A poll for the single guys (and girls) out there in SDMB Land

[Lord Ashtar]

Inspired by this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=410647) in the Pit. To sum up, the OP has a guy who's at least twice her age constantly asking her to lunch. She's tried to "drop hints" that she's not interested, but he doesn't seem to be getting it. Kalhoun and I got into a little sidebar when she suggested that the OP would need to lie in this case. I asked her why she thinks she thinks she should lie, to which she replies:

I think lying is the best way to go in order to avoid hurting a stranger's feelings.

Now, I'm not a 60-something year old man hitting on a hot young thing half my age, but I am a single guy in my late 20's. I know that if I'm hitting on someone and she's not interested, I'd really prefer that she just be straight up and honest with me. Sure, it'll hurt at first, but then I can stop wasting my time and go pursue someone else. Now I'd like to hear what the rest of you think.

To those being asked out: how do you think is the best way to handle it?

To those doing the asking out: how do you feel about them beating around the bush in order to spare your feelings?

Feel free to share any other thoughts on the matter.

[Canadiangirl]

How about trying "We both know how people talk around here - I wouldn't want to have the subject be us. I make it a policy never to lunch with a colleague in the interest of gossip mongers we know are here".

End of story.

[Anaamika]

I'd be honest. I was honest with the man I mentioned. I mean I was polite for a long time, until I findally said. "Look. You're very nice but I have been in a LTR for over 10 years and am not interested in a change. I don't want to lead you on in any way."

The new one (read my post) has been way milder so I haven't had to resort to this yet.

[Snarky_Kong]

Be honest. Anything other than flat out stating it could lead to confusion or the man looking for ways around whatever story is made up.

[tdn]

I think a little white lie can be preferable. A few years back I asked out a waitress who was about six miles out of my league. An honest response from her would have been "Eww, no way." Instead she beamed and said she was flattered, but she had a boyfriend. I walked away feeling pretty good about myself, and never bothered her again. Win/win.

On the other hand, straight up truth works, as in the woman that told me she was a lesbian. No arguing with that one, and it was no reflection on my manliness. (And yes, I know she was being honest.)

Dating is a bloody, violent, ugly tragedy of Biblical proportions. If we can all approach it with a little consideration for the feelings of others, it makes everything slightly less unpleasant. If a few little white lies make that possible, then so be it.

There are exceptions, of course. As in the linked thread.

[tiger lily]

How about trying "We both know how people talk around here - I wouldn't want to have the subject be us. I make it a policy never to lunch with a colleague in the interest of gossip mongers we know are here".

End of story.
"Oh that's okay, I can be discreet if you can."

When I was younger and I ran into this problem with older guys, I also found it very hard to be forthright - don't want to insult anyone, hurt their feelings, etc. etc. Trouble is, it only produces more anxiety when the asker is thick as a plank and doesn't (or won't) take the hint.

It took a long time for me to develop the personal confidence to be blunt while also being polite, but it's usually pretty effective.

Now, if *I* were interested in someone but they weren't interested in me, I would hope that they'd be equally forthright with me. I don't want to waste my time OR theirs.

[Kalhoun]

Inspired by this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=410647) in the Pit. To sum up, the OP has a guy who's at least twice her age constantly asking her to lunch. She's tried to "drop hints" that she's not interested, but he doesn't seem to be getting it. Kalhoun and I got into a little sidebar when she suggested that the OP would need to lie in this case. I asked her why she thinks she thinks she should lie, to which she replies:



Now, I'm not a 60-something year old man hitting on a hot young thing half my age, but I am a single guy in my late 20's. I know that if I'm hitting on someone and she's not interested, I'd really prefer that she just be straight up and honest with me. Sure, it'll hurt at first, but then I can stop wasting my time and go pursue someone else. Now I'd like to hear what the rest of you think.

To those being asked out: how do you think is the best way to handle it?

To those doing the asking out: how do you feel about them beating around the bush in order to spare your feelings?

Feel free to share any other thoughts on the matter.
Actually, you left out the most important part of that exchange, which is the fact that the OP is uncomfortable with the bluntness. This guy is immune to "subtle" and she isn't comfortable telling him in harsh, honest terms. I agree she may have to resort to that, but why put yourself through the stress of getting "honest" with The Clueless if a little lie will spare his (and your) feelings?

[you with the face]

Sure, it'll hurt at first, but then I can stop wasting my time and go pursue someone else.

What I don't get is why anyone needs to have the truth spelled out in flashing neon letters before they decide to quit wasting their time. I could understand needing honesty if the other person is being ambiguously flirty or something, but not if they've already told you no in so many words already.

I don't think honesty is the best policy in every situation. The guy in the thread I started is actually provoking me to be honest. Most of the time I'm not honest when I turn down strangers/acquaintances because I don't know exactly how they'll react. "I'm just not into you" might cause an unstable person to flip out. Or it might extend the conversation longer than I'd like. Sometimes it's easier and safer to make up a lie that doesn't insult anyone personally.

[Lord Ashtar]

Actually, you left out the most important part of that exchange, which is the fact that the OP is uncomfortable with the bluntness. This guy is immune to "subtle" and she isn't comfortable telling him in harsh, honest terms. I agree she may have to resort to that, but why put yourself through the stress of getting "honest" with The Clueless if a little lie will spare his (and your) feelings?
The OP of the linked thread's comfort level with being blunt is not at question in this thread.

[tdn]

What I don't get is why anyone needs to have the truth spelled out in flashing neon letters before they decide to quit wasting their time.
There is something that you need to know about men. We can be all sorts of clued in about many things in life. However, there are two things about which we are deaf and blind morons:

1) When a woman isn't into us.
2) When a woman is into us.

[tdn]

The OP of the linked thread's comfort level with being blunt is not at question in this thread.
It's not, but it couldn't possibly be more relevant to the issue. There's just no getting around it.

[Lord Ashtar]

What I don't get is why anyone needs to have the truth spelled out in flashing neon letters before they decide to quit wasting their time. I could understand needing honesty if the other person is being ambiguously flirty or something, but not if they've already told you no in so many words already.
Like I said in the other thread, most guys will persist after you've said no because sometimes it works. Some girls were raised with the idea that they had to play hard to get, or they're afraid that if they say yes to quickly they might be perceived as easy.

It's nice that you want to spare feelings, but there are times you need to be absolutely, 100%, unambiguously clear.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I have to disagree, both with the idea that it's the "best thing" and that the main purpose of the lie is to spare the recipient's feelings. In most cases it's about the would-be liar's desire to avoid confrontation, and to spare them the awkwardness of saying something that may not want to be heard.

I can relate to it, though, because I (in real life, anyway) avoid confrontation whenever possible. Just recently I was invited by an acquaintance to a church-based event that I didn't care to attend, as I'm an agnostic and don't attend church. I considered making up an excuse or simply saying I was busy, because I felt awkward about identifying myself as a non-Christian, and thought it might open a can-of-worms discussion on the subject.

Instead I told the truth, as politely and succinctly as possible. The person who invited me said that was fine, and now I (hopefully) won't have to deal with future invitations of a similar sort. So yeah, I think sometimes dealing with a moment of unpleasantness directly is far preferable to passive-aggressively dragging it out into perpetuity.

Specific to ywtf's problem, I think Hollywood is partly to blame, with its decades of romantic comedy schlock in which the quirky, annoying suitor eventually wins over the heart of the ice princess with his persistent stalking. (Watch for the old guy to show up outside your window in the rain, wearing a trench coat and holding up a boombox playing "your song"...)

[you with the face]

Like I said in the other thread, most guys will persist after you've said no because sometimes it works.

I haven't seen that with most men that I've turned down, but then again if it's a stranger usually the scope of my interaction with them is brief and one-time. I do have a persistent ex-boyfriend who keeps hounding me to get back with him, but I've been honest with him (repeatedly) and that doesn't seem to discourage him any. He still clings to hope. I guess because I'm still nice to him.

Although I dosee where you're coming from, I really don't think honesty (or a lack thereof) is the problem. Sometimes guys won't quit until you do everything except scream at them. And even that's not enough sometimes. It should not be this way.

[Shakes]

If a gal isn't interested in you it's not important as to why she isn't interested but rather the guy respects that she isn't.


Some guys I think who are so hell bent for bluntness are just feeding in to their own insecurities.

There a lot to be said for "Ignorance is bliss"

Really, I don't want to rack my brain for a week because some girl turned me down because she finds bald guys physically repulsive. It's much easier on my ego if a woman just says: "Not interested" That why I can convince myself she MUST be a lesbo not to want to go out with me. :D

OK I'm kidding about the lesbo part but you get my point.


(BTW I'm not implying the OP is as I described above.)

[Kalhoun]

Like I said in the other thread, most guys will persist after you've said no because sometimes it works. Some girls were raised with the idea that they had to play hard to get, or they're afraid that if they say yes to quickly they might be perceived as easy.

It's nice that you want to spare feelings, but there are times you need to be absolutely, 100%, unambiguously clear.
YWTF couldn't be more clear if she was a windowpane. A lie would not be "unclear" to the creepy dude. It just wouldn't be the truth. These are two separate issues.

And, as TDN said, her comfort level has everything to do with the decision to either lie or put an emotional smack-down on the guy. She doesn't care why the guy won't take no for an answer. She just wants him to take it without being really mean to him.

[Blaster Master]

As a guy who used to be clueless about women, there's an easy way to be polite AND blunt at the same time. When a woman responds to a request as "I can't, I have plans" or "I'm busy" or "I eat on the run" or whatever, it implies that if she didn't have plans or wasn't busy, she might say yes. Obviously, depending on how interested the guy is, this leaves a crack that he can exploit. Further, as another mentioned earlier, guys are used to women playing hard to get, and those sorts of answers play right into that.

For the sake of all that is good and pure, please don't give an excuse; give a simple answer. If you're not interested, say "No thanks, I'm not interested", then you don't have to result to being rude unless he's truly thickheaded. If you are interested, but really are busy, just say "I'd love to, but [insert actual reason here]."

Also as a guy who has been on the other side as well (that is, pursued by a persistant girl in whom I have no interest), I know it is difficult to out right say "no, I'm not interested". These days, when these sorts of things happen, I generally straight up ignore the come-ons and continue the conversation, or simply move on. However, when a girl crosses the line, as I imagine is the fear for women being approached by persistent men, I can simply say "Please don't touch me" and know I'm not in harm's way, while I imagine it may not be quite so simple.

Regardless, most men who are persistent aren't necessarily bad guys, they're just getting the wrong signals (either because yours aren't strong enough, or their receivers are broken) and when it comes through loud and clear, they'll more often than not be respectful.

[Blaster Master]

YWTF couldn't be more clear if she was a windowpane. A lie would not be "unclear" to the creepy dude. It just wouldn't be the truth. These are two separate issues.

In the OP in the other thread, she claims to have responded with phrases such as
"I don't really ever take lunch." "I'm really very busy." "I eat on the go, sorry." and "You're quite persistent, aren't you?" Sure, that's as clear as a windowpane... smeared in mud. It's a clear message to the speaker, but not necessarily to the person receiving it. I've seen these sorts of messages come from women and mean anything from "EWW.. not in a million years." to "I'm not interested, but I don't want to hurt your feelings." to "Man, you're hot! I've got to play hard to get or he'll lose interest." To the eternally hopeful, naive, desperate guy, he's going to hope it's closer to the last, and he's going to keep trying until he gets a clearer message.

Simple, pattern, no lying involved: 1) "No thanks", 2) "No thanks, I'm not interested" 3) "No thanks, I'm not interested. Please stop asking me." 4) "Please, leave me alone or I'll report this to the boss/HR/police."

And, as TDN said, her comfort level has everything to do with the decision to either lie or put an emotional smack-down on the guy. She doesn't care why the guy won't take no for an answer. She just wants him to take it without being really mean to him.

You're absolutely right, comfort level has everything to do with the decision. Clearly, women who are harrassed like this and continue to give veiled answers are more comfortable with being harrassed than with hurting the guy's feelings.

Lying is definitely a worse option. Suppose you tell him you have a boyfriend when you don't. What if he overhears a conversation of you talking about "going out to meet guys" or you later find one and he hears about how you broke up with him? The first causes him to hurt more than the initial rejection, and the latter just revives his hope.

Obviously, when I've been openly rejected, it definitely was painful, but I accepted that risk when I approached her to begin with. When I've gotten the confidence and gotten a number and she didn't return my calls or whatever, it hurt a lot more.

I remember one case in high school, I occassionally saw a girl where I worked. I started a conversation, she smiled the whole time... all the good signals. I got her number and called her; only THEN did she start giving me excuses "I can't, I've got to study" "No, I'm sorry, I've got to work tonight". I tried a couple of times before I saw her with another guy about a week so later. I was heart-broken and I was unable to approach a girl again for several months thereafter because of how much more hurtful that was.

[kimera]

Specific to ywtf's problem, I think Hollywood is partly to blame, with its decades of romantic comedy schlock in which the quirky, annoying suitor eventually wins over the heart of the ice princess with his persistent stalking. (Watch for the old guy to show up outside your window in the rain, wearing a trench coat and holding up a boombox playing "your song"...)

I found this to actually be a very ancient mindset. There is a famous Roman poet who, when he gives advice to men on how to win ladies, tells his students to keep writing to them. He says that if they keep writing eventually she will read and if she reads eventually she will be smitten. I found it quite amusing to read since I thought it was a recent thing.

Blaster Master, it's not that they are more comfortable with being harassed, it's that they buy into the notion that is drilled into many of us from a young age to avoid confrontation and to always be polite. Women are not taught to be assertive like men are and assertive women are often considered manly.

I am sure the girl in the last example you gave didn't mean to hurt you because I used to be that girl. I'm a very friendly person and I smile a lot which is often mistaken for flirting. In the past, when guys had asked for my number or expressed further interest after what was, to me, a fairly normal conversation it seemed to have come out of left-field. I was reluctant to reject them outright because I was afraid of hurting their feelings. In fact, when I was much younger, I ended up in a relationship that I didn't want to be in because some guy asked me point blank, "Do you want to date me?" out of the blue and I didn't know how to reject him. Now that I am older I am more careful of my actions to avoid accidently misleading people and I know that a rejection of a person as a romantic partner isn't a rejection of them as a person.

[you with the face]

"I don't really ever take lunch." "I'm really very busy." "I eat on the go, sorry." and "You're quite persistent, aren't you?" Sure, that's as clear as a windowpane... smeared in mud.

Really? What if you asked someone out dozens of times over the course of a few months, and each and every time, the woman gave you those kind of responses, accompanied with rather chilly nonverbal signs (like never lingering to talk to you in the hallway, always looking like she's in a hurry). Would the truth still be muddy to you?

It's a clear message to the speaker, but not necessarily to the person receiving it. I've seen these sorts of messages come from women and mean anything from "EWW.. not in a million years." to "I'm not interested, but I don't want to hurt your feelings." to "Man, you're hot! I've got to play hard to get or he'll lose interest."

Honestly, how many women out there are playing hard to get months on end, after multiple offers? I never met these silly fools, but I can only imagine the kind of men they're bringing home. Date rapists come to mind. (I'm not calling you date rapist, btw.)

I'm not saying that women don't ever send out mixed messages, but come on! When a woman is not interested, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. And she shouldn't have to be mean to get that point across.

[Kalhoun]

In the OP in the other thread, she claims to have responded with phrases such as
"I don't really ever take lunch." "I'm really very busy." "I eat on the go, sorry." and "You're quite persistent, aren't you?" Sure, that's as clear as a windowpane... smeared in mud. It's a clear message to the speaker, but not necessarily to the person receiving it.
Well, see...I guess that's the difference between men and women. If I asked a guy out repeatedly and got these responses, I'd have caught on at about #2. The promising social exchanges I've been involved in would involve "I'm really very busy tonight (this week, this month) but I'm free after the 21st. Give me a call., or I'll be out of town until the 16th. Give me your number and I'll call you when I return." If someone repeatedly came off as being busier than the President of the free world, they're either trying to let me down gently or they really will never have time for me. She never gave him the slightest hint of recripocal interest. She didn't ask for his number. She didn't offer hers. She didn't substitute a do-able date. She didn't seek out his company for so much as a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.

Her responses were obvious attempts to let this guy down without hurting his feelings. That's the way it's done in polite society. Sure, she could have chosen other ways to say it, but she chose these phrases and they're perfectly understandable as a "no, thank you" response to someone asking her out. His being totally clueless doesn't make it any easier to put the rude on him. Besides, as I recall, this isn't just the third or fourth attempt. He's been doing this for a long time.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

He's possibly one of the sorts of people who thinks that anything except a 'no' is not a 'no'. So say 'thanks for the offer, but really I do not want to have lunch with you' and be done with it.

I do think it's not necessary to be brutally honest; however sometimes if a person persists beyond all reason, it's time to use stronger language and a firmer tone.

[Blaster Master]

Really? What if you asked someone out dozens of times over the course of a few months, and each and every time, the woman gave you those kind of responses, accompanied with rather chilly nonverbal signs (like never lingering to talk to you in the hallway, always looking like she's in a hurry). Would the truth still be muddy to you?

Obviously, there's an upper limit on the number of times on the intelligence of a man based on the number of times he's received this response before he gives up. Personally, in the past it's probably taken as many as 4 or 5 times from the same girl before, not because I was desperate or trying to harrass her, but because each time the response would be different, "Sorry, I have to work" "Sorry, I have family in town" "Sorry, I already have plans with some friends", yadda yadda.

Simply put, as I've noticed from my own relationships, women are more likely to speak in undertones, and more likely to assume them; men are generally the opposite. A woman says "I'm sorry, I can't tonight." when the undertone is that she's completely uninterested... Similarly (sorry, I can't think of an example right now), I've been accused of "saying" things to a girlfriend, because I said something plainly (and meant it plainly), but where undertones COULD be pulled out if you were specifically looking for them.

I'll admit, a dozen or more times is definitely bad, and he's really pushing the stupidity limit; BUT, he could just NOT be picking up those signals and REALLY think the conversations are going well.

I don't discredit your story at all, chances are he's a creep, but at the same time, it's hard for me to assume he's necessarily a creep because I've REALLY been that clueless. As an example, although from the opposite side...

There was a girl who was pressed on me for quite some time and would ask me out here and there, which I would politely refuse; she'd give up for a while, and try again a few weeks or months later. We maintained a decent friendship the whole time. One night, as part of a small party, she came over with some of my other guy friends. She was all "dolled up", gave me a big hug, sat next to me on the couch, and proceeded to lean against me and lay her head on my shoulder. I TRULY, HONESTLY, didn't think anything of it, and had hell to pay after the party from my brothers because they thought I was being a jerk and leading her on. My perspective: she was dressed up because she was going out, gave me a hug because we're friends and that's what I'm used to girls doing as my friend, and she was tired which was why she laid her head on my shoulder. Of course, it's all obvious to me now... in hindsight, and not being as naive when it comes to how women operate.

Honestly, how many women out there are playing hard to get months on end, after multiple offers? I never met these silly fools, but I can only imagine the kind of men they're bringing home. Date rapists come to mind. (I'm not calling you date rapist, btw.)

I'm not saying that women don't ever send out mixed messages, but come on! When a woman is not interested, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. And she shouldn't have to be mean to get that point across.

I actually have a friend who was being stalked to the point she got a restraining order against him, and he kept sending her letters and showing up at her house because the restraining order was just her "playing hard to get"... I kid you not. Granted, that's an extreme case, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

I agree with you though, women shouldn't have to be mean, but it would prevent a lot of these issues if they wouldn't beat around the bush either. However, if a guy DOES get to this level of stupidity, you really should be willing to get "not nice". For instance, let's say he keeps this up even after you bluntly say "No thanks, I'm not interested, please stop asking." You don't have to be mean, but you can certainly stop being nice: "Look, you're really making me uncomfortable. Please stop, or I'll have to file a report with the [insert appropriate authority figure here]." It's not nice, it's not mean, it's assertive.

The problem is, whether you're sending mixed messages or not, whether it's deliberate or not, you're still going to be a victim of the perception that women send mixed messages, and men are going to be generally more persistent because of it.




Well, see...I guess that's the difference between men and women. If I asked a guy out repeatedly and got these responses, I'd have caught on at about #2. The promising social exchanges I've been involved in would involve "I'm really very busy tonight (this week, this month) but I'm free after the 21st. Give me a call., or I'll be out of town until the 16th. Give me your number and I'll call you when I return." If someone repeatedly came off as being busier than the President of the free world, they're either trying to let me down gently or they really will never have time for me. She never gave him the slightest hint of recripocal interest. She didn't ask for his number. She didn't offer hers. She didn't substitute a do-able date. She didn't seek out his company for so much as a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.
That is a key difference, largely because you're probably a lot less likely to get that sort of response from a guy. At least when I've tried to let someone down easily, it was foolishly always "because" of something, when it really should have just been no... for instance "I can't, you used to date one of my friends" or "I'm not comfortable dating someone who lives so far away". While those cases are true, had I REALLY been interested in them, I probably would have been willing to let those things go or I would. I even remember one case where I said no because she wasn't my type, so she lost weight and joined the track and field team (I used to participate in throwing events in high school) I suppose assuming that my type was someone thin who was into sports.
Her responses were obvious attempts to let this guy down without hurting his feelings. That's the way it's done in polite society. Sure, she could have chosen other ways to say it, but she chose these phrases and they're perfectly understandable as a "no, thank you" response to someone asking her out. His being totally clueless doesn't make it any easier to put the rude on him. Besides, as I recall, this isn't just the third or fourth attempt. He's been doing this for a long time.
Yes, this guy is thick as the wall of a nuclear bunker, but everything that has been done makes the assumption that he's getting the undertone. Just the opposite of the example above, I explicitly said to this girl "No, you're not my type", but the undertone she read (which wasn't intended by me), was that if she could somehow become my type, I might be interested.

That may be the "way it's done in polite society", but that doesn't mean that everyone is necessarily familiar with the same customs that you are. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him, he certainly should have figured it out after, oh, the 20th time or so, and so he deserves the pitting if, for nothing else, being galatically stupid. I'm simply saying, please PLEASE dispense with the beating around the bush.

[HazelNutCoffee]

I found this to actually be a very ancient mindset. There is a famous Roman poet who, when he gives advice to men on how to win ladies, tells his students to keep writing to them. He says that if they keep writing eventually she will read and if she reads eventually she will be smitten. I found it quite amusing to read since I thought it was a recent thing.

That reminds me of part of the first sonnet from Astrophil and Stella, which has stuck in my memory for some reason ever since we learned it in undergrad:

Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show
That the dear she might take pleasure in my pain
Pleasure might make her read, reading might make her know
Knowledge might pity win, and pity, grace obtain.

So, she'll read it if it's pleasing to read - she'll know about his love if she reads about it - knowing about his love might make her pity him - pitying him might lead to her returning his love. :dubious:

About the OP - I am one who avoids conflict like the plague, which means I'll try to be obvious about my disinterest in someone without actually coming out and saying anything. Actually, one of my friends right now is having this sort of trouble - one of the guys we know is really into her, and she's been dropping hints that she's not interested - hints that to her (and to me) seems pretty obvious, but apparently not to him. Sometimes such hints work, but when they don't, there's really no other way but to tell him directly that you're not interested.

[Spatial Rift 47]

Clueless Guy #47 checking in here. I'm going to do this post in two parts:

1. In general.

I am very, very bad at picking up social cues. I have been all my life. I don't pick up on facial gestures, tone of voice, that sort of thing. Only recently have I grasped some of the body language things, e.g. shifting position might mean the person wants to get up and leave. So if I get a rejection with a logistical reason, I simply do not have the capability to discern whether that really is the reason, or if she's not interested. (Side note: Kalhoun makes a good point. A logistical rejection followed by a substitute is a clear sign of interest. But without that substitute, there's no way of knowing for certain unless you can pick up on the cues.)

Believe me, I want that capability. A lot. It would make my life loads easier. But experience has proven time and again that I do not have it, no matter what I do to try to get it. Maybe someday a switch will flip, or I'll look up and realize I've got it. Until that day, I need something clearer. A simple, "Sorry, I'm not interested" is perfect. It gets the point across without being rude and without bringing in any confusion as to the cause.

2. you with the face's creepy guy.

This yahoo is, as has been said, galactically stupid. What I said above applies to the first few rejections. After that, it should be clear that - no matter what the reason - it's not going to happen. I admire his persistence, but to continually repeat the same behavior and expect different results is insanity.

[Amblydoper]

I am appalled that Kalhoun thinks lying is an acceptable solution to the problem that the OP references. You are as thick and clueless as the creep in question if you do not accept that the only way out is an honest, straight forward no. A lie would come across as just another excuse to this creep, and he would persist. A firm "No" would likely solve the problem, and if it didn't, YWTF could bring the matter to her HR department.

You keep saying that that YWTF is not comfortable with being so blunt. She is not comfortable with his constant advances either. A single "no" would be easier then twenty more "Sorry, I'm busy" responses. It will take a lot of courage and confidence that she likely does not have, but it would be in her best interest.

Do not encourage her to lie, and take the easy way out. It most likely won't work. She will not gain any confidence from lying. If it does get him off her back, he may try again a few months latter. A firm "no," no matter how hard it is for her to say, will work. It will be a boost to her confidence when it does, and should he make any further advances, HR will support her.

* I would have opened a pit thread about this, but two threads is enough for this subject.

[Telperien]

Why should ywtf worry about sparing the creep's feelings? He doesn't seem to care much about hers, if he keeps bugging her. Lying isn't going to help in this case. Blunt truth--no thanks, I'm not interested--is the only recourse. A complaint to HR is also a great idea.

Politeness is a wonderful thing and we should all strive for it. There are times, though, when it has no place. This is one of those times.

[Sage Rat]

As someone who has been in a situation where I started taking someone out, chatting her up, and progressing on to some feeling about, to then have it announced one day that she wishes she could get this one other guy to ask her out....

Yes, please don't try for the subtle hint thing. If you've been letting me feel you up for two weeks, and are wondering why your subtle hints aren't getting through, there is probably a reason for this. (I.e. one "maybe" followed by eight "okay!"s just really doesn't fall under the category of being a hint.)

Establish clear walls, and be honest in stating why someone must stop what they are doing if they try crossing that wall. Don't be rude, of course, but do be honest and be firm.

[Telperien]

As someone who has been in a situation where I started taking someone out, chatting her up, and progressing on to some feeling about, to then have it announced one day that she wishes she could get this one other guy to ask her out....

Yes, please don't try for the subtle hint thing. If you've been letting me feel you up for two weeks, and are wondering why your subtle hints aren't getting through, there is probably a reason for this. (I.e. one "maybe" followed by eight "okay!"s just really doesn't fall under the category of being a hint.)

I hate to hijack, but I have never understood why, if a person wants to go out with someone, they then make out, etc., with someone else. I mean, if it's something to do while waiting for Mr./Ms. Right, OK, but I still don't really get that either, but maybe that is because of how I think about dating and sex (which apparently is really weird). I've always been wary of asking people who do this, for fear of getting an answer that will further undermine my already shaky faith in human nature.

[Sage Rat]

I hate to hijack, but I have never understood why, if a person wants to go out with someone, they then make out, etc., with someone else. I mean, if it's something to do while waiting for Mr./Ms. Right, OK, but I still don't really get that either, but maybe that is because of how I think about dating and sex (which apparently is really weird). I've always been wary of asking people who do this, for fear of getting an answer that will further undermine my already shaky faith in human nature.
Well this probably wasn't a case of what you're thinking of. Saying "I wish that guy would ask me out" was from her vantage a subtle hint for me to stop my advances. We weren't to the stage of making out, but more things like me sliding my hand over her behind and such.

But, while true that she should have stopped me from putting my hand on her butt, I never had actually asked her out, assuming that my intentions were understood and that I was being blatant enough in my interest. So you could just as easily say that I never gave her a chance to explicitly say no. (Lesson learned and so on.)

[Maastricht]

There could be another explanation for youwiththeface's creepy guy. Perhaps he has totally accepted that ywtf will never go out with him, but he enjoys just asking her. Perhaps he thinks of it as innocent flirting, which is it's own reward, and he thinks ywtf sees it that way too.
Hollywood has a pattern for this too; the beautiful friendly young woman who has regular flirt-routines with doormen, grocers and the guy at the newsstand or coffee-cart.
"Oh hey there miss Gilmore ! Here's your coffee, just as you like it!
"Why thank you Honkins ! If you keep making coffee this good, I might have to take you up on that offer of marriage you keep making me!"

[Malacandra]

As an ex-single, I can say that I personally would much rather have had a straight and truthful "No" and possibly a reason that might have helped me improve my approach for the next hot young thing I was interested in approaching. One alternative I was offered was to be asked to let her think about it, and then several days later when I asked if she had thought, a stammered excuse about "Er... I don't go out with men from work", which was patently bullshit since: if true, she could have said so at the first time of asking, and within a few weeks, she was... well, you fill in the blank. :rolleyes:

Hey, as long as I'm a bumbling social inept, I might as well be given some helpful feedback as some return on the emotional investment of setting myself up for being rejected again.

[4.66]

I'm surprised at the way conflict avoidance is defended here, whereas in most threads it's condemned as passive-agressive bullshit.

If hints like, "Sorry, no time tonight," are obvious enough to be understood after one or two times, as was argued above, then the hints must be just as confrontational as the polite and honest phrases, "No thanks," and, "No, really, no thanks." But they're not as obvious, and this sort of confrontation avoidance results in leading the guy on. Leading the guy on for the number of times it takes for the truth to sink in, which is at least three times. Then, when the truth sinks in, it's not just about dealing with the rejection anymore. It's also become about the shame of having been obtuse, of having been led on, and about the fact that his assesment of the girl's opinion, which he values highly, has plummeted from she might like me downto not only neutral but even to what a creep. It's hardly surprising that some guys will react to this cognitive dissonance by clinging to a literal interpretation of the hints as a rationalization.

Think of that what you will, but it's simply not true that this hinting is about trying not to hurt the guy. It's about the girl's feelings at the expense of the guy's feelings. The girl wants to reject the guy without owning the rejection. That's passive-agressive.

[Kalhoun]

I'm surprised at the way conflict avoidance is defended here, whereas in most threads it's condemned as passive-agressive bullshit.

If hints like, "Sorry, no time tonight," are obvious enough to be understood after one or two times, as was argued above, then the hints must be just as confrontational as the polite and honest phrases, "No thanks," and, "No, really, no thanks." But they're not as obvious, and this sort of confrontation avoidance results in leading the guy on. Leading the guy on for the number of times it takes for the truth to sink in, which is at least three times. Then, when the truth sinks in, it's not just about dealing with the rejection anymore. It's also become about the shame of having been obtuse, of having been led on, and about the fact that his assesment of the girl's opinion, which he values highly, has plummeted from she might like me downto not only neutral but even to what a creep. It's hardly surprising that some guys will react to this cognitive dissonance by clinging to a literal interpretation of the hints as a rationalization.

Think of that what you will, but it's simply not true that this hinting is about trying not to hurt the guy. It's about the girl's feelings at the expense of the guy's feelings. The girl wants to reject the guy without owning the rejection. That's passive-agressive.

She said "I don't really ever take lunch." "I'm really very busy." "I eat on the go, sorry." and Quite pointedly, with no smile on my face, I say "You're quite persistent, aren't you?" You know what that was? That was your cue to SHUT UP.

This guy either has a serious mental malfunction or he's been on a very short, sheltered leash all his life. These are queues you should recognize from a very early age.

1. She hasn't led him on.

2. She hasn't responded in a warm, inviting way.

3. She's repeated, many times, that she has no time for him in her life.

What's not to get?

If she's uncomfortable with the smack down, then she is! She certainly doesn't owe him an increase in her own discomfort just so a lightbulb will go on six months after the switch was tripped. When she chooses to do it, she will. If it causes him more discomfort because someone grabbed that hookah out of his hand and forced him to breathe in a little reality, oh well. Certainly she has a right to protect her feelings, doesn't she?

[you with the face]

Thanks for breaking it down, Kalhoun. You must have experience with this before, huh?

I don't see how my behavior comes even close to leading him on, guys. Leading him on would actually be taking him up on his offer, all the while knowing that I have zero romantic or platonic interest in him. Leading him on would be flirting with him and batting my eyelashes to get him to desire me, but then coyly rebuffing his attempts to get with me. None of this is going on, people! He has no reason to think I like him. I say hi to him when he says hi to me and will politely raise the corner of my lips a few milimeters when he smiles at me (I guess I'm leading him on by not scowling instead), and that's the extent of my interaction with him.

By deflecting his advances with a polite excuse, I'm simply exercising social graces that have served me pretty well up until now. When I tell him that I eat on the go, that isn't a lie. I generally don't take lunch breaks. That's not the real reason why I'm not going to have lunch with him, but it isn't passive-agressive or dishonest to tell him that instead of being more blunt. I save bluntness for friends and family, not acquaintances in a professional setting.

Also keep in mind that he always pops the question when I'm standing in front of my suite (his suite is across the hall from mine). Usually there are people milling around. It looks classier and less embarrassing (for both of us) for me to respond with "Sorry, I don't take lunch. Thanks for asking, though" instead of saying something like "No, sorry, but I'm not interested in having lunch with you. Why? Because you're too old for me and I'm just not feeling you like that." Someone overhearing the latter might walk away with a bad impression about me that they wouldn't have if they heard me say the former.

Think of that what you will, but it's simply not true that this hinting is about trying not to hurt the guy. It's about the girl's feelings at the expense of the guy's feelings. The girl wants to reject the guy without owning the rejection. That's passive-agressive.

No, I want to reject the guy in a way that will be as painless as possible for both of us. That's not passive-agressive.

For all this talk about honesty, I have an idea most people wouldn't be able to handle hearing it in practice. It looks good on paper, but trust me, after hearing "your face looks like a truck hit it", "your breath stinks like dog shit", "your dick is too small", "you're too dumb", "you're technically old enough to be my grandfather and I don't do senior citizens" I'm sure the beauty of this so-called passive agressive subtlety would be appreciated.

[AHunter3]

If I'm doing the asking, if I've asked once it's her turn. That gives her plenty of freedom to not ask and let it die, whereas if she's interested the fact that I asked her once should be sufficient to clue her in that if she issues an invitation it will be favorably received.

If I'm the one being asked (and asked, and asked, and asked....), that's kind of rare but the best thing is to say something serious in a light and casual way: "No thanks. It's nothing impersonal like me being busy or it not being convenient that day, I just don't like you." :)

[Autolycus]

I personally believe, honesty is always the best policy. I may sometimes do what is called a "Jesuit lie," but I usually try to be direct with people in situations like these.

[Kalhoun]

Thanks for breaking it down, Kalhoun. You must have experience with this before, huh?


Indeed I have, and I suck at the smack-down. Maybe it is female-conditioning-from-an-early-age-SmileSweetheart-be-nice-there's-no-need-to-be-hurtful training. Maybe I genuinely feel that the person, while clueless and socially inept does not deserve to be hurt and humiliated. Whatever the reason, it makes me extremely uncomfortable. The smack-down is a last resort for me.

When I hear so many guys on the Dope lamenting on their unlucky love lives, I'm hoping threads like this would show them that most women aren't cold-hearted bitches who want to stomp all over their hearts if they're not interested. I don't know any women who play that silly hard-to-get game. But at the same time, they don't want to hit an unwanted overture like a linebacker at the Superbowl. There is a middle ground. It involves picking up on subtle hints that are intended to show you that while you aren't my cup o' tea, I still value you as a human being and don't wish to cause you distress. If that includes an innocent fib or two (or three), I'll choose that route over the direct dismissal every time.

Incidently, I don't know about you, but I'm always afraid that "I'm not interested" might be interpreted as "I find you uninteresting", and I find that to be one of the most hurtful things a person could hear about themself.

[Kalhoun]

If I'm doing the asking, if I've asked once it's her turn. That gives her plenty of freedom to not ask and let it die, whereas if she's interested the fact that I asked her once should be sufficient to clue her in that if she issues an invitation it will be favorably received.

If I'm the one being asked (and asked, and asked, and asked....), that's kind of rare but the best thing is to say something serious in a light and casual way: "No thanks. It's nothing impersonal like me being busy or it not being convenient that day, I just don't like you." :)
(snort!)

[monstro]

I'm surprised at the way conflict avoidance is defended here, whereas in most threads it's condemned as passive-agressive bullshit.

If hints like, "Sorry, no time tonight," are obvious enough to be understood after one or two times, as was argued above, then the hints must be just as confrontational as the polite and honest phrases, "No thanks," and, "No, really, no thanks." But they're not as obvious, and this sort of confrontation avoidance results in leading the guy on. Leading the guy on for the number of times it takes for the truth to sink in, which is at least three times. Then, when the truth sinks in, it's not just about dealing with the rejection anymore. It's also become about the shame of having been obtuse, of having been led on, and about the fact that his assesment of the girl's opinion, which he values highly, has plummeted from she might like me downto not only neutral but even to what a creep. It's hardly surprising that some guys will react to this cognitive dissonance by clinging to a literal interpretation of the hints as a rationalization.

Think of that what you will, but it's simply not true that this hinting is about trying not to hurt the guy. It's about the girl's feelings at the expense of the guy's feelings. The girl wants to reject the guy without owning the rejection. That's passive-agressive.

Spoken like someone who's never been harrassed.

I was once accused of being mean by a guy with unrequited feelings for me. Why? Because I continually said no to him nicely. He interpreted the "niceness" as me leading him on, and the "no" as me being mean. Really, I shouldn't have been bothered by this accusation, but it did hurt. And it made for a very awkward situation between us, since he had painted me into tight corner. Be the brutally honest bitch, or be the nice "tease". It was no win situation, because I didn't want to be either.

Finally, I had to get mean and be brutally honest because his craziness was driving ME crazy, and guess what happened? He had a freakin' nervous breakdown. Just like I feared.

I didn't ask for that. I didn't ask to be sucked into his low self-esteem and his desperation.

You know why people lie? It's because they're afraid of explaining themselves. If someone asks if they can have my number and I say "no", they usually want to know why. If I say, "I'm just not interested", they will want to know why. Every fucking answer I give, they want to know WHY.

Their "whys" gradually strip away at my cool exterior, until I finally lose it and become Crazy Bitch. And this doesn't happen at the club--where it's expected that people are accepting offers for potential "hook-ups". This happens on the subway or when I'm walking down the street, minding my own business.

I shouldn't have to flip out on people when I'm minding my own business. If I tell you, "No, that's alright" if you ask for my digits, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHY. But lots of these honesty-loving men don't get this. They think they are owed an explanation. YOU ARE NOT, JERKS!

I think on a subconscious level, these kind of men use "Why?" as a way to guilt women into either being untruthful (e.g., swapping "I'm a lesbian" for "You're too agressive and you stink") or aquiesing to their request (I can't think of a good reason, so I guess I'll give him my number). And if a woman tells him why and the answer doesn't stroke his ego enough, then he can write her off as a bitch. Whatever answer is given won't be good enough and ends up making the woman look like the bad guy.

[4.66]

She said:
"I don't really ever take lunch." "I'm really very busy." "I eat on the go, sorry."

Yes. I specifically used a different example of a hint, because I did not want to make this personal. There's nothing wrong with being frustated that (poorly) blowing somebody off 20 times still hasn't had any effect, and nobody's perfect anyway. So my issue is not so much with YWTF's behaviour in this particular case, but with the defense of such behaviour in general.

Well, I guess I'm going to comment on the particulars of this example anyway.

1. She hasn't led him on.
2. She hasn't responded in a warm, inviting way.
3. She's repeated, many times, that she has no time for him in her life.

I argued that hints are interpretable and that it was therefore necessary to use at least another hint. I'm really very busy can simply be a true statement and the implication of rejection is not in this particular phrase, but in the pattern of using these phrases time and again. Until the pattern was established, she was leading the guy on. Or do you think that I eat on the go, sorry has exactly one interpretation (No)? In that case, why use this dishonest phrase in favor of the polite no thanks? In this case both phrases are equally confrontational.

As for remark 2), she did write And yet I still make an effort to exchange a quick pleasantry with you. When I see you, I smile and am cordial. She qualified that with But nothing more than that, but the words speak for themselves, she's describing behaviour that can easily be interpreted in multiple ways.
Regarding your 3), she has done nothing of the sort. Again, there was an implication of this in the pattern, but if she had indeed made this statement I would not have had any issue with the way she handled the situation (unless that statement came after 20 hints).

I do agree that the guy she's dealing with is a stranger and that she doesn't owe him very much. But he did come to her to invite her to lunch, which is kind gesture (well the first time it is anyway, if he didn't do so in an offending manner), and I do think one owes kind strangers at least a graceful let-off. Not much more though.


No, I want to reject the guy in a way that will be as painless as possible for both of us. That's not passive-agressive.

For all this talk about honesty, I have an idea most people wouldn't be able to handle hearing it in practice. It looks good on paper, but trust me, after hearing "your face looks like a truck hit it", "your breath stinks like dog shit", "your dick is too small", "you're too dumb", "you're technically old enough to be my grandfather and I don't do senior citizens" I'm sure the beauty of this so-called passive agressive subtlety would be appreciated.

I still don't see you owning the rejection. To us perhaps, but not to him. So I still see this as passive-agressive. I also don't understand why you feel that honesty would mean reading him a list of his short-comings. Again, a simple No, thanks would do. You owe him a polite and truthful answer, but not an explanation or a justification.

FWIW, were making this thing much bigger than it is. I think you handled the situation a bit poorly, and in analyzing why, I had to use some big words, such as passive-agressive. That doesn't mean the big words apply to you for 100%. I just think that hinting is a poor way of communicating and I feel it's infuriating that often in such situations the hintee, rather than the hinter, gets faulted for having poor communication skills.

[Kalhoun]

FWIW, were making this thing much bigger than it is. I think you handled the situation a bit poorly, and in analyzing why, I had to use some big words, such as passive-agressive. That doesn't mean the big words apply to you for 100%. I just think that hinting is a poor way of communicating and I feel it's infuriating that often in such situations the hintee, rather than the hinter, gets faulted for having poor communication skills.
As a woman who's been in this particular boat numerous times, it really can feel that big. I think in business, directness is your best bet. In matters of the heart, we have set up social guidelines that are understood by 90% of the population. These guidelines allow you to express your feelings while leaving the hopeful suitor with his 'nads intact and his ego at a level that will allow him to go to bat with another prospect.

I'll make an allowance for the direct approach in certain situations. For instance, I have been approached in public places by complete strangers and have resorted to a flat-out "No. Please don't bother me anymore." I'd imagine YWTF would have no problem in that scenario, either.

However, her pseudo-suitor is, by geographical location, sharing space with her regularly. They both have to be there often because they make their living there. She is respecting his feelings as well as her own because they both have a right to continue to earn a living there. How do you think either of them would feel if she got down with the "get lost, asshole" tone and then they had to run into each other every few days for the next ten years? It benefits neither of them to create that kind of tension knowing you have to relive it week in and week out.

[4.66]

Spoken like someone who's never been harrassed.

Well, that's a convenient way to dismiss each and every input by guys if you don't agree with them! But did you notice that in the example that sparked this thread, YWTF's story, the girl did more or less the opposite of what I suggest and that she ended up being harassed anyway? Your comment has no bearing whatsoever on my post.

I happen to agree with most of the rest of your post. If you had posted about ten minutes later you probably would have read my previous comment, where I state, like you, that in rejecting the guy the girl owes him no explanation nor a justification. A polite, friendly No thanks should do the job. I'll add that after it turns out that it doesn't do the job (or perhaps after applying a three strikes out rule, if you're feeling friendly) all bets are off. Lie to him, lead him on, scream, whatever you feel is necesarry, if he's proven that he won't respect you it's all justified. But start out be honest and polite. It doesn't stand in the way of more disrespecful behaviour, if it turns out that that is what the situation requires.


it really can feel that big.

I was refering to my criticism of the way YWTF handled the situation. Some of you were responding a bit emotionally to my comments and I wanted to make sure she knows I didn't mean things as harsh as they apparently have come across. Of course YWTF's situation is a big deal.

I'll make an allowance for the hint approach in certain situations. Specifically, if the hints are solely in the interest of the hintee (say when hinting to somebody she needs to close up her fly) I see no problem. But when there's a significant self-interest on the part of the hinter I tend to see justifications using the hintee's interest as rationalizations, rather than as convincing arguments. For example in this situation, where the hints are supposedly in the interest of the guy aproaching a girl and where I have argued that they do not turn out to be so.


"No. Please don't bother me anymore." [...]
if she got down with the "get lost, asshole" tone

I'm not suggesting this at all. In fact, with the buildup of frustration she's currently experiencing it's likely she will end up using these sort of phrases and tone anyways. If she had started out with a more friendly but honest approach she might have ended up with better results* or would at least have a better justification for an escalation.


* Okay, probably not with the asshole under consideration

[Kalhoun]

I'll make an allowance for the hint approach in certain situations. Specifically, if the hints are solely in the interest of the hintee (say when hinting to somebody she needs to close up her fly) I see no problem. But when there's a significant self-interest on the part of the hinter I tend to see justifications using the hintee's interest as rationalizations, rather than as convincing arguments. For example in this situation, where the hints are supposedly in the interest of the guy aproaching a girl and where I have argued that they do not turn out to be so.



Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's in both parties' best interest to do the widely-understood "I'm busy" hint. As I stated previously, neither of them need the uncomfortable tension in the workplace; even if it is just in the corridor. They have to see each other every day. They have professional reputations to protect. She's already stated she's not afraid of him; just annoyed. she has more to lose if the smack-down doesn't go smoothly (and there's no guarantee it will).

[4.66]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I guess that's the case. But I would appreciate it if you stopped insisting that I implied that she should use a smack-down on the guy. In fact I suggested a gentle No thanks.

[Amblydoper]

Kalhoun, you seem to think the only options for rejection at this point are a hint or a smack down. I have lost count of how many times 4.66 has said that a simple "No Thanks" is a better option. It is polite and business-like and would be appropriate in either a social or business setting.

[you with the face]

I still don't see you owning the rejection. To us perhaps, but not to him. So I still see this as passive-agressive. I also don't understand why you feel that honesty would mean reading him a list of his short-comings.

What does "owning the rejection" mean? Not to be disrespectful, but that sounds like some New Age psycho babble.

I also don't get what honesty has to do with it. I haven't been dishonest; I simply haven't been frank and to the point. You say a simple "no thanks" is best thing to say. Well, in my eyes, there's not a whole lot of difference between saying that and saying "sorry, I don't take lunch". The main difference is that the former is more likely to provoke a demand for an explanation, while the latter does not. As I've already explained, I don't feel like explaining the reason behind my refusal. It puts me on the spot and makes me uncomfortable.

Again, a simple No, thanks would do. You owe him a polite and truthful answer, but not an explanation or a justification.

I don't owe him anything actually. My cordiality is not an entitlement. I choose to be nice to him because that's the kind of person I am, but I could just as easily ignore him everytime I see him and I'd be well within my rights to do so. I also don't owe him truthfulness or bluntness. Obviously, bluntness is called for in order to get the prick from bothering me, but there's no reason why I should have to draw him a diagram.

It's rude in most kind of casual social settings to chase after someone until they get so frustrated that they say "go away". It almost seems as if you're saying that unless someone is that clear, then it's not the chasers fault for being a pest. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I just think that hinting is a poor way of communicating and I feel it's infuriating that often in such situations the hintee, rather than the hinter, gets faulted for having poor communication skills.

Actually, I don't think hinting is really what I've been doing. The first time or the second, okay, those were hints. But I'm serious when I said this little song and dance has been going on for a few months. Everytime he asks me, I turn him down with no "buts" or "maybes" attached. You don't have to read tea leaves to figure out what that means.

[you with the face]

Incidently, I don't know about you, but I'm always afraid that "I'm not interested" might be interpreted as "I find you uninteresting", and I find that to be one of the most hurtful things a person could hear about themself.

Naw, for me, I always worry about being accused of presumptiousness. "I'm not interested" could easily trigger a "Not interested in what? It's just lunch. Everyone's gotta eat. What do you think I have in mind, huh? Huh?"

That kind of coyness just makes me want to choke a bitch.

[4.66]

What does "owning the rejection" mean?

Not owning one's action seems to me the main problem when someone is being passive-agressive. For example, say coworker A wants to get back at coworker B and 'forgets' to flush the office' toilet, hoping B will be the one walking into the mess. He's being agressive towards B, but lies about his involvement. He's not taking responsibility for actions he is responsible for. That's what I mean when I say that A's not owning his actions. He's being passive-agressive.

Now in your case the action, rejecting the guy, isn't all that agressive (and it's very different from the flusing-example). But it's definitively something I feel you should own. Instead you're hiding your responsibility under excuses and hints and that's why I used the words passive-agressive.

As for the difference between No thanks and Sorry, I don't take lunch, the first is a clear indication that you're not interested, that's the only reasonable interpretation. The second has some reasonable interpretations that are contrary to the one you intend. You might be interested in, say, brunch or if he sees you having lunch another day he's in for a chance. That's not what you intended, but those other interpretations were the reason you chose Sorry, I don't take lunch above the other option. It was a hint, rather than a direct answer.


I don't owe him anything actually. My cordiality is not an entitlement. I choose to be nice to him because that's the kind of person I am.

Well, you do owe him some friendliness. Or you did. That's what it means to live in civil society. We start out interactions with strangers polite, even as we are trying to keep the interaction as short as possibly. But rather than being nice to him, you chose to play the hinting-game. Even though there was no harm in starting out with a gentle No thanks. If he still had replied with unwanted insistence you could have easily continued with the less sympathetic excuses and hints from there.


It's rude in most kind of casual social settings to chase after someone until they get so frustrated that they say "go away". It almost seems as if you're saying that unless someone is that clear, then it's not the chasers fault for being a pest. Correct me if I'm wrong

My issue is not your frustration after 20 hints. The pattern is clearly established and at this point it's the chaser's fault for being rude and a pest. And it's probably too late too start the gentle direct approach now. My point is not that you've not been all that clear, it's that you've been intentionally unclear and from the start. At the beginning he had every right to see if you might be interested, even if it was pretty unlikely, and you reacted rudely to that.

It's worth repeating that there are more choices than only being either honestly blunt and rude or indirect and non-confrontational.

[Tuckerfan]

I'd be honest. I was honest with the man I mentioned. I mean I was polite for a long time, until I findally said. "Look. You're very nice but I have been in a LTR for over 10 years and am not interested in a change. I don't want to lead you on in any way."

The new one (read my post) has been way milder so I haven't had to resort to this yet.
And again, you break my heart. :( ;)

[you with the face]

As for the difference between No thanks and Sorry, I don't take lunch, the first is a clear indication that you're not interested, that's the only reasonable interpretation. The second has some reasonable interpretations that are contrary to the one you intend.

I disagree. "Sorry, I don't take lunch" means, quite simply, that I'm turning down the offer. The reason behind it is completely irrelevant, as he is not owed any explanation, truthful or not truthful. He shouldn't need to be told explicitly that I'm not interested in having lunch with him, in order to reasonably communicate that to him. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. But regardless of my actual feelings, it's not going happen because "I don't take lunch, sorry." And that's all he needs to know! Maybe I have a dick for a boss. Maybe I'm trying to watch my weight. Maybe I'm too busy to stop for a bite. Or maybe I just don't plain want to eat lunch with him. Why is he entitled to know why?

You might be interested in, say, brunch or if he sees you having lunch another day he's in for a chance. That's not what you intended, but those other interpretations were the reason you chose Sorry, I don't take lunch above the other option. It was a hint, rather than a direct answer.

If I were interested in brunch or dinner then I'd suggest those options, right? And if I said "no thanks" he could very well think that "no thanks" just applies to lunch. Someone who is determined enough could find vagueness in "no thanks", too. I still don't see how "no thanks" is really all that different that what I've said.

My point is not that you've not been all that clear, it's that you've been intentionally unclear and from the start.

No, I haven't. I will take responsibility for not being blunt, but not for being willfully ambiguous. There is a difference.

At the beginning he had every right to see if you might be interested, even if it was pretty unlikely, and you reacted rudely to that.

What?! I did not react rudely to anything, and I find it amazing that after all these pains I've taken to be gentle to the old fool (who is harrassing me!) my particular approach is being labeled rude. Sweet Jesus. I'm starting to feel defensive and I don't like that at all. :(

[Kalhoun]

What?! I did not react rudely to anything, and I find it amazing that after all these pains I've taken to be gentle to the old fool (who is harrassing me!) my particular approach is being labeled rude. Sweet Jesus. I'm starting to feel defensive and I don't like that at all. :(
I don't think you were rude, hinting, or unclear in the slightest. This guy is one of the 10% who just don't get it. You shouldn't have to draw him a map, nor do you owe him an explanation. Everything you said to him amounts to a "no thanks" and he's not taking "no" for an answer.

While he's got an abrupt response coming, I would feel totally uncomfortable dishing it out to him (after all, there's a good chance he may not "get" that, either!). People who are so completely lacking in social skills are sad cases, indeed.

[Lord Ashtar]

There is a middle ground. It involves picking up on subtle hints that are intended to show you that while you aren't my cup o' tea, I still value you as a human being and don't wish to cause you distress. If that includes an innocent fib or two (or three), I'll choose that route over the direct dismissal every time.
Does this middle ground involve "investing in a cheap ring"?

[Lord Ashtar]

Everything you said to him amounts to a "no thanks" and he's not taking "no" for an answer.
He's not taking "no" for an answer because she never said "no".

I know this will probably frustrate YWTF and Kalhoun even more, but I just don't understand your aversion to a simple "no". It's not necessarily rude, but it is direct, honest, clear, and blunt. It leaves no room for interpretation. "I don't take lunch" could mean "My boss is a dick and won't let me take lunch" or "I have a really big proposal due later this week and I'm working overtime to finish it" or "I'm on a diet so I'm skipping lunch" or "I don't want to have lunch with you". "No" means "no".

If I were in a crowded office setting and I heard a guy ask a girl out and she replied with "I appreciate the offer, but no thank you," I would not think her a frigid bitch. A frigid bitch would respond with a :dubious: and say, "With you? No thanks."

Do you see the difference?

[Kalhoun]

Does this middle ground involve "investing in a cheap ring"?
It certainly could. Women have worn phony wedding ring forever to ward off unwanted advances.

[Kalhoun]

He's not taking "no" for an answer because she never said "no".

I know this will probably frustrate YWTF and Kalhoun even more, but I just don't understand your aversion to a simple "no". It's not necessarily rude, but it is direct, honest, clear, and blunt. It leaves no room for interpretation. "I don't take lunch" could mean "My boss is a dick and won't let me take lunch" or "I have a really big proposal due later this week and I'm working overtime to finish it" or "I'm on a diet so I'm skipping lunch" or "I don't want to have lunch with you". "No" means "no".

If I were in a crowded office setting and I heard a guy ask a girl out and she replied with "I appreciate the offer, but no thank you," I would not think her a frigid bitch. A frigid bitch would respond with a :dubious: and say, "With you? No thanks."

Do you see the difference?I agree one response might leave him wondering if the door was still open. But that's not the case. Evidently he can't add.

[you with the face]

He's not taking "no" for an answer because she never said "no".

"I don't take lunch" is no. I don't get why this statement seems so ambiguous to you. If a panhandler asked me for money and I said "sorry, I don't have any cash on me", isn't it clear in this particular scenario that the statement leaves no room for negotiation? Only an blocked-headed jerk would keep hounding me for money after hearing this answer.

The panhandler analogy is an apt comparison. As I've already said, I'm not lying when I say that I don't take lunch. I use that time to catch up on administrative stuff or making personal calls. When I cite that as an excuse for not taking up his offer, that is no different than me telling a panhandler that I have no change when I really don't have any change. Now, even if I did have change, I would be averse to giving it to someone who might have an addiction to feed, but the handler doesn't need to know all of that. The only point he needs to know is that his request is being denied for reasons out of his control. Period.

I know this will probably frustrate YWTF and Kalhoun even more, but I just don't understand your aversion to a simple "no". It's not necessarily rude, but it is direct, honest, clear, and blunt. It leaves no room for interpretation.

No, but as I've already stated, it begs for further explanation. A simple "no", in my experience, is never simple because it often turns into a ten-minute conversation wherein I have to justify the refusal. Do you know how uncomfortable that is?

"I don't take lunch" could mean "My boss is a dick and won't let me take lunch" or "I have a really big proposal due later this week and I'm working overtime to finish it" or "I'm on a diet so I'm skipping lunch" or "I don't want to have lunch with you".

So what? Why does anyone need to know why the offer is being turned down? Aren't I entitled to keep that information on a strictly need to know basis? He is basically a stranger to me. Strangers don't need to know the inner workings of my life and mind.

Think about the panhandler analogy again. "I don't have any cash on me" could be due to a lot of different reasons. I might be poor. I might prefer to pay for everything with card. I might be allergic to paper. So what? Does the panhandler really need to know any of this? Of course not.

If I were in a crowded office setting and I heard a guy ask a girl out and she replied with "I appreciate the offer, but no thank you," I would not think her a frigid bitch.

What if the conversation went like this?

creep: What about lunch with me?
girl: No thanks.
creep: Why not?
girl: Because I'm not interested. Thanks, though.
creep: It's just lunch.
girl: I know. Just not interested.
creep: Can I ask why?
girl: Because, like I said, I'm not interested. Can you please stop asking me?
creep: Wait, are you not interested in having lunch? Or lunch with me.
girl: I'm not interested in having lunch with you.
creep: Why not?
girl: :mad:

Sure this conversation is not the end of the world. But "no thanks" does not make the clean break that you and others are saying it would. The reason why saying just "no" hasn't been an option I've exercised is because I'm dreading having to have this particular conversation. The convenience of "sorry, I don't take lunch" is that it says "no" while also giving a explanation that doesn't make the situation personal or uncomfortable. Just the way I like it.

[Lord Ashtar]

No, but as I've already stated, it begs for further explanation. A simple "no", in my experience, is never simple because it often turns into a ten-minute conversation wherein I have to justify the refusal. Do you know how uncomfortable that is?
<snip>
Why does anyone need to know why the offer is being turned down? Aren't I entitled to keep that information on a strictly need to know basis? He is basically a stranger to me. Strangers don't need to know the inner workings of my life and mind.
This is pretty much what I was about to say in response to the first part I quoted, but then you went and said it better than I could have.

What if the conversation went like this?

creep: What about lunch with me?
girl: No thanks.
creep: Why not?
girl: Because I'm not interested. Thanks, though.
creep: It's just lunch.
girl: I know. Just not interested.
creep: Can I ask why?
girl: Because, like I said, I'm not interested. Can you please stop asking me?
creep: Wait, are you not interested in having lunch? Or lunch with me.
girl: I'm not interested in having lunch with you.
creep: Why not?
girl: :mad:
If that's what happened, I would think him a dick. But we don't know if that's what would've happened in your particular situation because you never straight up told him no.

The whole reason I started this thead was not to rehash your situation, but to try and get a few people's opinions on how they would've liked to have been let down when being refused for a date. Most of the responses have been about what I would've expected. We (meaning not just men, but whoever is doing the asking), when being turned down, would like a clear, direct, and unambiguous answer.

Just to be clear, I'm not denying that creepy guys who will follow the object of their affection around, constantly asking again and again and again when it's already been made clear (by saying no, not by "dropping hints") exist. I was just trying to make sure that I wasn't the only one who thought like I did.

[you with the face]

If that's what happened, I would think him a dick. But we don't know if that's what would've happened in your particular situation because you never straight up told him no.

If somebody doesn't stop asking a person out to lunch after that person has repeatedly turned down their offer, it's highly likely that a simple no will not suffice. Think about this for a minute, please.

Look, I'm generally sympathetic towards men because it's takes guts to ask somebody out. It's hard to receive rejection, I know this. But men need to understand that handing out rejection can also be hard. At least when you are setting yourself up for the possibility of rejection, that is within your control. You can choose to ask someone out or you can choose not to. But when you are the recipient of an unwanted request, the act of rejecting someone is thrust upon you. It is an imposition of sorts.

So when someone is doing the asking, the polite thing for the askee to do is treat that person with dignity and respect, with the understanding that they've put their heart on the line a little bit. That means not laughing at them, hurling insults, or being otherwise rude. And the person who is doing the asking needs to realize that in a way, their request might be imposing discomfort on the person their asking. And so they need to realize they may not get a frank and 100% honest answer because of that discomfort.

In other words, just because guys may want a direct and unambious answer, that doesn't mean it is fair to expect that all the time. There has to be some compromise.

[Telperien]

Well this probably wasn't a case of what you're thinking of. Saying "I wish that guy would ask me out" was from her vantage a subtle hint for me to stop my advances. We weren't to the stage of making out, but more things like me sliding my hand over her behind and such.

But, while true that she should have stopped me from putting my hand on her butt, I never had actually asked her out, assuming that my intentions were understood and that I was being blatant enough in my interest. So you could just as easily say that I never gave her a chance to explicitly say no. (Lesson learned and so on.)

Ah. Well, that's better. (Well, not better, but you know what I mean.) I guess I don't get it because I'm not one of those subtle hint type of people. I am almost completely unable to pick them up, and so I don't try to send them, either. I'm fairly direct out of self-preservation.

Also, I've seen a lot of what I thought you were describing, and though it's none of my business, it still makes me somewhat aggravated.