hey, wanna go out? [silence]

February 8, 2006 7:09 PM

Questions about rejection via non-confrontational means...

Ok, so say you go on a date or two with someone. Sometimes neither person is too interested, and neither contacts the other person, and everyone lives on happily. But let's say...person A wants to date some more, and asks person B out. Maybe they have to leave a voicemail or send an email...after which person A never hears from person B again.

I've been rejected like this, and I have probably rejected others in the same way. It gets the point across without any awkward dealings, but at the same time it seems a bit rude not to return someone's call. My questions are as such:
-How normal is this? To me it seems fairly ordinary, but I also live in a place filled with many passive-aggressive people and haven't been dating forever.
-When does it become unacceptable to reject someone like this? (Or is it never acceptable? ...Always acceptable?)
-If it's not cool, what's a better way to deal with the situation? It's not a "I don't think we should see each other any more" thing if you've only been on a date or two, right? For instance, one of my friends is telling me to say that I want to be friends or that I'm too busy to date when neither is really true, simply to avoid bad karma. Another friend says it's not necessary to do anything at all.

Oh, and I'm thinking about this in terms of dating but it could apply to dealings with acquaintances too.

posted by jetskiaccidents to Human Relations (26 answers total)

Personally, I think it's almost always better to just be honest and tell the other person how you feel. I think it's more awkward to leave them hanging than to just say what's on your mind.
posted by clockzero at 7:23 PM on February 8, 2006

I try to always be pretty honest with people and wouldn't let something drop except by sheer forgetfulness. For me, I would generally let someone know I wasn't / was no longer interested out of a desire to communicate.

However, I find that many people thrive on attempting to be mysterious and aloof and thus consider it part of their allure that they don't communicate. So I rarely expect people to behave towards me as I do them.

Sometimes neither party "clicks". In that case, the result is no follow-ups. But in any situation where one person is still interested and the other not, I think it's only decent to be up front and kind towards another person -- who, face it, thinks you're an interesting enough person to persue you. I'd only suggest the no-further-interactions if you've dated a psychotic (though that said, some women I've dated have considered me a psychotic for having mis-matched socks or something and used that as pretext...)
posted by baklavabaklava at 7:24 PM on February 8, 2006

If you've been out on a date or two, and they e-mail or call, you should give them the courtesy of a response. A simple you seem like a nice person, but the chemistry just isn't there for me should be fine.
posted by willnot at 7:25 PM on February 8, 2006

Semi-related question.
posted by occhiblu at 7:26 PM on February 8, 2006

"I'm not available anymore." You mean only to that particular party, but it's not a lie. If they press the issue, they deserve a "no, only to you."
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:37 PM on February 8, 2006

I was going to say ignore them until I looked at occhiblu's link('cause I'm a bastard). If they are interested and you're not I think the kindest thing would be to shut it down in some way that is the least likely to bum them out. "I just got back from the clinic and they tell me I need to avoid any kind of intimate contact until the antibiotics kick in" should do it.
posted by Carbolic at 8:52 PM on February 8, 2006

The lame excuses and half-truths are more hurtful and confusing than just saying something like what willnot said. Remember, the lying is very self-serving; it may make you feel more comfortable, but it's probably transparent to the other person, and so is doubly hurtful -- first because you don't like him/her enough to continue, and second because you don't even think enough of him/her to give a straight answer.

Adults who want to handle their lives well should just about always respond to a unwanted request for another date with something like "I've enjoyed meeting you and you're a great person, I just don't think this is the right thing for me at this time."

It's just polite. If it were happening to your sister, brother, or best friend, and they were in the position of vulnerability because they liked someone more than the person liked them,how would you want them to be treated? Try to be at least that kind.
posted by Miko at 9:49 PM on February 8, 2006

I don't know. The not responding to a pursuit seems completely legitimate and not unkind to me, as long as the interaction hadn't yet turned into a friendship or a relationship. I'd rather not get called back then get called back with a "no thanks." When I don't get the call back, I have no hard feelings and assume she wasn't as into it as she needed to be. But that's just me.
posted by eighth_excerpt at 10:24 PM on February 8, 2006

I would vote strongly for some kind of explicit "Sorry this isn't working for me" rather than just blackholing all communications. If I need to get over someone, it's easier if there's nothing for me to pin false hopes on.
posted by aubilenon at 10:51 PM on February 8, 2006

A friend of mine says: "Rejection hurts a lot, a negative answer is like rubbing my nose in it". So I guess there are persons in both sides who prefer to avoid the issue, specially with somebody they just met. Or maybe it's just insecurity.
posted by clearlydemon at 10:58 PM on February 8, 2006

For instance, one of my friends is telling me to say that I want to be friends or that I'm too busy to date when neither is really true, simply to avoid bad karma.

That is such a load of horseshit.

Karma is about doing what's right, even when it's not pleasant. Making up some transparent lie about "wanting to be friends" (when in reality you really want nothing to do with the person) is complete bad karma. It's something that a selfish person does because he or she wants to THINK that he let the other party down easily, when in reality he is just too chickenshit to give the other person a straight answer. Nobody is ever fooled by these lines, we all know what they mean, and they mean, "I'm a wuss that can't just tell you that I'm not interested."

Saying nothing, in my book, is better than making up some BS lie about just wanting to be friends. It's acceptible in some circumstances when you really don't know the person all that well. But the best thing in every situation would be a simple and direct, "Sorry but I just don't feel any chemistry" or even just "I'm not interested."
posted by Rhomboid at 11:54 PM on February 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

So early in the game silence means "no." Full stop. It's completely on the poor rejected bastard to spot it and handle it gracefully.
posted by fleacircus at 12:11 AM on February 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: Hey, no one is answering my first question!

That link is interesting...I've never seen that one. I've wondered the same thing, since I don't feel like I owe people an explanation if I've only emailed them a few times. Maybe I do? (But at the same time, I've had plenty of people stop emailing, and there has been absolutely no one who has sent me a "no connection" explanatory email....)


I think part of the problem is that because it's happened to me, and usually people aren't so forthcoming and honest, I don't feel as bad being the same way to other people. Sometimes I rise above it, but sometimes I don't.
posted by jetskiaccidents at 4:33 AM on February 9, 2006

To answer your first question: it's very normal. Miss Manners calls it "The Kafka Romance Dissolver." One or two no-answers or sorry-I'm-busys is supposed to tell the other person it ain't gonna happen without coming right out and using those words. Having been rejected and been a rejectee in my time, I think both the Kafka method and the straight-up here's-how-it-is method both have merit, depending on the person involved. Some people have actually *argued* with me over why I won't date them, and I personally am a bit of a mushy romantic and prefer not to hear the actual words, "It just ain't happnin' for me," so I like the Kafka method for the most part. However, for two people who don't emotionally invest right away, the straight-up method seems more sensible and time-saving.
posted by JanetLand at 5:56 AM on February 9, 2006

If you don't feel a spark, then "I just don't feel any chemistry". If you actually want to be friends, then "I think you're a great person, but I don't feel that I want to be anything more than friends with you" -- they get to decide if you'll be friends by maintaining contact.

Never do the Kafka pussyfooting method. It's might allow you to think that you're a 'romantic', but you're actually just being a selfish jerk (which is very unromantic). That said, if the person can't handle you being straight with them, then you get to say "okay, well I was just trying to be straight with you and if you can't accept that then it just illustrates the disconnect between us".

Then you can ignore them.
posted by dobie at 6:49 AM on February 9, 2006

One or two no-answers or sorry-I'm-busys is supposed to tell the other person it ain't gonna happen without coming right out and using those words.

This is exactly the biggest reason I dislike the idea of not responding and being honest. The others are as follows:

1) It is the weak, cowardly thing to do. If you do not have the guts to be honest, you are probably not good dating material anyway.

2) Many people won't understand your lack of response right away, and it leaves them wondering longer. Then it leaves them wondering what must be SO wrong with them that you couldn't be bothered to be honest or at least make up some lie like you found someone else or you are moving to Zimbabwe.

3) Regarding the original reason: That reason (that one or two no-answers is supposed to tell them they're rejected) corrupts things for those times when someone really is busy a couple of times but does want to hang out. I've been on both ends of this one, and because of this precedent of it being "ok" to be a complete coward - it drove me nuts.
posted by twiggy at 7:41 AM on February 9, 2006

Hmmm. I still maintain that I would rather the person I had dated just "vanish" or "be busy" than hear an out-and-out rejection to my face (or my ear if it's a telephone), no matter how honest that is or how it's put. But clearly the majority here think otherwise.
posted by JanetLand at 8:14 AM on February 9, 2006

I've used this technique, primarily because I'm a coward.
posted by jon_kill at 8:22 AM on February 9, 2006

I find (found) it easier to break up with someone then to tell a 'friend' that I wasn't interested in doing stuff with them. It seemed logical to me that if I wasn't interested in pursuing a long-term relationship with someone then it was only fair to let them know that I didn't see it going anywhere. But to tell a friend 'I just don't want to be around you' or 'I don't want you tagging along with someone else and me' or 'shut up and go away, I need to work' is pretty uncomfortable for me. It just seems mean.
posted by JamesMessick at 9:01 AM on February 9, 2006

If you do not have the guts to be honest, you are probably not good dating material anyway.

Great point. It really is amazing how many people put themselves out there for dating, while being so emotionally illiterate that they can't handle this simple interchange. It doesn't bode well for success in any kind of relationship.

It might hurt to hear "no thanks," but I still think it hurts worse to wonder, be confused, second-guess, and come s.l.o.w.l.y. to grips with the fact that they're not gonna call. Just rip off the band-aid, please.

In re-reading the question, I'm realizing that everything I'm saying has presumed that you've at least talked on the phone and met. If its' been just e-mail, I still think a "no thanks" is polite, but it's hard to grieve over a lost e-mail relationship. That is the earliest stage, and if all you've done is exchange a couple e-mails, there's not a huge potential for hurt on either side. But it's still good manners to provide closure, not to mention making sure there's one less person in the world who thinks you're an asshole.
posted by Miko at 9:02 AM on February 9, 2006

It really is amazing how many people put themselves out there for dating, while being so emotionally illiterate that they can't handle this simple interchange.

So, Miko, you're saying there's some percentage of people who just aren't worthy of a date? Because they're socially retarded?

(Don't have an opinion myself, yet, just clarifying.)

Interesting how asexual this discussion is. I remember reading somewhere that in the "person A never hears from person B again" scenario, Person B is usually the male, and it's because men know how awful rejection feels, so they wimp out and do nothing, instead of the honorable thing.
posted by Rash at 9:31 AM on February 9, 2006

I think it's VERY common, and not just in the dating scene. MANY people just quit responding when they are no longer interested in you (as a client, employee, romantic partner, etc.) From my point-of-view, this is EXTREMELY rude. I know -- mostly from a previous question on AskMe that I can't seem to locate now -- that many people feel differently. Many people feel like it's fine to just "let it fade away."

I can't argue with that. I don't see how one can prove one sort of etiquette is better than another. All I can do is add the data point that I am very offended when people treat me this way. Which means -- if you care -- you DO run the risk of deeply offending someone if you don't respond.

By the way, I also find it offensive if the rejected party replies to the rejection by saying, "Why? Why? WHY?" or "Please, please, please TAKE ME BAAAAAACK!" In my tea-and-crumpets world, the rejector is supposed to GRACIOUSLY say, "I'm sorry, but no." At which point her responsibility ends. And the rejectee is supposed to say, "That's too bad, but thanks for being honest and direct." At which point he needs to move on.

I'm SO glad I'm no longer in the dating pool.
posted by grumblebee at 10:56 AM on February 9, 2006

Yeah, grumblebee, that's what I was talking about -- in my experience, being honest has only led to very disagreeable discussion of the matter, as if my mind/heart could be changed by flawless logic or something. In *my* tea-and-crumpets world (if you'll pardon me for stealing your wonderful imagery), the lack of response is supposed to delicately signal, either to me or to the other person, that there will be no second or third date without all that nasty discussion. However, I can understand that, since we don't all think or act alike, it's probably not the best system.
posted by JanetLand at 11:09 AM on February 9, 2006

Rash: I think there are people out there with terrible interpersonal skills, yes. And in the dating world, those are the ones that do a lot of unnecessary damage. And I'd like to avoid those folks as much as possible, yes.

I don't know; these days, I'm big into treating people as considerately as I know how, and looking for the same in others. It might have a lot to do with what stage of life you're in. It's more important to me now than it used to be.

But it's true that relating to people takes skills, and if you don't have the skills, it's kind of good to work on them and at least try to acquire some of them. Avoiding difficult conversations because you are uncomfortable with confrontation won't help you learn how to do that once you're in a relationship. And you will have to have difficult conversations. To me, it's part of self-confidence, knowing exactly who you are and what you want and how to talk about it.

In my view, it goes like Grumblebee says: Rejector states it plain, rejectee says "That's disappointing, but thank you for being honest." I've never whined to be taken back or had someone whine at me, and I'm sure that would be unpleasant. But does that happen a lot?
posted by Miko at 11:15 AM on February 9, 2006 [2 favorites]

JanetLand, my tea-and-crumpet world DOES allow silence. This is when it's allowed.

A: Sorry, bit it's not going to work out between us.

B: Why? Why? Why???? PLEEEEEASE NO! Take me BACK!!!

A: [silence.]
posted by grumblebee at 11:41 AM on February 9, 2006

Response by poster: Interesting how asexual this discussion is. I remember reading somewhere that in the "person A never hears from person B again" scenario, Person B is usually the male, and it's because men know how awful rejection feels, so they wimp out and do nothing, instead of the honorable thing.

Not to generalize too much, but in my limited experience person B indeed IS usually the male, and A would be me (female). Most of the answers are about how to politely turn people down... which is still good to hear, I just feel like I need to save face or something so I don't look like a horrible person.

About the letting them know so they can move on etc. bit....I know I like to know with certainty, but how long do you wait? I mean, after a few days with no response and things should be pretty clear...it's not going to happen. I don't know, I just don't bother waiting around too much. Even a daylong wait I take as a cue that it's time to pull the band-aid myself. [Although I guess this is learned, and I'm getting way better about not fretting about these things.]
posted by jetskiaccidents at 3:28 PM on February 9, 2006