Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 7, 2013
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Wipe Out
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Last month, I met this woman about four years older than me at a bar. Long story short: we ended up having sex in my car. The problem: the sex went very badly. It was my first time not doing it on a bed, doing it outside, etc., and I must have been nervous because I couldn't sustain an erection. The woman also happens to be "separated" from her husband, and quasi-famous. She's absolutely gorgeous and we seemed to get along great. I would love to see her again, but whenever I suggest getting together (either for dinner or explicitly as a hookup), she avoids the question. Although I made sure she orgasmed through other ways, there's this nagging feeling that it was the bad sex that's keeping her from wanting to see me again. How do I get her to give me another chance?
Limp Until Sex Terminated
My response after the jump...
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Text this to her:
Would love to see you again. My performance that night wasn't great, I realize, but I'd never had sex in a car or in a semi-public place before. Obviously not my thing. Never had that problem in a bedroom—it would be great if you gave me a chance to prove it. If things are too stressful for you right now, or if you're not interested, no worries. Hope our paths cross again sometime regardless.
If you hear back from her, the pressure's on. If you don't hear back from her, take the hint.
4
Dan's advice seems overly prescriptive/micro-managing. Isn't it better to guide ppl writing on the key points and let them write/say it how they see fit, rather than telling them exactly what to say/write?
5
I wonder how many women ask this question on a typical Monday morning? "He seemed so into it, and I made sure he got off, but now he doesn't want it again."
Man fucking woman and not calling: expected dickish behavior.
Woman fucking man and not calling: Write advice column because something must be wrong.
Man fucking woman and not calling: expected dickish behavior.
Woman fucking man and not calling: Write advice column because something must be wrong.
6
@ 3, People sometimes give unnecessary details. Maybe it's important to him. If he's in his early 20s, four years between his age and hers would makes a difference. (Not much, but age differences don't really cease to matter until you're past 30, or at least 25.)
7
How about not texting her again? You're clearly not getting the existing message that she's not interested in hooking up again, so I'd say stop hassling her about it. I'm assuming "whenever I suggest getting together" means you've asked more than once. At this point you're probably annoying her, or worse, making her feel uncomfortable, and for sure you're also not respecting her boundaries.
9
Yeah, kinda agree more w/ @7, than w/ Dan, this time. Or maybe a combination of the two..ie, WAIT awhile before txting "hey..about that night..I hope you had fun, I did too: just not used to cars. Wanna try it again somewhere else?" But again, WAIT at least a week before trying again. Persistence doesn't guarantee success; indeed, often it's the opposite.
O' course, part of semi-famous gal's cheap thrills might be 1-night stands in cars, or there was somethin' else about him she didn't dig. In which case, enjoy the fact it happened & move along.
O' course, part of semi-famous gal's cheap thrills might be 1-night stands in cars, or there was somethin' else about him she didn't dig. In which case, enjoy the fact it happened & move along.
12
Whomever this starlet happens to be, it seems to me that you had your turn at bat and you whiffed.
Next!
Next!
13
I'm with 2, 5, 7. You can ask a one-night-stand for a date because you really like them and felt a connection, or for a no-strings follow-up because it was fun. Once. You don't get to go all "But we had sex! How can it have meant nothing to you!" about it.
"How do I get her to give me another chance?"
There is nothing you can do to "get" her to do anything. You asked, she said no. That should have ended it.
"How do I get her to give me another chance?"
There is nothing you can do to "get" her to do anything. You asked, she said no. That should have ended it.
14
Would love to see you again. My performance that night wasn't great, I realize, but I'd never had sex in a car or in a semi-public place before. Obviously not my thing. Never had that problem in a bedroom—it would be great if you gave me a chance to prove it. If things are too stressful for you right now, or if you're not interested, no worries. Hope our paths cross again sometime regardless.
Jesus Christ, No. Don't say that unless you're in 7th grade.
I generally agree with Dan, but this is definitely one of those times where his total lack of experience with women is pretty apparent. Send this godawfully long, clingy, self-conscious, overly self-deprecating, way too forced text message if you want to for sure have your phone number blocked. Kiss of death for sure.
16
Whatever, dude sounds pathetic. I just want to know who this quasi-famous lady who fucks strangers in cars is. Sounds like my kind of girl.
18
if she were interested she would have let you know. Take the hint. Don't send any text. If she reads that one she will sigh, roll her eyes and show her BFF.
20
NO.
"How can I get her to blah blah blah blah?" You can't. And you shouldn't try. When met with avoidance from a woman who is not your girlfriend, not your friend, who owes you no explanation OR sexual opportunity, you take the hint. She's avoiding you because SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU. And it doesn't really matter why. Her call, 100%, move on. Wheedling your way into sex is such a whiny teenager move, so not sexy.
"How can I get her to blah blah blah blah?" You can't. And you shouldn't try. When met with avoidance from a woman who is not your girlfriend, not your friend, who owes you no explanation OR sexual opportunity, you take the hint. She's avoiding you because SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU. And it doesn't really matter why. Her call, 100%, move on. Wheedling your way into sex is such a whiny teenager move, so not sexy.
21
@7: How about not texting her again? You're clearly not getting the existing message
That's because she hasn't given him a message, she's given him the absence of a message and left him to wonder what that means.
LW should work on the assumption that this woman is an adult who would have responded "No thanks" by now if she wasn't at least a little bit interested. If she's afraid to be direct, then this will be great practice for her.
That's because she hasn't given him a message, she's given him the absence of a message and left him to wonder what that means.
LW should work on the assumption that this woman is an adult who would have responded "No thanks" by now if she wasn't at least a little bit interested. If she's afraid to be direct, then this will be great practice for her.
22
@21: The fact that she refused dinner, and refused a hook up, perhaps more than once each, indicate that however much he might interpret her response as "avoiding the question" it could be fairly characterized as "no." Maybe she feels sorry for him and is trying not to have a screaming meltdown at someone she views as a starstruck but harmless youth of whom she took advantage. But there is no "absence of message" in her turning down all requests to see her again.
23
Are you serious about texting her? A text is forevah. Just remember that. I would not want my SO texting me that, forget a possible one night stand.
24
@IPJ: The fact that she refused dinner, and refused a hook up
She did no such thing. Avoiding a question is not the same thing as answering it.
The fact is, neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what this woman is thinking or why she hasn't explicitly turned him down. And there's absolutely no harm in LW asking her.
She did no such thing. Avoiding a question is not the same thing as answering it.
The fact is, neither you nor anyone else here has any idea what this woman is thinking or why she hasn't explicitly turned him down. And there's absolutely no harm in LW asking her.
25
Really, this is a Miss Manners question.
Three "Oh, I'd love to but I have to wash my hair" equals "No".
Two "no answer" equals "No". (the reason it's not "one" is to allow for the possibility that one message was missed.)
One "No" equals "No".
Three "Oh, I'd love to but I have to wash my hair" equals "No".
Two "no answer" equals "No". (the reason it's not "one" is to allow for the possibility that one message was missed.)
One "No" equals "No".
26
@ 24 Avoiding a question is not the same thing as answering it.
----------------------
Yeah, it is. A big part of a culture is its unwritten and unspoken rules. Avoiding a question means "I don't want to answer your question" which, in this case, can only mean "No".
----------------------
Yeah, it is. A big part of a culture is its unwritten and unspoken rules. Avoiding a question means "I don't want to answer your question" which, in this case, can only mean "No".
27
He believes that she doesn't want to see him again. (Penultimate line.) She has turned down multiple invitations to see him again. Just because he characterizes her response as "avoiding the question" doesn't mean there isn't a clear answer there.
The sufficiently determined can characterize a straight "no" as "avoiding the question." Or a straight "no, never, not even if we were reincarnated as the last two pandas on Earth" as "well, she didn't explain WHY, so I think if I could get her to do that I could convince her to give me another shot..."
(In the latest The Good Wife awesome lawyer Elsbeth turns down opposing counsel Kyle MacLachlan for a date. When he charmingly asks if she'll just tell him why she thinks about it for a few seconds and says "No." Refusing to negotiate over her reasons and whether they are good enough.)
The sufficiently determined can characterize a straight "no" as "avoiding the question." Or a straight "no, never, not even if we were reincarnated as the last two pandas on Earth" as "well, she didn't explain WHY, so I think if I could get her to do that I could convince her to give me another shot..."
(In the latest The Good Wife awesome lawyer Elsbeth turns down opposing counsel Kyle MacLachlan for a date. When he charmingly asks if she'll just tell him why she thinks about it for a few seconds and says "No." Refusing to negotiate over her reasons and whether they are good enough.)
28
@25: I was reminded of both that, and a letter way back when about whether LW could be offended that gentlemen who had shared a mutually agreeable night with her didn't send flowers or call the next day. She said no: LW was not allowed to apply the standards of dating to one night stands. Which have their own etiquette, including recognizing that "one night" is an important adjective.
29
"The woman also happens to be "separated" from her husband"
And I think she's not about to leave him for you.
And I think she's not about to leave him for you.
30
Mr Savage perhaps was still under the influence of Ms Prudie. This response to this LW is exactly the sort of thing she'd advise - maybe not on this particular question, but it's definitely a response in her style.
31
The letter and 24's response comes off really... um... creeper/rape-y. This woman made it clear she doesn't want to have another encounter, "whenever I suggest getting together (either for dinner or explicitly as a hookup), she avoids the question." It's a pretty clear "NO" if she doesn't even want to address the subject. Yet Dan and 24 (seandr) think he just needs to keep pushing, because... you know, she just might really KNOW what she is totally missing.
It's really kind of sexist. If this was reversed, it would be a clear cut of one night stand gone poorly, so let it go and move on. Instead, some people think since this involves a woman and it's pretty obv she's TOTALLY going to missing out on a HOT dicking if she doesn't give this creeper another chance.
I hope she just responds to his text with macing him in person for not respecting her boundaries of DROPPING THE SUBJECT and moving on with his life. His dick is not worth the harassment of "suggest getting together (either for dinner or explicitly as a hookup)". He's left the sex-zone into "positive interaction zone". Get. over. it.
It's really kind of sexist. If this was reversed, it would be a clear cut of one night stand gone poorly, so let it go and move on. Instead, some people think since this involves a woman and it's pretty obv she's TOTALLY going to missing out on a HOT dicking if she doesn't give this creeper another chance.
I hope she just responds to his text with macing him in person for not respecting her boundaries of DROPPING THE SUBJECT and moving on with his life. His dick is not worth the harassment of "suggest getting together (either for dinner or explicitly as a hookup)". He's left the sex-zone into "positive interaction zone". Get. over. it.
32
LW should get naked, then leap out from behind a bush when she approaches. That will clear things up.
33
@31: The lw asking her if she wants to see him again is "rape-y?"
It might be many things, including obtuse and obnoxious (depending on how many times he has asked), but it is in no way rape-y. If he asks one more time, she should really be explicit in her refusal. If she is and he continues to ask, he is harassing her, and that is a different issue to be dealt with.
It might be many things, including obtuse and obnoxious (depending on how many times he has asked), but it is in no way rape-y. If he asks one more time, she should really be explicit in her refusal. If she is and he continues to ask, he is harassing her, and that is a different issue to be dealt with.
34
@33 it's more so 24' response that is rape-y, the LW comes more creeper then anything. It's like some don't want to get confrontational, especially over matters of the sexual nature. She's avoiding the question, some think he needs to keep pushing for a direct answer. Just makes me wonder how they feel if a woman doesn't respond directly a coworker's or a friend's unwanted advances deserves the same response... "MAN, SHE DIDN'T SAY NO, KEEP AT IT!" "OBV SHE WILL CAVE IN."
35
Jesus, has it come to this? Ask your grandfather if he persisted in wooing your grandmother. Did he get rejected, but show up with flowers the next day, and next week offer to take her to the movies? Or go war and then come back and ask her again and this time she said yes? There's no damn harm in trying. Are people really so ultra-sensitive and touchy ("rape-y?!! really?!) these days that asking for a definite answer from a woman elicits this kind of hissing from the uber-PC crowd?
It may well be clingy. It may well be a turn-off or pathetic. But it's so far from being "confrontational" and "creeper" that I shudder for the future of the race's continuation if actually pursuing someone (via a single text! Or one phone call! Oh noes!!) is considered practically a crime.
It may well be clingy. It may well be a turn-off or pathetic. But it's so far from being "confrontational" and "creeper" that I shudder for the future of the race's continuation if actually pursuing someone (via a single text! Or one phone call! Oh noes!!) is considered practically a crime.
36
What @31 said.
If the LW were female and the quasi-famous person male, there's no way Dan Savage would have given that answer. We'd all know what it means when someone you hook up with doesn't return your calls/texts. Right?
We would not be having this discussion.
So, maybe the LW should pretend he's a woman and the quasi-famous person is a male and behave accordingly...
If the LW were female and the quasi-famous person male, there's no way Dan Savage would have given that answer. We'd all know what it means when someone you hook up with doesn't return your calls/texts. Right?
We would not be having this discussion.
So, maybe the LW should pretend he's a woman and the quasi-famous person is a male and behave accordingly...
37
@35: " Ask your grandfather if he persisted in wooing your grandmother."
Then our grandfathers were a lot creepier with our grandmothers (collectively).
Your false nostalgia is based on a shitload of whitewashing.
Then our grandfathers were a lot creepier with our grandmothers (collectively).
Your false nostalgia is based on a shitload of whitewashing.
38
Quasi-famous and "separated" from a husband? Dude, do you LIKE drama?
Seriously, go on your way and count yourself lucky. No amount of gorgeous is worth the Exxon Valdez-sized load of bullshit you are letting yourself in for when you run aground on _those_ rocks.
Seriously, go on your way and count yourself lucky. No amount of gorgeous is worth the Exxon Valdez-sized load of bullshit you are letting yourself in for when you run aground on _those_ rocks.
39
@Shibari-san: Yet Dan and 24 (seandr) think he just needs to keep pushing
I'm simply advocating for clear, direct, respectful communication instead of cowardly, indirect, passive aggressive miscommunication. I think it would save the world a lot of unnecessary hurt.
I'm simply advocating for clear, direct, respectful communication instead of cowardly, indirect, passive aggressive miscommunication. I think it would save the world a lot of unnecessary hurt.
40
LW, you met a quasi-famous gorgeous woman in a bar and then had a HOOK-UP. In a car. It's not a prelude to a relationship. She didn't come over to your place and you weren't invited to hers. Even if you'd performed brilliantly, I doubt she'd be hanging around for more. Because it was a HOOK-UP, possibly lubricated by alcohol.
Please stop with the semi-stalkery moping and whiny attitude. You remind me of another LW from months ago who kept demanding logical reasons for why a woman didn't want to continue a relationship with him.
Please stop with the semi-stalkery moping and whiny attitude. You remind me of another LW from months ago who kept demanding logical reasons for why a woman didn't want to continue a relationship with him.
41
"Dear Hotness:
"I'd really like to hook up again. I promise that this time, I shove it so far in that you'll feel something bumping up against your tonsils. And, in case I didn't tell you last time, I have a seven inch tongue and can breathe through my ears.
"Your serve.
"Cordially yours.
"Horniest Beast in Seattle."
"I'd really like to hook up again. I promise that this time, I shove it so far in that you'll feel something bumping up against your tonsils. And, in case I didn't tell you last time, I have a seven inch tongue and can breathe through my ears.
"Your serve.
"Cordially yours.
"Horniest Beast in Seattle."
44
Yeah, I'm thinking maybe this guy blew his shot. But if he hasn't and he's got a chance, then some variation on what Dan suggested would probably be the best thing to say. If he doesn't have a chance, annoying her slightly more couldn't possibly make things worse.
45
@seandr No answer is no. Avoiding the topic should make it taboo. It's like the guys on the street who tell us ladies to smile because we would be oh-so wonderfully more pretty in their eyes. We don't want to smile and don't have to smile. Or the guys who do cat calls and tell us we should be grateful for their leering because we're oh-so pretty.
He slept with her and it doesn't give him special rights to pushing into territory she rather not address. Women tend to be non confrontational in situation when trying to avoid what they could perceive as a threat or something that could escalate into serious drama. She doesn't feel comfortable or want to continue to address the subject.
He, and as many other males, need to respect this and move on. Why are you encouraging him to keep doing what she does not want?
They met at a bar, she's separated from her husband. Perhaps to her it was no strings attached sex and he just REFUSES to believe this since, in his mind, he didn't WOW her into a relationship in a single of night of poor car sex. Why do men feel the need to keep pushing their attention in areas when it is clear it's not wanted?
NO RESPONSE MEANS NO. Avoiding the topic means the topic of sex is NO LONGER FOR YOU.
He slept with her and it doesn't give him special rights to pushing into territory she rather not address. Women tend to be non confrontational in situation when trying to avoid what they could perceive as a threat or something that could escalate into serious drama. She doesn't feel comfortable or want to continue to address the subject.
He, and as many other males, need to respect this and move on. Why are you encouraging him to keep doing what she does not want?
They met at a bar, she's separated from her husband. Perhaps to her it was no strings attached sex and he just REFUSES to believe this since, in his mind, he didn't WOW her into a relationship in a single of night of poor car sex. Why do men feel the need to keep pushing their attention in areas when it is clear it's not wanted?
NO RESPONSE MEANS NO. Avoiding the topic means the topic of sex is NO LONGER FOR YOU.
46
I don't get the love of mis-communication here.
I'm with seandr and Dan on this one : send the text, see what happens.
The fact that it's a woman who is "pursued" is immaterial. A woman who is left without definite answers by a man should very well send that type of text for clarification - it's better to know whether it's yes or no than to be left guessing. Hell, if that was me, I would send the text.
And yes, I'm a feminist, and a woman, and that text is not rape-y, nor confrontational, it's perfectly respectful. Being respected by males doesn't mean being expected to be non-communicating drama-queeny daffodils.
As for it being 7th grade to ask instead of go sulking in a corner : adults ask, 7th graders sulk, not the other way around.
I'm with seandr and Dan on this one : send the text, see what happens.
The fact that it's a woman who is "pursued" is immaterial. A woman who is left without definite answers by a man should very well send that type of text for clarification - it's better to know whether it's yes or no than to be left guessing. Hell, if that was me, I would send the text.
And yes, I'm a feminist, and a woman, and that text is not rape-y, nor confrontational, it's perfectly respectful. Being respected by males doesn't mean being expected to be non-communicating drama-queeny daffodils.
As for it being 7th grade to ask instead of go sulking in a corner : adults ask, 7th graders sulk, not the other way around.
47
@39: He's asked to see her multiple times in multiple ways, and has never seen her again. What's so damn ambiguous about that?
I'm with 45: Those "Hey, hey! Smile baby, you'd be so much prettier. Oh come on, gimme a smile..." are clear and direct communication. Your preference for clear, direct, unambiguous, applied to this case, sounds a lot like "But she didn't tell me WHY she keeps turning me down. It's unclear, undirect, ambiguous, is there something that would make her reconsider? She has to tell me what it is! It's so unfair that I'm left to guess!"
I'm with 45: Those "Hey, hey! Smile baby, you'd be so much prettier. Oh come on, gimme a smile..." are clear and direct communication. Your preference for clear, direct, unambiguous, applied to this case, sounds a lot like "But she didn't tell me WHY she keeps turning me down. It's unclear, undirect, ambiguous, is there something that would make her reconsider? She has to tell me what it is! It's so unfair that I'm left to guess!"
48
Also, too: You do not owe a "here is exactly why I don't want a further relationship with you, clearly and directly and unambiguously explained, with rebuttals to all your points about how you could do stuff differently and deserve another chance and so how about now?" talk to someone you once talked to at a party, or flirted with at a bar, or waited next to at a bus stop, or had fifteen minutes of bad sex with in a car. Or went on a couple of dates with.
49
I agree that she seems pretty clearly not interested in getting together again, and I also agree that no one owes someone they are not interested in a "here is exactly why I don't want a further relationship with you, clearly and directly and unambiguously explained . . . " rejection. It's her right to simply not respond, and only an obtuse guy would take that as meaning that there's a possibility.
But it sounds as though she's being just ambiguous enough to make him, desperate as he is for another change, think the door isn't all the way closed yet ("I would love to see her again, but whenever I suggest getting together (either for dinner or explicitly as a hookup), she avoids the question."). It sounds as if she responds to him in part and ignores the request for a date. If this is the case, and she wants not to have to deal with the irritation of hearing from him, a clear and hard "no" would help both of them.
In any case, it might not serve his goal, but it isn't illegal or a sign of over-the-top-creep-hood for him to send a more explicit message, explaining what he thinks her reservations are about and offering to do better next time. It is not whiny, or 7th grade, or rape-y, or a threat. It's obnoxious and highly unlikely to get the result he wants, but at least then he can know that he put all his cards on the table.
But it sounds as though she's being just ambiguous enough to make him, desperate as he is for another change, think the door isn't all the way closed yet ("I would love to see her again, but whenever I suggest getting together (either for dinner or explicitly as a hookup), she avoids the question."). It sounds as if she responds to him in part and ignores the request for a date. If this is the case, and she wants not to have to deal with the irritation of hearing from him, a clear and hard "no" would help both of them.
In any case, it might not serve his goal, but it isn't illegal or a sign of over-the-top-creep-hood for him to send a more explicit message, explaining what he thinks her reservations are about and offering to do better next time. It is not whiny, or 7th grade, or rape-y, or a threat. It's obnoxious and highly unlikely to get the result he wants, but at least then he can know that he put all his cards on the table.
51
She's keeping the door ajar because she likes the attention.
I dunno guy: I've whiffed myself out of nerves with a gal I was super into, it just happens. get back out there, you'll always get to remember that you had a night with her and you'll meet another gal you're into and have good sex with. Be zen about it and good things will come your way.
I dunno guy: I've whiffed myself out of nerves with a gal I was super into, it just happens. get back out there, you'll always get to remember that you had a night with her and you'll meet another gal you're into and have good sex with. Be zen about it and good things will come your way.
52
A: Would you like to go out Friday night?
B: No.
A: Okay, cool. I get that. How about we just hook up? Fun, no strings. Say Saturday?
B: No.
A: Okay. Listen, how would you like to do something next week? Maybe meet at that bar, have a few drinks, and we can go to my place after...?
B: No.
A: (It's so ambiguous! What does B WANT? I just can't tell. If only B would give me something to work with here!)
Even if the nos have some sort of softening 'gosh you seem like a nice person and I don't want to be a raging bastard/bitch' language. "I will always be too busy to see you" is unambiguous, while also not listing all your personal failings. Your target doesn't OWE you a list of those, or an emotional showdown about how your ardor is not returned, or an argument about why each issue is really not sufficient for his or her refusals. And in civilized society, "Would you like to do X at time Y?" "Sorry, no, that won't work for me," (with three refusals moving the ball to the refuser's court: if those were all genuine too-busys, it's on you to realize they don't know that and indicate interest) is preferred over, "Would you like to go out sometime?" "No. Never. Under no possible circumstances." "But why???!! I bet it's the thing. Listen, you need to give me another chance regarding the thing..."
B: No.
A: Okay, cool. I get that. How about we just hook up? Fun, no strings. Say Saturday?
B: No.
A: Okay. Listen, how would you like to do something next week? Maybe meet at that bar, have a few drinks, and we can go to my place after...?
B: No.
A: (It's so ambiguous! What does B WANT? I just can't tell. If only B would give me something to work with here!)
Even if the nos have some sort of softening 'gosh you seem like a nice person and I don't want to be a raging bastard/bitch' language. "I will always be too busy to see you" is unambiguous, while also not listing all your personal failings. Your target doesn't OWE you a list of those, or an emotional showdown about how your ardor is not returned, or an argument about why each issue is really not sufficient for his or her refusals. And in civilized society, "Would you like to do X at time Y?" "Sorry, no, that won't work for me," (with three refusals moving the ball to the refuser's court: if those were all genuine too-busys, it's on you to realize they don't know that and indicate interest) is preferred over, "Would you like to go out sometime?" "No. Never. Under no possible circumstances." "But why???!! I bet it's the thing. Listen, you need to give me another chance regarding the thing..."
53
@51: Or also potentially because she's had a one night stand freak out on her before. I have plenty of friends who wanted something casual and nothing more, but the guys got obsessive (one involving being threatened with a rifle) as soon as they were explicitly told no, there was zero interest in carrying it on any further than that one night.
54
Also I don't see how shutting down any avenue of socialization is being an attention-soak. That's not leading anybody on, there's nothing in the letter to indicate that she's stringing him along.
55
Would he even be interested in her if she wasn't 'quasi-famous'? How often do guys bother to chase people with whom they have embarrassed themselves?*
If she is quasi-famous and having one-night stands, then you'd think she would have the tools and confidence to tell him to go away. If she is responding vaguely to his texts she might be doing a little entourage thing. (And he knows so much about her hard life.) Even assuming she is completely innocent of mind games, his insecurity and inexperience seem to be a worrisome combination with a woman in emotional mess of a separation.
Since it is unlikely that she is a delicate and fragile flower, one last honest text seems fine. No answer at all, a no, or an evasive answer all mean he should not look back. He can only control his own reactions.
*I know, lots, but this guy has no need to prove himself, he only failed in his mind. One of the most disconcerting but comforting truths is that 'it' isn't all about you.
If she is quasi-famous and having one-night stands, then you'd think she would have the tools and confidence to tell him to go away. If she is responding vaguely to his texts she might be doing a little entourage thing. (And he knows so much about her hard life.) Even assuming she is completely innocent of mind games, his insecurity and inexperience seem to be a worrisome combination with a woman in emotional mess of a separation.
Since it is unlikely that she is a delicate and fragile flower, one last honest text seems fine. No answer at all, a no, or an evasive answer all mean he should not look back. He can only control his own reactions.
*I know, lots, but this guy has no need to prove himself, he only failed in his mind. One of the most disconcerting but comforting truths is that 'it' isn't all about you.
56
@Shibari-san Women tend to be non confrontational...
Bullshit. This isn't about women vs men, it's about people who are too emotionally damaged, selfish, or immature to communicate clearly.
Back when I was 19 yo, I had a brief, not-very-hot fling with a woman who fell hard for me. Our relationship ended in a humiliating (for her) scene in which she tried and failed to sexually seduce me. After that incident, she left a series of increasingly sad, desperate voicemails that I never returned, and months later sent me a long hand written letter detailing the emotional turmoil she was going through, and literally begging me to say something to her.
Had I not been such an immature, cowardly fuck, I would have done her the favor of taking her first call and telling her I didn't want to see her again, so she could have some closure and begin moving on. But I didn't do that, I wanted to avoid an awkward conversation, so I just selfishly ignored her. This left her with no clear resolution, stalled her healing process, and generally fucked with her head.
To this day, I still feel bad about that. In my opinion, I acted like an asshole, and that self-assessment wouldn't change if I were female and she were male.
I've also had plenty of relationship experience with so-called "non-confrontational" people, and it's crazy-making. Rather than simply communicating their need, they don't say anything, pat themselves on the back for being a martyr, gradually build up resentment towards partner for failing to read their mind, and that resentment leaks out as snark, nagging, passive aggression, or emotional withdrawal. This results in a big fight in which it's finally revealed that the reason they've been acting like a douchebag is something that happened last week they were afraid to talk to you about. And of course, it's your fault that they were afraid.
Thanks, but no thanks!
More...
Bullshit. This isn't about women vs men, it's about people who are too emotionally damaged, selfish, or immature to communicate clearly.
Back when I was 19 yo, I had a brief, not-very-hot fling with a woman who fell hard for me. Our relationship ended in a humiliating (for her) scene in which she tried and failed to sexually seduce me. After that incident, she left a series of increasingly sad, desperate voicemails that I never returned, and months later sent me a long hand written letter detailing the emotional turmoil she was going through, and literally begging me to say something to her.
Had I not been such an immature, cowardly fuck, I would have done her the favor of taking her first call and telling her I didn't want to see her again, so she could have some closure and begin moving on. But I didn't do that, I wanted to avoid an awkward conversation, so I just selfishly ignored her. This left her with no clear resolution, stalled her healing process, and generally fucked with her head.
To this day, I still feel bad about that. In my opinion, I acted like an asshole, and that self-assessment wouldn't change if I were female and she were male.
I've also had plenty of relationship experience with so-called "non-confrontational" people, and it's crazy-making. Rather than simply communicating their need, they don't say anything, pat themselves on the back for being a martyr, gradually build up resentment towards partner for failing to read their mind, and that resentment leaks out as snark, nagging, passive aggression, or emotional withdrawal. This results in a big fight in which it's finally revealed that the reason they've been acting like a douchebag is something that happened last week they were afraid to talk to you about. And of course, it's your fault that they were afraid.
Thanks, but no thanks!
57
@54: Exactly. Every single time he's asked to see her she's turned him down. That's not leading someone on.
Maybe she uses soft language because she's had guys blow up before and is trying for a safe and gradual wind-down of his unanticipated interest. Maybe she thinks he was a sweet kid and wants this to end on a friendly note. Maybe she feels guilty because of the vast four year age gap and so doesn't want to be harsh. Or maybe the the language is only "ambiguous" in that she won't give him the secret key to getting her to do him again. Semi-famously.
Maybe she uses soft language because she's had guys blow up before and is trying for a safe and gradual wind-down of his unanticipated interest. Maybe she thinks he was a sweet kid and wants this to end on a friendly note. Maybe she feels guilty because of the vast four year age gap and so doesn't want to be harsh. Or maybe the the language is only "ambiguous" in that she won't give him the secret key to getting her to do him again. Semi-famously.
58
@55: One last honest text seems fine if he'll just give up after--she's held up this long--but let's not pretend that it's really hard to figure out what "No, I don't want to go to dinner with you, don't want to hook up with you, don't want to see you Friday or Saturday or Sunday" could possibly mean.
59
@56: You keep saying "relationship." If they had dated for a few months and she suddenly became too busy to see him, sure, I'd say she owed him a nice clear chat over phone or coffee. Though if she wouldn't he needed to take the cue and move on, as did your former fling. (I've heard of very few successful "giving you closure" conversations. People never seem to stick to the dream script.)
This relationship lasted in-person somewhere from 45 minutes to a couple of hours, and could be expected to formally conclude when they got out of the car. It does not carry the obligation for an official honoring-what-we-had-together breaking up talk.
This relationship lasted in-person somewhere from 45 minutes to a couple of hours, and could be expected to formally conclude when they got out of the car. It does not carry the obligation for an official honoring-what-we-had-together breaking up talk.
60
Mmm...Ok, I stated it poorly: she's still talking to him instead of just completely ignoring him or telling him "forget it" out and out. Maybe, just maybe, that's because she's socialized to be nice to guys and not hurt their feelings by saying "oh, you sucked". Or maybe it's because they regularly run into each other, but it didn't sound like that to me in this letter.
I completely agree with you that some women would be cautious because guys get attached or something, but if this were a one-time one-night-stand with strangers, then i dunno, seems like she might just cut him off.
Why is she still responding? I do not think she's "leading him on" - what I said is, part of her likes that he's interested. If she's going through a breakup/divorce/whatever, sexual attention - feeling desired - is something men and women like. It's an ego boost.
In any case: she's not going to sleep with him again if he keeps pressing the issue. He should move along - what is the quote, "the perfume of romance is indifference" or something like that? He can burn her image into his brain and use it as masturbatory fodder.
I completely agree with you that some women would be cautious because guys get attached or something, but if this were a one-time one-night-stand with strangers, then i dunno, seems like she might just cut him off.
Why is she still responding? I do not think she's "leading him on" - what I said is, part of her likes that he's interested. If she's going through a breakup/divorce/whatever, sexual attention - feeling desired - is something men and women like. It's an ego boost.
In any case: she's not going to sleep with him again if he keeps pressing the issue. He should move along - what is the quote, "the perfume of romance is indifference" or something like that? He can burn her image into his brain and use it as masturbatory fodder.
61
seandr@56: Your paragraph about dealing with "so-called 'non-confrontational' people" doesn't make them sound as bad as you may think it does. If you run into a lot of people who treat you this way, you may want to consider whether you're really paying attention to the clear but non-verbal communication going on. If you ignore the snark and emotional withdrawal, then it shouldn't be surprising that you end up at a big fight. Obviously, if your communication styles are incompatible, then you need to break up, but my husband is a trooper at understanding when a polite but not warm response from me means that he'd better ask "what's wrong," and if my answer to "what's wrong" is a cold "nothing," then he knows that's not the end of the conversation. I'm working on figuring out what I want and putting it into words earlier in the process, but we wouldn't have lasted this long if he weren't able to figure out what I mean even when I can't yet put it into words.
62
@61 - a polite but not warm response from me means that he'd better ask "what's wrong," and if my answer to "what's wrong" is a cold "nothing," then he knows that's not the end of the conversation.
No offense, but that's like...a cliche. ;-) People always trot out "use your words" like it was just that simple...good luck with your endeavors.
No offense, but that's like...a cliche. ;-) People always trot out "use your words" like it was just that simple...good luck with your endeavors.
63
Erica, your husband gets big points for doing your work of communicating for you.
And if it's non-verbal and it's not being recognized, it's highly debatable whether it qualifies as "clear" - and that's the whole point.
And if it's non-verbal and it's not being recognized, it's highly debatable whether it qualifies as "clear" - and that's the whole point.
64
While I generally dislike men who can't take a hint, since this woman hasn't given an unambiguous no, this little exchange would be for LW's benefit, not anyone else's. She's not interested, but if it's necessary for him to ask again, explicitly and explaining himself, to move the fuck on with his life, so be it. He obviously will have some hope until a last-ditch effort is made, and will pine and/or keep asking. If I were the woman in question, I think I would take the opportunity to slam the door closed and be done with him. Unwanted persistence is annoying, but Dan at least gives a way to (hopefully) get an unambiguous answer and an end to the pursual.
Additional advice to LW: any answer that is not a 'yes' is now a 'no.' I'm really busy right now is a no. Thanks for the explanation is a no. If for whatever reason she wants to avoid an outright rejection, take it for what it is an move on.
Additional advice to LW: any answer that is not a 'yes' is now a 'no.' I'm really busy right now is a no. Thanks for the explanation is a no. If for whatever reason she wants to avoid an outright rejection, take it for what it is an move on.
65
@14 has it.
Assuming Savage was serious, I am converting to Gay. It can't be that easy to ask for sex, is it?
Assuming Savage was serious, I am converting to Gay. It can't be that easy to ask for sex, is it?
67
I can't believe no one has picked up on this yet. She isn't "seperated" from her husband. She is married and cheated. She has gone radio silence because she is hoping you go away and can't respond in the moment because she is with her husband.
68
@56: "I wanted to avoid an awkward conversation, so I just selfishly ignored her. This left her with no clear resolution, stalled her healing process, and generally fucked with her head. "
Unless somehow you're leaving out where you were provoking her, she was not entitled to "reasons" and the OP's interest is not either. Your suggesting that all women be forced to explain themselves because you attracted someone who was unbalanced is not somehow healthier. It's not fair to demand this entitlement, no matter what you personally want. And it's no guarantee that what you tell them will "ease their suffering" versus increasing the pain for them AND yourself.
Unless somehow you're leaving out where you were provoking her, she was not entitled to "reasons" and the OP's interest is not either. Your suggesting that all women be forced to explain themselves because you attracted someone who was unbalanced is not somehow healthier. It's not fair to demand this entitlement, no matter what you personally want. And it's no guarantee that what you tell them will "ease their suffering" versus increasing the pain for them AND yourself.
72
@EricaP:
My point wasn't to make "non-confrontational" people look bad. As I described in my post, I can be that way myself. I'm just saying that you usually save everyone involved a lot of time and hurt by being direct and honest as opposed to playing games. I'm kind of surprised this is generating controversy.
I'm glad your husband has learned to decode your signals when you are unable to assert yourself, and I hope the learning process didn't involve too much pain and resentment. What about your boy toys - are they expected to crack the code as well, or do you just tell them what's what?
My point wasn't to make "non-confrontational" people look bad. As I described in my post, I can be that way myself. I'm just saying that you usually save everyone involved a lot of time and hurt by being direct and honest as opposed to playing games. I'm kind of surprised this is generating controversy.
I'm glad your husband has learned to decode your signals when you are unable to assert yourself, and I hope the learning process didn't involve too much pain and resentment. What about your boy toys - are they expected to crack the code as well, or do you just tell them what's what?
73
@72, if I'm not having fun with a boy toy, mostly I manage my emotions myself. If I send them obvious non-verbal signals, like my hand on their knee which they ignore, or pushing their hand off my knee, only to have them put it back again, then I probably don't see them again. We're not compatible. Honestly, I think it's odd that you and Chase are amazed that it's possible to figure out signals. The ones I mentioned are pretty damn obvious, as AFinch pointed out (a cliche, even). Figuring out what a teenager means is a lot harder, but we don't get to give up and not even try.
And, you know, using my words doesn't always improve the situation. After getting assaulted, I began spelling out, in very clear words, the fact that my stated hard-limits are real hard-limits, and not a game to try to get some rapey-action going on. You wouldn't think that would have to be stated, but spelling it out has led to some interesting conversations. Some guys agree with my assaulter, that (in their experience) a woman usually wants whatever it is that she says she doesn't want. Other guys find it incredibly icky that I would bring up a bad sexual experience when on a date with them. To them, it's a sign I'm damaged--they stick around only to see if my particular damage means I'm vulnerable to being pressured. So, no, the real truth is I don't find boy-toys through online sites anymore. I make friends through sex-positive (read, kinky) social networks, and then I flirt with my friends, just like in college, and sometimes that leads to more. The ones who pick up on my signals are the ones I like more, obviously. Sorry for spewing like this, seandr. But I find it silly to think everything would be peachy if only people communicated every emotion in words.
And, you know, using my words doesn't always improve the situation. After getting assaulted, I began spelling out, in very clear words, the fact that my stated hard-limits are real hard-limits, and not a game to try to get some rapey-action going on. You wouldn't think that would have to be stated, but spelling it out has led to some interesting conversations. Some guys agree with my assaulter, that (in their experience) a woman usually wants whatever it is that she says she doesn't want. Other guys find it incredibly icky that I would bring up a bad sexual experience when on a date with them. To them, it's a sign I'm damaged--they stick around only to see if my particular damage means I'm vulnerable to being pressured. So, no, the real truth is I don't find boy-toys through online sites anymore. I make friends through sex-positive (read, kinky) social networks, and then I flirt with my friends, just like in college, and sometimes that leads to more. The ones who pick up on my signals are the ones I like more, obviously. Sorry for spewing like this, seandr. But I find it silly to think everything would be peachy if only people communicated every emotion in words.
75
@72: "I'm just saying that you usually save everyone involved a lot of time and hurt by being direct and honest as opposed to playing games. I'm kind of surprised this is generating controversy."
Because you're dictating that actively cutting off a casual fling is always preferable to passively letting it drop off. If people didn't demand answers, try to justify themselves, or turn into a complete freak and harass the person for their choice, it'd probably be more common. Sometimes the quiet break is the best.
Because you're dictating that actively cutting off a casual fling is always preferable to passively letting it drop off. If people didn't demand answers, try to justify themselves, or turn into a complete freak and harass the person for their choice, it'd probably be more common. Sometimes the quiet break is the best.
76
Besides, again, that the OP knew full well that the party in question was still involved with (and potentially living with) her husband.
77
@EricaP: Actually, it's the absence of signals I'm kvetching about. If you're sending even halfway intelligible messages my way, I've got no complaints.
Also, I'd say that pushing someone's hand off your knee is about as direct as communication gets, even if it is nonverbal. What could that gesture possibly mean besides "get your (fucking) hand off my knee?"
It's interesting to hear about your screening process. I can easily imagine misinterpreting the significance of the sexual assault conversation.
Also, I'd say that pushing someone's hand off your knee is about as direct as communication gets, even if it is nonverbal. What could that gesture possibly mean besides "get your (fucking) hand off my knee?"
It's interesting to hear about your screening process. I can easily imagine misinterpreting the significance of the sexual assault conversation.
78
@seandr Thank you for supporting my point on why your attitude on this is that of a creeper and why women are typically non confrontational-- because you have no issue on chasing out your much needed reply. And probably, like people, take further issue with an actual truthful reply.
I have little doubt that people may give you a reply just to make you stop confronting them and just go away. The world is full of people like this. They want a reply so it gives them another reason to engage the person-- not get closure but to make their rebuttal on why this person is probably totally wrong. If by, somehow arguing their point will somehow make them right and end the situation in their favour.
Perhaps this is not your intent, but according to you-- introverts and people who try to avoid confrontation is somehow a lesser and unhappy person. Rather then dragging out a conversation or relationship one would rather end or move on with.
In real relationships I do believe communicating needs and thoughts are important and needed. But it's not needed with strangers or hookups. One brief sexual encounter does not give this guy allowance on needing a life altering reply. She wants to be left alone, so every time he brings up the subject, she ignores it.
Again, if this was a female LW writing over a guy-- we'd tell her he's not interested and move on. But instead, we need to fan the male ego and tell him to go. Because OBV this check doesn't know about the totally hot dicking she's missing out on. I know she's not interested, but he REALLY needs to tell her just how badly she's missing out on the dicking she clearly does not want.
I have little doubt that people may give you a reply just to make you stop confronting them and just go away. The world is full of people like this. They want a reply so it gives them another reason to engage the person-- not get closure but to make their rebuttal on why this person is probably totally wrong. If by, somehow arguing their point will somehow make them right and end the situation in their favour.
Perhaps this is not your intent, but according to you-- introverts and people who try to avoid confrontation is somehow a lesser and unhappy person. Rather then dragging out a conversation or relationship one would rather end or move on with.
In real relationships I do believe communicating needs and thoughts are important and needed. But it's not needed with strangers or hookups. One brief sexual encounter does not give this guy allowance on needing a life altering reply. She wants to be left alone, so every time he brings up the subject, she ignores it.
Again, if this was a female LW writing over a guy-- we'd tell her he's not interested and move on. But instead, we need to fan the male ego and tell him to go. Because OBV this check doesn't know about the totally hot dicking she's missing out on. I know she's not interested, but he REALLY needs to tell her just how badly she's missing out on the dicking she clearly does not want.
79
@78
Introvert doesn't mean shy. It means : needing some me-time away from the crowd to be able to function.
Unless you're the semi-famous lady herself, how can you say "I know she's not interested" ? She's still communicating with the guy. But maybe you missed that part of the letter, because you were already projecting too much ?
Introvert doesn't mean shy. It means : needing some me-time away from the crowd to be able to function.
Unless you're the semi-famous lady herself, how can you say "I know she's not interested" ? She's still communicating with the guy. But maybe you missed that part of the letter, because you were already projecting too much ?
80
If indeed the gorgeous, quasi-famous, maybe-separated woman is actually responding to LUST's attempts at communication, but avoiding giving a direct answer to requests to get together, which is unclear, she is sending him mixed signals. Now, one could argue that the "no" signal is pretty strong, but sometimes some people need to hear an unequivocal "no" to get it.
Yes, there is the possibility that he will take such a "no" response as an opportunity to whine, "why not?" or to explain why she shouldn't say no, that it will be different, better, etc. this time. But there is also the possibility that he will say, "oh. Okay," chagrined, and never call/text her back again. The possibility that several others here have predicted, that he will react angrily and violently seems pretty far-fetched, and though it can not be ruled out entirely--no possible human response can ever be entirely ruled out--it is pretty unlikely. He's not an angry or jealous boyfriend or husband, just a rejected suitor. This happens hundreds of times a day, and people shrug and go on with their lives.
To those saying she has no obligations to respond or tell him "no," that these are the rules of a one-night stand, that he has no right to wanting an unequivocal rejection, well, sure. That's true. But giving someone direct, clear feedback falls under the category of "the right thing to do."
I've been both this woman (well, not gorgeous, quasi-famous, maybe-separated, the recipient of bad car-sex. Hmmm . . . okay, I've almost been her!) and humiliatingly, this young man. In other words, I've needed to give "no" as an explicit answer, and had a hard time doing it, and I've been left dangling without the "no" being told to me. That last position leaves one in a constant state of emotional/mental rumination and over-analysis. ("But he said -------. Why would he say that if he wasn't interested? What did ------- mean? Maybe . . . ") It's a yucky place to visit in your mind.
I've also been reluctant to utter the hard "no," not because I was afraid of violent reprisal, but because it is an uncomfortable conversation to have, or even if no real conversation follows, just the "oh. Okay," it is still an awkward and unpleasant moment, and I wanted to avoid having it. And sometimes there is a bit of that "don't burn your bridges" mentality going on, too, for the ego boost, or just as a hedge-your-bets attitude.
The thing is that now that I've been LUST, I could never be the G,Q-F,M-S woman again. I know what it feels like to be on that mental hamster wheel, and even if I don't like the guy, even if he seems oblivious to the signals I think I'm sending, even if I don't *OWE* him the explicit "no," I have enough human compassion to not want to do that to anyone else.
Lastly, if he's becoming an annoyance, if I'm pestered by his persistence, once I get over the uncomfortable moment of saying, "never gonnna happen. Please stop. I don't want you to call me any more," my life gets better, because I have never yet been bugged by someone again once I have uttered those words or ones like them. If you're so selfish that you can only think of what you feel you owe someone else depending on the circumstances and amount of time you spent with them, consider that this is a way to free yourself of someone who is becoming a pest.
More...
Yes, there is the possibility that he will take such a "no" response as an opportunity to whine, "why not?" or to explain why she shouldn't say no, that it will be different, better, etc. this time. But there is also the possibility that he will say, "oh. Okay," chagrined, and never call/text her back again. The possibility that several others here have predicted, that he will react angrily and violently seems pretty far-fetched, and though it can not be ruled out entirely--no possible human response can ever be entirely ruled out--it is pretty unlikely. He's not an angry or jealous boyfriend or husband, just a rejected suitor. This happens hundreds of times a day, and people shrug and go on with their lives.
To those saying she has no obligations to respond or tell him "no," that these are the rules of a one-night stand, that he has no right to wanting an unequivocal rejection, well, sure. That's true. But giving someone direct, clear feedback falls under the category of "the right thing to do."
I've been both this woman (well, not gorgeous, quasi-famous, maybe-separated, the recipient of bad car-sex. Hmmm . . . okay, I've almost been her!) and humiliatingly, this young man. In other words, I've needed to give "no" as an explicit answer, and had a hard time doing it, and I've been left dangling without the "no" being told to me. That last position leaves one in a constant state of emotional/mental rumination and over-analysis. ("But he said -------. Why would he say that if he wasn't interested? What did ------- mean? Maybe . . . ") It's a yucky place to visit in your mind.
I've also been reluctant to utter the hard "no," not because I was afraid of violent reprisal, but because it is an uncomfortable conversation to have, or even if no real conversation follows, just the "oh. Okay," it is still an awkward and unpleasant moment, and I wanted to avoid having it. And sometimes there is a bit of that "don't burn your bridges" mentality going on, too, for the ego boost, or just as a hedge-your-bets attitude.
The thing is that now that I've been LUST, I could never be the G,Q-F,M-S woman again. I know what it feels like to be on that mental hamster wheel, and even if I don't like the guy, even if he seems oblivious to the signals I think I'm sending, even if I don't *OWE* him the explicit "no," I have enough human compassion to not want to do that to anyone else.
Lastly, if he's becoming an annoyance, if I'm pestered by his persistence, once I get over the uncomfortable moment of saying, "never gonnna happen. Please stop. I don't want you to call me any more," my life gets better, because I have never yet been bugged by someone again once I have uttered those words or ones like them. If you're so selfish that you can only think of what you feel you owe someone else depending on the circumstances and amount of time you spent with them, consider that this is a way to free yourself of someone who is becoming a pest.
81
@80: "To those saying she has no obligations to respond or tell him "no," that these are the rules of a one-night stand, that he has no right to wanting an unequivocal rejection, well, sure. That's true. But giving someone direct, clear feedback falls under the category of "the right thing to do." "
In a perfect world where there are no consequences for being told "It's been fun but I don't want to associate with you again, please lose this number", this would be the case.
"Yes, there is the possibility that he will take such a "no" response as an opportunity to whine, "why not?" or to explain why she shouldn't say no, that it will be different, better, etc. this time."
Which is why seandr's insistence that any ONS is entitled to reasons is based on a false premise. It does not make it easier for both parties as claimed.
In a perfect world where there are no consequences for being told "It's been fun but I don't want to associate with you again, please lose this number", this would be the case.
"Yes, there is the possibility that he will take such a "no" response as an opportunity to whine, "why not?" or to explain why she shouldn't say no, that it will be different, better, etc. this time."
Which is why seandr's insistence that any ONS is entitled to reasons is based on a false premise. It does not make it easier for both parties as claimed.
82
It seems like not enough energy is being spent to tell a guy who picks up married women at closing time that (independent of the woman's choice to contact him back) he shouldn't expect them to ring him back even under his best game.
83
seandr@77 "Actually, it's the absence of signals I'm kvetching about."
I disagree:
seandr@56: "she left a series of increasingly sad, desperate voicemails that I never returned," and: "that resentment leaks out as snark, nagging, passive aggression, or emotional withdrawal."
The "woman who fell hard" should have understood your clear signal of not returning her sad, desperate voicemails. She chose to misinterpret your clear, unambiguous signal of disinterest.
And you noticed the snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal, and yet somehow didn't interpret those as clear communication of the need to make time for a serious conversation. Now, maybe you just wanted out of that relationship. Being in a relationship with someone who constantly communicates through "snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal" is no fun, and I can easily see leaving over that issue. But I don't see how you can say that it isn't communication.
I disagree:
seandr@56: "she left a series of increasingly sad, desperate voicemails that I never returned," and: "that resentment leaks out as snark, nagging, passive aggression, or emotional withdrawal."
The "woman who fell hard" should have understood your clear signal of not returning her sad, desperate voicemails. She chose to misinterpret your clear, unambiguous signal of disinterest.
And you noticed the snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal, and yet somehow didn't interpret those as clear communication of the need to make time for a serious conversation. Now, maybe you just wanted out of that relationship. Being in a relationship with someone who constantly communicates through "snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal" is no fun, and I can easily see leaving over that issue. But I don't see how you can say that it isn't communication.
84
The "woman who fell hard" should have understood
Over the course of about five, increasingly sad and desperate voice mails, she did come to understand. Given how painful that understanding was to her, I'm inclined to give her a pass for not figuring it out sooner. The bottom line for me is that I could have spared her significant pain, and for no good reason, I didn't. That to me is the definition of cruelty. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
And you noticed the snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal, and yet somehow didn't interpret those as clear communication of the need to make time
As communications, they don't convey much information, they are simply intended to cause pain, just like rage, physical violence, insults, or giving someone the silent treatment. The message being conveyed is "Fuck you", when the actual meaning is "I"m mad because you overstuffed the trash again."
Over the course of about five, increasingly sad and desperate voice mails, she did come to understand. Given how painful that understanding was to her, I'm inclined to give her a pass for not figuring it out sooner. The bottom line for me is that I could have spared her significant pain, and for no good reason, I didn't. That to me is the definition of cruelty. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
And you noticed the snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal, and yet somehow didn't interpret those as clear communication of the need to make time
As communications, they don't convey much information, they are simply intended to cause pain, just like rage, physical violence, insults, or giving someone the silent treatment. The message being conveyed is "Fuck you", when the actual meaning is "I"m mad because you overstuffed the trash again."
85
@undead ayn rand: Which is why seandr's insistence that any ONS is entitled to reasons is based on a false premise.
Can you please stop attributing things to me that I haven't said? Thanks.
Can you please stop attributing things to me that I haven't said? Thanks.
86
"it's about people who are too emotionally damaged, selfish, or immature to communicate clearly."
Because anyone who chooses not to continue contact is any and all of these things?
Because anyone who chooses not to continue contact is any and all of these things?
87
@80: "avoiding giving a direct answer to requests to get together"
Getting together is one of those binary things that either happens or doesn't happen. He's asked multiple times (at least twice, and I'm guessing 4-6) and it has never happened. The direct answer was therefore "no", however much "gosh I am just SUPER busy at work, I do think you're a nice guy, don't hate me or stalk me or cause a scene with my husband" it was caged in. Maybe she thinks he's sweet and enjoys the little boost of a yearning text, or maybe she cannot believe that he couldn't figure out that car sex right after their first meeting followed by consistent demurrals was not her way of indicating long-term relationship potential and she is afraid of how unpredictably he'll therefore respond to "it meant ten minutes to me, fuck off."
We give advice to the writer, not the.... really, calling her an SO is way off. Not the person with whom he spent an hour he'd like to repeat and she wouldn't. I don't think "in future quick car sex hook-ups with people you just met, look for someone who with good post-car-sex communication skills" works as advice.
Getting together is one of those binary things that either happens or doesn't happen. He's asked multiple times (at least twice, and I'm guessing 4-6) and it has never happened. The direct answer was therefore "no", however much "gosh I am just SUPER busy at work, I do think you're a nice guy, don't hate me or stalk me or cause a scene with my husband" it was caged in. Maybe she thinks he's sweet and enjoys the little boost of a yearning text, or maybe she cannot believe that he couldn't figure out that car sex right after their first meeting followed by consistent demurrals was not her way of indicating long-term relationship potential and she is afraid of how unpredictably he'll therefore respond to "it meant ten minutes to me, fuck off."
We give advice to the writer, not the.... really, calling her an SO is way off. Not the person with whom he spent an hour he'd like to repeat and she wouldn't. I don't think "in future quick car sex hook-ups with people you just met, look for someone who with good post-car-sex communication skills" works as advice.
88
@87: I think the lw is obtuse and should learn to recognize the non-response is a kind of response. This isn't binary advice (she needs to communicate more directly and he is not in the wrong here); it's an attitude that says that *I* think the right thing for the woman to do is to be direct. And the right thing for the guy to do is accept her rejection graciously. That's all. I'm reading all these people who suggest that we should alter the basic decency of our responses based on the nature of the relationship we have or had with the person who is trying to engage us, and I disagree.
It would take her literally a minute to tell him that she's not interested in a repeat performance, and she's never going to be interested, so please drop it. If she wants to continue to be in touch, she can couch it in those terms, but I suspect that she wants nothing whatsoever to do with him again, and she can say that (nicely, but explicitly) too. I think it likely that the reason that she hasn't done this is because it will be an awkward minute.
I realize she's not the one looking for advice, and my advise to LUST would be to send her the letter that Dan scripted for him, so he's unambiguous, if he just needs to say it, and then to take a non response as a "no-and-never." Or even to just take all her earlier avoidance responses as "no-and-never"s. BUT I think that if she had been more explicit the first time he contacted her suggesting they get together post car-sex, this all would have been shut down then and there, which seems like a relief to her and a kindness to him.
It would take her literally a minute to tell him that she's not interested in a repeat performance, and she's never going to be interested, so please drop it. If she wants to continue to be in touch, she can couch it in those terms, but I suspect that she wants nothing whatsoever to do with him again, and she can say that (nicely, but explicitly) too. I think it likely that the reason that she hasn't done this is because it will be an awkward minute.
I realize she's not the one looking for advice, and my advise to LUST would be to send her the letter that Dan scripted for him, so he's unambiguous, if he just needs to say it, and then to take a non response as a "no-and-never." Or even to just take all her earlier avoidance responses as "no-and-never"s. BUT I think that if she had been more explicit the first time he contacted her suggesting they get together post car-sex, this all would have been shut down then and there, which seems like a relief to her and a kindness to him.
89
@88: I think basic decency would be what we would call turning someone down politely, e.g. "Gosh it's nice of you to ask but I can't Friday." Repeated to every invitation, it is in fact unambiguous. (To one invitation it is ambiguous, politely so.)
How did completely ignoring someone like they were something icky on the bottom of your shoe, or clearly spelling out the exact personal failings which remove them from any possible consideration as romantic or casual partner, become the "decent" thing to do? I'd call them harsh responses which should only be hauled out when the person is refusing to do the decent thing and read consistent polite refusals to see them again as lack of interest.
How did completely ignoring someone like they were something icky on the bottom of your shoe, or clearly spelling out the exact personal failings which remove them from any possible consideration as romantic or casual partner, become the "decent" thing to do? I'd call them harsh responses which should only be hauled out when the person is refusing to do the decent thing and read consistent polite refusals to see them again as lack of interest.
90
@88: "It would take her literally a minute to tell him that she's not interested in a repeat performance"
At potential risk to herself. He has very little to lose. She has more, or she wouldn't be fucking him in an automobile.
At potential risk to herself. He has very little to lose. She has more, or she wouldn't be fucking him in an automobile.
91
Again, the sort of person who doesn't take polite declines as the "no" they are intended to be is also the type of person who creates a fantasy world in his head about how perfect they'd be, and who reacts very negatively when that fantasy is destroyed beyond any hope of reconciliation.
92
@89 (IPJ): I have been direct many times, and I am never, ever rude. I don't say things like "you are something icky on the bottom of my shoe I need to scrape off." And the last thing that a direct "no" is, is "ignoring someone." In fact, that is the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I just delivered the "I'm not feeling it, so no harm, no foul, let's just go our separate ways" message twice in the past two weeks. In one of those cases, I initiated the conversation (really not so much a true conversation as a directive), before waiting for him to ask me out again, as I could tell he was going to and I knew I had no interest.
@ undead ayn rand: I can't speak to your experiences, and maybe you've known more than your share of violent people, but I have found a lot of people don't understand polite declines, if they are couched in a lot of politeness and otherwise deferential behavior. They are living in a fantasy, it is true, but I've never known anyone who reacts all that badly when that fantasy is destroyed beyond any hope of reconciliation. It seems to me that keeping people in a state of suspense by not responding or letting people's fantasies live on to be disappointed are better ingredients for angry reactions, but perhaps your experience is otherwise.
I'm applying a bit of the golden rule here. I prefer to be told--nicely and tactfully, but unequivocally (and this is entirely possible)--that there is no reciprocal interest. "You seem like a very nice person, but I just don't feel the right attraction" would not be taken amiss and though it might not be what I'd want to hear, it's preferable to silence as I try to reach out. Because then I just think the person is being an asshat.
@ undead ayn rand: I can't speak to your experiences, and maybe you've known more than your share of violent people, but I have found a lot of people don't understand polite declines, if they are couched in a lot of politeness and otherwise deferential behavior. They are living in a fantasy, it is true, but I've never known anyone who reacts all that badly when that fantasy is destroyed beyond any hope of reconciliation. It seems to me that keeping people in a state of suspense by not responding or letting people's fantasies live on to be disappointed are better ingredients for angry reactions, but perhaps your experience is otherwise.
I'm applying a bit of the golden rule here. I prefer to be told--nicely and tactfully, but unequivocally (and this is entirely possible)--that there is no reciprocal interest. "You seem like a very nice person, but I just don't feel the right attraction" would not be taken amiss and though it might not be what I'd want to hear, it's preferable to silence as I try to reach out. Because then I just think the person is being an asshat.
93
To further clarify, I don't think that ignoring someone's obvious interest isn't sending a message. On the contrary, the message is there and it is very clear. It says, "I am an asshole and I'm not interested, but I'm too selfish to be bothered to tell you I'm not interested, so you can twist in the wind. And feel free to pine after me."
94
@92: My current partner broke off a ONS to being stalked and confronted with a firearm. I don't expect the anecdote to be universally applicable, I'm sure that most people are capable of handling rejection. I do know that people who craft improper expectations of a future with someone after one night of awkward car-banging are more ~likely~ to take "no" worse than others.
I personally believe that I'd rather hear the no (though I can't even state that it'd always be better), and have been surprised to get the directness, but I don't like to speak for everyone, and my point is that I fully understand why someone might not want to contact the ONS again.
I personally believe that I'd rather hear the no (though I can't even state that it'd always be better), and have been surprised to get the directness, but I don't like to speak for everyone, and my point is that I fully understand why someone might not want to contact the ONS again.
95
seandr@84> As communications, they don't convey much information, they are simply intended to cause pain, just like rage, physical violence, insults, or giving someone the silent treatment. The message being conveyed is "Fuck you."
If you would hear "fuck you" if I used "snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal" (SNPAEW), then clearly we're not compatible. It's as simple as that. My husband and I grew up in households with "rage, physical violence, and insults" (RPVI) and I'm amazed that you consider SNPAEW equivalent to RPVI.
As I said @83, most people wouldn't put up with constant SNPAEW; I wouldn't either. But I think using SNPAEW once a month is not equivalent to punching someone once a month, or screaming 'fuck you' once a month. Your mileage apparently varies. Good thing we're not interested in dating. Also, given the amount of snark you use on Slog*, either we have different definitions of snark, or you're better able to dish it out than you are to receive it.
*ie, "Can't" is just a short vowel away from "cunt"! and "You all realize being the Alpha Male requires a certain amount of "I don't give a fuck", right?"
If you would hear "fuck you" if I used "snark, nagging, passive aggression and emotional withdrawal" (SNPAEW), then clearly we're not compatible. It's as simple as that. My husband and I grew up in households with "rage, physical violence, and insults" (RPVI) and I'm amazed that you consider SNPAEW equivalent to RPVI.
As I said @83, most people wouldn't put up with constant SNPAEW; I wouldn't either. But I think using SNPAEW once a month is not equivalent to punching someone once a month, or screaming 'fuck you' once a month. Your mileage apparently varies. Good thing we're not interested in dating. Also, given the amount of snark you use on Slog*, either we have different definitions of snark, or you're better able to dish it out than you are to receive it.
*ie, "Can't" is just a short vowel away from "cunt"! and "You all realize being the Alpha Male requires a certain amount of "I don't give a fuck", right?"
96
Or, to put it a different way... You said, @77: "If you're sending even halfway intelligible messages my way, I've got no complaints." I think you and I agree with each other, except that you don't believe me when I say my husband understands my SNPAEW means "I love you and I'm hurting," not, "fuck you." I don't know why you don't believe me, but I don't see any way to persuade you, so I'll drop it.
97
EricaP @83 (regarding seandr's heartbroken woman): "She chose to misinterpret your clear, unambiguous signal of disinterest."
If communication can be misinterpreted, then it's not unambiguous. And that's exactly the problem with some (lots of?) non-verbal communication. It seems to me.
If communication can be misinterpreted, then it's not unambiguous. And that's exactly the problem with some (lots of?) non-verbal communication. It seems to me.
98
@97, ah, I misspoke. (See, words aren't a guarantee of clarity, it's just all we have in Slog comments...) I should have said: "She chose to ignore your clear, unambiguous signal of disinterest." At the time, she was operating out of pain, and could just as easily have treated any communication at all (even "please don't call me") as a sign that some part of seandr wanted to be with her, which is why he was still talking to her rather than distancing himself. I've been on both sides of that, and I don't believe there are words he could have said to relieve her pain.
99
@EricaP: I'm beginning to suspect that the voice you hear in your head when you read my posts is much snarkier than my actual voice.
The only equivalence I'm drawing between hitting and, say, passive aggressiveness, is that they are both rather sadistic and inarticulate forms of communication.
And where did I say I don't believe your husband understands your signals? I said I'm glad he does, and I'm hoping it didn't take too much painful trial and error for him to reach that point. Again, no snark. Given how defensive you're being about your indirect communication style, I can't help but wonder whether that style has caused your husband more pain than you are able to own up to. But I certainly don't presume to understand your husband or your marriage, and your suggestion that he's a more savvy, receptive communicator than I is very likely true.
The "cant'" vs "cunt" and alpha male business is also not snark, it's a form of humor that you apparently don't appreciate.
The only equivalence I'm drawing between hitting and, say, passive aggressiveness, is that they are both rather sadistic and inarticulate forms of communication.
And where did I say I don't believe your husband understands your signals? I said I'm glad he does, and I'm hoping it didn't take too much painful trial and error for him to reach that point. Again, no snark. Given how defensive you're being about your indirect communication style, I can't help but wonder whether that style has caused your husband more pain than you are able to own up to. But I certainly don't presume to understand your husband or your marriage, and your suggestion that he's a more savvy, receptive communicator than I is very likely true.
The "cant'" vs "cunt" and alpha male business is also not snark, it's a form of humor that you apparently don't appreciate.
100
My wife has a friend who is really bad about responding to messages and invitations. Just ignores them. Radio silence. We've discovered it doesn't mean she's not interested, because she enjoys it when they meet up, and the two of them have a great time when they do. She's just really lazy or something, I don't know. So my wife is persistent, and once in awhile they have lunch. I find it fucking irritating, but my wife has accepted that's just who her friend is.
So. When does not responding to repeated invitations mean "I'm not interested," and when does it mean, "Oh shit, I'm supposed to be at the daycare right now, and I think I better pick up some more cheese for dinner...."? How the hell do you know unless you ask? I don't know, I find this sort of shit unnecessarily ambiguous. Big fan of words. My two bits.
(Same on the silent treatment vs. just-needing-time-to-process-being-hurt issue: how on earth does the recipient of the silence distinguish between the two? And how hard would it be to say, "Can we just talk about this in a few days hon?" [This comment is not directed at you, EricaP: Mrs. Bloomer has the same need to withdraw as you do when she's hurt. Sadly, she was also taught growing up that silent passive aggression is a legitimate relationship tactic.])
So. When does not responding to repeated invitations mean "I'm not interested," and when does it mean, "Oh shit, I'm supposed to be at the daycare right now, and I think I better pick up some more cheese for dinner...."? How the hell do you know unless you ask? I don't know, I find this sort of shit unnecessarily ambiguous. Big fan of words. My two bits.
(Same on the silent treatment vs. just-needing-time-to-process-being-hurt issue: how on earth does the recipient of the silence distinguish between the two? And how hard would it be to say, "Can we just talk about this in a few days hon?" [This comment is not directed at you, EricaP: Mrs. Bloomer has the same need to withdraw as you do when she's hurt. Sadly, she was also taught growing up that silent passive aggression is a legitimate relationship tactic.])
101
@89: False dichotomy. There is a vast swath between "Thanks for the invitation, but I'm busy Saturday," and "There's no way in hell. Here's a list of exactly what I find objectionable about you." In my estimation, a simple, polite, "Thank you, but I am not interested" is not only unambiguous, but a lot closer on the kindness scale to "not this Saturday" than to "You disgust me."
Continuing to say "I'm busy" is to imply that the problem is with the calendar, not the person. While it is true that a halfway observant inquirer really ought to take the hint, it still constitutes stringing them along.
Continuing to say "I'm busy" is to imply that the problem is with the calendar, not the person. While it is true that a halfway observant inquirer really ought to take the hint, it still constitutes stringing them along.
102
@100: Yes, that is a good point. When Letter Writer says "whenever I suggest getting together (either for dinner or explicitly as a hookup), she avoids the question." I am wondering how exactly that plays out. I suspect it means that she is continuing to communicate cordially with him while just not addressing the invitation. That's not even the same thing as ignoring him.
I also suspect that she has a certain incentive to be diplomatic in all her communications, because every communication is implicitly part of the permanent record, and could get leaked to her public. Or to her "separated" husband who could use it in court against her.
I also suspect that she has a certain incentive to be diplomatic in all her communications, because every communication is implicitly part of the permanent record, and could get leaked to her public. Or to her "separated" husband who could use it in court against her.
103
@61, I told you my husband understands my SNPAEW.
@72 you said: "I'm glad your husband has learned to decode your signals when you are unable to assert yourself, and I hope the learning process didn't involve too much pain and resentment."
@73 I remind you that my signals are pretty damn obvious, as AFinch already pointed out (a cliche, even).
Then @84 you say that SNPAEW = "fuck you." That's where you show that either:
a) you don't believe my husband understands SNPAEW to mean "I'm in pain; we need to talk," or
b) you think he correctly understands that I mean to say "fuck you."
@95 I explain again, SNPAEW doesn't mean "fuck you" for us.
And then @99 you repeat your pleasant good wishes for my husband: "hoping it didn't take too much painful trial and error," but suggesting that it must have. I don't think you care about his pain, since you don't know the guy. You know me, and you're just happy to point out my failings. Granted, I'm sure I do hurt him in many ways. Marriages often cause pain, even strong marriages. Read David Schnarch's Passionate Marriage for more on this topic. But I don't see your point in noting my flaws. It's not as if I ever promoted SNPAEW as a fantastic approach. I'm just saying that it is communication, and it communicates: "I'm in pain; we need to talk."
@72 you said: "I'm glad your husband has learned to decode your signals when you are unable to assert yourself, and I hope the learning process didn't involve too much pain and resentment."
@73 I remind you that my signals are pretty damn obvious, as AFinch already pointed out (a cliche, even).
Then @84 you say that SNPAEW = "fuck you." That's where you show that either:
a) you don't believe my husband understands SNPAEW to mean "I'm in pain; we need to talk," or
b) you think he correctly understands that I mean to say "fuck you."
@95 I explain again, SNPAEW doesn't mean "fuck you" for us.
And then @99 you repeat your pleasant good wishes for my husband: "hoping it didn't take too much painful trial and error," but suggesting that it must have. I don't think you care about his pain, since you don't know the guy. You know me, and you're just happy to point out my failings. Granted, I'm sure I do hurt him in many ways. Marriages often cause pain, even strong marriages. Read David Schnarch's Passionate Marriage for more on this topic. But I don't see your point in noting my flaws. It's not as if I ever promoted SNPAEW as a fantastic approach. I'm just saying that it is communication, and it communicates: "I'm in pain; we need to talk."
104
Sorry, @103 was directed to seandr, I thought others had stopped reading.
LateBloomer@100: "Same on the silent treatment vs. just-needing-time-to-process-being-hurt issue: how on earth does the recipient of the silence distinguish between the two?"
If the two of you are compatible, then your best guess works out right most of the time and you forgive each other for the times it doesn't work out right. Generally, if my husband doesn't have time for the conversation, then he doesn't pursue it and just leave me alone in my emotional withdrawal. Turns out, that works too. Basically, it's up to him: if he wants a friendly, warm wife who will initiate sexual play, then he'd better make time for the conversation. (He never goes wrong initiating the conversation.) If he doesn't have time to deal, then he has to put up with some coldness between us until the mood works its way out of my system. I don't rely on him to fix me. But I get back to my normal happy self faster if he has time to show that he cares.
LateBloomer@100: "Same on the silent treatment vs. just-needing-time-to-process-being-hurt issue: how on earth does the recipient of the silence distinguish between the two?"
If the two of you are compatible, then your best guess works out right most of the time and you forgive each other for the times it doesn't work out right. Generally, if my husband doesn't have time for the conversation, then he doesn't pursue it and just leave me alone in my emotional withdrawal. Turns out, that works too. Basically, it's up to him: if he wants a friendly, warm wife who will initiate sexual play, then he'd better make time for the conversation. (He never goes wrong initiating the conversation.) If he doesn't have time to deal, then he has to put up with some coldness between us until the mood works its way out of my system. I don't rely on him to fix me. But I get back to my normal happy self faster if he has time to show that he cares.
105
Edit: "if he wants a friendly, warm wife who will initiate sexual play tonight, then he'd better make time for the conversation today."
106
@EricaP: Then @84 you say that SNPAEW = "fuck you."
Not quite. My point was that poor communication techniques, whether they're the passive-aggressive or overtly aggressive kind, amount to saying or doing something hostile (essentially "fuck you") to communicate something else (e.g., "I'm in pain about X, we need to talk").
And I'm not saying this is unique to your situation - everyone plays these games to some extent. Having been on both sides of this, I agree with you that being able to non-defensively interpret what your partner is trying to communicate through their hostility is a valuable skill for maintaining a relationship. But I'm sticking to my original point - learning to be clear and direct with a romantic partner is at least an equally valuable skill, and certainly something I'd be looking for in a partner if I ever found myself in the market again.
Surprised to be debating this with you - you're usually the one advocating for asking directly for what you want or need.
Not quite. My point was that poor communication techniques, whether they're the passive-aggressive or overtly aggressive kind, amount to saying or doing something hostile (essentially "fuck you") to communicate something else (e.g., "I'm in pain about X, we need to talk").
And I'm not saying this is unique to your situation - everyone plays these games to some extent. Having been on both sides of this, I agree with you that being able to non-defensively interpret what your partner is trying to communicate through their hostility is a valuable skill for maintaining a relationship. But I'm sticking to my original point - learning to be clear and direct with a romantic partner is at least an equally valuable skill, and certainly something I'd be looking for in a partner if I ever found myself in the market again.
Surprised to be debating this with you - you're usually the one advocating for asking directly for what you want or need.
107
There is a significant difference in the communication expected in an ongoing close relationship of months or years, and that owed (or mutually intelligible between) brief or slight acquaintances.
It's worth noting that the people blaming her ambiguous communication do not seem to include a single poster who believes there's a chance in hell she wants to go to dinner with him, hook up with him, or anything in between. Doesn't actually seem ambiguous. And that's with the LW putting things in the best possible light and providing no example of her "ambiguous" communication to him.
(Which I believe could be anything from "oh wow love hearing from you, you're so sweet :) but I can't do Friday, maybe next week!" (giving false hope, but repeated multiple times with no intervening hook-ups constitutes a clue-by-four, just like sexting only or a string of made and cancelled dates would--and I'm sure it wasn't as positive as my last two examples or he would have mentioned this sign of hope) to any of the examples people give of an "unambiguous" no, rendered ambiguous because she doesn't really explain where the magic button to get to yes is and so who can tell what "sorry, you're a nice guy but it won't work between us" means?)
It's worth noting that the people blaming her ambiguous communication do not seem to include a single poster who believes there's a chance in hell she wants to go to dinner with him, hook up with him, or anything in between. Doesn't actually seem ambiguous. And that's with the LW putting things in the best possible light and providing no example of her "ambiguous" communication to him.
(Which I believe could be anything from "oh wow love hearing from you, you're so sweet :) but I can't do Friday, maybe next week!" (giving false hope, but repeated multiple times with no intervening hook-ups constitutes a clue-by-four, just like sexting only or a string of made and cancelled dates would--and I'm sure it wasn't as positive as my last two examples or he would have mentioned this sign of hope) to any of the examples people give of an "unambiguous" no, rendered ambiguous because she doesn't really explain where the magic button to get to yes is and so who can tell what "sorry, you're a nice guy but it won't work between us" means?)
108
@106, I agree that "learning to be clear and direct with a romantic partner is at least an equally valuable skill [as being able to non-defensively interpret what your partner is trying to communicate through their hostility]."
109
@107 IPJ--It seems to me one owes a casual acquaintance more, not less clarity, in order to keep the planet spinning smoothly, because there's far more opportunity for misunderstanding. If a spouse of many years can misread non-verbal cues (see @104), what hope does a casual acquaintance have? And just because you don't know someone well doesn't give you the right to leave them twisting in the wind, even if the twist is due to their own daftness. Have an ounce of compassion, spell things out for them kindly, and everyone can be on their way.
@108 EricaP--Oh good. I was getting the opposite impression.
Thanks for the explanation @104. That's a little more straightforward than what I had pictured. FWIW, I think it would still drive me a little nuts--my wife and I have evolved a different dynamic. But I'm glad it works for you.
@108 EricaP--Oh good. I was getting the opposite impression.
Thanks for the explanation @104. That's a little more straightforward than what I had pictured. FWIW, I think it would still drive me a little nuts--my wife and I have evolved a different dynamic. But I'm glad it works for you.
110
@109: But an entire thread of random people, based on a few paragraphs, can tell that she doesn't want to see him again, how much twisting is due to an inability to communicate on *her* part rather than an almost deliberate obtuseness on his? It's people whom we don't know that well, don't want to know better, but don't want to anger (because it would complicate our pending divorce, or because we have to see them occasionally) with whom we most need social niceties like "gosh I have to wash my hair" three times in a row means stop asking.
For example, to take "sorry, you're a nice guy but it won't work between us":
a) "Sorry." She says she's sorry. That means that she sees a future for them, a good one, and she regrets that they can't make it happen. But maybe they can!
b) "You're a nice guy." She likes him. This isn't because she's repelled by him: she can see he'd be good for her.
c) "It won't work." But she doesn't give a reason! And she likes him, she's sorry, clearly she knows this could work if they just try!
As noted way upthread, swap the genders and this would be a straightforward "He's not that into you. And it's a shame he's not going to spell it out in the perfect words for you to feel okay and wistfully but stronger-now move on, but life is not Twilight fanfic."
For example, to take "sorry, you're a nice guy but it won't work between us":
a) "Sorry." She says she's sorry. That means that she sees a future for them, a good one, and she regrets that they can't make it happen. But maybe they can!
b) "You're a nice guy." She likes him. This isn't because she's repelled by him: she can see he'd be good for her.
c) "It won't work." But she doesn't give a reason! And she likes him, she's sorry, clearly she knows this could work if they just try!
As noted way upthread, swap the genders and this would be a straightforward "He's not that into you. And it's a shame he's not going to spell it out in the perfect words for you to feel okay and wistfully but stronger-now move on, but life is not Twilight fanfic."
111
@109 I don't see how you were getting the impression that I was against clear communication. I'm in favor of the best communication each person can provide at that moment. Sometimes that's a pout. I felt seandr was saying that the unfriendly pout was not a valid form of communication. I disagree, although I agree that a pout is not a great way to communicate and people should try to do better, if and when they can.
112
@110: "an almost deliberate obtuseness on his"
Almost? It screams desperation.
"clearly she knows this could work if they just try!"
Hah, that's the Old Gil voice I read this letter in my head...
Almost? It screams desperation.
"clearly she knows this could work if they just try!"
Hah, that's the Old Gil voice I read this letter in my head...
113
@111 Okay. That's not what I was taking away from what you said before. A quick glance up the thread shows that I wasn't the only one either though. Clearly, a miscommunication. How deliciously ironic.
@110 You are aware that this particular LW knows his one-night stand does not wish to hook up with him again, right? "...There's this nagging feeling that it was the bad sex that's keeping her from wanting to see me again." My comments were in response to the examples seandr and EricaP gave. I'm making a general case for clear, straightforward communication whenever possible, and not just including but especially with casual acquaintances, and especially in emotionally fraught situations, where the chance for misunderstanding and being hurt is that much higher. And while silence, evasion, vague promises, social niceties, uncommonly frequent hair-washing etc do technically count as communication, I think that they are often rooted in avoidance and entitlement, and are piss-poor methods of communication when compared to straightforward, kind, compassionate, self-confident, clearly spoken king's English. And I feel that, given the option, one should always strive for the latter.
Yea, I have spoken.
@110 You are aware that this particular LW knows his one-night stand does not wish to hook up with him again, right? "...There's this nagging feeling that it was the bad sex that's keeping her from wanting to see me again." My comments were in response to the examples seandr and EricaP gave. I'm making a general case for clear, straightforward communication whenever possible, and not just including but especially with casual acquaintances, and especially in emotionally fraught situations, where the chance for misunderstanding and being hurt is that much higher. And while silence, evasion, vague promises, social niceties, uncommonly frequent hair-washing etc do technically count as communication, I think that they are often rooted in avoidance and entitlement, and are piss-poor methods of communication when compared to straightforward, kind, compassionate, self-confident, clearly spoken king's English. And I feel that, given the option, one should always strive for the latter.
Yea, I have spoken.
114
@113: "I think that they are often rooted in avoidance and entitlement"
Heh, women. Always with the entitlement in not giving me the answers I DESERVE.
Heh, women. Always with the entitlement in not giving me the answers I DESERVE.
116
@115: There is more entitlement involved in demanding specific answers than there is to give answers that you find unacceptable.
No one in this thread believes that she wants anything to do with the OP, her decision was crystal-clear to everybody. Demanding she repeat herself to the OP won't change the situation greatly.
No one in this thread believes that she wants anything to do with the OP, her decision was crystal-clear to everybody. Demanding she repeat herself to the OP won't change the situation greatly.
117
@116 "There is more entitlement involved in demanding specific answers than there is to give answers that you find unacceptable." Damn rights. Whoever believes that needs to be set straight. Meanwhile, in the discussion I was actually having, my basic position was, "Clear and direct verbal communication is, in my opinion, the best way to prevent and to deal with misunderstandings." The irony of my not being able to communicate this has not been lost on me.
I just realized I'm recycling what nocutename said, and said better, @92 and @93. I'll leave it up to her to speak for me. (Your and IPJ's responses to her didn't really convince me. I feel you're both using extreme examples in order to dismiss an approach that is generally sound.)
I just realized I'm recycling what nocutename said, and said better, @92 and @93. I'll leave it up to her to speak for me. (Your and IPJ's responses to her didn't really convince me. I feel you're both using extreme examples in order to dismiss an approach that is generally sound.)
118
@73: I'm not amazed that it's possible to figure out signals - I do it all the time. I'm amazed that you think signals are sufficient to fulfill the minimum obligation to communicate. *Sometimes* signals are all you need. But if you're trying to convey a message to someone and it's not getting through, and you haven't stated it explicitly using words, you have not yet made a good faith effort to communicate as clearly as possible. This is the first question anyone who is trying to communicate should ask themselves: did I express myself explicitly and unambiguously? That's no guarantee that you will be heard, listened to, or understood. But it is the essential first step.
Sometimes even words aren't enough. But I'm amazed that your experiences with words proving insufficient has somehow convinced you that they're unnecessary. The fact is, verbal communication is the clearest, most accurate, most concise form of human communication we have yet developed. Other forms have their advantages, but for sheer signal fidelity there is no match for words.
And the guys who aren't paying attention to or are disregarding your words? Not guys you should be having sex with. As it sounds like you figured out.
Sometimes even words aren't enough. But I'm amazed that your experiences with words proving insufficient has somehow convinced you that they're unnecessary. The fact is, verbal communication is the clearest, most accurate, most concise form of human communication we have yet developed. Other forms have their advantages, but for sheer signal fidelity there is no match for words.
And the guys who aren't paying attention to or are disregarding your words? Not guys you should be having sex with. As it sounds like you figured out.
119
@113: The odds are against a person you barely know finding exactly the right words to convey your worth as a person and yet also a reason that is acceptable to you and understandable why your love (or future no-strings hook-ups) will never be.
And I maintain that if LW were a woman trying to figure out "ambiguous" communication from a man that everyone could see screamed "WE are never ever ever, going to see each other in person again if I see you first" she would be told: Look, pity he didn't spell it out in the best possible way for you but you can't control other people, only your reactions to them.
It always makes sense to direct advice to the LW, rather than the person they're describing. (Who isn't reading, and may have a 180° different take on the circumstances.) In this case, "In future, make sure to choose random stranger hook-ups based on that person's post-car-sex communication style" really isn't going to help him.
And I maintain that if LW were a woman trying to figure out "ambiguous" communication from a man that everyone could see screamed "WE are never ever ever, going to see each other in person again if I see you first" she would be told: Look, pity he didn't spell it out in the best possible way for you but you can't control other people, only your reactions to them.
It always makes sense to direct advice to the LW, rather than the person they're describing. (Who isn't reading, and may have a 180° different take on the circumstances.) In this case, "In future, make sure to choose random stranger hook-ups based on that person's post-car-sex communication style" really isn't going to help him.
121
Chase, @63 and again here @118, you assume the signal is not clear: "if it's non-verbal and it's not being recognized" / "it's not getting through." Whereas I'm saying that my signals ARE clear and are understood. Someone refusing to admit they understand does not create an obligation for me to continue communicating until they admit it.
The LW does in fact understand her signal, as he says explicitly--"keeping her from wanting to see me again"--thus showing that he knows she doesn't want to see him again. All he doesn't understand are her reasons; and she apparently doesn't want to communicate her reasons to him, nor does she have any obligation to do so. He wants to pretend he doesn't understand, so he can persuade her "to give me another chance." That pretense isn't the same as an actual failure to understand.
(Further: if my partner regularly misunderstands my communication, whether verbal or non-verbal, then we are not compatible, and whoever realizes that first should end the relationship. As I have been saying all along, see @61, 66, 73, 95, and 104.)
The LW does in fact understand her signal, as he says explicitly--"keeping her from wanting to see me again"--thus showing that he knows she doesn't want to see him again. All he doesn't understand are her reasons; and she apparently doesn't want to communicate her reasons to him, nor does she have any obligation to do so. He wants to pretend he doesn't understand, so he can persuade her "to give me another chance." That pretense isn't the same as an actual failure to understand.
(Further: if my partner regularly misunderstands my communication, whether verbal or non-verbal, then we are not compatible, and whoever realizes that first should end the relationship. As I have been saying all along, see @61, 66, 73, 95, and 104.)
122
I feel that mere words are no longer adequate for this discussion. From now on we should all express ourselves through interpretive dance.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (122) RSS