Direct? Or standoffish?

[homina12]

Seemed almost confrontational, which was out of place given the conversation.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by ItsRick24

I was talking with an acquaintance (female). We'd been communicating for about two weeks now and went out once last week.
So I asked her "When are you free?" she said "Saturday." So I set a date. Figured we'd grab something at a restaurant and maybe go bowling, shoot some pool, or whatever. Long story short, she said, "I can meet you someplace..." I said, "I'll come pick you up. Save the gas in your car, I'll chauffeur." So she says, "Just give me a call/text Friday to confirm?" To which I said directly , "(name), I'm not one to 'confirm' something. I'm a man of my word - when I say I'll be there, I'll be there; I believe strongly in consistency."

She seemed a bit taken aback by what I said, then she said, "I've had so many guys not show up, not call....one guy I was supposed to date with, stood me up at a restaurant." I said, "I'm not those other guys; I don't play games or B.S. I'm a man of consistency. When I say I'm gonna do something, I do it. Period."

She said that I sounded a bit standoffish. I countered by saying that I'm direct. What do you think, fellow CD-R posters?
ETA: My dad taught me that a real man is a man who keeps his word. I think he taught me well.

I think it's very sad that she's suspicious or put off by someone who says, "No confirmation needed, because I'm counting on this, so once I commit to a date, I follow through". You'd think that would be normal, right? Why is this endless, repeated confirming needed? We have another thread where a guy was told the woman cancelled the date, because he didn't call to confirm. Why was it necessary to confirm? They set the date, he spoke to her the day before, IIRC. But she cancelled it, because she claimed she didn't know if he was going to follow through.

What a mess. Anyway, you were not out of line, OP. I wouldn't even call that "being direct". You simply apprised her of the fact that you would not be calling to confirm, because it's not necessary, as you aren't a flake. You're committed to the date. That's just stating a fact, and letting her know how you roll.

You'd think she'd appreciate it. You'd think she'd say, "Oh, how refreshing! A real gentleman, for a change!"

[Ruth4Truth]

I see there's some debate about whether the OP telling his date he'd pick her up was a problem. If she doesn't know you, and only met you off of OLD, then yes, that could be a problem. When she told you she could meet you at your location of choice, that was a signal, OP. She was saying she doesn't want to ride with you, she wants to meet you there.

I thought the question was about an entirely different part of the interaction. It was the "I won't be calling to confirm" that she thought was standoffish, not the "I want to take you there in my car" part.

[BellaLind]

I think you were pretty direct OP. I wouldn't have minded at all (although I might call you to confirm again anyway). But that said, very direct works for me, but most people are turned off by it. You just have to be a bit more diplomatic for most people's sensibilities.

Is the date still on? If so, this is all probably a minor bump in the road. I wouldn't worry about it too much, but just learn from it that she needs a little more softness in a direct message to be comfortable with it.

[ItsRick24]

The date is still on. And I offered an apology, if I sounded too forceful. She told me that there's "no need to be apologetic...just that past guys have stood her up before." I also asked if she wanted to meet me, she said no and told me to pick her up at her home.
She claimed that past dates "have flaked on her", and my being direct had a positive effect. Oh, and I met her in person, not through OLD. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that I'm not a "drive-by"; I say something, and mean it. Had I not been interested, I'd have said "Thanks, but no thanks" a long time ago.