When to stop proposing
Lesson 4 of 4 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
Keep three answers apart. A yes or a counter-offer (“Not Saturday, how about Sunday?”) is investment: she is helping make the plan. A no is “No, thank you,” “I don’t think so” or “I’m not looking for that”; pulling away from contact or repeated silence counts as a no too. A no ends the line. After a no, nothing is proposed again. Accept it. In person, say something kind and return to ordinary conversation or leave; in a thread after silence or a no, send nothing more.
Repeated noncommitment is friendly, vague answers to concrete invitations, with no alternative from her. It is not a yes, and nothing in it is a promise. You cannot tell from it whether it is a no, so the course treats it the way it treats a no once it repeats: after the second, you stop. Two, not three. After the first vague answer you may make one more specific invitation, or say once that the door is open; after the second, the next move is hers. A third invitation is persistence, and the course grades it as a boundary violation. The number is a rule for this course, not a research result.
In one study of retrospective written accounts of unrequited love, many rejectors described the other’s persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying, while many would-be lovers believed the rejection had never been definitely communicated 1. Each side’s account may be self-serving, and the belief does not show the rejection was unclear 1. Would-be lovers also believed the attraction had been mutual and that they were led on, so one person’s preoccupation is not evidence the other feels the same 2.
In one study of 300 US college students, approach behaviors such as asking someone out were linked to a relationship forming, while surveillance and intimidation were linked to it not forming 3. It was correlational and self-reported, and it covered courtship persistence in general, not pursuit after a clear no, so it says nothing about whether asking again after a refusal helps 3. Studies of stalking-type pursuit find that it often continues for long periods and, in a substantial minority of studied cases, turns into physical violence 4. Those samples were cases labeled as stalking, often recruited through victims or the justice system, and overstate severity compared with ordinary persistence 4. A third invitation is not stalking. But this is why the course treats persistence after a no as a real risk to the person pursued 4. Stopping at repeated vagueness, before any no, is the course’s own margin of safety, not a research finding.
Why it matters
Stopping is a decision about what you will keep doing, not a verdict on her. Asking again cannot find out what she has not said.
What it looks like
Example
Tomas, 37, has asked Ottilie, 34, to dinner twice in a month. She wrote, “Maybe! Work is crazy,” then “Can’t this weekend, sorry!” She has proposed nothing. Tomas stops proposing and sends once: “I’d be glad to hear from you if you’d like to get together. No pressure either way.” He answers warmly if she writes.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same two maybes. Tomas tells himself she is busy and one more try can’t hurt, so he sends a third dinner invitation, then asks whether she has had time to think.
A third invitation is persistence.
The one thing to remember
The rule
After two concrete invitations have each been met with something vague and no alternative from her, stop proposing.
At most, say once, kindly, that you would be glad to hear from her, and leave the next move to her. Do not check in about the plan or repeat the invitation in a new form. Carry on with ordinary contact if she starts it. If she makes a plan, say yes; if she does not, leave it as it is. Stopping to see whether she will come after you is a tactic, and the course does not teach it. If you keep thinking about her, that is yours to carry, not information about her: tell a friend, or talk with a counselor if it is heavy.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Two maybes.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think of a time you kept inviting someone who answered vaguely, or a film or book scene where a character did. Ask what the pattern was, and what stopping would have looked like.
What this doesn’t tell you
Repeated noncommitment does not show that she is not interested; she might be overwhelmed, shy or unsure. You cannot find out by asking again. The research here is mostly single studies of students and partly self-serving accounts, and the stalking evidence comes from severe cases. It supports caution about persistence, not a reading of any one person.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: PlausibleIn retrospective accounts of unrequited love, many rejectors described the other's persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying, while would-be lovers believed the rejection had never been definitely communicated.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This one study of retrospective narratives shows the two sides experience the same events differently, which is a reason to be clear when declining and to stop when the answer is no.
What it does not show
- Single study from 1993 using retrospective narrative accounts; sample details not checked.
- Each side's account may be self-serving.
- Does not show that the rejection was in fact unclear; a would-be lover's belief is their perception, and a no should be taken as a no.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: PlausibleIn retrospective written accounts of unrequited love, would-be lovers, unlike rejectors, believed the attraction had been mutual and that they were led on, while many rejectors described persistent efforts as intrusive, so one person's preoccupation is not evidence the other person feels the same.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Baumeister, Wotman and Stillwell compared written accounts from both sides of unreciprocated attraction and found mismatched perceptions. This supports lessons that stress checking what the other person actually does and respecting a clear no.
What it does not show
- Retrospective, self-selected written accounts; each side's memory is motivated.
- Student samples; the abstract was read in a truncated form.
- Describes differing perceptions, not how often they occur.
- A would-be lover's belief that they were led on is their perception; it does not show that the rejection was unclear.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one college study of courtship persistence, the kind of behaviour mattered: approach behaviours were linked to a relationship forming, while surveillance and intimidation were linked to it not forming.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The study counted approach, such as asking someone out, among courtship persistence behaviours, and approach went with relationships forming. So it does not show that persistence in general fails; it shows that intrusive kinds (surveillance, intimidation) went with relationships not forming. Persistence at a breakup resembled persistence earlier in the relationship.
What it does not show
- One sample of 300 US college students; correlational.
- It studied courtship persistence in general, not pursuit after a clear no; it says nothing about whether persisting after a refusal helps.
- Self-report, and an individual's result can differ.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Williams, S. L., Frieze, I. H. (2005). Courtship Behaviors, Relationship Violence, and Breakup Persistence in College Men and Women, Psychology of Women Quarterly.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsStalking-type pursuit often continues for long periods, and in a substantial minority of studied cases it escalates to physical violence, so persistence after a no is a real risk to the person pursued.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. The meta-analysis reports an average duration of nearly two years and physical violence in about a third of cases across 42 studies.
What it does not show
- Samples labelled as stalking, often recruited through victims or the justice system, overstate severity compared with ordinary persistence.
- Not every unwanted contact is violent; most persistence cases are not studied separately.
- Self-report and variable definitions.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Spitzberg, B. H. (2002). The Tactical Topography of Stalking Victimization and Management, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.
More practice
The rest of the set, When to stop proposing: exercises: 3 moments, about 6 minutes. Read the thread and choose a reply that fits the timing, effort and tone you have seen. Waiting is always an option. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Marni Kinrys: Boldness and Creepiness Aren't Separated by What You Say. It's What You Do After.
Kinrys's argument that boldness differs from creepiness by what a man does after seeing the other person's reaction, per the title; supports noticing and adjusting.
Keep in mind. Coach's opinion in a commercial channel; the app must add that persistence after a no is never acceptable.