Online Dating: The String-Along Song

[iwillrisenow]

I have experienced the following situation multiple times in online dating (three times within the last year or so alone):

• man initiates communication and appears to be interested
• although communication is generally ok, it drags on online-only longer than necessary with lukewarm interest (eg- does not want to meet or try taking things further)
• eventually I get a polite little message saying that they recently got more serious with someone else from the site.
• 24 hours of tears/anger/frustration/venting later, feel better. Rinse, repeat (well, not anymore!!)

I wish that I were alone in having to bear this unfortunate side effect of the shopper’s mentality that comes with such sites but am certain that others have experienced the same.

My understand of basic human civility is that if someone is not interested in taking things further, they should politely cut off communication as soon as possible. This is what I have done and would do in any such scenario. But why the string-along act? Why continue with a “back up” right up until the moment your “something better” is secured? Why not be bold enough to say “this is not what I want, but I trust God enough to wait without lying to another human soul about my interest in pursuing a sacred vocation with her”?

Is there something I’m doing wrong to give the impression that I’m “cool” with being a back-up option? Please help…

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I have experienced the following situation multiple times in online dating (three times within the last year or so alone):

• man initiates communication and appears to be interested
• although communication is generally ok, it drags on online-only longer than necessary with lukewarm interest (eg- does not want to meet or try taking things further)
• eventually I get a polite little message saying that they recently got more serious with someone else from the site.
• 24 hours of tears/anger/frustration/venting later, feel better. Rinse, repeat (well, not anymore!!)

I wish that I were alone in having to bear this unfortunate side effect of the shopper’s mentality that comes with such sites but am certain that others have experienced the same.

My understand of basic human civility is that if someone is not interested in taking things further, they should politely cut off communication as soon as possible. This is what I have done and would do in any such scenario. But why the string-along act? Why continue with a “back up” right up until the moment your “something better” is secured? Why not be bold enough to say “this is not what I want, but I trust God enough to wait without lying to another human soul about my interest in pursuing a sacred vocation with her”?

Is there something I’m doing wrong to give the impression that I’m “cool” with being a back-up option? Please help…

I don’t understand why you are crying over men who won’t even meet you. It isn’t like you were in a relationship and he chose the side chick. Y’all were just chatting online.
You actually believed that they were “interested in pursuing a sacred vocation” with you and y’all haven’t even met? Like, maybe you should just chat as friends, meet, chat some more, have a few dates, and then maybe talk about pursing a marriage. Or have the “where is this going” talk AFTER meeting and going on a few dates.

 

[iwillrisenow]

First of all, I have decided to stop online dating altogether. From now on, if I don’t meet him in person casually at an event in town or through friends or family or work, etc. I don’t meet him at all. In the future, I will not be “crying” over men who won’t meet me, because I will not be communicating with them.

I’ve seen discussions around here before where people have talked about how Catholic dating in general is geared towards the vocation of marriage (unlike secular dating, which tends to be “let’s hang out and see what happens”). Women are often shamed for desiring marriage and unjustly labeled as “ring bleeps” and other derogatory terms. It’s not that we expect commitment up front, but *once *the vocation is not on the table on one side but not the other (clearly, for each, there was a point where he said “this is not it but this is”), is it wrong to expect communication?

This does tie into a larger issue of having multiple attempts of been put in a side chick role before…on top of this. Men seem willing to chat with me to “get to know” me (or display unchaste interest) but not to commit. If you are a woman who has not had the experience of the only interest in you being casual or “on the side”, I do not expect you to understand.

I’m trying to figure out if there is a lesson in this somewhere. Part of me is ready to throw in the towel and become a hermit (or expatriate) and the other part is grateful that the stringing along happens up front rather than within a relationship (silver lining).

 

[schaeffer]

I think that there IS a shopping mentality with online dating, I mean…otherwise what is it?

You are taking a look at a variety of different potential partners, getting to know them and yes compare them…see what the dating pool is like.

I’ve heard men share the same complaint you have, I think it is a very common thing.

Most people ARE communicating with more than one person at a time, doing the “getting to know you thing”. Chatting online is NOT dating. There is NO commitment. Just as in real life you may like chatting a man at work, another at church, and a third at bridge club, just talking, getting to know them. It is common for people to date casually more than one person until there is an exclusive understanding between two people.

Sometimes the first chat or two, or date or two, we might feel very attracted to someone, but then a later date or discussion shows us some aspect of them that we aren’t comfortable with, so we say our goodbyes and move on.

I am not comfortable dating/meeting up with someone I don’t know from some other area in my life. There is too much “unknown” for my sensibilities. I know, for this reason, online dating would not be a good investment for me.

 

[Xantippe]

I think that there IS a shopping mentality with online dating, I mean…otherwise what is it?

You are taking a look at a variety of different potential partners, getting to know them and yes compare them…see what the dating pool is like.

I’ve heard men share the same complaint you have, I think it is a very common thing.

Most people ARE communicating with more than one person at a time, doing the “getting to know you thing”. Chatting online is NOT dating. There is NO commitment. Just as in real life you may like chatting a man at work, another at church, and a third at bridge club, just talking, getting to know them. It is common for people to date casually more than one person until there is an exclusive understanding between two people.

Sometimes the first chat or two, or date or two, we might feel very attracted to someone, but then a later date or discussion shows us some aspect of them that we aren’t comfortable with, so we say our goodbyes and move on.

I am not comfortable dating/meeting up with someone I don’t know from some other area in my life. There is too much “unknown” for my sensibilities. I know, for this reason, online dating would not be a good investment for me.

Right.

I think the OP is actually kind of lucky to have gotten the explanatory notes she has. A lot of people would have just “ghosted” as the kids say.

I know the OP is all fed up with online dating, but perhaps she should just have a mental kill date (pardon the phrase) by which if the guy hasn’t made a move to meet in person, she should fade out or say, some politer version of “Buddy, you don’t seem that interested and I don’t need another pen pal.” I think two weeks is ample for online chit chat and clearing a schedule to meet in person (unless he happens to be on the International Space Station or out at sea or whatever).

Definitely don’t leave it up to the string-along guy to tell you when you’re done. You choose a date by which you’re done and you be done at that point.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

First of all, I have decided to stop online dating altogether. From now on, if I don’t meet him in person casually at an event in town or through friends or family or work, etc. I don’t meet him at all. In the future, I will not be “crying” over men who won’t meet me, because I will not be communicating with them.

I’ve seen discussions around here before where people have talked about how Catholic dating in general is geared towards the vocation of marriage (unlike secular dating, which tends to be “let’s hang out and see what happens”). Women are often shamed for desiring marriage and unjustly labeled as “ring bleeps” and other derogatory terms. It’s not that we expect commitment up front, but *once *the vocation is not on the table on one side but not the other (clearly, for each, there was a point where he said “this is not it but this is”), is it wrong to expect communication?

This does tie into a larger issue of having multiple attempts of been put in a side chick role before…on top of this. Men seem willing to chat with me to “get to know” me (or display unchaste interest) but not to commit. If you are a woman who has not had the experience of the only interest in you being casual or “on the side”, I do not expect you to understand.

I’m trying to figure out if there is a lesson in this somewhere. Part of me is ready to throw in the towel and become a hermit (or expatriate) and the other part is grateful that the stringing along happens up front rather than within a relationship (silver lining).

I personally feel like you should actually know the person before you start talking about marrying said person. If you are chatting online, which is NOT DATING, and you say something about desiring to marry them, I would run for the hills too. Yes, you should never date ever if you don’t ever want to get married. However, chatting online isn’t the right time to talk about marriage. Period.
It is fine to chat with multiple people online. It is fine to casually date a few people. Obviously, these men have decided that they don’t want to be more serious with you. It’s fine. They can decide that.

I have casually dated and have been perfectly fine with that. Casually dating and being a side chick is not the same thing.

 

[Xantippe]

I reread your OP and three of those within the last year is actually not bad at all, at least from what I hear.

 

[iwillrisenow]

I should clarify that the amount of time for communication has varied. I re-read my post and can see how it might seem that I was chatting with someone for a couple of weeks and then got mad because they got serious with someone else. This is not the case-- we’re talking two months minimum and about six months maximum (I know, I should have walked on that one ages ago…but I will spare the public board more details on why it happened like that).

With online dating towards a vocation of marriage, it does get sticky. Some people are fine with a “just getting to know people” attitude, others strictly talk to individuals that they are serious about (as in they would actually consider a commitment rather than a commitment itself). I fall firmly in the latter category.

Maybe I just need a break. I am definitely taking one to focus on other things, probably for the rest of this year…

 

[Xantippe]

I personally feel like you should actually know the person before you start talking about marrying said person. If you are chatting online, which is NOT DATING, and you say something about desiring to marry them, I would run for the hills too. Yes, you should never date ever if you don’t ever want to get married. However, chatting online isn’t the right time to talk about marriage. Period.
It is fine to chat with multiple people online. It is fine to casually date a few people. Obviously, these men have decided that they don’t want to be more serious with you. It’s fine. They can decide that.

I have casually dated and have been perfectly fine with that. Casually dating and being a side chick is not the same thing.

Yes.

One should not expect exclusivity right off the bat.

At some point (say a month or two months in of actual in-person dating), it’s time to have an exclusivity talk, but up until then, both you and your gentleman friend are free to see other people. You’re not exclusive until you agree to be exclusive.

A lot of feelings are hurt unnecessarily because people don’t understand that. I didn’t understand that either when I was dating, but I know it now.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Xantippe]

I should clarify that the amount of time for communication has varied. I re-read my post and can see how it might seem that I was chatting with someone for a couple of weeks and then got mad because they got serious with someone else. This is not the case-- we’re talking two months minimum and about six months maximum (I know, I should have walked on that one ages ago…but I will spare the public board more details on why it happened like that).

Maybe I just need a break. I am definitely taking one to focus on other things, probably for the rest of this year…

People do need breaks.

I’d cut them off a lot earlier than two months, particularly if they live within a reasonable distance of you.

Don’t let people monopolize you with so little effort on their part.

 

[iwillrisenow]

The question isn’t so much about exclusivity as it is about whether or not you would even consider getting exclusive with someone. For instance, imagine a man and a woman. The woman knows from past experience that she needs a, b, and c in a relationship. She meets the man, who maybe is strong in a and b but not so much c. She likes him enough to talk to as a friend, so she continues to do so, even though she knows deep down that she would only move forward with him if no other options presented themselves. Meanwhile, the man knows that he needs x, y, and z. Maybe the woman is strong in x and z, but is still growing in y. He decides that this is OK and that he would consider getting more serious (or, perhaps more specifically, that he wouldn’t not consider it if that makes any sense) if they got to know each other better and discerned that moving forward would be best. After four months of communication (including one declined offer on the man’s part to meet), the woman lets the man know that she will be moving on with another candidate (see how my language got transactional/job search-y there?).

If anyone out there reading is also hurting because they feel like they should be able to roll with the punches on this thing but aren’t, you’re not alone. None of us even has to try and be open to someone they haven’t even met in person and it’s meaningful that you even were open to it in the first place. It is neither natural nor easy to do this. Hang in there

 

[Xantippe]

The question isn’t so much about exclusivity as it is about whether or not you would even consider getting exclusive with someone. For instance, imagine a man and a woman. The woman knows from past experience that she needs a, b, and c in a relationship. She meets the man, who maybe is strong in a and b but not so much c. She likes him enough to talk to as a friend, so she continues to do so, even though she knows deep down that she would only move forward with him if no other options presented themselves. Meanwhile, the man knows that he needs x, y, and z. Maybe the woman is strong in x and z, but is still growing in y. He decides that this is OK and that he would consider getting more serious (or, perhaps more specifically, that he wouldn’t not consider it if that makes any sense) if they got to know each other better and discerned that moving forward would be best. After four months of communication (including one declined offer on the man’s part to meet), the woman lets the man know that she will be moving on with another candidate (see how my language got transactional/job search-y there?).

I think that was way too long hanging hopes on an 95% online relationship without meeting (if there were no obvious obstacles to meeting).

At some point, the other person is choosing not to meet you or spend time with you.

I know a lot of people hate Woody Allen, but he said (and I can’t really argue with it) that a relationship is like a shark–it’s either moving forward or it’s dying.

Here’s the clip:

youtube.com/watch?v=6RFH9_M0OaY

In your case, “moving forward” just means “meet in person from time to time,” which is pretty minimal as relationship requirements go.

Unfortunately, I think that even if you ditch online dating, you’re going to find that this stuff has an analog in more “natural” environments.
Good luck!

 

[Xantippe]

The question isn’t so much about exclusivity as it is about whether or not you would even consider getting exclusive with someone. For instance, imagine a man and a woman. The woman knows from past experience that she needs a, b, and c in a relationship. She meets the man, who maybe is strong in a and b but not so much c. She likes him enough to talk to as a friend, so she continues to do so, even though she knows deep down that she would only move forward with him if no other options presented themselves. Meanwhile, the man knows that he needs x, y, and z. Maybe the woman is strong in x and z, but is still growing in y. He decides that this is OK and that he would consider getting more serious (or, perhaps more specifically, that he wouldn’t not consider it if that makes any sense) if they got to know each other better and discerned that moving forward would be best. After four months of communication (including one declined offer on the man’s part to meet), the woman lets the man know that she will be moving on with another candidate (see how my language got transactional/job search-y there?).

If anyone out there reading is also hurting because they feel like they should be able to roll with the punches on this thing but aren’t, you’re not alone. None of us even has to try and be open to someone they haven’t even met in person and it’s meaningful that you even were open to it in the first place. It is neither natural nor easy to do this. Hang in there

Here’s a possible issue.

There’s a persistent pattern that I’ve heard about in dating discussions where some men will not break up, but will do this thing instead where they just force the woman to break up for them.

See the first letter here from this secular advice column:

captainawkward.com/2012/07/23/309-310-the-broken-record/

I think at least some of your guys were probably doing something very similar.

Good luck!

 

[St_Francis]

I have experienced the following situation multiple times in online dating (three times within the last year or so alone):

• man initiates communication and appears to be interested
• although communication is generally ok, it drags on online-only longer than necessary with lukewarm interest (eg- does not want to meet or try taking things further)
• eventually I get a polite little message saying that they recently got more serious with someone else from the site.
• 24 hours of tears/anger/frustration/venting later, feel better. Rinse, repeat (well, not anymore!!)

I wish that I were alone in having to bear this unfortunate side effect of the shopper’s mentality that comes with such sites but am certain that others have experienced the same.

My understand of basic human civility is that if someone is not interested in taking things further, they should politely cut off communication as soon as possible. This is what I have done and would do in any such scenario. But why the string-along act? Why continue with a “back up” right up until the moment your “something better” is secured? Why not be bold enough to say “this is not what I want, but I trust God enough to wait without lying to another human soul about my interest in pursuing a sacred vocation with her”?

Is there something I’m doing wrong to give the impression that I’m “cool” with being a back-up option? Please help…

I think it would be good for you to have some criteria about this. It seems like you communicate somehow online (Skype? Email/text?) but this should quickly turn into an actual meeting.

I’d say max: 1 week for every 15 minutes of distance it would take to see you. So, I would expect to get together for coffee the first week for a guy who was working 10 minutes from my job; the second week for someone 25 minutes away. Having to wait longer because the guy is further away… we’d have to be having really good conversations along the way.

If whatever you decide your criteria to be isn’t being met, and there seems to be no reason for that, then say to yourself, oh, this is that stringing-along thing happening again. I’m outta here! You really don’t owe them anything at all at this point not even an explanation.

 

[pianistclare]

People do need breaks.

I’d cut them off a lot earlier than two months, particularly if they live within a reasonable distance of you.

Don’t let people monopolize you with so little effort on their part.

Exactly. And don’t over-read into their conversations.

 

[underacloud]

I’d cut them off a lot earlier than two months, particularly if they live within a reasonable distance of you.

Don’t let people monopolize you with so little effort on their part.

If they live reasonably near to you, then two months is way too long to be chatting without meeting up. The online chatting should be leading (fairly directly) to a personal meeting. If it’s not, the move on. They’re either too busy to be dating or not that interested in you.

If they do not live reasonably near you - why are you chatting with them at all? I know it *can *work out, but I’d say that’s the exception, not the norm.

 

[iwillrisenow]

I’m having the mods look at this thread for closure. It was a mistake to post about this situation here as there are too many additional factors that I would rather not disclose on a public online forum. Thank you all for your responses!

 

[Anglewannabe]

Is there something I’m doing wrong to give the impression that I’m “cool” with being a back-up option? Please help…

I don’t want to be harsh, but from where I am sitting it is as clear as a bell what you are doing wrong. You are continuing to chat with them. If after a few emails, he hasn’t mentioned meeting you, then give the man the benefit of the doubt, he is trying not to pressure you (after all, he realizes it is the internet and women need to be careful). So you suggest meeting. If he says no, cut communication.

Of course you are cool with being a back up (in a guys mind) since that is exactly what you are doing. Chatting with a man who probably is just bored and is too tired to leave the house and there’s nothing good on TV. And honestly, when you get the message ‘he is more serious with someone else’, I suspect that is just a line. There is no someone else, he just wants a guarantee communication with you will end

 

[iwillrisenow]

Actually, in the most recent situation, the man wanted to continue with the communication after he told me he met someone else. I was the one who said that I would rather end it now that he is serious with someone else.

You probably won’t believe me, but that’s OK.

You all can stop it now. I get the message.

I just hope that you aren’t treated like this when you experience something disappointing that others do not understand.

Yes, even you married ones. People leave. People die.

Goodbye.

 

[Anglewannabe]

Actually, in the most recent situation, the man wanted to continue with the communication after he told me he met someone else. I was the one who said that I would rather end it now that he is serious with someone else.

You probably won’t believe me, but that’s OK.

.

I totally believe you and feel very sorry for the girl he is dating