Is there any right way to reject a guy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So based on one anecdotal experience, she's making a sweeping generalization that all men behave this way when rejected?

Agree that whoever the author was, making a sweeping generalization about all men based on the way one man--and a geek at that--behaved is not exactly fair or appropriate.

Back to the original question--the reply about the boyfriend was appropriate. Immediately blocking him on FB and Twitter before he had a chance to respond was overboard and what set him off. Not saying he wasn't a nutjob that required that, but she could have at least waited to see if he backed of and toned down before blocking him. Then, it he continued to make her uncomfortable, she could have blocked him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on one anecdotal experience, she's making a sweeping generalization that all men behave this way when rejected?

Agree that whoever the author was, making a sweeping generalization about all men based on the way one man--and a geek at that--behaved is not exactly fair or appropriate.

Back to the original question--the reply about the boyfriend was appropriate. Immediately blocking him on FB and Twitter before he had a chance to respond was overboard and what set him off. Not saying he wasn't a nutjob that required that, but she could have at least waited to see if he backed of and toned down before blocking him. Then, it he continued to make her uncomfortable, she could have blocked him.

Why is it over the top to block him? I can block anyone I want for any reason. If I don't like the shirt you are wearing, I can block you. But now we have to defend our right to block someone. And if we block someone for the 'wrong' reason, he has the right to go all ape shit crazy--and it's the woman's fault?

[Anonymous]

Just pount at it and laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on one anecdotal experience, she's making a sweeping generalization that all men behave this way when rejected?

She didn't write this article.

Swing and a miss...

Not really, she allowed herself to be interviewed and provided her tweets and messages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on one anecdotal experience, she's making a sweeping generalization that all men behave this way when rejected?

Agree that whoever the author was, making a sweeping generalization about all men based on the way one man--and a geek at that--behaved is not exactly fair or appropriate.

Back to the original question--the reply about the boyfriend was appropriate. Immediately blocking him on FB and Twitter before he had a chance to respond was overboard and what set him off. Not saying he wasn't a nutjob that required that, but she could have at least waited to see if he backed of and toned down before blocking him. Then, it he continued to make her uncomfortable, she could have blocked him.

Why is it over the top to block him? I can block anyone I want for any reason. If I don't like the shirt you are wearing, I can block you. But now we have to defend our right to block someone. And if we block someone for the 'wrong' reason, he has the right to go all ape shit crazy--and it's the woman's fault?

Exactly. He made her uncomfortable, she has every right to block him or "mute" him. Sorry bros, I know that's not the answer you want to hear...

[Anonymous]

Man here and I agree: blocking anyone at any time for any or no reason is just fine.

His twitter meltdown was embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on one anecdotal experience, she's making a sweeping generalization that all men behave this way when rejected?

Agree that whoever the author was, making a sweeping generalization about all men based on the way one man--and a geek at that--behaved is not exactly fair or appropriate.

Back to the original question--the reply about the boyfriend was appropriate. Immediately blocking him on FB and Twitter before he had a chance to respond was overboard and what set him off. Not saying he wasn't a nutjob that required that, but she could have at least waited to see if he backed of and toned down before blocking him. Then, it he continued to make her uncomfortable, she could have blocked him.

Why is it over the top to block him? I can block anyone I want for any reason. If I don't like the shirt you are wearing, I can block you. But now we have to defend our right to block someone. And if we block someone for the 'wrong' reason, he has the right to go all ape shit crazy--and it's the woman's fault?

No, you don't have to defend your right to block him. You can do anything you want, but be cognizant of the message you send. The two messages: a polite message that says "Thanks, but no thanks." and blocking seemed incongruous. If his messages were making her uncomfortable, she could have just said so, then blocked the guy. Or she could have given the polite "Thanks, but I already have a boyfriend" and leave it at that to see what he does next. The combination of the polite message that didn't suggest he gave off warning flags and then blocking him was what the immature guy responded to. I acknowledged that the geeky was possibly a nutjob, which he clearly displayed in his next few responses. But at the time she responded to him, she didn't know he was going to have the Internet meltdown. She did not deserve what happened, but I was trying to show how the mixed messages may have triggered the immature and innappropriate response. Not that she caused it, but what he reacted to. He's responsible for his inappropriate reaction, not her, but if you want to avoid situations, sometimes the best thing to do is be more direct and tell him that his prior messages were creepy before blocking him.

[Anonymous]

^You sound insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on one anecdotal experience, she's making a sweeping generalization that all men behave this way when rejected?

Agree that whoever the author was, making a sweeping generalization about all men based on the way one man--and a geek at that--behaved is not exactly fair or appropriate.

Back to the original question--the reply about the boyfriend was appropriate. Immediately blocking him on FB and Twitter before he had a chance to respond was overboard and what set him off. Not saying he wasn't a nutjob that required that, but she could have at least waited to see if he backed of and toned down before blocking him. Then, it he continued to make her uncomfortable, she could have blocked him.

Why is it over the top to block him? I can block anyone I want for any reason. If I don't like the shirt you are wearing, I can block you. But now we have to defend our right to block someone. And if we block someone for the 'wrong' reason, he has the right to go all ape shit crazy--and it's the woman's fault?

No, you don't have to defend your right to block him. You can do anything you want, but be cognizant of the message you send. The two messages: a polite message that says "Thanks, but no thanks." and blocking seemed incongruous. If his messages were making her uncomfortable, she could have just said so, then blocked the guy. Or she could have given the polite "Thanks, but I already have a boyfriend" and leave it at that to see what he does next. The combination of the polite message that didn't suggest he gave off warning flags and then blocking him was what the immature guy responded to. I acknowledged that the geeky was possibly a nutjob, which he clearly displayed in his next few responses. But at the time she responded to him, she didn't know he was going to have the Internet meltdown. She did not deserve what happened, but I was trying to show how the mixed messages may have triggered the immature and innappropriate response. Not that she caused it, but what he reacted to. He's responsible for his inappropriate reaction, not her, but if you want to avoid situations, sometimes the best thing to do is be more direct and tell him that his prior messages were creepy before blocking him.

Um. She did give him the polite "Thanks, but I already have a boyfriend" on Facebook, and he wouldn't leave her alone. That's when the creepiness really ramped up.

And she didn't "trigger" anything from him- it was his choice and his ALONE to act that way.

She was as polite as can be, in a situation where it really wasn't even deserved, and she still got attacked by him. And she made it PERFECTLY clear that she wasn't interested. There are no "mixed messages" about not having any communication at all with someone and then responding to his multi-paragraph love letter with "That's very nice. But I have a boyfriend. Take care"

If he can't read those social signals, THATS. ON. HIM.

If he overreacts to rejection, THATS ON HIM.

If he doesn't respect a woman's ability to tell him no, THAT'S ON HIM.

[Anonymous]

Listen, I am a bi woman.

I totally understand the sting of asking a woman out and them not being interested. And then seeing her date some other lady. It sucks!

However, I would NEVER, never ever ever ever, presume to feel entitled enough to a strangers time to demand they explain to me the reason for rejection, couch it in terms that feel okay to me, and then go on a diatribe and stalk them on several social media problems.

This is the issue with the entitlement many men have- it's absolutely fucking crazy. it's not the behavior of rational human beings, it's the behavior of entitled toddlers who will find any way to justify a tantrum after they've been told they can't have something they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^You sound insane.

x2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You sound insane.

x2

x3.

[Anonymous]

Yes...honesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You sound insane.

x2

x3.

x4

[Anonymous]

She blocked him because she had nothing else to say. She doesn't have to 'wait and see what he says next', it doesn't matter. He had no reason to contact her further.
Good for her for sensing his crazy and trying to head it off, unfortunate that it didn't work.