over these comments...
It seems like Reality may be looking for some bright line rules to apply to dating.
Here are a few commonsense assumptions that people make everyday that could be contstrued as rules but see the caveat below.
1. If a person never contacts you after a date
==> assume they're not interested
2. If a person doesn't contact you within a certain time* period
==> assume they are not as interested in you as you are in them
(This period of time is directly related the level of a person's interest. Less interested - read less important, less pressing to contact)
3. If a person doesn't respond to contact you've sent after a date
==> assume they're not interested
4. If a person doesn't timely* repond to contact you've sent after a date
==> assume they are not as interested in you as you are in them
Caveat:
Dating is a dance of sorts. If you don't jive, waltz/tango/salsa/two-step instead. Not everyone dances the same way, so don't expect them to. You can only control what you do, not what others do.
Lastly, social interaction isn't an exact science because life isn't lived in a vacuum. There innumerable factors that influence a person's behavior irregardless of whether they had a good date or want to go out again.
KMH at August 13, 2011 3:09 AM
Christ on a tricycle but this thread got.. boring.
What I don't get is that people write as if there are necessarily rules they've decided on. For me it's just about a tension arc. If I've been on a date with somebody I really like, I'm excited about it afterward, and wanting to see more of them. If there is then no contact, that excitement wanes until, at about day 4 perhaps, I decide that apparently I'm alone in my excitement, and I move on. In the one or two days after that somebody with a good excuse might convince me to give it another go, but after that the feeling is just gone and I don't see the point. That's not about 'oh, you called after the deadline' but 'I processed those feelings and the moment has passed'
It also isn't generally only about calling - I do some internet dating, so it would sooner be a text or an email the next day that you had a good time. I've done that. I think time kind of goes faster with dating these days, or certainly dating online. If you typically exchange emails every other day and somebody goes silent for three days after a date, I would assume they're not interested.
Anne de Vries at August 13, 2011 4:42 AM
"Now while I noted the irony in this, you then chimed in that pretending to be “busy” wasn’t actually playing games. That is fine, but you later admit that just not calling isn’t “playing games” either. However, Flynne directly gave that as an example of playing head games, that was her example, not mine."
Honestly, I'm kind of lost. Throughout this entire thread, I'm still not sure what's gotten you sooooooo worked up. I've tried to address what I *thought* you were fixated on, but apparently, each time, whether it was game-playing, manners, or guys calling/pursuing vs girls, you responded as if this wasn't it.
You are the one who has confused this discussion, and, as several posters note, turned it into a snoozefest.
You seized upon that one statement by Flynne in an "aha! kind of way. The way someone itching to win an argument does. I can see why you jumped on it because, at first read, it seems inconsistent, and perhaps it does read ironically. It appeared that she was recommending matching game playing behavior with game playing, then saying "don't play games".
But that all contends on whether saying, "I'm busy" is, in fact, game playing. You didn't seem step back and consider that before trying to make her feel like a hypocrite. I felt the tone and obvious intent of your comments was unfair, particularly since Flynne has always been one of the most reasonable, non-controversial commentors here, who didn't warrant being (nit)picked on by a verbal bully over some relatively petty phrasing errors.
Ironic or not, spending almost an entire thread dissecting her comment, to make yourself right and her wrong, is just absurd.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2011 6:21 AM
KMH,
Thank you for the response, but I’m not actually looking for some bright line rules when it comes to dating.
What I am doing is pointing out that *some* of the “rules” being suggested here are kind of ridiculous.
I agree with you that if a person never calls you after a date that they aren’t interested. What I have been attempting to do is point out the utter ridiculousness of the “rule” put forth by both Flynne and lovelysoul that even if a man isn’t interested in you, he is somehow morally obligated to pretend to be interested in the woman a while longer just to preserve her ego.
That isn’t actually a mans responsibility. If he isn’t interested any longer and decides never to call again he hasn’t committed some grievous crime.
He hasn’t played “head games” as Flynne originally suggested, and he hasn’t been “rude” as lovely soul suggested.
So of course dating is a dance and social interactions aren’t an exact science. I’ve essentially been taking that exact position.
What others have been suggesting is the equivalent of forcing a man to continue to dance with a woman who steps all over his feet after the first dance has completed.
All I am saying is that a man isn’t a jerk or rude or playing games if after the first dance is over he politely excuses himself and finds another partner.
He doesn’t need to manufacture some excuse like he suddenly has a cramp just to preserve the ego of the woman who was stomping on his toes.
Similarly, women are and should be strong an mature enough to not throw a fit if a guy isn’t interested in them and doesn’t call.
A guy is only obligated to call you after a first date if he likes you, then it is probably a good idea for him to initiate contact. However that obligation goes out the window if he isn't actually interested in you anymore.
Reality at August 13, 2011 7:25 AM
lovelysoul,
“Throughout this entire thread, I'm still not sure what's gotten you sooooooo worked up.”
Firstly, I’m not “worked up”, what I have been doing is trying to calmly address the points you keep bringing up. So if you could point to a particular phrase I made what was “worked up” I’d love to see it. Was it this one perhaps:
“Look guys, I like to take the emotion out of these conversations because sometimes things can hit close to home and then people don't debate the issues, they instead debate the feelings.”
I don’t discuss things here from an emotional perspective, I just like to focus on the facts, and discussing the facts hardly constitutes being “worked up”
I will admit to being rather frustrated that you don’t seem to “get” what I am saying because to me is is crystal clear what my point is and I believe that I’ve made it sufficiently. I mean, I’ve certainly written enough to get my point across. However it is bad form for an author to blame the reader for not getting the point. I will try to be more clear.
“It appeared that she was recommending matching game playing behavior with game playing, then saying "don't play games".”
That was certainly *part* of the irony.
The other part of the irony was that she was rather upset because a guy didn’t call her after the first date and then fabricated the requirement that a man absolutely has to call no matter what. He has to call if he is interested and he had to even call if he isn’t interested.
This was all stated without the slightest hesitation while she made no mention of trying to contact him.
It is ironic to bemoan the lack of a phone call from someone else while you sit there and don’t bother calling either.
This isn’t a minor point, this isn’t picking apart or parsing details. This was a major point in her comment and a major point which you agreed with on different grounds.
However there remains zero justification why a man who isn’t actually interested in a woman absolutely needs to call her after the date. It isn’t game playing for him never to call, and it also isn’t rude for him never to call.
In fact, the common rules of host/guest etiquette suggest that it is in fact the guest who is rude if they do not call to express their gratitude for the invitation from the host. As such a guy is only rude for not calling if the woman invited him out for the date.
It isn’t rude or game playing for a guy simply to not be interested in a woman anymore.
I'm not a "nitpicking bully", I'm doing what I always do here which is to call out illogical requirements from anyone no matter who they are.
Or am I supposed to say nothing when the commenter is a regular and let them just promote all sorts of things that I think are based on flawed assumptions and faulty reasoning?
It is difficult for me to be a bully when I haven't actually attacked anyone personally. Apparently I'm just a bully for disagreeing with someones points and speaking up about it. Well again I am going to have to disagree, this is a forum where people speak up and call each other on illogical positions, I've seen it a million times and see no reason why I should be restricted from doing the same.
I will point out however that I am not the only one who feels this way about this particular requirement, or did you miss the comment by madness and bluejean baby earlier?
I share their perspective and have expressed it as well. The only difference is that no one has been ranting and raving about their criticism the way you and others have been about mine.
Reality at August 13, 2011 7:45 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/08/dont-go-seiko-o.html#comment-2420149">comment from RealityKMH's rules were right on.
Amy Alkon at August 13, 2011 7:46 AM
"The other part of the irony was that she was rather upset because a guy didn’t call her after the first date and then fabricated the requirement that a man absolutely has to call no matter what. He has to call if he is interested and he had to even call if he isn’t interested."
Maybe this is where we are disconnecting. I don't want to read back through the whole thread, but I don't recall Flynne saying that last part. She said a guy "shouldn't leave a woman hanging". I think that can be interpreted in several ways besides that he must always call, whether he's interested or not. I interpret her comment as that a guy shouldn't string a woman along, or lead her to believe there will be a future date, then never call.
Guys do this all the time - they end the date on a positive note, making it seem they want to see you again. Maybe even alluding to plans. So, it's truly a shock when he doesn't make contact again.
I was the one who said it was rude not to at least send a thank you text or message afterwards. I don't consider it a rule, necessarily, but I was always more impressed with the guys who did that, as opposed to just disappearing. And, because of this, I strived to do the same, just so I didn't possibly leave someone hanging...thinking we might go out again. If there was no interest, I usually let them know that I enjoyed meeting them, but we weren't a match.
Some people can't handle doing that though. It's too uncomfortable for them. It's uncomfortable for most people. So, I also understood when a guy just didn't contact me. Like KMH says, that sends a pretty clear message.
The game playing part is showing up again, weeks later, after the woman has moved on, assuming there was no interest. That's kind of a head game. Players do it often, so it must even work with some women, but a smart woman will probably see it for what it is - that she is way down on his priority list, and she's just a fill-in date (or potential lay). In that case, she's perfectly justified telling him she's "busy"...or she can be blunt, and tell him that his disappearing act gave her the impression that there wasn't much chemistry.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2011 11:02 AM
Reality is the drug free cure for insomnia!
Rozita at August 13, 2011 11:05 AM
Rozita,
You are of course free to jump in any time with your excitement inducing comments.
All I see from you though is complaints about content that you haven't even attempted to contribute to.
So sure, feel free to critique the people actually saying something while you offer nothing to the conversation.
It sure must be easy to judge others for their style when your style isn't put up for similar critique.
So please, dazzle us with your amazing prose.
Reality at August 13, 2011 11:31 AM
“I don't want to read back through the whole thread, but I don't recall Flynne saying that last part.”
Well I can assure you it is there. Here is her exact quote:
“Don't play head games; if you like the woman and want to see her again, call her within a couple of days and let her know. Even if you don't want to see her again, call her and let her know.”
The statement clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a mans responsibility to call a person they dated once and inform them whether or not they are still interested.
If a man fails to do this he is playing “head games”.
That is what I primarily took issue with and what I have been trying to call attention to is the inherent unfairness, unreasonableness, and silliness of this additional burden being foisted onto men simply for having the unabridged audacity for asking a woman out in the first place.
A man who fails to call you ever after a single date is not playing “head games”. As others have pointed out, such an action is unambiguously and unmistakably interpreted as a lack of interest on his part. Where is the “game” in that?
The only way it is a “head game” is if by not call at all he leaves the woman in some sort of perpetual cycle of uncertainty about where she stands, but that isn’t the case. Not calling at all and saying nothing is very clear and obvious.
What Flynne is arguing for is that it is a man’s responsibility to remove and/or alleviate even the momentary discomfort a woman might feel over the first few days where she is uncertain where he stands. However, that isn’t actually his responsibility.
Men are not required by any standard to call someone they saw only one time and inform them that they aren’t interested in them anymore.
Also, I am not a bad person or a bully for trying to point this out.
“I was the one who said it was rude not to at least send a thank you text or message afterwards.”
I know, I have separated both arguments to each of you. However on this point you are also incorrect.
It is not rude for the host to fail to call the guest. It is rude for the guest to fail to call the host.
Now this gets more complicated in dating situations because as you pointed out, women like to be pursued. As a result I think it is fair and reasonable for a woman not to necessarily call the guy after a date even though she was the guest.
However, and this is the interesting part. A man is only obligated to pursue a woman that he is interested in. If he is not interested, he has no obligation to pursue. As such he also isn’t “rude” for failing to call in this situation either.
Does my perspective here make any sense to you?
“The game playing part is showing up again, weeks later, after the woman has moved on, assuming there was no interest.”
Sure… but I don’t recall ever defending this type of behavior. That IS “game playing”. Simply never calling again is a man expressing his right to not pursue her anymore and focus his attention on other women he is presumably more interested in.
The only reason I even mentioned the “busy” thing at all was as a point of comparison to her declaration that it was “game playing” for the guy not to call.
I was not arguing that being “busy” was game playing. I was arguing that if someone was going to be so strict as to classify not calling at all ever as a “head game” then they should be just as strict with their own behavior. In my opinion pretending to be “busy” isn’t some far superior action to a guy not calling, they are either roughly on par with each other, or the pretending to be “busy” was comparatively more of a “head game” than not calling at all.
I don’t care about the “busy” thing, it was merely an instrument to try and illustrate my main point. Clearly it failed in that task, but I didn’t know it was going to be unclear and be misinterpreted when I originally made the argument.
Reality at August 13, 2011 11:51 AM
I see what you're saying, Reality. But I didn't take what Flynne said as that it was always a "head game" if a guy didn't call. She was mainly saying, "don't play head games". If you like a girl, don't wait to call and tell her. She added the last part because it does sound sensible and fair. Just end it, so that a woman isn't left wondering if you'll call.
In practice, it's often obvious that there's no chemistry, and in those cases where this is mutual, both parties probably hope the other won't contact them afterwards.
But I had dates with guys who referenced future events, like, "Yeah, we should really do such and such...". One guy even tentatively invited me on a weekend trip. I was excited about that...and him. We kissed passionately goodnight. Then, he never called. I was curious as to what had happened. Was he just a player? I e-mailed him a few times, and he finally responded that he'd gone back to an ex-girlfriend.
Now, that may have been true or just a convenient excuse, but it would've been more polite for him to just write me that rather than leave me wondering whether I should take that weekend off, pack my bags, etc.
So, I think it also depends somewhat on what transpired during the date (and prior if there was a lot of contact). Did the guy *act* really interested. People do this all the time because they don't know how to handle it. They pretend to be interested even when they're not.
Yet, if you shook her hand, said it was "nice to meet you" and left things closed-ended on the date, I agree that you don't owe her a phone call. It should be obvious that there's no interest, and that's not a head game. And I would guess that Flynne really agrees with that too.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2011 3:32 PM
Alright, I feel like now we are at least on the same page which makes me feel better because for the life of me I couldn’t understand why my point wasn’t getting across.
Now it may be possible that Flynne didn’t actually mean that it was “always” a head game if a guy didn’t call. However, I will still stand by my claim that given what was actually written a reasonable person could have interpreted it that way, and that was how I interpreted her meaning (it is also how madness interpreted her meaning so clearly I am not totally alone in reading it that way). I try very hard not to read into things here and try to take things at face value because I feel that if I interpret too much I am being unfair to an author that I don’t actually know.
If Flynne didn’t actually mean that a guy always had to call even if he wasn’t interested but was instead talking about a very specific (and undisclosed) subset of interactions I could even buy into the position. I mean, pretty much any course of action can be justified under the right set of conditions.
I also fullly agree that if a man is interested in a woman it is in his own best interest to express that in a reasonable amount of time. Waiting a month to call a woman you are interested in is not a successful dating strategy.
“In practice, it's often obvious that there's no chemistry, and in those cases where this is mutual, both parties probably hope the other won't contact them afterwards.”
I agree here as well. If a woman isn’t interested in a man she doesn’t want him to call her three days later to explain that he isn’t interested in her, she’d just rather he not call at all.
However this is where the problem comes in and why I originally called this proposed philosophical stance “self serving”. It is self serving because it is focused solely upon the psychological state of only one person in the scenario... namely the woman.
The notion that a man should call to inform a woman that he isn’t interested if and only if she remains interested in him after the first date is a silly and unreasonable requirement because it requires that he have special insight into her true desires to determine his own course of action. However men don’t have special insight into whether or not a woman is really interested in him after one date any more or less than women have special insight into whether or not a man is really into her. Both men and women are essentially fumbling in the dark doing their best to figure each other out. Surely if we can acknowledge that women can’t always tell if a man is really interested after a first date we can also acknowledge that men can’t always tell either.
We basically have four different scenarios that can play out here:
1 - Both of them are interested in each other
Well we agree in this situation that clearly the guy should call within a reasonable amount of time to try and set up the next date.
2 - Both of them are uninterested in each other
I think we agree here that in this situation it is best for everyone of they just don’t contact each other at all and move on.
3 - The guy is interested in the woman, but she isn’t interested in him
Well clearly what will happen here is the guy is going to call and then get shot down and it won’t really matter to the woman if he calls in 3 days or 12 days, she would just as soon not hear from him at all.
Great, those are the easy ones. The discrepancy appears to be in the other last combination.
4 - The woman is interested in the guy, but he isn’t interested in her
So what should the guy do here?
My contention is that the guy needs to act from his own personal perspective because he isn’t going to know for sure that she is interested in him anyway. He shouldn’t call, he should behave as if he were in situation #2, it doesn’t make sense for him to behave any other way.
However, the problem you are sensitive to here is that in this scenario, his not calling ends up hurting the feelings of the woman who is still interested in seeing him again. However it isn’t his responsibility to see to her emotional comfort after one date. In fact it would be rather presumptuous of him to call to “let her down easy” because he is assuming that she is totally into him when she may not be.
You only let someone down easy after you have dated a while and it is abundantly clear that the two of you were at least interested in each other for a period of time. You don’t call to let someone down easy because it is theoretically possible that they liked you after one date.
“Did the guy *act* really interested. People do this all the time because they don't know how to handle it. They pretend to be interested even when they're not.”
I don’t think it is because they don’t know how to handle it. I think the reason people act interested on a date even when they aren’t is the same reason people act like they enjoyed a meal at someone else’s home even when they didn’t. That is actually the polite and courteous thing to do.
Even if you determine that you aren’t really interested in someone during a first date it is totally reasonable to behave in an interested fashion so long as the other person doesn’t do something totally out of line. That is just proper manners. Only a boor will act totally disinterested in you the moment he or she determines that they are no longer interested in seeing you again.
The proper thing to do is finish out the date in a pleasant way, say goodbye and then go your separate ways. If that behavior is later interpreted as interest the guy or girl in question shouldn’t be held responsible.
I mean seriously, if women were really totally obvious about their disinterest during a first date, why on earth would the guy call her later for a second one?… it’s because women also tend to be polite and act interested even if it turns out they aren’t actually into the guy.
That is just the nature of things, it isn’t mean, it isn’t trickery, it isn’t nefarious… and to be quite blunt, men tend to be on the receiving end of this stuff more often than women are, and no one is giving them any sympathy for it because it isn’t something anyone needs sympathy for.
Okay, I think I have said more than my fair share here so I'll take my leave and let Rozita entertain all of you with her forthcoming exciting post.
Reality at August 13, 2011 6:42 PM
"That is just the nature of things, it isn’t mean, it isn’t trickery, it isn’t nefarious… and to be quite blunt, men tend to be on the receiving end of this stuff more often than women are, and no one is giving them any sympathy for it because it isn’t something anyone needs sympathy for."
I agree to a point, Reality. It's the nature of things, but isn't it also rude and kind of mean? I think anyone who has been on the receiving end of a "pretend great date," then never receives a call or text afterwards, considers it rude. And I truly believe that anyone who has ever pretended, as commonplace as it may be, feels slightly guilty about what they did.
Isn't that part of the definition of rudeness - knowing that you willfully caused the discomfort of others?
If you can tell your date isn't into you either, then the damage is mute, but I think most of us realize when we're inflicting emotional pain...creating fruitless hope. In those cases, morality requires a call/text/e-mail to let that person know the truth, so they can move on.
It's certainly a case by case thing though, not a rule. But just because it isn't a rule doesn't make doing it as a matter of conscience any less important. Morals aren't necessarily rules.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2011 8:46 PM
@lovelysoul Isn't that part of the definition of rudeness - knowing that you willfully caused the discomfort of others?
Not really, it could a skillful ruse.
For, as Marquis de Sade once wrote,
"the only way to a woman's heart is along the path of torment. I know none other as sure."
Rudeness is willfully causing the discomfort of others while lacking any purpose other than causing that discomfort.
Mere Mortal at August 14, 2011 10:40 AM
When you post something, Reality, it's subject to input/critique/smartass comments from everyone, whether you like it or not. Deal with it.
My opinion: if a guy doesn't call me back, I know he isn't interested. That's the way it is. If he waits a few days to call and I'm not busy, it depends on the guy and how the first date went as to whether or not I'd go out with him a second time. If I didn't want to see him again, I'd tell him, because I wouldn't want him calling me again.
There's my contribution--short and sweet.
Here's my final entertaining comment: Reality's comments are like chloroform!
Rozita at August 14, 2011 10:50 AM
Lovelysoul says:
“It's the nature of things, but isn't it also rude and kind of mean? I think anyone who has been on the receiving end of a "pretend great date," then never receives a call or text afterwards, considers it rude.”
I’m probably a difficult person to ask questions about rudeness or meanness because I don’t tend to judge these things in the same way other people do. While I certainly believe that there are some things which are more or less universally rude/mean, there are other things that I believe are rude/mean based entirely upon the disposition of the person who takes the action.
I pretty much prescribe to the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” standard for meanness.
So sure… if someone truly and honestly believes that it is rude and/or mean never to receive a call or text from someone after a “pretend great date” then they are morally obligated to call or text when they are pretending. However, if someone doesn’t care if someone calls them after a “pretend great date” then it isn’t a moral obligation for them to call when they are pretending.
I mean what is the alternative to a “pretend great date” anyway? That when someone decides they don’t like you that they go out of their way to make things as awkward and uncomfortable as possible?
That strikes me as being more rude and mean than simply letting things go after the date is over.
“I think most of us realize when we're inflicting emotional pain...creating fruitless hope. In those cases, morality requires a call/text/e-mail to let that person know the truth, so they can move on.”
That is all well and good except you have already admitted to not practicing what you are now preaching.
In light of what you are now preaching I’d like you to explain the behavior you describe here:
“Whenever I was conflicted, I might say I was busy but that I would contact him if I could do something in the future...that way he didn't have to keep chasing after me. Plus, the ball was in my court. More often than not, when I was that lukewarm towards someone, I never called. I'd meet someone else who held more interest. Such is dating.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2011 12:05 PM”
I mean, isn’t what you are describing above the very definition of creating “fruitless hope” that you will call this guy again and then at least in some cases you never bother to call/text/e-mail to let that person know the truth so they can move on?
You then end the statement by informing me that “such is dating” which is pretty much the same thing I just said with “it’s just the nature of things”.
What I want to know is why when I suggest that it is the nature of dating suddenly we have all these obligations about ethics, meanness, rudeness and morality… but when you say “such is dating” it is basically the equivalent of “shit happens and guys need to get over it”.
The part I don’t like about your perspective isn’t the moral, ethical, and moral obligations, it is that they seem to only go one way and that way is that it is mean for a man not to rectify a sense of fruitless hope in a woman… but it is perfectly fine for a woman to generate fruitless hope in a man.
Where is the morality and ethics in that?… or are we positing that men don’t feel emotional pain so it is totally different?
In summary, do I think it is rude and kind of mean for a man not to call a woman after one date that he has no intention to ever see again? Not any more or less rude or mean than it is for a woman to tell a guy she is busy but will potentially contact him in the future only never to call.
These are morally and ethically identical scenarios.
Reality at August 14, 2011 11:37 AM
Rozita Says:
"When you post something, Reality, it's subject to input/critique/smartass comments from everyone, whether you like it or not. Deal with it."
I did deal with it.
I dealt with it by pointing out that you are a coward who won't subject her own writing to the same level of critique.
Seems like a fair way to deal with it to me.
I'm still waiting for your amazing and interesting post.
Your posts aren't "short and sweet", they are short, trivial, and devoid of any significant meaning.
Reality at August 14, 2011 11:46 AM
"I mean, isn’t what you are describing above the very definition of creating “fruitless hope” that you will call this guy again and then at least in some cases you never bother to call/text/e-mail to let that person know the truth so they can move on?"
No, I think most people handle rejection better in stages. To bluntly tell someone "I'm not interested" right after the first date is harder. Necessary, at times, yes - if there is absolutely no interest - but it's still a harder blow.
I was talking about instances when one is truly conflicted. That is a tough one. You're weighing how you feel, and I think most recipients of that sentiment would want you to take your time, not instantly reject them. In that case, you're actually being considerate of the other person's feelings, so it's not a contradiction.
lovelysoul at August 14, 2011 2:19 PM
Lovelysoul,
You were quite clear. You said it was a moral obligation for someone to tell a potential romantic interest that they were no longer interested once they figure it out.
You said this after you gave an example where you told someone that you were busy and would call them when you were more free... only to never call them again.
It is a contradiction.
Leaving them in limbo like that has the exact same moral and ethical implications as a guy never calling after a date.
You argued that it was unethical to give a person false hope and then not inform them that the hope was gone.
It can't be okay for you to do it and not okay for anyone else.
Reality at August 14, 2011 2:55 PM
"I simply think it is unfair to go into battle with a gun and then cry about how your opponent it armed too."
I wish I wrote that. I see this more often in international politics than in dating scene.
Thanks to Reality and LS for the entertaining and thoughtful exchanges.
Reality, would you agree that your position might be summarized as what BOTU wrote at August 10, 2011 2:08 PM
"Well, if you screwed her long and hard on the the first date, you "should" call the next day. But if you don't, she will call you. No worries either way.
If you didn't screw long and hard on the first date--why do you want a second date?"
chang at August 14, 2011 3:11 PM
Chang,
You are correct that the same thing happens in international politics. The same thing happens in national politics.
I can’t tell you how many times it frustrates me to watch either the democrats or the republicans castigating the other side for using the exact same tactics they just used.
Of course that is all part of the game too… to try and guilt your opponent into laying down their weapons while you retain your own. A smart person sees it for what it is though and doesn’t let themselves be manipulated by those tactics.
My perspective is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. This applies to politics as well as social interactions.
I don’t expect anyone to treat me any better than I treat them, but I do expect them to treat me no worse than I treat them.
If they treat me better then I make a concerted effort to step up and reciprocate. If they treat me worse then they can go screw themselves.
As for what BOTU said, I wouldn’t say it actually summarizes my perspective, but that is because BOTU is not being totally serious.
I do agree that if a man and a woman have sex on a first date it is probably a good idea for him to call even if he isn’t interested in her anymore. However I somewhat doubt that anyone here would suggest that would make him an ethical or moral hero. So if he doesn’t call, then what?… He doesn’t exactly pay a moral or ethical price either.
Furthermore, there are obviously MANY reasons why someone would want a second date even if no sex was involved.
BOTU did a good job getting across the silliness though of some of these calling “rules”
The thing about all this that everyone needs to remember was said very well by BlueJean Baby here:
“Love (and lust) is a 2-way street, and if the guy does not feel it (even if you do) you've got to just let things lie and move on. Again, silence speaks volumes.”
The entire position I have been arguing against is when it appears someone is promoting that love is a 1-way street.
Men hear all the time that if a woman isn’t interested they just need to deal with it and get on with their lives. They hear it all over the place and it is said even here quite often.
Yet somehow if a guy isn’t interested in a woman he now has all sorts of moral and ethical obligations to make sure she feels okay about the rejection?... but only if she is still interested in him, if shes doesn't like him then it is okay for him to not call.
I don’t think this standard makes any sense. It is one date. If he doesn’t like you and doesn’t call just move on. He isn't mean or rude or immoral or unethical for simply not liking you.
It’s not like he just killed your puppy. Then it would be immoral and unethical for him not to inform you.
Reality at August 14, 2011 3:45 PM
God damn, Reality. You're really going bananas here. We all see your point. We know where you're coming from. But, fuck! Brevity is your friend, man. Embrace it.
whistleDick at August 14, 2011 5:58 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/08/dont-go-seiko-o.html#comment-2422230">comment from whistleDickBrevity is your friend, man. Embrace it.
Please, yes.
Amy Alkon at August 14, 2011 6:20 PM
"You were quite clear. You said it was a moral obligation for someone to tell a potential romantic interest that they were no longer interested once they figure it out."
No, I said if you had a "pretend great date" with someone you knew you weren't interested in - if you kissed them (or, heaven forbid, had sex) or acted as if you were, in fact, interested - then your conscience should dictate that you text or call them the next day or so and not leave them hanging.
That doesn't apply to people that you're not sure about...because you might still want to see them at some point. Leaving it open is fine in those cases, but you'll note that this also requires some contact after the date.
I was usually pretty good at this. I didn't give false hope if I absolutely wasn't interested, though some guys apparently did with me. If I felt no chemistry, I kept the date brief and closed-ended. There were a few guys who were genuine "maybes" for me, and I had periodic contact with them, after our initial date, then perhaps didn't call again after awhile, but I'm sure they weren't hanging by the phone waiting for me either. It's pretty clear if you don't immediately plan another date that you're not that into the person.
lovelysoul at August 14, 2011 6:33 PM
Gotta give ya big props lovelysoul, you carried on with this WAY after I gave up. Reality was so fixated on being right that I just gave up. No matter what I said, I was wrong. But you explained your points (and mine, thank you!) very well. Some people just want to belabor a point for the sake of argument, I guess. Thanks again for everything you posted. I got a headache just reading all of his long-winded diatribes!
Flynne at August 15, 2011 8:51 AM
Flynne,
I am not "fixated" on being right. I simply dissagree with something.
It's not some sort of psychological obsession.
I love how you are turning this into "no matterwhat I said, I was wrong", when I could essentially say the exact same thing.
Its not like you or LS were lining up to agree with me on anything.
Reality at August 15, 2011 9:51 AM
whistleDick,
I agree with you that brevity can be your friend, but I’ll remind you that this discussion started with a very brief post by me. My post was one sentence long.
Brevity wasn’t exactly my friend then now was it because it ultimately resulted in this discussion?
Furthermore, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one here who has had a lot to say. I agree that I have certainly written the longest posts, but not the only one with repeated long posts. That is just how discussions go sometimes and it isn’t anything to get bent out of shape over.
Neither I nor LS have been rude or disparaging to each other as far as I can tell. So sure, it has been a series of long posts (of which the longest ones were mine), but it has been civil and mature. One would think that if you were going to offer constructive criticism you would also note the positive side.
Now I’m not looking for or expecting any praise because I don’t need it, but I also don’t feel that what I’ve written hasn’t warranted some of the unproductive criticism here either.
I mean sure, people get subjected to criticism on the internet, such is life and it’s no big deal. However being “subjected” to a long post or a series of long posts isn’t such a big deal either. People can get over that too, don't you think?
Reality at August 15, 2011 10:04 AM
Lovelysoul,
I think you are generating very specific scenarios when I am attempting to look at this in general. In general it isn’t rude or mean or immoral or unethical for a guy to not call you after a first date.
I’ve already admitted that if one cherry picks the social interaction just right then things can change. So sure, if the date ends and he swears on his mother’s grave that he will call you, then I agree that it would be unethical not to do so. However this type of scenario hardly constitutes the norm. It is a corner case, an exception to the general rule which is that if he doesn’t call you he isn’t a bad person, he’s just not interested.
Just because you kiss someone doesn’t obligate you to contacting them if you aren’t feeling it either. If there is a moral or ethical obligation you then it obligates both of you to call or text now doesn’t it? The obligation can’t have gender components outside of biological justifications.
I fully agree that there are gender differences when it comes to dating. However those gender differences don’t help your cause in this case because all of those differences have a biological origin. This is why it is valid to recommend that a man should pursue women he is interested in. There is no similar biological argument to suggest that a man should pursue a woman he isn’t interested in.
As a result all we are left with are etiquette, morals and ethics… but there are no gender differences when it comes to morals and ethics without an associated biological basis. In addition I’ve already shown why etiquette doesn’t help your case either, etiquette demands that the guest initiate contact after the event, not the host.
Men and women are similarly situated in morality and ethics when the guy in question isn’t interested in the woman any longer. As such, if a man and a woman kiss and he later determines that he’s not into her anymore, they are now on even ground when it comes to calling.
As such he doesn’t become the perpetrator of a crime against the woman in this scenario. If no one calls then they have both been rude to each other. The woman in this scenario isn't the victim of the guys rudness or meanness or immorality.
Reality at August 15, 2011 10:21 AM
Like I said, Reality, I think you grasped upon a misphrase to suggest Flynne believed something that she wasn't actually saying. Neither of us believes that a guy must *always* call after a date. There are too many factors, such as how the date plays out and how it ends, where a follow up call/text may not be necessary, particularly when it's obvious there's no chemistry.
It's just rude to leave someone hanging, though the caveat to this is if you truly aren't sure. But, in that case, you should probably have some sort of contact afterwards, if only to keep the door open just a crack. You can claim to be "busy", so they won't think another date is imminent. You don't necessarly need to say that you aren't interested.
In fact, I'm sure some would maintain there's never a reason to use those exact words. "I'm busy" is kind of code for "I'm not that into you."
There's a difference between slamming the door, and gently closing it most of the way. I suspect most daters appreciate the gentle let down over the blunt one.
lovelysoul at August 15, 2011 10:25 AM
"I’ve already shown why etiquette doesn’t help your case either, etiquette demands that the guest initiate contact after the event, not the host."
The rules of etiquette for hosting a dinner party are quite different from dating etiquette. You keep trying to make them the same, but they're not.
"Just because you kiss someone doesn’t obligate you to contacting them if you aren’t feeling it either."
Well, but if you're not feeling it, then you probably shouldn't kiss them. Shouldn't we all be responsible for the mixed messages we send?
Of course, it also depends on whether we're talking a polite peck at the end of the date or a make out session. I just know, for myself, that if I made out with a guy during the first couple of dates, then changed my mind, or met someone more interesting, I didn't feel it was appropriate just to disappear on him. A text/call of explanation seemed required (whether the excuse was true or not).
lovelysoul at August 15, 2011 10:36 AM
Lovelysoul,
You can say that I “grasped” onto something Flynne misstated, but I still believe that I got the general gist and once I pointed out how untenable that position was suddenly the goal posts shifted. However, even if you are right, how am I responsible for the fact that Flynne chose to say things in such a way that could easily be misinterpreted?
I’ve already taken responsibility for the fact that when I write something and it is misunderstood that I need to fix that misunderstanding. I don’t go blaming the reader when I haven’t been clear enough.
I refuse to be responsible both for misunderstanding what Flynne wrote and for you and Flynne misunderstanding what I wrote earlier. I am only responsible for one of those things.
“Neither of us believes that a guy must *always* call after a date. There are too many factors, such as how the date plays out and how it ends, where a follow up call/text may not be necessary, particularly when it's obvious there's no chemistry. “
Well that is rather generous of you now isn’t it?... The guy doesn’t *always* have to call. The times you have freed up the guy not to call are essentially only when the woman isn’t interested in him also. Don’t you think that it is possible that when a guy feels that it is obvious that there is no chemistry he might also conclude that she didn’t feel there was chemistry also?
All I am trying to get across to you, and what everyone keeps telling me they “get the point” is that a man does not choose his course of action based upon the unknown disposition of the woman he dated. He has to make his choice about how to proceed based only upon how he feels.
I mean, this whole discussion centers around the fact that you don’t like it that sometimes you don’t know whether or not a guy likes you. Why don’t you think this applies to men?
You are basically asserting that men have mind reading capabilities and need to act appropriately based upon how the woman feels. Here is a news flash, men don’t necessarily know how the woman feels so that can’t be a basis for his decision making process.
I could dismantle your argument further, but in the interest of being more brief than usual I’m just going to sum it up and say that you are wrong on this one. The general case is that the guy has no obligation to call, only in specific situations does he need to call. It isn't the other way around.
Reality at August 15, 2011 12:52 PM
"I mean, this whole discussion centers around the fact that you don’t like it that sometimes you don’t know whether or not a guy likes you. Why don’t you think this applies to men?"
I didn't say that it doesn't, and I specifically mentioned that it was often me who sent the dreaded, "nice meeting you, but we aren't a good match" message the next day.
Neither gender is really under an "obligation" to do this. It's just polite, especially when you sense that the other person does like you and is hoping for more.
In all the dates I was on (quite a lot over my 3-4 yrs of singledom), I pretty much knew when that was the case. Of the few times I erred, it was when the guy didn't like me but pretended he did, not when I thought there wasn't chemistry and there actually was. So, I think it's kind of a cop out to say that one has no obligation to read how the other person is feeling and what would be kind and considerate towards them. That is the essence of good manners.
Anybody can bail and just never communicate again, but, geeze, it takes 2 secs to send a text.
lovelysoul at August 15, 2011 1:19 PM
Lovelysoul Says:
“Neither gender is really under an "obligation" to do this. It's just polite, especially when you sense that the other person does like you and is hoping for more.”
Alright, now I feel like we are getting somewhere. You are now arguing for a policy of “best practices”, not about obligations which I think is perfectly fine.
I’m not against people going above and beyond, and it is too their credit when they do. What I am against is the implication that if someone fails to go above and beyond that they are rude, immoral, or unethical.
Morality, ethics, and being polite is not always about “best practices”, that kind of thinking goes a step beyond. For example, failing to give a homeless person your pocket change isn’t immoral, unethical, or rude but it probably violates the concept of “best practices” because in principal you should always try and help those in need.
There is a difference between meeting moral and ethical obligations and exceeding those obligations.
“Of the few times I erred, it was when the guy didn't like me but pretended he did, not when I thought there wasn't chemistry and there actually was. So, I think it's kind of a cop out to say that one has no obligation to read how the other person is feeling and what would be kind and considerate towards them.”
Alright, but here is a question I’d like you to consider. Why when your ability to read how the other person is feeling failed you blamed it on the guy? What made it that he was “pretending” as opposed to you not meeting your obligation to read him correctly? Are you really that good at reading people that the only way you can get it wrong is if they tricked you?
In the same way that you can fail at reading the true psychological state of a man, a man can fail at reading the true psychological state of a woman. In fact this is something science has shown that women are generally better at than men.
As a result you are hinging the ethics and morality of a man’s actions to an ability that men aren’t necessarily very skilled at. If women can and do fail at this task, men will fail at this task more often. Your criticism of men in this case is as unfair as if you were being criticized because you don’t manage to carry as much as a guy in a similar situation. These are real biological differences we are talking about here, if men don’t interpret women right it isn’t because they are uncaring and impolite brutes. Doesn’t it make more sense to assume that in general they are trying their best and sometimes they get it wrong?
Failure at correctly assessing the psychological state of someone else and acting in accordance with the incorrect assessment doesn’t make someone rude of impolite. You might as well hold someone with a vision problem morally accountable for bumping into you.
More often than not I think these things are accidents, not moral or ethical failings.
Reality at August 15, 2011 2:05 PM
@Reality:
I get your point, and I pretty much agree. No matter how you reject someone, they will find fault with the method. In my experience, and for what's it worth, a man who is really interested won't wait a week to call. Unless he fell into a well. So getting a call after a week has passed can be disconcerting.
Lizzie at August 15, 2011 2:35 PM
"Alright, but here is a question I’d like you to consider. Why when your ability to read how the other person is feeling failed you blamed it on the guy? What made it that he was “pretending” as opposed to you not meeting your obligation to read him correctly? Are you really that good at reading people that the only way you can get it wrong is if they tricked you?"
In my case, at least, these were cases where the guy either verbally expressed interest, such as suggesting future plans, or physically showed interest by making out with me. Both of which should be "no no's" if you aren't truly interested, but, obviously, some men aren't interested in a relationship...just having a good time that very evening.
I suspect women don't usually send such mixed signals to men when they aren't genuinely interested. I don't know, as I haven't been out with any women, but it seems to me that most women I know wouldn't make out with a guy she really wasn't strongly attracted to.
It's just a difference between men and women. A woman will think it's a total waste of time, while guys will view it more like, "Well, it's a Sat nt, and even though I'm not that into her, she's got a pulse, and maybe I'll get lucky."
And yes, I was always arguing "best practices". This is something I've felt people should do, but of course, it's common not to do it because we all hate it.
But something that has arisen from this conversation for me, which is interesting, is the question of whether it is, in fact, more rude to tell someone you just aren't interested. I did this often and now I'm wondering if it was, in fact, the best practice. Maybe I was too honest?
lovelysoul at August 15, 2011 3:55 PM
Lovelysoul,
I agree that if at the end of the date there have been definite plans made for a future date that it is rude not to call to cancel. Again this goes both ways and is certainly a matter of common courtesy. You don’t make plans and then just not show up.
As for showing physical interest, it is good that you mentioned the difference between men and women on this matter. Men and women are just not going to see physical interest in the same way and there is a very good biological reason for this. As such, the kiss that a woman thinks is so very meaningful isn’t necessarily going to be considered all that important to a guy. The fact that men and women see these things differently doesn’t make one gender “morally” correct and the other “morally” wrong. As a result I am having difficulty classifying this as “rude”. Men can be and often are sexually attracted to women that they have zero long term interest in.
“I suspect women don't usually send such mixed signals to men when they aren't genuinely interested.”
I’m not so sure you are correct here. In fact, I feel rather comfortable going out on a limb here and telling you that I think this is wrong. The reason I am so confident about this is because if women are so direct with their signals and those signals are so easy for men to interpret, why do men often not get the message?
What evolutionary advantage would it provide to men for them to mess up the interpretation of these signals on purpose?
In fact, the men who tend to be the most successful with women are in fact the ones who are exceptionally good at interpreting the signals women send. The men who tend to fail in the romantic arena are the ones who constantly screw up reading the signals.
There is no reason whatsoever for men to mess up the interpretation purposefully. When they screw up the interpretation it is despite their very best efforts to get it right.
I know you don’t think women send “mixed signals”, but I assure you that if you were to ask a guy who is struggling on the dating scene if he really understands the signals women are sending he probably would not answer that question with a “yes”.
“But something that has arisen from this conversation for me, which is interesting, is the question of whether it is, in fact, more rude to tell someone you just aren't interested. I did this often and now I'm wondering if it was, in fact, the best practice. Maybe I was too honest?”
When determining the “best practice” one has to pretty much lay out all the options on the table, assess the pros and cons and then pick the one with the most favorable outcome.
The problem I think you are running into is that unfortunately in some cases even the best option can have a lot of cons associated with it. No one likes to be rejected, and I suspect few people like to reject others. Both of these situations tend to produce a certain amount of psychological discomfort.
The way I see it though is that barring special circumstances that honestly really is the best policy. Deceit often carries with it the potential for too many unforeseeable bad consequences.
Reality at August 15, 2011 9:30 PM
Anne: If there is then no contact, that excitement wanes until, at about day 4 perhaps, I decide that apparently I'm alone in my excitement, and I move on.
Thanks for the smile, Anne. I loved "alone in my excitement." We've all been there.
If I feel a date went well and really want to see the woman again, I always call or email within a few days. If any woman perceives that as desperation instead of interest, and doesn't want a second date because of it, then she's not the kind of woman I'd want to be with.
Jim at August 15, 2011 10:53 PM
"The reason I am so confident about this is because if women are so direct with their signals and those signals are so easy for men to interpret, why do men often not get the message?
What evolutionary advantage would it provide to men for them to mess up the interpretation of these signals on purpose?"
If I recall correctly, Amy has mentioned this in her column several times. I've forgotten the actual name of the phenomenon, but the gist is that men tend to assume more interest from a woman than is actually shown. Some sort of evolutionary directive that makes it more advantageous in terms of getting his genes passed on if he believes more women are willing to help pass them on.
From my own personal experience, men do often have a difficult time "getting the message" when the message is not one they want to hear. They often assume willingness on your part when you have given them no encouragement whatsoever. When I was young I deliberately stopped making eye contact with men because it caused so many of them to leap to the conclusion that I had a romantic interest in them.
On the flip side, women tend not to be as direct/unambiguous as they should because they don't want to be "mean" or they want to let him down easy.
Lizzie at August 16, 2011 4:25 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/08/dont-go-seiko-o.html#comment-2424501">comment from LizzieThanks, Lizzie -- it's Error Management Theory:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/01/too-mush-of-a-g.html
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2011 6:09 AM
I agree that women often send mixed signals, just not usually by trying to have sex with a guy they're not interested in. We do it by being too nice. Many women are people pleasers, so even if we show up on a date and the guy is not our type, we'll often do the "pretend great date" thing. We're not trying to get laid, just get through the date without hurting his feelings.
As absurd as it sounds, even when a woman has no interest, she usually still wants the guy to like HER. I've actually had girlfriends get upset that a guy wasn't upset when they rejected him. lol
So, we agree there are 3 main ways to handle rejection:
1) be blunt and honest.
2) Lie and make up an excuse
3) Disappear and never contact them again
Looking back, when I doled out rejection, I preferred #1, but when I was on the receiving end, I much preffered #2.
Even though I knew the guy was probably lying...I didn't know for sure...so I could kind of half believe the story, rather than feel that it was about him just not liking me, which really cushioned the blow of rejection.
lovelysoul at August 16, 2011 6:31 AM
Those semi-divine beings, who know what psychology of sub-human males of Pleistocene era was like,
are awe inspiring (Amy included)!
Poor me! I always thought that a schlub was chasing a girl who wasn’t interested simply because that slut might change her mind during the chase!
Mere Mortal at August 16, 2011 6:56 AM
Lizzie and Amy,
Thank you both for giving more detail on why men will often misinterpret the signals women send. As I said, there is no evolutionary advantage to misinterpreting these things on purpose.
Men are actively trying to get things right, but often fail by erring toward false indicators. This isn't a conscious decision process.
lovelysoul says:
“As absurd as it sounds, even when a woman has no interest, she usually still wants the guy to like HER. I've actually had girlfriends get upset that a guy wasn't upset when they rejected him.”
Sure, and at least some men are aware of this. Men know that just because things went pleasantly that the woman doesn’t necessarily like him. As a result if he doesn’t like her he still has no idea where she stands. It’s not as obvious as you were making it out to be earlier.
That is the root of problem though for men in this situation now isn’t it. Men who are not interested in a woman are still unlikely to know for sure if she really liked him or not because in general the woman will still act pleasant and nice and want him to be interested just as an ego boost.
This is why a guy cannot accurately select his course of action based upon what he perceives her level of interest to be, he has to select his course of action based upon what his level of interest is.
As for the three options you list, I really wouldn’t judge anyone too harshly for using any of them after just one date. Things only move definitively toward the blunt and honest option after you have been seeing someone for a while.
Reality at August 16, 2011 8:06 AM
i did not read all the comments however i wonder also if it has to do with race? im japanese american and i notice with asian men, they dont show emotion (this is quite normal). they will say that they like you but there is not a lot of action to back that up. If they dont call you, it is usually ok, they are busy have other things on their mind....however they are still interested....dont know if this could be a race/cultural thing? but still as a woman my mind is running...is he going to call, does he like me lol!
pumpkin at August 16, 2011 2:17 PM
I just like the helpful info you provide for your articles. I'll bookmark your blog and check once more here regularly. I am reasonably certain I'll learn lots of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the next!
dor_swatch-collection,swatch at August 2, 2012 11:40 AM
Leave a comment