But you do it anyway.

Reasoning of typical women:

"I've been asked out a few times to a guy I kind of liked and I said no because we had a great friendship and I didn't want that to change. I felt extremely bad and I couldn't stop thinking about if I hurt him."

"when I reject a nice guy, yes I feel bad. but I have to be honest... it's for a more selfish reason. if he was good to me, and an overall nice guy, then I really enjoyed having him as a friend. after rejecting him, it usually ruins the friendship, they get distant from me, and our relationship changes. I've lost a lot of really great male friends after they told me they had strong feelings for me, and I didn't reciprocate the feelings... but some guys accept it and are able to remain a good friend of mine"

So you expect friendship, huh? Friendship without any intimate feelings? So what sort of friendship?

Coming to conclusion that teenage girls/very young women can be extremely mean and disrespectful when it comes to rejection of potential suitors. Their live is basically care-free: socializing with friends, gossiping about males, random hooking up for fun and excitment, making out or fooling around. Women after twenties tend to be more mature about it and tend to handle it better, their rejections become more polite - but of course totally hostile bitches exist too, who treat unwanted men like trash.

Depends on the context, really. If it's just some random at a bar, just the drive to detangle myself from it politely. If it's after a date or explicitly romantic interaction, I usually feel quite uncomfortable and apologetic. Not really sure about how I would feel about a friend. I imagine I would just want to get out of the situation as quickly and gracefully as possible. Breaking things off with someone I've been dating, I always feel a bit relieved, once it's over, assuming it ended gracefully.

Why would you reject someone you had an explicit romantic interaction with? Or reverse the question, why would you have an explicit romantic interaction with someone you would reject?

Usually after a first or second date.

Because you (well, most folks, not you personally, of course) don't really know if you'll want to properly see someone until few dates in.

I was rejected by females five or six times in my life. I don't want to try more. Almost all of these rejections were hostile, two of them were absolutely cruel (making fun of me after rejection, public humiliation, etc.), two of them were surprisingly polite.

At least you are frank. So you feel relieved after breaking things off? Can you give me Your example of polite rejection?

Do most people actually have an EXPLICIT romantic interaction with someone they've had only a few dates with?

Let's translate the word "few" to the word "three" (I think that's what few means, doesn't it? Three or more, up until "several"? I could google it, but I think I'm right. Couple means 2, I know that for sure.) Are you basically talking about the "sex on the third date" routine?

I just don't know exactly what you mean when you say .

Dude, I got rejected 5 or 6 time this month...

Again, it really depends on the situation. If I'm out at a bar I'll usually explain that I'm seeing someone or a simple 'Thank you but I'm not really interested'. Guys seem to be fine with the first option, sometimes a bit weird about the second one.

If it's after a date, just explaining in a really final way that I don't see this really going anywhere or that it seems like we want really different things.

For breakups, just getting it over in a way that leaves no room for backtracking or hope that it's fixable. Just explaining that things aren't working out for me, avoiding getting into a conversation where you dredge through why it isn't working and then just leaving them alone so they can move on to the next (much cuter!) girl.

I always rather thought dates were in themselves romantic interactions.

Oh, the idea of sex on the third date is a bit old fashioned. I think it's pretty flexible, depending on the people involved. Usually by the second or third date though, you know if you should bail.

Properly see, as in continue seeing regularly. Dates are a numbers game and most of the folks you go out with aren't going to click with you (or you with them ) so bailing politely when and if you find out you're not a good fit so both parties can get back to meeting other folks that might work better with them seems like a pretty good plan.

I find this strange. I've always thought a date could be a totally romantic interacton, or a totally non romantic interaction, depending on how well it went. (or somewhere in between.)




But doesn't this depend on the time frame though? I've heard stories of people falling in love after years of random(and not necessarily romantic) social interactions, and some (but rare) stories of love at first site. I'm wondering about a specific formula here. Like, what if you don't feel connection by the third date, but after spending more time with the person, you would begin to like them, if only you'd given them a longer chance?



Yeah but how much time specifically until you know for sure? Like what if you see a person for 3 dates (or so), and click with them very well, fuck them, enjoy the sex, then the relationship tapers off because it was based on sex, and a small degree of personal similarities? Then you might have another person you don't really "click" with until a later period of time, but you cut them off because they didn't immediately satisfy you?

Oh, for me it's usually two or three dates. Sometimes someone will be really direct and put everything out on the line on a first date and streamline the process but usually I think we are all really careful on a first date to put out best foot forward and not say anything that's going to put people off. I'm not sure there's a set number of dates but if you've not worked out a reason you need/want to keep seeing them after a few dates, plodding along anyway doesn't seem fun.

Yeah, if a relationship works on the sex level and I get along with them, that's pretty much what I'm looking for so it's all good. Most relationships taper off. That's fine.

If I don't click with someone after a few dates, it's probably just never going to happen. I don't really see a reason to waste everyone's time and creating false expectations by dragging out the process of casually dating someone I'm not really interested in on the off chance things will seem more palatable later down the line.

This just kinda seems like you're looking for pure sexual gratification, vs a lifelong partnership. Would this be accurate?

I'm pretty explicitly not looking for a life partner. I don't really have the time, energy or desire for an extended relationship right now, let alone something that drags on for the rest of my foreseeable future.

So any guy you've chosen to date and who hopes to have stable relationship with you is universally rejected? Are you telling your potential partners that you want only hook ups and sex?

I believe most chicks are probably like this, and I believe it's the main cause of my love-shyness. I'm not looking for some pig-slut who wants to get fucked until she's bored, then moves on. This whole notion turns me right off. I am volcel, because I doubt there are any women willing to commit left in existence anymore. I am a person who prefers consistency, stability, and loyalty over randomness, and a general nonchalant attitude, in a woman. I've been volcel, because I haven't yet been able to find a single woman who actually takes shit seriously. It seems like woman are mostly like you, in that they only care about immediate pleasure, and toss everything else out the window. It's disappointing to say the least.