So give me some thoughts on this subject, people.
Hypothetically, would you say an hour of conversation with a guy would be adequate to decide if he was someone you'd like to spend time with again or is that not adequate? If you got a fairly strong idea of what he was like from really listening to what he was saying, would you go with that?
Hypothetically, would you say an hour of conversation with a guy would be adequate to decide if he was someone you'd like to spend time with again or is that not adequate? If you got a fairly strong idea of what he was like from really listening to what he was saying, would you go with that?
posted by Unknown at 4:45 PM
8 Comments:
I'd say you could have a pretty solid first impression in less time than that. You can certainly know if he's worth investigating further.
I think so. I mean IF you are not going to like a person, you will get that vibe by something they said or did in an hour.
Basically what the other commenter said :)
I just felt like maybe an hour isn't enough time in all instances.
I met a guy, very nice, warm, tall and decent, ballroom dancer enthusiast, somewhat well-rounded but was constantly taking all the responsibility for what had gone wrong in his life, not really saying derogatory things about himself but not shrugging it off like most people would. I listened and came away from it with the feeling he was a dishrag. I thought Id have to clobber him before he would stop apologizing for coming a half hour after we had agreed upon and he still apologized in an email later. I felt very bad telling him I wasn't interested but I could stand the thought of sitting through that again. Gonna go with that.
I agree, greeny. Just apologize once and move on. Nobody likes a doormat.
Sounds like an hour was plenty of time for you decide to to do nest.
Doesn't that depend on what he said? We've all spent an hour with a person who convinces us un the first minute they're not worth pursuing.
And doesn't it depend on what your expectations are?
I take your question to be a variation of whether we believe in "love at first sight". In honestly, I think my answer reflects my age and generational bias: No. An hour is not enough. I'm 62 however, and not terribly adventurous, and my reaction time slower.
I'd need an hour in conversation, followed by another hour alone to digest and think over what he said. Then, maybe
WS, I am attempting to just listen to these men and go with my gut instinct on who and what they are for that initial meeting. I think a fairly strong reaction, like in this case- I felt this guy was very subservient and had self-esteem issues- is not to be ignored but if I didn't have a strong reaction and I felt another chance might be in order, I would go with that.
By choosing this method of weeding out perspective dates, I know I will be calling it wrong on a fraction of them. It's just a hazard.
I am pretty easy-going and warm when I meet people and try to offer a relaxed conversation (in my opinion) so I feel like what I come away with is mostly what is there.
Thanks for the input, ladies! It's a rocky road.
Sounds to me like you're going about it in the right way. Besides, it's a well known fact that ball room dancing enthusiasts are more likely than handgun enthusiasts to not hang the towel up in the bathroom after a shower. You sure don't want that, let me tell you.
Post a Comment
<< Home