C
chevalier
Guest
I’m curious what kind of devices you people use when you have to convey lack of romantic interested in a person who is a total stranger. I learn my people skills through experience and this is a new situation. Since I’ve had a lot of rejection delivered to me on various levels and in various situations in my life, I wouldn’t like to treat anybody else to it more than necessary.
Let’s say we’ve got a dating site in our hypothetical. Even though we proceed as strangers in polite company, so we aren’t overly direct and we stay at arm’s length, we do know what each of us is there for, at least in the long run. While they don’t create any “rights” and especially no promises, the implications of writing, replying to messages, having a prolonged exchange etc. are somewhat obvious and there had better not be ambiguity if this is to continue for some time.
Some situations are easy. An outright dating invitation or flirting attempt can be accepted (reciprocated) or declined right away (or ignored if too inappropriate). On the other hand, when somebody just initiates a conversation (message exchange, technically), you can get into it and have a good time without flirting at any point or allowing too much familiarity, this is usually enough to remain on friends level for good… after a while this will basically settle, especially among emotionally stable people. Or when somebody asks if you’d be interested in a conversation, you can reply to such a question as stated, without belabouring the point of any hypothetical romantic developments that you’d prefer to rule out in advance.
What I struggle with, however, is the situation in which the question uses a more direct (but still polite) formula, like “Would you like to talk? Get to know each other a bit more closely?”, a nice, respectful, sensitive ouverture by a nice, sensitive person that just does not happen to win your interest, regrettably as it is. This isn’t an “obvious” thing to the point that it’d make a man sound clearly gay, but in the case of a young and sensitive woman (e.g. early twenties, introverted, on the arts side), I guess you’d better tell her right away that while friendly contact would be welcome, there’s basically no chance of anything romantic developing, ever.
(For the record my actual reasons here are that she just doesn’t do it for me, plus there’s a fundamental disagreement on contraception, even though she’s a practicing person involved in ministry, so not your typical “cafeteria” case.)
I could probably name attitude on contraception as an irreconcilable difference but this could still feel like a judgment of moral character instead of like a reason why we wouldn’t get along in practical life. I obviously can’t really say that she’s not my type or that I have a different type. As a man, I would actually welcome the “not my type” explanation with understanding, but women are different and I doubt this would work – you’d need to be dealing with a down to earth and very secure woman to say that kind of thing safely, I think. Nor can I really cite the “absence of oomph” because if you tell a woman that she doesn’t have that special thing to attract you with, you’re very likely to damage her self-esteem, especially considering that most young women nowadays don’t have a particularly strong self-esteem. But you can’t lead her on and waste her time, allow her to get hopes high etc. So this needs addressing. There’s got to be a disclaimer right away and I’ve got to word it somehow.
In my experience, addressing that kind of thing with a woman is difficult and I’ve got bad reactions to some of my attempts. It’s not like I’ll take accusations of shallowness, immaturity etc. from an obviously emotionally hurt person to heart or anything, but I’d rather spare the “victim” the hurt in the first place. I suspect I would be able to get it over with with a business person or lawyer or government official near or past 30 years of age, but more sensitive types in early twenties are just too easy to damage emotionally.
Therefore, since most of our posters are ladies, how would you like a man to respond in such a situation if he’s not interested romantically and this won’t change, even though he genuinely wouldn’t have anything against simple acquintanceship?
And let’s presume we aren’t dealing with a go-getter that likes direct information exchange.
Let’s say we’ve got a dating site in our hypothetical. Even though we proceed as strangers in polite company, so we aren’t overly direct and we stay at arm’s length, we do know what each of us is there for, at least in the long run. While they don’t create any “rights” and especially no promises, the implications of writing, replying to messages, having a prolonged exchange etc. are somewhat obvious and there had better not be ambiguity if this is to continue for some time.
Some situations are easy. An outright dating invitation or flirting attempt can be accepted (reciprocated) or declined right away (or ignored if too inappropriate). On the other hand, when somebody just initiates a conversation (message exchange, technically), you can get into it and have a good time without flirting at any point or allowing too much familiarity, this is usually enough to remain on friends level for good… after a while this will basically settle, especially among emotionally stable people. Or when somebody asks if you’d be interested in a conversation, you can reply to such a question as stated, without belabouring the point of any hypothetical romantic developments that you’d prefer to rule out in advance.
What I struggle with, however, is the situation in which the question uses a more direct (but still polite) formula, like “Would you like to talk? Get to know each other a bit more closely?”, a nice, respectful, sensitive ouverture by a nice, sensitive person that just does not happen to win your interest, regrettably as it is. This isn’t an “obvious” thing to the point that it’d make a man sound clearly gay, but in the case of a young and sensitive woman (e.g. early twenties, introverted, on the arts side), I guess you’d better tell her right away that while friendly contact would be welcome, there’s basically no chance of anything romantic developing, ever.
(For the record my actual reasons here are that she just doesn’t do it for me, plus there’s a fundamental disagreement on contraception, even though she’s a practicing person involved in ministry, so not your typical “cafeteria” case.)
I could probably name attitude on contraception as an irreconcilable difference but this could still feel like a judgment of moral character instead of like a reason why we wouldn’t get along in practical life. I obviously can’t really say that she’s not my type or that I have a different type. As a man, I would actually welcome the “not my type” explanation with understanding, but women are different and I doubt this would work – you’d need to be dealing with a down to earth and very secure woman to say that kind of thing safely, I think. Nor can I really cite the “absence of oomph” because if you tell a woman that she doesn’t have that special thing to attract you with, you’re very likely to damage her self-esteem, especially considering that most young women nowadays don’t have a particularly strong self-esteem. But you can’t lead her on and waste her time, allow her to get hopes high etc. So this needs addressing. There’s got to be a disclaimer right away and I’ve got to word it somehow.
In my experience, addressing that kind of thing with a woman is difficult and I’ve got bad reactions to some of my attempts. It’s not like I’ll take accusations of shallowness, immaturity etc. from an obviously emotionally hurt person to heart or anything, but I’d rather spare the “victim” the hurt in the first place. I suspect I would be able to get it over with with a business person or lawyer or government official near or past 30 years of age, but more sensitive types in early twenties are just too easy to damage emotionally.
Therefore, since most of our posters are ladies, how would you like a man to respond in such a situation if he’s not interested romantically and this won’t change, even though he genuinely wouldn’t have anything against simple acquintanceship?
And let’s presume we aren’t dealing with a go-getter that likes direct information exchange.
I could not find out what you meant…
just kidding 
