Communication with another "option" after a "failed date" with someone else...

[Star Gazer]

"I'm meeting a friend."

 

 

 

 

"I met a friend."

 

You don't have to be dishonest. But you aren't required to bridge the two circuits. Unless you like the sparks.

 

But Person C wasn't a friend. He was a stranger, and not someone I ever wanted to see again after I met him. So saying I was meeting a friend, or met a friend, would be a lie...IMO. And no, I'm not just using semantics.

 

Then he is objecting because he doesn't like the idea of you dating anyone else and does not want to hear about it.

 

I'm not sure what that says about him exactly. However, I would not be comfortable dating someone with that level of sensitivity.

 

I'm not too worried about what it says about him. His emails afterward demonstrated to me that he's got a hot temper and reacts disproportionately to things he doesn't like.

 

I mean, he honestly acted like we'd been dating for months or something.

[befreckled]

"I'm meeting a friend."

 

"I met a friend."

 

You don't have to be dishonest. But you aren't required to bridge the two circuits. Unless you like the sparks.

 

I agree. I think there's a fine line to thread with being 100% honest. If I were in Person B's position, I wouldn't want to be told that some guy I'm interested in, is still going out on dates while trying to fix a date with me. Call it delusion, call it being romantic. Semantics. I would rather not know until things became exclusive. What I don't know, can't hurt me.

 

That said, I wouldn't be as upset as Person B. I'd likely approach the date with Person A more cautious and our future communication but, I wouldn't go nutters. That was not warranted. At all.

[luvnpain]

B shouldn't have pressed it if B didn't want to deal with it. A answered the question of what they were doing, but B pressed further by asking why A was at the restaurant. B took it there. There was no way to avoid something weird, because if the question wasn't answered then it could be said there was something to hide, which suggests dishonesty. If A answers, you get a possible (in this case definite) offended party. If you make up something, then again you get lies and there is no need for that.

 

While A probably should not have even contacted on days they are busy (what says busy better than nc?), I find it interesting that B seemed to ignore A was not available until Monday. On more than one occasion B was told, and kept trying to override it. Me thinks this was an overreaction from B, possibly tied to this because B seems to have had a preconceived notion that A is living it up in the OLD world, and doesn't really like it. B has to deal however, because A+B are not exclusive. A guideline needs to be set about communication for A+B so these things don't occur again, but its not the end of the world.

 

B doesn't have the right to decide the importance of A's plans. B doesn't even have a right to know what A's plans are. If A was doing naked yoga and then watching the Matrix trilogy alone for fun with their fave snacks for an evening that's their preference for their time. B can't unilaterally decide that's more or less important than hanging out with B.

[Star Gazer]

]B doesn't have the right to decide the importance of A's plans.[/b] B doesn't even have a right to know what A's plans are. If A was doing naked yoga and then watching the Matrix trilogy alone for fun with their fave snacks for an evening that's their preference for their time. B can't unilaterally decide that's more or less important than hanging out with B.

 

Without going into detail about his follow up emails, that's exactly how it sounded.

[Star Gazer]

It does depend on what A said to B regarding C. A may not have communicated good will to B if A was particularly reproachful about C. Or B, wrong or right, may not have seen virtue in A if B interpreted A's disclosure to have violated the privacy (or dignity) of C. Finally, B may have felt that A's disclosure about C was disrespectful to the sanctity and dignity of the fledgling relationship between A and B -- C should have never been a part of the discussion -- and so this would reflect poorly on A's good sense, and, possibly, good will.

 

With a little more forethought A could have realized that the disclosure was fraught with potential negative ramifications on these first impressions.

 

With a little more forethought A could have realized that the disclosure was fraught with potential negative ramifications on these first impressions.

 

There was absolutely no discussion about anything bad about Person C. The extent communicated to Person B was, "Let's just say there was no spark."

 

That is not to say that this situation is, or should be considered, a big deal. Regardless, this is a situation A should have avoided.

 

It seems the only way to avoid this situation is to not date more than one person at a time, or to lie. Because if Person A dates someone else, PERIOD, Person B was going to be pissed off.

[Jannah]

Online dating tends to magnify things, A and B have not been out on a single date yet and it seems like a lot of "scheduling/rescheduling" to have to go through just to schedule a first date....

[Stockalone]

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

I can relate to Person B, because I think that multi-dating is disrespectful, especially when Person A's date with Person C directly interfers with Person B's interactions with Person A.

 

However, given the nature of the conversations and the fact that they met on a dating site, this sort of thing (multi-dating) has to be expected. Maybe Person B is new to online dating and/or doesn't know the unwritten "rules". In that case (and if Person B isn't a hypocrite), I can see why Person B was pissed off by what happened.

 

Still, that doesn't justify berating Person A. Instead, Person B should have just wished Person A well, and then moved on.

 

Additionally, Person B should either quit online dating altogether or make it very clear in her/his profile that s/he doesn't want to date multi-daters.

 

And as far as Person A is concerned, s/he should just ignore Person B.

[melodymatters]

Sounds like person A dodged a bullet with person B !

 

Seriously, whether it was the most delicate way to broach the topic aside, if someone I NEVER MET started giving me crap, I would SO make sure we never did meet !!!!

[Star Gazer]

I can relate to Person B, because I think that multi-dating is disrespectful, especially when Person A's date with Person C directly interfers with Person B's interactions with Person A.

 

Can you explain this a bit more?

[welikeincrowds]

Sounds like person A dodged a bullet with person B !

 

Seriously, whether it was the most delicate way to broach the topic aside, if someone I NEVER MET started giving me crap, I would SO make sure we never did meet !!!!

 

Yeah, seriously. **** Person B, he sounds like an idiot.