Young fellas; as a not so young fella who some say used to fuck: Don't be a dick while thinking with your dick.
It's that easy. You be you, be whatever you're interested in, and just use your goddamn eye balls to read if the person is uncomfortable. If they are, smile and fuck off king. Keep it going; don't be a dick and watch that aura work and that dick get wet.
But remember, you have to genuinely not be a dick. Be yourself, be assertive or not, there's someone (many someones even) for everyone and never mind the bullshit rules 1 and 2 you self-deluded fucks.
Don't. Be. A. Dick.
You'll be happier, the people around you will be happier, and you will fuck and feel good about it while making others feel good about it. Simple secret.
I'm also a not-so-young dude - forgotten generation - and honestly I don't remember guys being like this. At least, not to women's faces. Being rejected sucks and is a hit to your self-image, so there was the occasional after-the-fact, booze-fueled name-calling while among the guys, but to must of us, being rejected was something we were embarrassed about and didn't advertise by sharing.
Our generations - boomers, gen-x - are selfish, greedy, and short sighted. OTOH, from survey of N=1 (my wife) getting this sort of response from men wasn't a concern.
I mean there is also a massive amount of underreporting of sexual violence from that time and if you were born a man then there's a good chance that if you were respectful you may have never been in the room where someone was getting assaulted or harassed. That's not your fault, I'm glad you might not have been one of the shitty people to hurt others, but I'm pretty sure this shit has been happening a long time.
coming from a no-so-old dude who believes in respect and vibing.
Rape is another matter. Rape has been prevelant and underreported since, well, forever; and I doubt the rates of rape have gone down. In fact, since the definition of rape has been increasingly broadened, sexual violence crime rates have almost certainly been increasing.
The meme, and myself, were not talking about rape, or inequality, or being not being able to vote. I was only talking about women today being increasingly afraid to turn down men.
How so? I never said you weren't supposed to feel bad or that you couldn't. Lick your wounds if you want. Just don't lash out over it.
It will make you a genuinely more likeable person if you don't lash out at someone for rejecting you. No sane person wants to date an individual with a temper like that, especially if you put it on display before the relationship even begins.
I would never defend or say that behavior is justified by hurt feelings. I am saying that just saying "just don't take rejection personally" is in no way a helpful response. To misquote Schoppenhauer, a person can choose how they react, but they can't choose how they feel -- especially when hormones are involved.
Why would you remember guys being like this if you're not a woman? Obviously you would not experience this situation if you were never in this situation because you're a man. This interaction is going to happen where you don't see them. Just ask some women around you if they've ever been scared by the response of a man they rejected. You'll find that the majority of women have.
Like when the contraceptive pill came in it made it harder for a lot of women to say no to having sex as they couldn't say they were worried about pregnancy. - so even then women needed a tolerated reason to say no to men.
Yeah as a woman who gets plenty of women. Women want to fuck too. If the lady you’re hitting on isn’t reciprocating that’s cool find one who is.
Also your mental and emotional shit being together is way more attractive than it has any right to be. I’m not kidding, I’m moderately attractive but the fact that I can take no for an answer, clean my bathroom, and introspect on my emotions does wonders with the women already attracted to me.
Remember you aren’t gonna turn a no into a yes, but you can turn a yes into a no or a no into a restraining order.
I was out for a long run yesterday. Playing the Hype Running List on Spotify. Enjoying most of the songs/artists being played thwre, eg, RATM, Beastie Boys, even some older stuff.
One song I was a bit meh about was The Boys Are Back In Town by Thin Lizzie. But this time, the lyrics made me stop and have a wtf moment. Here’s what I’m referring to:
You know that chick that used to dance a lot
Every night she'd be on the floor, shakin' what she's got
Man, when I tell you she was cool, she was red-hot
I mean, she was steamin'
And that time over at Johnny's place
Well, this chick got up and she slapped Johnny's face
Man, we just fell about the place
If that chick don't wanna know, forget her
And I was like “hold up, are they saying what I think they’re saying?” Like, why would she slap his face? And why would you guys be dismissive of her and cool with Johnny?
Being hot/attractive doesn’t give you license to assault someone. So fuck off with that shit.
I get where they’re coming from, but it’s still not great being a guy and only getting vague signals that you’re trying to piece together. Ghosting is also another issue that’s honestly just disrespectful.
While it may ultimately be those man children who ruin it for everyone, some upfront honesty is generally very appreciated.
It’s also a bit like the job market in some professions. The good ones are more likely to be taken, so you have a magnifying effect on people who tend not to have successful relationships.
Have you considered being upfront and honest about your feelings? Why are you trying to piece together signals instead of just saying you're interested?
That they desctibe themselves as trying to decipher signals. If they said upfront that they were interested and asked how the woman felt they would presumably get some kind of answer. Ghosting is a pretty clear signal too.
Weird presumption. Someone giving you signals you need to decipher says nothing about how frank you've been with them. Some people just give you weird vague signals no matter how directly you ask them.
If by “embarrassment” you mean “getting arrested or your entire career and life ruined by sexual harassment accusations because you accidentally made someone uncomfortable”. Don’t act as if men are giving up dating in record numbers over “embarrassment”. It’s disingenuous. They’re giving up because guys like the one in the comic cause women to view them all as “creeps”.
To offer a shortened version of the reply I gave to another user who asked that same question, barely at all. But many men are so afraid of becoming that one in a million example that they don’t want to take that chance. The same can be said of women who are afraid of being murdered for turning a guy down - they feel the risk isn’t worth the reward. While both of those fears are understandable, I personally feel that they are also contributing to the degradation of the dating pool, which is what leads to situations like the one in the comic, as fewer well-adjusted men choose to approach women and more poorly-adjusted men come in to take their place. The solution is obvious, but it’s also difficult: People need to be better to each other by taking more chances and giving more chances. Otherwise we’ll have more lonely people in ten years than we already do.
I'm going to assume you're asking in good faith even though you could have just googled "woman killed for rejecting man" (or something similar) yourself to find that out, but here's the top results for that query – meaning that these are absolutely not the only cases but just the top ones on the first page of the results:
Naturally you can claim they're lies, or exaggerations etc., but it really should be clear that this is a common phenomenon.
How many articles can you find to support the claim that men routinely get sexual harrassment charges for rejecting a woman's advances? And do you think it's comparable to getting literally murdered? And note that this is just the murders: other forms of abuse after rejection are also common
to be fair, nothing you just did was actually make a case for how common it is, you just pointed out that mass media exists in the modern day and age, by that logic I, as a disabled person, should never leave my house
It’s actually not common at all. But the few examples of it happening were bad enough that it has deterred a lot of men from approaching women at all. Plus, regular, reasonable guys don’t like the idea of asking out a woman who’s immediately afraid he’ll kill her if she says no, not just because they don’t like the idea of potentially making her uncomfortable just by approaching her, but also because even if she says yes, a relationship that has that level of fear or distrust right off the bat is doomed. Which of course leads to a vicious cycle, where the only men asking women out are douchebags, and then those women’s perception of men becomes worse. Nobody likes this cycle, but the only way to fix it is for people to be better to each other.
regular, reasonable guys don’t like the idea of asking out a woman who’s immediately afraid he’ll kill her if she says no, not just because they don’t like the idea of potentially making her uncomfortable just by approaching her, but also because even if she says yes, a relationship that has that level of fear or distrust right off the bat is doomed.
You'll have to excuse my language, but this just pissed me right the fuck off.
Frankly this is a load of bullshit and not a description of how anyone reasonable actually acts. Women getting murdered for rejecting men's approaches is incredibly common, and you're fucking placing the blame on women for fuck's sake. Jesus christ this is just so fucking infuriating. Reasonable men should understand that if they're not a goddamn murderer then they should be fine.
I made another comment with a list of the top results I got for "woman killed for rejecting man", which should hopefully drive the point home that this actually is a scarily common problem that women face – the fact that your little fucking feefees get hurt by the idea that women can be wary of men making advances is inconsequential.
Listen. I am not angry at you, but I feel you need to understand a few things.
First of all, attempting to twist what I say to support your existing assumptions about men is not the way to engage in healthy discourse. If you go into a thread looking for something to get offended about, you’ll find it, regardless of whether it’s actually offensive, and if you go into it already totally convinced of your own moral superiority, you lose out on the opportunity to learn something.
Secondly, while I’m on the topic of assumptions, not wanting to approach someone for fear they’ll prematurely judge you is absolutely a reasonable decision. At the very least, it’s hardly more unreasonable than the notion that everyone bigger than you is going to kill you if you say the wrong thing. Yes, obviously it can happen. I’m not arguing that. But if some guy on the internet demanded that you prove to every man you talk to that you’re not going to falsely accuse them of raping you if they tell you they aren’t interested in you, you would rightfully tell him to fuck off, because A) proving intentions is impossible, B) you could just as easily just never talk to men instead of jumping through a bunch of hoops, and C) you should not have to. Besides, if women being murdered for rejecting men is really as scarily common as you claim, then by your logic, having fewer men approaching women is a good thing, and therefore, calling men fragile for giving up on dating is counter-productive to your assumed goal.
And finally, I must say, accusing other people of having “hurt fee-fees” is pretty brazen of you, considering that you’ve done nothing but respond with hostility and insults, whereas I’ve tried to be considerate of your feelings and even straight up apologized to you. Clearly something must happened to you to make you feel the way you do about men, and I sympathize with your situation, but I speak from experience when I say that having trauma does not make a person entitled to spread hatred. As you said, if a man is not a murderer, then in an ideal world, that would be the end of it. But you have made it clear through your words that whether someone is a murderer or not is less important to you than whether or not you fear they could be, and when you judge people by that metric, you become part of the problem you claim to want to solve.
I didn't intend to be dismissive and if my response sounded that way then I apologise.
I agree it's difficult to be on the receiving end of vague signals, but my perspective is if there's any annoyance or frustration it should be directed at the violent/angry men who have caused women to feel unsafe.
Helping women feel safer by tackling the violence and misogyny directed at them by men will benefit everyone.
Men can’t reproduce. The fear of never getting a woman to love us is fucking scary to men because our feelings evolved around a total dependence on women to propagate our genes.
For a man, the relationship to a woman is just as valuable as his own body, in terms of viability of his genes. The types of fear we feel reflect this biological fact. We fear death yes, because death means our genes don’t reproduce. We also fear rejection for the same
reason.
I think there's three main reasons for vague signals.
They legitimately don't know how they feel. Maybe they kind of like you but aren't sure. Recommended: do not pursue. Find someone who is enthusiastic about you. Do you really want to spend your time with someone who can't make decisions and doesn't know how they feel? It's exhausting.
They are afraid or uncomfortable, and are trying to avoid upsetting you. Like the comic. Enough men will do just that or worse if they get rejected that being polite can seem safer, even if it makes me man feel like he's getting mixed signals. You know you're not like that, but they don't. Recommended: same as above.
2b. You are talking to someone who can't leave like a retail worker. Stop bothering the person who can't tell you to fuck off.
They aren't thinking about you at all. Like one time they're happy to go bowling with you but the next time they blow you off on biking. What gives?? Mixed signals?? Nah dude she just likes bowling.
Love this. Especially 2b. I hated this about working in a cafe.
I'm only talking to you at all because I'm being paid to do so. I'm only smiling because my job is customer service. I'm being nice because you're a fellow human, not because I want you in any way
There's also a sort of 1b. They're into you but are playing games like "hard to get." Again, do you really want to be with someone playing games with you? It's exhausting.
It's also dismissive of the fact that a lot of women give vague signs as their signs of interest. It's really just a damned if you do or don't situation. Either you interpret the vague signals as disinterest and move on, or you read them as a potential go ahead and you're a dick.
But that's just circular. Girls can't be direct because guys are assholes. Guys can't be direct because they don't want to be assholes. If standards for one must change, guys being ok with being assholes but being direct with their assertions, then so too must the other change standards, i.e. being direct with their signs.
Trying to live so that nobody ever sees you as an asshole is a recipe for depression and regret.
How, else do you interpret that? Assuming that depression and regret are things to be avoided, then saying living so that no one sees you as an asshole = depression would mean that, if you want to avoid depression, you necessarily have to be an asshole. I suppose you can be an asshole without being ok with it.
Yet I read other thread were women bitched and men acknowledge that we just miss signs when they interested. Its a no win situation. Man glad met my wife on a dating app and we communicated properly.
But the comic got real point because there was other thread and women dicussed dating and man the crap they deal with makes you wonder they even bother.
The answer is to flip this psychology/narrative that men have to be the ones to initiate and women are to be demure and play hard to get. Women should be approaching men more and men should be approaching women less.
Also, men need to have more platonic relationships with women and shouldn’t only be interested in, approach and talk to a woman because they want to have sex with them.
Probably best not to be so black and white. It’s probably not a healthy friendship if one of the people in the relationship just want to be friends and the other wants a sexual relationship.
We would have to define “wanting to have sex with them”. I would say 95% of young women are sexually attractive to 95% of straight men. If someone is sexually attractive does that mean “you want to have sex with them”.
David Sedaris did a great story about this I can’t remember the name of the episode. But as a sexual male whenever you see a woman one of the first things you think in your head is “would I have sex with her”. Not “will I” or even “will I pursue” but “would I”. Most of the time, the answer is yes.
Being in an actual relationship and learning and navigating friendships is difficult for all humans.
But to say men should stop wanting to have sex with women is ignorant, and not true to reality. If you don’t like it, I guess too bad? It’s not going to change.
This doesn’t mean we should work on being more empathetic in our relationships to try and understand where others are coming from. We can still be respectful of each others boundaries while wanting to have sex with each other.
But my original point is that it is not really a friend relationship if one person has unrequited feelings the other doesn’t share.
Sure. It’s also difficult for women to trust men for all the reasons that I hope go without saying. Life is hard. You don’t have to continue the cycle.
Won’t be rejected all the time if you’re just a normal dude and don’t go into every interaction with a woman expecting that you’re entitled to their affection.
It’s not hard. Just treat people like people and get to know them beyond appearance. More importantly, prioritize values and validation of yourself that isn’t centered around getting laid and there won’t be so much pressure on whether a woman likes you or not.
When men see other men who are successful with women, that’s exactly what it looks like. Confidence is attractive to people. When the attraction is mutual, expecting that you’re entitled to affection is exactly the appropriate response.
The conflict happens when one person misses the signs that the attraction is not mutual and keeps pursuing which comes across as creepy etc. and yes women
It’s not so black and white. If it were life would probably be pretty boring.
It’s probably rude to say it but when guys ask girls out, the primary reason is most likely they want to have sex. You can have other activities and traits you enjoy sharing together as well, and there is absolutely more to life than having sex.
Men and women have similar and different complex wants and needs. Life is hard yes. But if we’re going to be offended about male sexuality then I guess we’re going to have to keep pretending that men don’t think about sex as much as they do.
Generic advice often sounds to some guys like… ok I should try to be friends with her and pretend I don’t want to have sex. The guy wants sex and will follow any advice and process to reach that goal. To tell the guy to not want sex is useless advice, because he wants it.
I see your point about having values and not basing your validation and ego around what other people think of you, it’s very important for healthy self esteem. But there’s no simple answer and we all have to navigate our complex personal relationships on the fly as we go, and some lessons are difficult to learn. I don’t have the answers but it’s interesting discussion.
I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Nobody is ever entitled to affection whether somebody is attracted to them or not. Even in a committed relationship. You can expect it, but you’re never entitled to it.
You can put your head in the sand if you like, I prefer living in reality. Where semantics are much less difficult to understand than actual human interactions and relationships.
You’re trying to draw a red line in on invisible sand and saying don’t cross this line. No one but you knows where that line is but you will know it when they cross the line, and if they do they are a bad person. This doesn’t help us become better people but I guess it makes you feel superior because you’re in the right?
Hm. You’re projecting a lot into this conversation. There is no semantics with consent. Nobody is entitled to anybody’s affection and much less their body (I know you didn’t say this part but this whole discussion is about sex so I imagine it’s implied). No superiority here. That’s all in your head. I’m just trying to explain how it is and why some people might be feeling rejected.
We can and should validate everybody’s feelings but not at the expense of others’ safety and autonomy, and we can validate feelings while at the same time not enabling and perpetuating bad behavior that got the person feeling rejected in the first place.
All due respect, just telling it like it is. No ego here.
Dalto is right, we are talking past one another. You’re not looking at the context of what I was saying and you are just saying consent is consent. That’s all well and good but navigating that is not black and white. Human relationships are more complex than just saying consent is consent and no one is entitled. It’s just a talking point but in reality relationships are complex and nuanced. Autonomy and consent is really important and necessary in relationships especially sexual ones.
I mean, I dunno, I do think it's sort of stupid idea to, as I see it, give men the advice to just sort of, pretend they like someone, when realistically they just want to have sex. Basically just telling them to, say, be courteous, or whatever, or to "be themselves", when "themselves" is the guy that's courteous, has sex, and then ghosts a chick, or does something worse. I think the advice kind of originates from the idea that sexual relationships will more naturally evolve into normal relationships over time, and if they just have sex, then their relationships will naturally evolve from there. It's a perspective where sex is the end goal, rather than like, third base, and then when they are unable to achieve sex, they turn into incels, and then when they achieve it and it doesn't work out how they want, they turn into cynical red pill grifters. Like, it's a very conventional reasoning for chastity before marriage, right, that you have sex, and that's sort of, the foundation of the relationship. I think that's really kind of stupid and misunderstands what the role of marriage is, but nonetheless, that's the origin of that advice, I think.
I think probably the difference would be that, upper in the comment chain, you respond to a comment about "men should be able to be friends with women without wanting to have sex with them", you respond to that with, "nah it's just gonna happen anyways". Like, the men wanting to have sex. I dunno, I think human behavior, if anything, is successful in it's flexibility, and I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to think that both sexes should be able to socialize outside of their sex without sex being the primary driving motivation. Especially for men. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation, and I think it's actually a pretty healthy one.
This isn't to say that men shouldn't necessarily experience sexual attraction, right, because that's sort of, harder for most men to exercise some level of self-control over. But I don't think it's a step too far to say that they should try not to show this sexual attraction in their behavior, or use it as a primary motivator in their behavior. I think it's probably more that one leads to the other, and men who exercise this level of self-control over their sexual attraction will probably be more consistently able to control their sexual attraction over time.
I mean, sometimes you'll get a boner in class or whatever, right, which I would consider more just a physiological oddity than originating from sexual attraction, but even that's not common if you're not a teenage boy. Usually, real sexual attraction comes from some level of like, human behaviors which can be changed. A stray or conscious glance at someone, a loop of thoughts, etc. This is sort of, related to normal human self-control, right. It's hard to not think of a pink elephant, if I tell you to think of one, right? But at the same time, it can be done, and you can not think about it. You can just, not really process it consciously, or cut off that thought at the root and think about something else. That's maybe getting more into the weeds a bit, though, and certainly, it's variable, depending on the person.
I also think there's probably a multitude of contexts in which two people can be experiencing sexual attraction and it's not right for them to both enter a relationship, have sex, or, have an expectation of affection. I would say, certainly, I understand the other person's perspective in basically never expecting that.
I think you and this other bloke are talking past each other a bit, it seems like they're talking more about just, men and women being able to have more platonic relationships, which, yeah, that seems healthy and probably like it should happen more, and you're talking more about like, the nuance of human behavior in maybe a less prescriptive way.
Interesting…. I think you’re right in that we are probably talking past one another.
We can and hopefully we all do engage in platonic relationships where sex is not an expectation… I hope so dear lord.
It does upset me though in these conversations where some one just says… hey, don’t be a dick, it’s easy…. As if that is useful or helpful advice… and then also the canned and simplified response of sex is never an entitlement or an expectation. It’s not always that black and white. Yes we all have autonomy, and yes all sexual relationships should be consensual.
Human sexuality is a bizzarre thing and a lot of the things that we tell guys to do is the exact opposite of what should be done depending on the exact circumstances. It’s difficult to navigate, because women are not an algorithm where the correct input can be given to achieve the expected results, any more than men are. We are all complex. So one guy can do and say things depending on circumstances that would and do come across as creepy if another guy sees it and tries the same thing.
And in this comic I think it does speak to a lot of women’s personal experience.
Understanding one sides point of view doesn’t have to belittle the other persons experience on the other side either.
I’m glad we didn’t start attacking each other, it’s really interesting to me like I said. Thanks for responding.
I've seen this before in the thread, and I kind of wonder about it. I don't think that like, an inability to communicate, or, realistically, in inability for communication to take place (which could be due to either person), is necessarily an indication that a relationship is impossible or undesirable. There's more to people that just sort of, their surface level ability to communicate with one another, or show outward signals. Personality compatibility, shared interests, sexual attraction, even. Certainly, I'd say it's pretty important, that people are able to communicate with each other, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, as two people naturally spend time together, they'll probably get better at communication. Especially if they're actually capable of recognizing that they're not effectively communicating. What are two people doing, spending time together constantly, if they're not in some kind of relationship already, you know?
So I dunno, it's one kind of, cause and effect, that's mixed into the pot of many, but I think it's maybe a mistake to prioritize it so highly, before any other considerations.
Ghosting is also another issue that’s honestly just disrespectful.
While that can be annoying, if somebody's ghosting you, that's just a signal to move on, yeah? You probably don't want a relationship with somebody who can't communicate, anyway.
It's a shitty signal because it is just not replying to you and not a specific signal on its own. Could be for a bunch of reasons so you'll have to guess that they're ghosting you. It takes a while and even then you might not be sure.
It could be that you are busy, had some issues, many other reasons. The whole point of a clear signal is that it's easy to understand and with as little room for misunderstanding, which ghosting is obviously not. If you want to ghost someone, by all means, but it's def not a clear or direct signal.
Not to mention, I thought the whole point was that you don't have to be direct and clear about it and hence won't have to face the possible backlash.
Your need for “closure” or whatever doesn’t matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I didn't think my "needs" were a subject of the discussion lol
This exact kind of situation does happen all the time. I don't believe it's a majority of men at all, but even if it's a small percentage, that's still a lot because of the magnitude of their actions. Even if it's only a 5% chance that rejecting a guy is going to cause them to go completely off the rails, you're still not going to want to take that chance because there's nothing in it for you, and in those 5% of cases it's going to be extremely upsetting, or in some cases, actually physically dangerous to you.
If a woman gives me vague signals it's a sign that she's not right for me. Everything other than a "hell yes" is a no. Which is fine, I'm okay with being alone. But I'm not going to chase someone who hints that they're into me, because I'm too damn old for that shit.
No, it's not. If I'm talking to someone and they look disinterested, that's not a "hell yes." If they're standing there while their four-top is waiting on refills, that's not a "hell yes."
A "hell yes" is them asking me questions, or sharing a relatable story. It's them smiling and looking at me when I talk. A "hell yes" is me asking "would you like to talk alone" and her saying "hell yes."
Get used to being alone. Learn to love its freedom and spontaneity, and then find someone who's better than that who says "hell yes."
Well I'm just saying I've had not hell yes signals turned into a hell yes date very quickly when I asked them out. Of course I always ask them very open ended so they have all the chance to say no but I got a "yes of course!"
Sometimes people are just a bit shy or afraid, I know I probably give of pretty meh signals even if I'm crushing hard.
I agree it's very important not to fool yourself but sometimes you gotta ask to know for sure and I don't think it's that black and white all the time
E: love a good Convo down vote no reply.. weak sauce.
I understand risk and security, sure. I carry a weapon everywhere I go because I understand it intimately.
I just object to the idea a person is “being terrorized” by that situation. As if all the people interacting with them are terrorists, because they are too confused about their relationship to their own fear and safety to carry a weapon.
I got terrorized by one person once, and now I keep that weapon on me at every moment I’m not behind my own locked doors. I do not believe that I am being terrorized, simply because I live in a dangerous environment.
Words have meaning, and the meaning matters. A person who is anxious is not, thereby, being “terrorized”.
“Schrodinger’s rapist” indeed, as if the concept of a dangerous environment didn’t exist before the year 2010 when that term got coined by people who think they’re the first to encounter the world.
Also, don’t take the disrespect personally. Especially if it’s someone new in your life, they don’t know you deeply enough for that to be a personal thing.
It’s just the game she’s decided is necessary for her safety. It might be perceivable as disrespectful, but security procedures often are. Like if you went to your friend’s house and they demanded to search you for weapons that might seem disrespectful.
But you’re not friends with this person ghosting you. They don’t know who you are. And in some environments, when someone unknown to you comes to your house you pat them down for weapons, even if it diminishes the hospitality.
Exactly, I don't blame them at all for anything. They don't know me, I barely know them. If they don't want to talk to me I have all you randos who reply to my comments. But I'm not gonna chase somebody who wants to get away. My biggest turn-on is someone who really, really wants me.
Ghosting is also another issue that’s honestly just disrespectful.
Maybe it's because I'm a zoomer, but ghosting for me is just kind of expected. It's mildly frustrating to encounter someone who doesn't really reciprocate your feelings or what have you, and it's maybe more disrespectful if it happens like, after the second or third date, but if someone ghosts you after the first date, I don't really think it matters that much. Certainly, I'd rather not have to confront it than have them tell me that they're not interested. That's not really a satisfying answer, "they're not interested", right. It makes you want to ask "why", but realistically they're not going to be able to give you a reasonable, realistic, actionable answer. They're just gonna be pulling stuff outta their ass. So I don't really care all that much, I don't think it matters.
I concur. It is also very hard to make a rationale for whether your date is ghosting you, is just busy, or is not in a good mood. Obviously, if she is not in a good mood or is busy, she would prefer not to reply to me (because she might unintentionally ruin the bond), but what if she's just not interested in me and thus is ignoring me?
If you like this person a lot, your feelings will likely corrupt your rationale. Your hopes won't let you move on; you will keep suffering, deciding whether to move on or not.
