Online Dating: The Runners Up

[zengirl]

Caveat: I don't really feel the fellows are Runners Up, but I wanted a catchy thread title that would make judgmental people read.

 

I was on an online dating site before moving to a city, and my profile said this. I am moving to this new city in 2 days and have started seeing someone there. It happened mostly online via Skype, but we are official and I think it's going to be something fairly worthwhile. At any rate, we made it official. (This is another long story, and it's interesting to me, but not requiring advice, so I'm sticking to the short version.) I'm about to change my status there, and of course, it will become dusty and unused. But there are about 3 fellows I was still messaging with. What to do?

 

I'd like to write them and tell them, "Hey, I'm sorry, but I started seeing someone. I was interested in you as a person, but I'm going off the site because of this new relationship."

 

Is this too weird? I err on the side of being too upfront about these things and sometimes pissing people off. Would this anger anyone? More or less compassionate than just not replying and changing the status.

[SadandConfusedWA]

Uh, so you are in an official relationship with someone you never met? And you keep telling me that I am moving too quickly

[shadowplay]

Uh, so you are in an official relationship with someone you never met? And you keep telling me that I am moving too quickly

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

 

How can you know whether you guys have real chemistry without meeting first?? Even video chat can obscure a lot.

[zengirl]

Way to go with not answering my question, girls! Oy. Not that I mind the peanut gallery comments so much, but at least answer the query TOO.

 

Uh, so you are in an official relationship with someone you never met? And you keep telling me that I am moving too quickly

 

Well, we never met in person (well, we did meet, but it was just at events when I had a SO and I didn't really remember him; he remembered me), yes. But it evolved organically and not from a need -- on my part (or, so far as I suspect on his) -- to be in a relationship with just anyone.

 

And it's not like one can never get out of a committed relationship. I tend to move to commitment when it feels right organically. I was originally holding this fellow off till I landed, but I realized that was rather arbitrary. I've spent loads more time talking to him than I have most people and have friends in common and have a good view of our compatibility. It seemed silly to wait just because it seems socially rare and unacceptable to "commit" before meeting in person. Besides, I'm not saying I'm going to marry the guy or even break down to pieces if it doesn't work out --- Moving too fast to me is when you begin to emotionally NEED people or place responsibilities on them for your own sense of self. We haven't done this. We've just decided we want to be monogamous while we check this thing out.*

 

Honestly, I've never been wrong about a fellow I messaged (me starting it, and that happened here)---in terms of looking at a photo and assessing chemistry. If I am, I'll say it. And the world will not collapse. I'll change my status back and time will go on. (He knows this too. There's just no point in us potentially leading others on when we are most interested in this connection at present.)

 

*I have expressed issues with people who feel the need to demand this of others, as I feel demands are unnatural early in a relationship (or maybe ever). It should all be organic, mutual agreements. And this was.

Edited August 19, 2010 by zengirl

[dispatch3d]

zengirl,

 

I don't like the sounds of you two being already "committed" without even meeting him. I wouldn't have moved the relationship that fast and it's kinda alarming you decided to. Why the rush? Why not get to know all three better then pick the best one? (or four, whatever it is)

 

About your actual question. I've had the same thing happen to me, and the girl just replied "I've met someone. Sorry. Good luck with your search!". I think that's perfect, with possibly taking out the sorry if you can. This is better than just ceasing to message. I wouldn't do the long explanation at all just because it could leave them lee way to argue or something. Or yell at you, whatever. Just ignore or autodelete any reply they may send you (in case they are unjustly bitter). Again wayway better than just not replying...

[zengirl]

zengirl,

 

I don't like the sounds of you two being already "committed" without even meeting him. I wouldn't have moved the relationship that fast and it's kinda alarming you decided to. Why the rush? Why not get to know all three better then pick the best one? (or four, whatever it is)

 

Why not get to know all 3 (4 really, because the guy in question adds 1) first? Because I'm not into comparison dating. When I do multi-date, it's because I sincerely haven't decided to be interested in someone yet. It wouldn't be sincere of me to go out with all 4 of them. While I'd date the other 3 if not for this guy, I'm distracted by him at the moment.

 

If that moment doesn't last, we meet and don't dig each other, whatever. All we've done is basically say, in a way that just sort of happened, it's silly to "wait" to become exclusive when neither of us is really interested in seeing where anything else goes till we've seen this through. That could end in a few days, when we meet, or it could end never, or anywhere in between. Does it really matter? I would feel insincere continuing on with the other fellows. In some ways, I take commitment very seriously, but if I feel that interest strongly enough to desire to build something, I pursue it honestly. That's all I'm doing.

 

We didn't rush. We actively thought about waiting and were doing so just because it would be "rushing" not to. Then, we realized that was as silly as rushing. Forcing something to go more slowly is just as silly as forcing something to go more quickly if you're an emotionally healthy person who has your ducks in a row. I try not to force, in general. My main role is to avoid trying to control situations, and in this case, commitment was the way to do that.

 

P.S. Thanks for the actual advice. Still interested in hearing more thoughts on the query, but two male answers and my own thoughts were enough to send out the messages.

Edited August 19, 2010 by zengirl

[shadowplay]

Why not get to know all 3 (4 really, because the guy in question adds 1) first? Because I'm not into comparison dating. When I do multi-date, it's because I sincerely haven't decided to be interested in someone yet. It wouldn't be sincere of me to go out with all 4 of them. While I'd date the other 3 if not for this guy, I'm distracted by him at the moment.

 

If that moment doesn't last, we meet and don't dig each other, whatever. All we've done is basically say, in a way that just sort of happened, it's silly to "wait" to become exclusive when neither of us is really interested in seeing where anything else goes till we've seen this through. That could end in a few days, when we meet, or it could end never, or anywhere in between. Does it really matter? I would feel insincere continuing on with the other fellows. In some ways, I take commitment very seriously, but if I feel that interest strongly enough to desire to build something, I pursue it honestly. That's all I'm doing.

 

We didn't rush. We actively thought about waiting and were doing so just because it would be "rushing" not to. Then, we realized that was as silly as rushing. Forcing something to go more slowly is just as silly as forcing something to go more quickly if you're an emotionally healthy person who has your ducks in a row. I try not to force, in general. My main role is to avoid trying to control situations, and in this case, commitment was the way to do that.

 

P.S. Thanks for the actual advice. Still interested in hearing more thoughts on the query, but two male answers and my own thoughts were enough to send out the messages.

 

Personally, I think any commitment before actually meeting someone is rushing. I guess there might be extreme exceptions, where you've gotten to know somebody for months on end of intense communication and video chat and it would be hard for you to meet in person any time soon.

 

But judging in person chemistry is a hugely important piece of information. I don't see how you can decide to be in a relationship without it, barring those extreme circumstances.

 

I can understand revealing to each other that neither is interested in seeing other people until you find out about each other first, but to make an actual commitment out of that seems weird and unnecessary to me before actually meeting. I try to make a commitment when I think it's something I'm unlikely to break any time soon if things remain essentially as they are (otherwise it doesn't mean much, and why make it?), and it sounds like this is a situation where it could very easily be broken if you meet and don't click.

 

So it's not really like I want to be with you; it's more like right now I think I want to be with you, but we'll see once we actually meet. Is that a commitment?

Edited August 19, 2010 by shadowplay

[dispatch3d]

Why not get to know all 3 (4 really, because the guy in question adds 1) first? Because I'm not into comparison dating. When I do multi-date, it's because I sincerely haven't decided to be interested in someone yet. It wouldn't be sincere of me to go out with all 4 of them. While I'd date the other 3 if not for this guy, I'm distracted by him at the moment.

 

If that moment doesn't last, we meet and don't dig each other, whatever. All we've done is basically say, in a way that just sort of happened, it's silly to "wait" to become exclusive when neither of us is really interested in seeing where anything else goes till we've seen this through. That could end in a few days, when we meet, or it could end never, or anywhere in between. Does it really matter? I would feel insincere continuing on with the other fellows. In some ways, I take commitment very seriously, but if I feel that interest strongly enough to desire to build something, I pursue it honestly. That's all I'm doing.

 

We didn't rush. We actively thought about waiting and were doing so just because it would be "rushing" not to. Then, we realized that was as silly as rushing. Forcing something to go more slowly is just as silly as forcing something to go more quickly if you're an emotionally healthy person who has your ducks in a row. I try not to force, in general. My main role is to avoid trying to control situations, and in this case, commitment was the way to do that.

 

P.S. Thanks for the actual advice. Still interested in hearing more thoughts on the query, but two male answers and my own thoughts were enough to send out the messages.

 

Initial feelings of meeting someone can way over-ride compatible traits. I think you trust in your ability to screen guys a little too much. You probably won't even figure out IF you are compatible for at least a month. This guy could very well just be "more slick" than the other two guys and hence is getting farther with you than the other...I guess it's three, whatever. You may very well fit better... in the end... with the other two. Ever be friends with someone, move in with them, then wonder how the **** you could have been friends in the first place? Similar deal. I've had that happen.

 

So yeah, maybe that guy SEEMS to be the best so far, but rushing into a relationship that early looks like a problem to me.

 

And saying well we are both emotionally healthy people so we can do x. Ahhh guess what, you can reason doing anything that well. Well I mean, assuming we are both emotionally healthy people, I see no problem is us jumping off a 40 foot bridge just to show we really care about each other.

[dispatch3d]

It's sort of like hiring someone to do a job without giving them a trial period where you can fire them whenever you feel like it. By not giving them the trial period they probably feel like they can get away with more, that the job isn't as good as others with the trial period, and that you aren't going to be demanding so why worry.

[zengirl]

Personally, I think any commitment before actually meeting someone is rushing. I guess there might be extreme exceptions, where you've gotten to know somebody for months on end of intense communication and video chat and it would be hard for you to meet in person any time soon.

 

But judging in person chemistry is a hugely important piece of information. I don't see how you can decide to be in a relationship without it, barring those extreme circumstances.

 

I can understand revealing to each other that neither is interested in seeing other people until you find out about each other first, but to make an actual commitment out of that seems weird and unnecessary to me before actually meeting. I try to make a commitment when I think it's something I'm unlikely to break any time soon if things remain essentially as they are (otherwise it doesn't mean much, and why make it?), and it sounds like this is a situation where it could very easily be broken if you meet and don't click.

 

So it's not really like I want to be with you; it's more like right now I think I want to be with you, but we'll see once we actually meet. Is that a commitment?

 

To me commitment equals 2 things: (1) not seeing anybody else, and (2) honestly investing in the relationship. As you invest -- and this is where I do think it's important to go slowly to a degree (meaning not somehow leaping forward in your mind and worrying about the future so much) -- the relationship grows and develops. I've never been one who took an all-or-nothing approach to commitment, like it was some huge major deal instantaneously. A new boyfriend is not the same as a SO you've grown together with. . . that grown-together relationship has evolved because the people decided to commit and put something together. To me, the relationship becomes serious as you put time, effort, energy, and emotion in, which doesn't happen with a simple word or label. We had simply reached the point where both 1 and 2 were comfortable ideas to me and to him and the only thing holding us off was the idea that "we should meet first" which made said meeting an arbitrary landmark and much less fun. I've also never been one that believed in arbitrary landmarks (and while I understand the assertions, this is just another arbitrary landmark in this day and age with life and technology being what they are).

 

Is it breakable? Of course it is. All relationships are breakable. Even marriages that have been together for 50 years can break apart. The newer it is, the less work put into it, the more breakable it is. The more you invest, the more painful it becomes to break. A commitment to me simply means that there is something there that would need to be honored when breaking it. It means that investing is reasonable because there's been a statement of shared and mutual investment. I commit fairly early. Never more early than is organic. I never require immediate commitment from a person. It has to be a sincere choice, not simply based on making me happy, and I have to feel I'm sincerely choosing it as well. But I think feeling the need to build the relationship in mystery shrouded by noncommittal land is a bit immature for where I'm personally at. It's really not a huge deal for me to say I'm committed to someone (unless I'm not feeling an active choice to do so; then, asking me to do it would become a big deal).

Edited August 19, 2010 by zengirl

[shadowplay]

To me commitment equals 2 things: (1) not seeing anybody else, and (2) honestly investing in the relationship. As you invest -- and this is where I do think it's important to go slowly -- the relationship grows and develops. I've never been one who took an all-or-nothing approach to commitment, like it was some huge major deal. To me, the relationship becomes serious as you put time, effort, energy, and emotion in, which doesn't happen with a simple word or label. We had simply reached the point where both 1 and 2 were comfortable ideas to me and to him and the only thing holding us off was the idea that "we should meet first" which made said meeting an arbitrary landmark and much less fun. I've also never been one that believed in arbitrary landmarks (and while I understand the assertions, this is just another arbitrary landmark in this day and age with life and technology being what they are).

 

Is it breakable? Of course it is. All relationships are breakable. Even marriages that have been together for 50 years can break apart. The newer it is, the less work put into it, the more breakable it is. The more you invest, the more painful it becomes to break. A commitment to me simply means that there is something there that would need to be honored when breaking it. It means that investing is reasonable because there's been a statement of shared and mutual investment.

 

How is meeting someone an arbitrary landmark? Seems like a vitally important landmark to me. I've done Skype video chat before, and it's not the same. There's a lot that doesn't come through -- subtle nuances mostly -- that tell you much about a person.

 

I know you're going to do what you do, but I don't understand the rationale.

[zengirl]

How is meeting someone an arbitrary landmark? Seems like a vitally important landmark to me. I've done Skype video chat before, and it's not the same. There's a lot that doesn't come through -- subtle nuances mostly -- that tell you much about a person.

 

I know you're going to do what you do, but I don't understand the rationale.

 

Because it is a landmark set forth by standards other than my own intuition, desires, feelings, and logic.

 

I didn't really feel it was necessary but I was waiting because "You're supposed to." If someone feels it's vital to them, it's not arbitrary. In this case, I recognized my desire to do so had little to do with me and more that I thought I was supposed to wait until then. I've had a lot of experience Skyping people in general and then meeting them (traveling, as I have) or Skyping with friends I haven't seen in ages. I understand what it is, in terms of a communication form, and I was comfortable saying, "Yeah, this is a fellow I'd invest in." He had expressed the same already. All that was holding me back was an arbitrary, external idea.

 

Granted, arbitrary ideas can be helpful to those who are struggling to make sense of the world and having a hard time with seeing their own issues. I have been there. I've used arbitrary things (and occasionally still do when I deem them necessary as crutches, but I see them as such) to keep my emotional health in line. But generally, I don't really need crutches to do this with dating, and I know it. My issues happen to be in other areas.

[dispatch3d]

To me commitment equals 2 things: (1) not seeing anybody else, and (2) honestly investing in the relationship. As you invest -- and this is where I do think it's important to go slowly to a degree (meaning not somehow leaping forward in your mind and worrying about the future so much) -- the relationship grows and develops. I've never been one who took an all-or-nothing approach to commitment, like it was some huge major deal instantaneously. A new boyfriend is not the same as a SO you've grown together with. . . that grown-together relationship has evolved because the people decided to commit and put something together. To me, the relationship becomes serious as you put time, effort, energy, and emotion in, which doesn't happen with a simple word or label. We had simply reached the point where both 1 and 2 were comfortable ideas to me and to him and the only thing holding us off was the idea that "we should meet first" which made said meeting an arbitrary landmark and much less fun. I've also never been one that believed in arbitrary landmarks (and while I understand the assertions, this is just another arbitrary landmark in this day and age with life and technology being what they are).

 

Is it breakable? Of course it is. All relationships are breakable. Even marriages that have been together for 50 years can break apart. The newer it is, the less work put into it, the more breakable it is. The more you invest, the more painful it becomes to break. A commitment to me simply means that there is something there that would need to be honored when breaking it. It means that investing is reasonable because there's been a statement of shared and mutual investment. I commit fairly early. Never more early than is organic. I never require immediate commitment from a person. It has to be a sincere choice, not simply based on making me happy, and I have to feel I'm sincerely choosing it as well. But I think feeling the need to build the relationship in mystery shrouded by noncommittal land is a bit immature for where I'm personally at. It's really not a huge deal for me to say I'm committed to someone (unless I'm not feeling an active choice to do so; then, asking me to do it would become a big deal).

 

You just met the guy. You barreeellllly know him. Compare him to 90% of the people you are friends with. You probably know all of them better than you know this guy. There are unnumerable things you haven't figure out yet. There are tons of things he's not even comfortable TELLING you yet. You haven't even done anything on the physical side. I'm not sure if you know guys well, but if there is no physical side you aren't truly in a relationship with a guy.

 

For a woman, a relationship involves all of the fun lovy-dovy stuff. Hanging out with each other, getting to know one another, building an emotional connection, etc. etc. Guys like the sex and the emotional feeling of getting together. These two things have to be balanced - if they aren't one person is in too much power in the relationship and doesn't have to give the other person anything that they want. Then it falls apart.

 

If I "dated" a girl for a month but never kissed her I would assume it's a friendship. This same girl could be telling people I'm "dating" that guy. But she really isn't. As far as I'm concerned we are just friends and aren't on the next level.

 

All guys think like this on some level. I think you really would do well to read the stuff I'm reading which is alllll on multiple relationships. Just to give yourself some perspective.

[dispatch3d]

Like what are you getting out of calling it a relationship now rather than calling it nothing? What is HE getting out of calling it a relationship now rather than calling it nothing?

 

If both sides aren't equal here you have a problem.

[zengirl]

dispatch, clearly you and I don't live in the same circles or approach the world in the same way. You must know this.

 

Of course, I don't know this fellow as well as my close friends. I rarely do when I commit to someone. I would have to wait years for that. Of course, the physical aspect is important to a relationship. I really don't think I'll have a problem. (If I do, I'm sure I'll learn from the experience.) I'm not really ready to sleep with the fellow yet anyway, but I've never had bad sex and am pretty good at judging chemistry intuitively. I've made a hobby out of understanding myself so that I didn't need crutches or generalized advice from systems---not that I think those work anyway.

 

I don't honestly see why y'all are upset by this in the least. I have very little cognitive dissonance about it. I'm not upset by it. I'm not manic over it. There is no issue here. Y'all are way more emotional and intense about it than I am.

 

If I'm wrong, what's the worst that happens? One of us (me or the fellow) has to come forth and say, "Hey, I was wrong. This isn't going to work." And the other person feels a bit of a sting, but if it were to happen early, no big deal because we haven't built a long-term relationship yet. Short-term commitment is not a huge deal to me---it is a building process. It is a big deal in that we have both agreed to be clear about our intentions and give ourselves a space TO BUILD. But that's it.

 

Honestly, when I say people shouldn't rush, I usually mean they shouldn't rush into all sorts of crazy emotional stuff that is tying them in knots. There are no knots here. I'm straight.

[zengirl]

Like what are you getting out of calling it a relationship now rather than calling it nothing? What is HE getting out of calling it a relationship now rather than calling it nothing?

 

If both sides aren't equal here you have a problem.

 

I hate the phrase "getting out of it." I don't do anything with people to get something out of it. Honest.

 

Why are we doing it? We are expressing our sincere intentions. This is what healthy people do when they understand their intentions. The end.

[dispatch3d]

dispatch, clearly you and I don't live in the same circles or approach the world in the same way. You must know this.

 

Of course, I don't know this fellow as well as my close friends. I rarely do when I commit to someone. I would have to wait years for that. Of course, the physical aspect is important to a relationship. I really don't think I'll have a problem. (If I do, I'm sure I'll learn from the experience.) I'm not really ready to sleep with the fellow yet anyway, but I've never had bad sex and am pretty good at judging chemistry intuitively. I've made a hobby out of understanding myself so that I didn't need crutches or generalized advice from systems---not that I think those work anyway.

 

I don't honestly see why y'all are upset by this in the least. I have very little cognitive dissonance about it. I'm not upset by it. I'm not manic over it. There is no issue here. Y'all are way more emotional and intense about it than I am.

 

If I'm wrong, what's the worst that happens? One of us (me or the fellow) has to come forth and say, "Hey, I was wrong. This isn't going to work." And the other person feels a bit of a sting, but if it were to happen early, no big deal because we haven't built a long-term relationship yet. Short-term commitment is not a huge deal to me---it is a building process. It is a big deal in that we have both agreed to be clear about our intentions and give ourselves a space TO BUILD. But that's it.

 

Honestly, when I say people shouldn't rush, I usually mean they shouldn't rush into all sorts of crazy emotional stuff that is tying them in knots. There are no knots here. I'm straight.

 

It's because you are a pretty big feminist (which I actually guessed at one point), and I read and practice things femisists HATE as a fundamental being of who they are. Saying that, I'm actually very good friends with a feminist and hope I can talk to her about feminism again soon.

 

And wow, you wouldn't sleep with him yet, yet you are in a "relationship". All guys want out of a relationship is sex. This is the MOST important thing. Ever read that thread on here where the girl was refusing/hardly sexing the guy so he broke up with her? Same deal. If you wouldn't even have sex with him yet, you actually ARE NOT in a relationship with him. You are getting waywaywaywaywaywayway more out of this bargain/deal than he is.

 

Everybody "gets" and "gives" something about any mutual deal that's made. Some people focus on the giving, some people focus on the getting, some people look at both. I look at both because I think its VERY important. I wouldn't hang out with a female friend on a one-on-one basis because they would be GETTING more than me out of it! So I don't do that!

 

See I like to read/learn about opposing views. They help me construct a more central/informed opinion on things. Obviously you will not agree with the exact way I look at things. If I were you I'd probably get into relationships with all 3 or 4, let them know it's happening (obviously, to be fair to them all), then pick the best one. I'd never suggest that to you because you don't even want to date all 3-4 at the same time.

 

I would strongly encourage you not to call it a "relationship". As far as he is concerned it still isn't one. Especially if you aren't ready to have sex with him.

[zengirl]

It's because you are a pretty big feminist (which I actually guessed at one point), and I read and practice things femisists HATE as a fundamental being of who they are. Saying that, I'm actually very good friends with a feminist and hope I can talk to her about feminism again soon.

 

And wow, you wouldn't sleep with him yet, yet you are in a "relationship". All guys want out of a relationship is sex. This is the MOST important thing. Ever read that thread on here where the girl was refusing/hardly sexing the guy so he broke up with her? Same deal. If you wouldn't even have sex with him yet, you actually ARE NOT in a relationship with him. You are getting waywaywaywaywaywayway more out of this bargain/deal than he is.

 

Everybody "gets" and "gives" something about any mutual deal that's made. Some people focus on the giving, some people focus on the getting, some people look at both. I look at both because I think its VERY important. I wouldn't hang out with a female friend on a one-on-one basis because they would be GETTING more than me out of it! So I don't do that!

 

See I like to read/learn about opposing views. They help me construct a more central/informed opinion on things. Obviously you will not agree with the exact way I look at things. If I were you I'd probably get into relationships with all 3 or 4, let them know it's happening (obviously, to be fair to them all), then pick the best one. I'd never suggest that to you because you don't even want to date all 3-4 at the same time.

 

I would strongly encourage you not to call it a "relationship". As far as he is concerned it still isn't one. Especially if you aren't ready to have sex with him.

 

I'm not going to argue with you about this fellow. We both know what we want and have expressed ourselves honestly. We're cool. We don't need your help at the moment. Thanks anyway.

 

The fellow with the sexless thread needed to leave his gal because they weren't compatible and she didn't care. It's not the same as building towards sex in a relationship. I've always had commitment -- clear stating of intentions and exclusivity -- come before sex, and it's never caused any issues in my relationships. That doesn't mean I don't dig sex. It just means I don't view the world your way.

 

This gets/gives thing isn't my worldview. I give what I choose to give freely, with no expectations. I hope others will do the same, and those that do are the most interesting to and compatible with me.

[dispatch3d]

I'm not going to argue with you about this fellow. We both know what we want and have expressed ourselves honestly. We're cool. We don't need your help at the moment. Thanks anyway.

 

The fellow with the sexless thread needed to leave his gal because they weren't compatible and she didn't care. It's not the same as building towards sex in a relationship. I've always had commitment -- clear stating of intentions and exclusivity -- come before sex, and it's never caused any issues in my relationships. That doesn't mean I don't dig sex. It just means I don't view the world your way.

 

This gets/gives thing isn't my worldview. I give what I choose to give freely, with no expectations. I hope others will do the same, and those that do are the most interesting to and compatible with me.

 

I'm not going to give advice or opinions to someone who isn't willing to take any. Good luck.

[zengirl]

I'm not going to give advice or opinions to someone who isn't willing to take any. Good luck.

 

Thanks. To be clear, I've no worries about opinions. Yours were just incessant, even after I responded to them. They were also rather pointless to who I am, as a person. Our worldviews and experiences are much more different than simply feminism. So, this is precisely right---there's no need to waste your energy.

 

And thanks again for the reply on the original query. That was the area in which I did have cognitive dissonance and require opinions to bounce around.

[dispatch3d]

Thanks. To be clear, I've no worries about opinions. Yours were just incessant, even after I responded to them. They were also rather pointless to who I am, as a person. Our worldviews and experiences are much more different than simply feminism. So, this is precisely right---there's no need to waste your energy.

 

And thanks again for the reply on the original query. That was the area in which I did have cognitive dissonance and require opinions to bounce around.

 

sigh, until you are willing to weigh all opinions equally, you'll always be limiting yourself on how much you can achieve. A bigbig problem I had with a roomate who had to move out and we could not live with again is he would just wait for us to finish giving our opinion then restate what he thought.

 

Anyhow, again, I waste my breath. No more no more....

[torranceshipman]

Two comments:

 

1. I'd keep my options open if I were you, until after you've had a few proper dates with the main guy, just to double check that in person you guys are right.

 

2. But in the absence of doing that, email the runners up, and be straight up - say they are awesome, but something happened out of nowhere, this guy asked you to get serious, and you are giving it a shot, and that if things were different, you'd pursue it with them instead, but that you are a true believer in upfront honesty, and you'd love to stay friends (or something). They'll appreciate your honesty and I reckon you'll get more than one 'well msg me if it doesn't pan out' and you are a winner either way

[EasyHeart]

To answer your actual question, I think you should be very direct. If you met them on a dating site, then they're looking for a girlfriend, not a friend, and would rather know that you're not available than spend a lot of time chasing you when you're not available.

 

Sometimes women seem to think it's "mean" to reject a guy, but rejecting him straight up is WAY better in the long run.

[meerkat stew]

When I do multi-date, it's because I sincerely haven't decided to be interested in someone yet. It wouldn't be sincere of me to go out with all 4 of them. While I'd date the other 3 if not for this guy, I'm distracted by him at the moment.

 

For someone who frequently refers to honing a "people-picker" I'm amazed that you have set up a relationship with a stranger you haven't met in person. Moreover, having a prefab relationship ready on the heels of a significant move is unduly limiting in foreclosing the opportunity to explore your new habitat alone, and could turn very uncomfortable and stressful due to proximity.

 

Consider not nexting any of these men and continue to talk to all of them, rethink this exclusive relationship made with a stranger, and take a couple of weeks to settle into your new locale before dating at all.

 

Seriously, what advice would you yourself give to someone who posted the OP?

[tami-chan]

Uh, so you are in an official relationship with someone you never met? ...

 

What's the big deal? This is not something new. People have done this through the ages-even back when letters took months to reach their destinations. They are not committing to "get married", they are "committing" to get to know each other more, to focus on each other and make the relationship work. Nothing wrong with that, imo.

 

To respond to the OP's question. It is polite to let them know what's up and make it short and direct. BUT would consider meerkat stew's advice, too...

Edited August 21, 2010 by tami-chan