Being very blunt about the first date

[insert_name]

Im getting a bit jaded by OLD. Unfortunately due to circumstances mostly outside of my control it's my main avenue for meeting women, so for the time being I shall persist with it.

 

But that being said I have now had enough of the cosy 4 hour chat that ends up with me invested and thanks but no thanks from my date. So I want to scale this back so a first date is now minimal effort. I want to make it clear (in nice terms) when arranging the date that it will be around an hour and if they feel like they don't have that connection or spark or whatever mystical nonsense that women look for then I am fine with them cutting the date short and leaving at any time. In justification I can no longer see the bright side of looking back with fondness on countless hours spent in the company of someone who was just biding their time until they could leave and never speak to me again, so I don't particularly feel like I get anything positive out of it to justify the time and cost of drinks etc.

 

I discussed this with my colleagues today and they were horrified, predicting that any girl worth her salt would ditch me before the date on the basis of my attitude. What's the LS opinion? It's a bit bold, but hopefully if explained in a polite way with no sense of bitterness I would think a girl would appreciate the fact that the guy is taking charge and being up front about the situation.

[Arieswoman]

insert_name,

I think the idea is good but you need to be a bit more subtle about it.

 

When I was single and dating I arranged to meet men on Saturdays for mid-morning coffee dates and always had something else to go on to. I told them this and said I just wanted a short meeting to see how we got on.

 

I allowed an hour for each date, so that I wasn't stuck with someone that didn't appeal (and it would work in reverse no doubt !)

 

Why not give it a try?

 

Good luck

[normal person]

While you are being bold and upfront, you're not really taking into consideration the lengths at which girls feel they need to go to preserve a guy's feelings. It's not something they can easily part with.

 

After an hour, I can imagine a girl having a very hard time abruptly stopping you mid sentence and saying "You know what? I'm just not feeling it, sorry. Best of luck."

 

People by nature are usually more tactful than that even if you don't want them to be. That's a big request, even if it's ultimately beneficial to the both of you.

 

Why not just take her to dinner first? That's only an hour or so. Then it should be pretty easy to tell where you both stand.

[Standard-Fare]

Yeah, I think a short first date is fine, but you shouldn't spell out very specific "rules" for that. You also shouldn't give the women explanations for your position, because you don't want to cast yourself as the guy who's been on many Internet dates and struck out repeatedly. (Even though a lot of us, men and women, can relate to that experience.)

 

I do think it's good to have (or at least imply you have) a second plan for after the date, so the date has to have a mandatory time limit. That way you can tell the girl something like "I'm free between about 6 to 8, before I head to my friend's place to watch the game."

 

And if a miracle happens and the date turns out great, you could always tell the girl you're going to ditch that second plan because you're enjoying her company so much.

[OwMyEyeball]

Im getting a bit jaded by OLD. Unfortunately due to circumstances mostly outside of my control it's my main avenue for meeting women, so for the time being I shall persist with it.

 

But that being said I have now had enough of the cosy 4 hour chat that ends up with me invested and thanks but no thanks from my date. So I want to scale this back so a first date is now minimal effort. I want to make it clear (in nice terms) when arranging the date that it will be around an hour and if they feel like they don't have that connection or spark or whatever mystical nonsense that women look for then I am fine with them cutting the date short and leaving at any time. In justification I can no longer see the bright side of looking back with fondness on countless hours spent in the company of someone who was just biding their time until they could leave and never speak to me again, so I don't particularly feel like I get anything positive out of it to justify the time and cost of drinks etc.

 

I discussed this with my colleagues today and they were horrified, predicting that any girl worth her salt would ditch me before the date on the basis of my attitude. What's the LS opinion? It's a bit bold, but hopefully if explained in a polite way with no sense of bitterness I would think a girl would appreciate the fact that the guy is taking charge and being up front about the situation.

You may do better by learning how to not invest so early and enjoy the date itself instead of any expectations that get pegged to the "then after".

 

Your suggested approach, while pragmatic, is also emotionally detached and would be very difficult for many women to accept. While the approach (being very up front and direct) isn't advised, the notion is good - at least in my book and from my experiences. Like others have said, you can get what you're looking for but need to be a bit more tactful.

 

That being said, the approach is no different than speed dating, except the rules are laid out well beforehand by an impartial third party in a venue that men and women willingly seek out and take part in. Is that an option in your area?