site banner
temp  2yr ago (text post)   2728 thread views

In dating, do you ever follow up after not hearing back (i.e. ghosted)?

(I was going to wait till Wellness Wednesday to post this as a comment, but the thread's blurb says it's not meant to be a containment and that advice requests can be posted as threads so here we are)

In dating, if you're ghosted, do you a) always move on stoically, b) always give it one more shot, or c) go with a mix of the two depending on circumstances?

After first or second dates, if I text a woman to set up another date and she doesn't reply, I just leave it alone. I sometimes wonder if there is an infinitesimal probability that maybe somehow my text got lost in the pipes, but if she wanted to see me again, she could always text me even if she thought I never contacted her. Sometimes the ghosting can be perplexing, like she'd already messaged me first after the date saying how she had a great time, and then after I respond asking to meet again, I don't hear back. But that's just dating or life in general--many or most people are flaky and undependable. It reminds me of how when I was procuring enterprise software for work that many sales reps don't even reply to requests for a quote. Speaking of sales, I remember reading a negotiation book whereby if you're the one selling, an effective trick to jumpstart wavering/cold leads is to ask them "have you given up on this project". Manipulative, sure, but all is fair in sales, love, and war.

But I occasionally see/hear stories of how some guy was super persistent despite being turned down and would eventually go on to win over the girl. I'm not talking about Hallmark movies from 20 years ago, but wedding announcements in the New York Times from like two weeks ago. But if we do talk about Hallmark, women sure seem to love romance stories featuring love interests who almost always turn down the protagonist the first time around. Reddit loves upvoting stories of how a couple ended up married despite the girl initially swiping left because of some silly reason like she didn't like his hat, but then they somehow met and fell in love. Part of this is probably because Reddit is disproportionately young and single and so wants to believe in second chances, but part of it is we celebrate persistence culturally: in work interviews, a candidate whom the hiring manager is mostly indifferent to but goes above and beyond to change their mind probably gets the job. I've met girls who tell me that guys who don't pursue them more energetically despite not receiving encouraging signals show that they aren't serious, and so disqualify themselves. And a recent ex actually turned me down when I asked her out, but then we hung out as friends a couple of times and she ended up saying yes when I asked a second time.

Now, to be clear, for most of these non-follow-ups I've been subject to, I didn't really think any of them was "the one", or else I likely would have given it another shot. Still, I enjoyed their company and it would have been fun to go out again. And I'd certainly prefer to be the one who decides to "let her go" rather than having her make the decision for me.

So sometimes I look back and wonder if I should have followed up one more time. Maybe go with something simple like "Hey--I really enjoyed meeting you and would love to see you again, but understand if you don't feel the same spark. I wish you the best!". It sounds cheesy and a bit needy, but costs nothing, barring maybe making the girl feel a bit uncomfortable for not taking a super obvious hint. Different women also have different preferences, whereby some will surely respond to "follow ups" more positively than others. And I'm not convinced that ghosting is some kind of self-unselecting filter for women who lack maturity, since there are enough men who take rejections very poorly that it does seem safer to just not reply as a rule of thumb.

So what do you do? Do you have a system for deciding if and when to follow up after not hearing back?

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For better or worse, I have a lot of dating experience. Some thoughts in this space:

  • In online dating scenarios, many women are dating lots of people at once (sometimes even when they say/act like they are not). This explains a lot more ghosting than people realize. For an example: Even if you had an objectively very good & engaging date with somebody, you might be their 10th date that month. Were you the best date they had? If not, even if they actually liked you, it's possible you'll be ghosted, or at least not be given much focused, intentional attention as she carries on text conversations with multiple guys. (i.e. it will feel like she is just not that into you... because you aren't the Top Guy on her Recent Dates Radar.)
  • Further context on this point, do some research into just how slanted in favor of women online dating sites/apps are. On average, women are being bombarded with new matches constantly, while men get very little inbound activity. With almost no exceptions, every attractive woman I've discussed the topic with has told me they have (or even showed me) an overflowing selection (inbox/match list) of men.
  • One possible moral to this story: Don't take first dating too personally. If you let it get to your ego & emotions, it can destroy your ego & emotions. Have very low expectations on first dates. (This takes practice.) Treat it like a chance to get to know another person, and nothing more. If romantic feelings are to grow, they will do so organically, and not because you are putting effort into manifesting them.
  • I suppose it comes down to preference & values, but persuading a woman to go out with you via additional attempts to contact her seems sub-optimal. If you are looking for someone with whom you are authentically drawn to/compatible with, why put extraordinary effort into trying to "get them to like/pay attention to you?" What is gained?
  • As a caveat, I think it's important (it's effective, and it's good for your mental health as a dater) to be simple & clear about your interest in a woman at the end of a first date...if you have interest in that woman. Yes, playing hard to get can (and often does) work, but you always run the risk of someone you felt authentically drawn to/compatible with interpreting your game as genuine lack of interest. And as we discussed above, the online dating market is slanted heavily towards woman, so there will be other guys available to her if she thinks you're not interested.
  • Further on this point, again it comes down to preference & values, but running a 'playing hard to get' game on a woman seems suboptimal. If you are looking for someone with whom you are authentically drawn to/compatible with, why set up these hoops or create a culture of deception within the relationship?
  • As a caveat to this caveat, while playing hard to get is suboptimal (and may be a risky move for men in this dating market anyway), it is also a risk to be overly eager. It's unattractive for reasons that should be clear to the average user here, so I won't elaborate. It's best, in my experience, to just be simple & clear, smile, and say something like: "I had a great time & I'd sincerely like to see you again." If you communicate this clearly in person, it will help clear up any ambiguity in efforts to make a 2nd date. If, after you made it clear in person, she then doesn't respond when you ask for a second date later via text or phone call, move on.
  • And one other consideration (that I mean genuinely, but is on the PUA fringes): Being clear & simple about your interest (vs. playing hard to get) may actually be a more effective seduction tactic in our culture. Essentially, you are admitting vulnerability, which is a form of courage & evidence of maturity. It communicates authenticity, which is refreshing when experienced in the wild. You are saying, essentially, "I'm going to show you my cards here, because I don't want to 'play games' anyway. I'm dating to find someone I'm authentically drawn to/compatible with, and though I have limited data 'cuz we've only been out once, I like you & I think it's worth investigating this more."
  • One exercise that may be helpful is thinking back to when someone you'd gone out with clearly liked you, but you didn't have as strong a reciprocal romantic interest in them. What did it make you feel towards them when they were more persistent? Like texting you often and trying to get you to go out again? Did it increase whatever romantic interest you had? Or decrease it? In my experience, persistence decreases my interest in someone who I'm "on the fence" about.

Lots of interesting insights here. Thanks man.

Your bullet 1 is comforting, if mainly because it reconciles the seeming contradiction between me subjectively perceiving a good date for both parties and the objective reality of not hearing back. It could help explain that it's not that I'm really bad at telling if my date is enjoying herself, but rather she simply enjoyed some other guy's company more given the plethora of her options.

I broadly agree with you on the being direct part. Feels dirty to do the playing-too-hard-to-get card. Especially as you get older.

On your last bullet, I think I may lean a bit more toward increased romantic interest when my date shows strong reciprocated interest. Of course they've stopped well short of being obsessive/stalking. But it's nice to be with someone who seems to know what they like, and what they like happens to be you! But per your second bullet, the calculus tends to be different for women vs. men.

Also frankly a first date can be enjoyable whilst still providing an opportunity to notice a dealbreaker or two that precludes further developing the relationship. I've had some great chats and fun vibes with girls on first dates that did genuinely go pretty well, but also revealed red flags that meant I didn't reach out for a second date since I felt it'd be unproductive.

The reality of the gender dynamic is that prettymuch anything female-presenting will have an infinite inbox, and that there's other fish in the sea. Not only that but you're likely competing with people who are flatout lovebombing or otherwise putting up inauthentic signals which makes it even harder if you're trying to be moderated and honest.

One exercise that may be helpful is thinking back to when someone you'd gone out with clearly liked you, but you didn't have as strong a reciprocal romantic interest in them. What did it make you feel towards them when they were more persistent? Like texting you often and trying to get you to go out again? Did it increase whatever romantic interest you had? Or decrease it? In my experience, persistence decreases my interest in someone who I'm "on the fence" about.

Feel like it's a bit different as a guy, though.

Like how I feel about a person I'm completely disinterested in showing concerted enthusiasm when it's a no for a plethora of reasons is different to somebody who's on the bubble showing proactivity and enthusiasm. Then again there's a difference between 'girl is actively driving the conversation and seems interested' to 'girl is literally stalking'

Also the whole dynamic around objectives. I tend to assume a woman's more romantically-minded if she's chasing hard, as opposed to with men approaching women there's far more of an unspoken expectation of 'all overtures are to get into the panties'.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats