How to refuse politely??

11 Sep 2007

To say you or we would not be compatible, you don't suit us, we wouldn't get along, and other ways of saying it; are somewhat careless.
Is politeness of any use in this situation? Is the answer not, 'I don't want to have sex with you'?
Compatibility and suitability could only be truly assessed by having some kind of relationship with someone else. This would at least require a face to face meeting, to establish whether or not such conditions existed or were likely to develop.
Making a decision remotely, denies yourself and the responder the experience and the opportunity to see if you are or would be compatible and/or suitable. Its undemocratic etc.
That is the most dissapointing and infuriating facet of such a rebuttal. It leaves so many people feeling inadequate, powerless and exploited. Which you wouldn't do if you cared about someone.
So it remains a clumsy process. rolleyes

Because of this I expect most people don't reply. Its probably the safest option as you don't become the 'cause' or fixation of the dissapointed responder.

11 Sep 2007

Quote by MR-FB
Same as everyone else, 'sorry not our type'

:shock: Who let you on my PC? lol

11 Sep 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
To say you or we would not be compatible, you don't suit us, we wouldn't get along, and other ways of saying it; are somewhat careless.
Is politeness of any use in this situation? Is the answer not, 'I don't want to have sex with you'?
Compatibility and suitability could only be truly assessed by having some kind of relationship with someone else. This would at least require a face to face meeting, to establish whether or not such conditions existed or were likely to develop.
Making a decision remotely, denies yourself and the responder the experience and the opportunity to see if you are or would be compatible and/or suitable. Its undemocratic etc.
That is the most dissapointing and infuriating facet of such a rebuttal. It leaves so many people feeling inadequate, powerless and exploited. Which you wouldn't do if you cared about someone.
So it remains a clumsy process.
Because of this I expect most people don't reply. Its probably the safest option as you don't become the 'cause' or fixation of the dissapointed responder.

Whether I do or do not want to have sex with someone isn't a demacratic proccee, it's personal choice. You seem to be implying that people should meet everyone who asks them so they can make a more informed decision to say no.
H.x

11 Sep 2007

Quote by H-x
To say you or we would not be compatible, you don't suit us, we wouldn't get along, and other ways of saying it; are somewhat careless.
Is politeness of any use in this situation? Is the answer not, 'I don't want to have sex with you'?
Compatibility and suitability could only be truly assessed by having some kind of relationship with someone else. This would at least require a face to face meeting, to establish whether or not such conditions existed or were likely to develop.
Making a decision remotely, denies yourself and the responder the experience and the opportunity to see if you are or would be compatible and/or suitable. Its undemocratic etc.
That is the most dissapointing and infuriating facet of such a rebuttal. It leaves so many people feeling inadequate, powerless and exploited. Which you wouldn't do if you cared about someone.
So it remains a clumsy process.
Because of this I expect most people don't reply. Its probably the safest option as you don't become the 'cause' or fixation of the dissapointed responder.

Whether I do or do not want to have sex with someone isn't a demacratic proccee, it's personal choice. You seem to be implying that people should meet everyone who asks them so they can make a more informed decision to say no.
H.x
This is interesting because I agree with both comments.
However despite protestations from both sexes we make a lot of our 'judgements' from visual cues, and these cues are personal. So all the objective details may be there in the profile, but if photos are present we make a judgement which can significantly change our views.
Is this democratic? I'm not sure the question is revelant in this instance.
Compatibility and suitability could only be truly assessed by having some kind of relationship with someone else.
This may be true but in a demoncracy it is not necessary if other forms of information are present. This is why complete profiles are so important in my view.
I also don't believe that a face to face meeting is essential if you've spoken to the person over the phone. I think ultimately it's the person's personality that's important, and you can tell alot about someone over the phone.
Also there are people who receive many PMs per day, and they have to develop strategies in order to cope with the influx. In some cases it may require ignoring those that clearly are unsuitable, otherwise you could spend days just composing rejections.
Now excuse me while I just go and pick the splinters out of ass.
:lol2:

11 Sep 2007

Quote by bbw_lover
This is why complete profiles are so important in my view.

That`s my view too, seeing the way a person writes, decribing what they like and what they`re looking for helps others make the decision as to whether they want to meet them.

11 Sep 2007

Quote by H-x
To say you or we would not be compatible, you don't suit us, we wouldn't get along, and other ways of saying it; are somewhat careless.
Is politeness of any use in this situation? Is the answer not, 'I don't want to have sex with you'?
Compatibility and suitability could only be truly assessed by having some kind of relationship with someone else. This would at least require a face to face meeting, to establish whether or not such conditions existed or were likely to develop.
Making a decision remotely, denies yourself and the responder the experience and the opportunity to see if you are or would be compatible and/or suitable. Its undemocratic etc.
That is the most dissapointing and infuriating facet of such a rebuttal. It leaves so many people feeling inadequate, powerless and exploited. Which you wouldn't do if you cared about someone.
So it remains a clumsy process.
Because of this I expect most people don't reply. Its probably the safest option as you don't become the 'cause' or fixation of the dissapointed responder.

Whether I do or do not want to have sex with someone isn't a demacratic proccee, it's personal choice. You seem to be implying that people should meet everyone who asks them so they can make a more informed decision to say no.
H.x
Perhaps democratic is the wrong word here. It's about being excluded in the choice or the decision making process, which should occur if you are having a relationship.
Meeting everyone is impractical it wouldn't work. But it misses out something which needs to exist in order to take the leap of 'knowing' someone enough to make the decision of incompatibility.
So going that far assumes you have given it some thought but decided to bin the responder for whatever set of reasons.
So as I said I think many people intuitively feel this and simply don't respond.

11 Sep 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
To say you or we would not be compatible, you don't suit us, we wouldn't get along, and other ways of saying it; are somewhat careless.
Is politeness of any use in this situation? Is the answer not, 'I don't want to have sex with you'?
Compatibility and suitability could only be truly assessed by having some kind of relationship with someone else. This would at least require a face to face meeting, to establish whether or not such conditions existed or were likely to develop.
Making a decision remotely, denies yourself and the responder the experience and the opportunity to see if you are or would be compatible and/or suitable. Its undemocratic etc.
That is the most dissapointing and infuriating facet of such a rebuttal. It leaves so many people feeling inadequate, powerless and exploited. Which you wouldn't do if you cared about someone.
So it remains a clumsy process.
Because of this I expect most people don't reply. Its probably the safest option as you don't become the 'cause' or fixation of the dissapointed responder.

Whether I do or do not want to have sex with someone isn't a demacratic proccee, it's personal choice. You seem to be implying that people should meet everyone who asks them so they can make a more informed decision to say no.
H.x
Perhaps democratic is the wrong word here. It's about being excluded in the choice or the decision making process, which should occur if you are having a relationship.
Meeting everyone is impractical it wouldn't work. But it misses out something which needs to exist in order to take the leap of 'knowing' someone enough to make the decision of incompatibility.
So going that far assumes you have given it some thought but decided to bin the responder for whatever set of reasons.
So as I said I think many people intuitively feel this and simply don't respond.
I'm afraid I don't fully understand your arguement. Surely there is no 'relationship' until and unless there is a mutual agreement between both parties? This may be tacit or more explicit, but what you're suggesting implies an obligation on the side of the recipient to indulge in something they do not want.
You may not agree, but nobody should be forced, or feel obliged to indulge in correspondence, or anything else, just because they've been contacted.
I agree that you may wish for some response out of politeness, but this is not always possible. You may also wish to consider that,out of the context of SH, we do this all the time with people we encounter, at work, on holiday, in the street, on the bus etc.
Some contacts lead to lasting friendships, others whither on the vine. Ultimately it's a personal choice, and that's the way the world works.

11 Sep 2007

Quote by bbw_lover
To say you or we would not be compatible, you don't suit us, we wouldn't get along, and other ways of saying it; are somewhat careless.
Is politeness of any use in this situation? Is the answer not, 'I don't want to have sex with you'?
Compatibility and suitability could only be truly assessed by having some kind of relationship with someone else. This would at least require a face to face meeting, to establish whether or not such conditions existed or were likely to develop.
Making a decision remotely, denies yourself and the responder the experience and the opportunity to see if you are or would be compatible and/or suitable. Its undemocratic etc.
That is the most dissapointing and infuriating facet of such a rebuttal. It leaves so many people feeling inadequate, powerless and exploited. Which you wouldn't do if you cared about someone.
So it remains a clumsy process.
Because of this I expect most people don't reply. Its probably the safest option as you don't become the 'cause' or fixation of the dissapointed responder.

Whether I do or do not want to have sex with someone isn't a demacratic proccee, it's personal choice. You seem to be implying that people should meet everyone who asks them so they can make a more informed decision to say no.
H.x
Perhaps democratic is the wrong word here. It's about being excluded in the choice or the decision making process, which should occur if you are having a relationship.
Meeting everyone is impractical it wouldn't work. But it misses out something which needs to exist in order to take the leap of 'knowing' someone enough to make the decision of incompatibility.
So going that far assumes you have given it some thought but decided to bin the responder for whatever set of reasons.
So as I said I think many people intuitively feel this and simply don't respond.
I'm afraid I don't fully understand your arguement. Surely there is no 'relationship' until and unless there is a mutual agreement between both parties? This may be tacit or more explicit, but what you're suggesting implies an obligation on the side of the recipient to indulge in something they do not want.
You may not agree, but nobody should be forced, or feel obliged to indulge in correspondence, or anything else, just because they've been contacted.
I agree that you may wish for some response out of politeness, but this is not always possible. You may also wish to consider that,out of the context of SH, we do this all the time with people we encounter, at work, on holiday, in the street, on the bus etc.
Some contacts lead to lasting friendships, others whither on the vine. Ultimately it's a personal choice, and that's the way the world works.
You are right in many ways.
I don't expect a relationship to proceed unless it does in its own way. I don't expect an obligation to make this argument work.
The main problem is the language which is used to explain the turn down, although there is usually no explanation just a tacit note of refusal. I think its inappropriate because its suggests a shared familiarity which doesn't exist. Which is why I consider it all to be a clumsy process, and probably why people do not bother to reply.
So is it politeness? Maybe of a sort. More than likely its just what many people think is the acceptable form, when dealing with this type of situation.
There is also only a fairly limited langauge and vocabulary available to use for such circumstances.
Also from the viewpoint of the responder, he, she or they; equally have no obligation to become obsessed or fixated upon the advertisers. There is again only so much in a description or profile, its never enough to form an accurate understanding of someone. So for their part they should not build up too great an expectation.