Okay, if you haven't actually met someone in person, what level of communication do you owe them? If someone isn't interested, I'd much prefer a lack of response than a rejection letter. I once received an irate email declaring me a bitch because I didn't respond to the guy's initial email. Of course, he was clearly over the edge of the sanity line, but it got me thinking about this whole response issue. If someone emails you and you aren't interested, it's my understanding that it's perfectly acceptable and expected to just not respond. No response is the response. Otherwise, you have to send a canned thanks-but-no-thanks to everyone who messages you. So either you have to lie and say you met someone, or it doesn't look like you have much in common, which may be so obviously not true that the person knows you're lying. The only other option would play like the film, "The Invention of Lying." How would that go? "Thanks for your kind email, but even though we seem to have much in common I find you physically repulsive." "Thanks for your message, but you remind me of my dead grandfather." "You seem intelligent and funny, but I can't imagine ever even thinking about wanting to having sex with you." Usually we wouldn't want to know the reason why someone isn't interested in us; it falls under the "some things are better left unsaid" category. Just chalk it up to personal preference and move on. Come on, now. Be a big boy.
One guy actually said he felt "abused" because I didn't respond to his email. I was tempted to subsequently respond to Mr. Sensitive by suggesting that perhaps he should consider continuing his therapy for awhile longer before attempting online dating, but I figured that, if no response at all made him feel abused, this response could put him over the edge. Of course, then it would prove my point that no response is often better than a truthful one. Still, I wouldn't want to be the one responsible for his breakdown....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment