How do you gracefully bow out?

[njbm 2,879]

You are a couple out to dinner with another couple. Let’s say the other couple is from out of town and has a nearby hotel room. This is the first meeting. We decide we do not want to play. How do you tell the other couple in the most diplomatic and unhurtful way?

[padoc 1,703]

"We have to get home to the…………dog" (sorta true)

 

"Thank you but we never play on the first date" (NOT true)

 

"Thank you but we're just not feeling it" (true)

 

"Thank you but we have a 7:00 am t-time" (unlikely)

 

"Look, squirrel"!!!!! (and run like hell!!)

[Judy39 145]

Never been in that position so hard to say, but I'm guessing I'd try to say something sweet/polite/humorous and rely on the body language for the rest. So perhaps 'thank you for a wonderful evening, the food was lovely, sweet dreams strippers', then kiss on the cheek, wave good bye and don't look back.

 

No idea whether that'd work or not! Great question!

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

First, the fact that you are concerned about their feelings speaks volumes about your approach to the LS.

 

Next, we always indicate that first meetings (whether from across the street, across town, or across the country) are just that--an opportunity for the two couples to get to know one another. No expectations or obligations, regardless of the distance traveled.

 

Finally, it is possible to be gracious and unambiguous. After a first meeting, there are only three possible outcomes:

-you never want to see a couple again;

-you would enjoy them as friends;

-you are interested in taking things further.

 

There are three gracious, unambiguous scripted answers:

-"Thanks for joining us for dinner, and we wish you the best on your journey."

-"Thanks for joining us for dinner. We truly enjoyed the company and conversation, and we'd like to maintain a vanilla relationship."

-"Thanks for joining us for dinner. We would like to get together with you again, eventually in a more private setting."

 

All three start with an appreciation for their time and effort. The first makes sure the door is closed. The second sets specific limits. The third is an invitation to the dance.

 

All three work.

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

This is but another reason that we make it clear that there will be no play on the first date. This way there is no pressure on either couple if things don't go as smoothly as they all hope (it rarely does). We do have some code phrases that says that one of us just isn't interested. Since we have lots of animals (dog, cat, chickens, ducks, sheep, pig...e-i-e-i-o) if one of us wants to end the night, we just ask the other if they remembered to feed the sheep for them...'I thought I asked you to take care of this, oh, we better go feed them'

 

Our favorite is our dogs excuse (and mentioned above): "Look, a squirrel!!!!!"

[njbm 2,879]

We try to make it clear that we don’t play on the first date. That way anyone can bow out gracefully. But if we are meeting people far from home and it would be difficult to meet again in the near future, we are more inclined to play on the first meeting. But if we never met before and we want to bail, we don’t want to insult anyone.

[njbm 2,879]

We have the yes and no hand signals. My question is how do you tell the other couple no without hurting their feelings.

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

We have the yes and no hand signals. My question is how do you tell the other couple no without hurting their feelings.

 

You can't. The hurt feelings are no different when there is 1:1 dating. The difference is, in the lifestyle, "no" is reasonably assumed. Bear in mind, "no thank you" ends the evening exactly as a vanilla evening would have ended.

 

A respectful yet direct "no thank you" is the least hurtful alternative. Moreover, respectful and direct earns a measure of respect.

[njbm 2,879]

I agree with the direct method. I would rather have the other couple say the four of us are not a match, rather than leading us to believe there may be a future meeting. I guess people just have to handle the truth. We understand that the four way match is elusive.

[Guest]

Personally I'd not really bother telling the other couple, at least not in person.

 

I learnt years ago to make sure "First Meets" a very quick and light social affairs, meeting in a coffee shop is perfect.

 

I usually explain to the person that we would like to meet them for a coffee, that it shouldn't take much longer than 1 hour, that we just want to say hello, just want to meet in person and have a chat, that there will be no sexual play.

 

I mean its the middle of the day, were sat in public coffee shop, were only meeting for about 1 hour tops, there can not / will not be any sex.

 

Then....

 

If we don't like the person we have met we can very quickly finish a cup of coffee and say thanks for meeting and we will be in touch.

 

OR

 

If we do like the person we can actually have 3 or 4 cups of coffee and sit there 4 hours chatting if we wanted.

 

Then we return home and message them online, its either a NO THANKS we didn't feel a connection, or sure we will meet again soon.

 

Personally I would avoid telling people such things in person, in many cases you don't have any idea who you are really meeting and telling them "NO THANKS" to their face could become heated, for all you know they may take serious offence so personally I'd prefer to play out a very quick social meeting and make our excuses and leave and then tell them thanks but no thanks later

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

I agree with the direct method. I would rather have the other couple say the four of us are not a match, rather than leading us to believe there may be a future meeting. I guess people just have to handle the truth. We understand that the four way match is elusive.

 

By not playing on the fist 'date', it's easier to say this later. While some couples don't like hearing it (especially noobies), it's actually the kindest and best way to handle things. Once they realize that it just isn't going to work for one or more of the group, you are just saving everyone involved a great deal of time and effort (and awkwardness later) if you just tell the truth in the beginning. Otherwise, you spend all that time texting/emailing/talking when one or more of the group has already said that they are not interested (and one no equals a group no).

[Newcouple17 101]

By not playing on the fist 'date', it's easier to say this later. While some couples don't like hearing it (especially noobies), it's actually the kindest and best way to handle things. Once they realize that it just isn't going to work for one or more of the group, you are just saving everyone involved a great deal of time and effort (and awkwardness later) if you just tell the truth in the beginning. Otherwise, you spend all that time texting/emailing/talking when one or more of the group has already said that they are not interested (and one no equals a group no).

 

Personally I'd hate to be rejected face to face.....or reject someone else for that matter!

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

Personally I'd hate to be rejected face to face.....or reject someone else for that matter!

 

No one especially likes rejection...whether it be for employment, a loan, or a playmate. The difference is that, in the latter, it's balanced--everyone effectively has veto power. It's not a "superior-subordinate" situation. It's about mutual consent.

 

It's well to remember than, in life, rejection is the norm. Mrs. FL does not buy every dress she looks at, I don't accept every request for professional services. It's never "personal". It's about deciding among many alternatives. The nice thing in the LS is that there are lots of choices. When we say, "no thanks", we know that the "right couple" for the other couple is just around the corner.

[Alura 2,774]

As in all parts of life, lying is never appreciated. Mrs. Alura and I met with unknown couples in the afternoon in a book store coffee shop. Our decisions were not based on looks but personalities. Honesty is the best policy. "Our kids are at Grandma's house," is good, but make sure it's true.

 

A couple we knew would tell rejected couples later, "We've decided not to swing," conveniently omitting, "with y'all." We never had to use such a ploy.

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

Personally I'd hate to be rejected face to face.....or reject someone else for that matter!

 

Oh, not face to face. Usually via email. But in telling them that you are not interested, it does save time (although the first time it happens to you you end up spending too much effort thinking about what you could have done different...even if you weren't interested as well)

[njbm 2,879]

Hey if people are not interested in us, it’s not going to be fun anyway. There is no accounting for taste. We’ve been rejected first by people who we did not find attractive either.

[BabeAndApe 70]

"It has been a pleasure meeting you." [shake Hand, Move On...].

 

On the other hand, I had a lady from a couple we were chatting with at a club this past weekend say "we're moving on" in a way that implied "interview over." The husband had clearly been interested in Babe and she had said they only play as a couple, so I assumed she wasn't interested in me. She said it with a smile and I took it in stride with a shrug. We received a note from her two-days later saying they were both hoping to see us at the club again very soon. I realized I may have read that one wrong. We had another couple we assumed found us "meh" (the wife seemed cautious and the husband patted my arm and excused himself). They also reached out the next day to ask when we'd be at the club again. I realized later that both were much more experienced couples than we are and their tactic may be "speed-dating interviews" to identify good candidates for later encounters.

[njbm 2,879]

This hobby is a minefield of hard to read intentions. Maybe direct but polite we’re not a match is best.

[Judy39 145]

Time is so important in human relationships.

 

Being rejected in person on the first meet must hurt like hell, but being rejected later on, and processing it in the comfort of your own home is not that bad.

 

Being rejected 'at this time' is different to being categorically rejected, 'once and for all'.

 

Also who's to say that some time, some place you will not be attracted to these people? That's always a possibility in the future. You never know.

[njbm 2,879]

I think people are quick to dismiss potential partners in the lifestyle. Some people are a little heavier, a little less glamorous, but may have good skills. We like to err on the generous side, particularly if we feel people are nice.