jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (21 posts)

Not Interested

  1. realtalk247 profile image69
    realtalk247posted 5 months ago

    While I agree you should not be rude to anyone do you believe it is better to express or show disinterest when first being introduced to someone?
    If you aren't interested in someone should you continue to hold long conversations in an attempt to let them down gently?  How do you handle addressing someone not interested in you?
    Different situations require different responses.

    My believe -it does more harm then good to stop and hold long conversations falsely engaging people when you have no interest in getting to know them better.  You don't have to be rude but keep it real.

    Some people believe in giving fake phone numbers and engaging others in lengthy conversation then make up some excuse to dismiss them.  While this appears to "be nice" -in my opinion it's a jerk move.  Why? You made someone believe you were interested and now you leave that person to wonder if they said or did something wrong to ruin your interest and it's simply not true. Are you boosting your ego by playing with other peoples emotions?

    What do you think?

    1. dashingscorpio profile image85
      dashingscorpioposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I agree it saves everyone time when it's revealed the interest isn't mutual.

      Unfortunately many people aren't skilled enough in rejecting people with diplomacy and others will pretend like they're not romantically interested to avoid being rejected.

      For example a man flirts with a woman at work and she makes it known she didn't like it. Some men might say: "I can't believe you thought I was serious!" , "I was just joking! You need to get over yourself..."

      In other instances people will say they're just interested in being "your friend" but secretly their agenda is they hope in time there will be an opportunity to convert the friendship into a relationship.
      If it never happens they complain about being in the "Friend Zone".

      If you're in the "friend zone" it's because you were to cowardly to face and accept rejection right at the beginning. You chose to waste your time.

      Lastly we'd all do better if we thought about the motivations of others!
      Women should KNOW if a man asks you out it means he is romantically/sexually attracted to her.

      If it's not mutual say no to the date!

      Generally speaking men don't spend their hard earned money and time with women whom they're not attracted to! Therefore it would help if a woman rejected the date if she isn't romantically interested in a guy.

      However there are women who will say 'yes" because the guy seems nice, or the concert, play, or whatever appeals to her, she has no plans,  or it's a free meal so why not?...All the while she knows never in a million years would she kiss or have sex with him. Saying yes to a date when you have {no interest in a man} is not doing a man a "favor".  It's using him.

      However many women choose to play the "naïve card" and act as if guys just (chose) to ask them out to have company devoid of romantic interest.


      1. realtalk247 profile image69
        realtalk247posted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Great points. You are right, some people are not skilled in rejecting people diplomatically.  Although I've witnessed women stop, talk to a guy for 10-20 minutes like their interested and then either lie and say they have a boyfriend or then tell the guy they aren't interested.  To me that's just wrong in my opinion.
        Unfortunately you are so right. I have met women that will go along for a free meal and mislead a guy knowing she has no intention of ever dating this guy.  I believe that a man's money, attention, and time comes with intent so if my intent is not the same I would rather that man spend his money and effort on a woman that can reciprocate his desires. 

        If it's not mutual say no to the date!-Totally Agree
        If someone is not interested then don't continue to engage people in conversation-it's mean spirited in my opinion. It's like an ego-boost for the person doing the rejecting.  I totally agree playing with others feelings, manipulating people for your own benefit does not make for the qualities of being a compassionate person.
        My personal maximum if you have some type of chemistry with someone but are not sure = 2 dates.  The first date can be a fluke but by the 2nd date if there isn't an established interest or one is still on the fence-there is no need for further dates. Do you think 2 date max if you're not sure of chemistry is fair?

        1. dashingscorpio profile image85
          dashingscorpioposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          I believe a two date max can be a good idea if one is sitting on the fence.
          Generally speaking if both people didn't enjoy the first date there won't be a second date. smile

          Therefore if a man asks a woman out for a second date it's clear he is still interested in her. Another chemistry test is a good night kiss.

          Oftentimes that first kiss is a make or break kiss at the end of date.
          This assumes one is even interested in finding out if there is chemistry.

          For me personally I can usually tell there is great chemistry if we have a similar sense of humor. I believe a "first date" should be an (ice breaker) casual getting to know you. What's your favorite...How did you wind up moving out here...What do you enjoy doing?

          A date without laughter usually means one or both people didn't have a good time. No one is expecting their date to be a comedian but there should be moments of levity. After all dating is suppose to be a FUN social outing. It's not a 9-5 job. smile


    2. AshtonFirefly profile image82
      AshtonFireflyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Yes it is better. If you don't, you'll be accused of leading them on.

      Most times if you do this though, you'll be accused of being rude.

      I'd rather be accused of being rude than leading someone on.

      I had a guy specifically say he was not interested in me, so I continued to communicate with him casually; then he accused me of leading him on, saying that I "should have known," regardless of his VERBAL STATEMENT, that he was not interested. So in other words I was supposed to assume he was a liar and refuse to speak to him. However, if I had done that, I would have gotten the typical, "I'm just trying to be friends! Don't flatter yourself!"

      It's not my job to make someone feel better about themselves. If I'm not interested, I'm not interested. I don't owe them a chance and I don't owe them an explanation for my choices.

      1. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Wait, how can you be leading someone on if they're not interested in the first place? Either you got mad skills or I'm missing something.

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
          AshtonFireflyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          I got mad skills.

          No what I meant was this: He SAID he wasn't interested, when I asked him. So I still conversed with him normally. After a while, he said he was interested and had been the whole time, and accused me of leading him on, stating that "I should have known" that he was interested and that he was lying about it, and therefore not conversed with him in a casual, friendly way.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
            AshtonFireflyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            In other words he's a moron.

          2. mrpopo profile image88
            mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this


            Yeah he's a moron, lol.

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
              AshtonFireflyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Yes. Which is why it's a lose-lose situation for me.

              List of possible scenarios:

              1. Man says he's interested directly, and I refuse. His conclusion: "You're a b. I deserve a chance!"

              2. Man does not say he's interested when he is, I assume as such, and voice that I am not interested. His response: "Don't flatter yourself, I just want to be friends!"
                  I then 
                             a. Assume he's telling the truth, and proceed to do scenario 3.
                             b. Assume he's lying, and proceed to scenario 4

              3. Man does not say he's interested when he is, and (to avoid scenario 2) I assume otherwise, and continue casual conversation. His conclusion: "She's leading me on."

              4. Man does not say he's interested when he is, I assume he is, and neither voice that I am not interested nor stay away. His conclusion: "She's leading me on."

              And yet there is the elusive 5 that is possible.

              5. Man says he's interested, and I refuse. His repsonse: That's okay. I respect your feelings and your decision.

              Please, men out there, be number 5.

              1. mrpopo profile image88
                mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I can understand 1 and 2 as defense mechanisms, but 3 and 4 just don't make any sense. I'd never even heard of guys complaining about being led on after voicing disinterest.

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
                  AshtonFireflyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Really? The last three encounters I had were like this.

                  Usually the explanation I get is: "I was interested, just said that I wasn't because I didn't think you were. But it should have been obvious to you. No guy is super friendly with a girl without wanting a relationship. So when you started being casual and friendly I thought, 'Hey she's becoming interested now!"

                  When really all I was doing was trying to be friendly following his obvious statement of disinterest. Am I just friends with crazies, or am I the problem? hmm

                  1. mrpopo profile image88
                    mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Ah okay, I'm understanding it a bit more as a defense mechanism. I've seen people feign disinterest to avoid a direct rejection. I've just never seen the further leap of "she's leading me on" after feigned disinterest. Who else would you blame but yourself for feigning disinterest?

                    Doesn't sound like you're doing anything wrong. I can't even call your friends that crazy for feigning disinterest because rejection (or the fear of it) can be quite unpleasant. They shouldn't conflate friendliness with interest though, and if they want an actual answer they need to be more direct.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      How does Britney Spears know right off the bat if she is interested?
      That attitude and outlook is rather shallow and boring if you ask me.
      Also, in the fifties, (I imagine,) dating did not mean "hooking up,"(pre-reliable birth control.) Dating meant going out for the fun of it, to get to know people and learn/practice social skills. It was about enjoying the activity as well as the person for the sake of fun! Why does  d a t i n g  have to lead to something lasting, romantic or permanent?

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
        AshtonFireflyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I don't know though. I can usually catch vibes pretty strongly off a person when I first meet them, so it's not too hard for me to eliminate certain people as potential dating partners. Every time I've ignored the vibe, I've found that my initial impression was correct.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Maybe women could date for fun if they pay for themselves. That is the real problem. Otherwise the man feels like he is owed more? and she feels like she needs to do more? If physical attraction were not so important, if ... oh, who am I fooling …  Nevertheless, in this day and age women should stay in a position of command over themselves, their lives and their bodies. Pay your way and go for the fun of it. Times have changed. Anyway, women today will be paying for one half of the expenses after marriage. The days of knights and princesses are way, way over.

        1. dashingscorpio profile image85
          dashingscorpioposted 5 months ago in reply to this


          I don't believe it so much that men feel like they are "owed more".

          One of the biggest differences is how men and women approach dating. Generally speaking men will only pursue dates with women (whom they're physically/sexually attracted to) in order to get to know them better. Normally they don't ask out women whom they find unattractive!

          The mistake a lot of men make is (assuming) women say "yes" to dates because they too are physically/sexually attracted to the man!

          For all he knows she may have said yes because she (has no plans it's something to do, the band playing is her favorite, she has always been curious about that restaurant/club, or she has been dying to see that play...etc). She said yes to the "activity".

          Essentially the guy is just a "prop".

          Some women have been known to say "yes" to dates simply because the guy seemed "nice" but never in a million years would they consider becoming romantically involved with him!

          Either women are oblivious to the fact that men only want to spend time and money on women (they're romantically interested in) or these women don't care why men ask (them) out.

          It would be great if women came right out and said:

          "I know you probably asked me out because you're attracted to me. However I have absolutely no romantic interest in you. Nevertheless Bruno Mars is one of my favorite singers and if you still want me to go to the concert with you I'd be glad to go."

          A conversation like that prior to the date would put all cards on the table!
          Even with that some guys would still take her out with a hidden agenda of eventually turning a platonic friendship into a romantic one.
          However they would have been told early on there is no mutual interest.


  2. Aime F profile image83
    Aime Fposted 5 months ago

    I don't think you can know immediately if you're going to like someone, but there are a couple of things you can tell right away (in my experience):

    -If you can see yourself being physically attracted to them.  I don't consider myself picky at all when it comes to looks and I can often find something I find appealing about someone, but sometimes they can be objectively attractive but I just don't feel the 'thing'.  Likewise, I have on several occasions found myself physically attracted to people who might not be conventionally attractive to others, but there's some unexplainable pull.

    -What their approach with women is like, which in turn might suggest a bit about their personality.  I once had a guy come into the store I was working at to buy pants, and after he paid and I handed him his bag he asked, quietly and sweetly, if I dated guys who bought pants.  It was a small attempt at being clever and the way he said it was super endearing, so had I been single at the time I might have gone for it.  On the other hand, I've had guys come up to me and immediately compliment me on my appearance or give me a sleezy look up and down before going into ultra-flirty mode and striking up a superficial conversation.  Not my style at all, so I wouldn't be interested in guys with that approach.

    So I think it's okay to say "I don't really know this person, I MIGHT like them if I got to know them, but the signs point to this not being a good use of our time/his money" and turn them down based on first impressions and I do think if you're leaning towards "I'm probably not going to end up dating this person more than once" then it's polite to choose not lead them on. 

    But, I think some people are more open daters and would go out with almost anyone who asked even if they're not immediately interested, and I think that's okay too as long as the intentions are to actually get to know the other person and try to find some interest, rather than just going out because it's a free meal and they're bored.

    1. dashingscorpio profile image85
      dashingscorpioposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Makes sense to me!

      Truth be told there are many signals we get from people that cause us to say "yes" or "no". Very few people opt to give everyone a chance to see whether or not they will like him or her.  That's not how the world works.

      Rejection is part of life.

      Everyone is entitled to have their own "preferences" or "must haves".
      Nevertheless if you have an inkling as to why someone wants to spend time with you and you KNOW there's no mutual interest on your part it makes no sense for either of you to waste time or money.

      Both people could have spent time with others where attraction is mutual.