I can't believe PID didn't pick up on the creep factor of his insane admirer. This is the same kind of reasoning stalkers use when trying to explain why a celebrity is in a relationship with them - secret lyrics on an album, messages thru the eyes in publicity pictures,... I don't think Dan is being subtle enough when he mentions Jeffrey Dahlmer

BAROP - It kind depends on what her motivations are.

If she thinks the two of you need clean STD screens before you resume unprotected sex, then yes, you need to tell her. Or as Dan points out you will effectively tell her by getting screened. There is no getting around this, because yes, you need to get the screen if she asks for it, especially because you have slept to two other people, protection or not. If you blow off the screen and she later finds out, you are in deep shit.

If she wants to know for emotional reasons, not only should you not tell her, you should think twice about getting back together. She is going to throw this in your face at a later date.

LTW #3, run far away from Jeffrey Dahmer Jr. as fast as you can.

I disagree with 5: having a secret--what, 1 month, 3 months?--in the midst of your time with a romantic partner during which what you were up to is to remain forever A Big Secret is just weird. It's not like she demanded a history of everyone you slept with in the last two decades, and a list of teenage fantasies from before that: she just wants to know where you two are starting from. There's nothing wrong with having sex with people while you're broken up. There is something wrong with leading your ex-lover on about how exclusive you two are while you sleep with her and discuss maybe getting back together, but also bang a few other people. (With condoms!)

FWB deserve to know how exclusive you two are, if they ask. If you have different beliefs about how exclusive you should be... guess what?! You shouldn't be FWB. Thinking the sex might stop is not an excuse to lie.

SLND,
Being in one of those noisy hetero couples, and having been on the receiving end of wall pounding, pound away. It's startling at first, but then we learned to rein it in...

BTW: Avenue Q is hilarious! If you can, go see it!

Peace

Am I the only one who has a small problem with the idea that the sex in letter scenario #1 is over when "he" comes? I get that it's supposed to be humor, but what if "she" occasionally is howling because he's going down on her or something?

I agree with the generally sound advice above: disclose due to the STI issue, and run run run from the red sweater psycho. OMG.

Second MiM on Avenue Q: awesome show.

BAROP may be eliding a timeline issue here.
A: They break up.
B: No sex is had by either for several months. (He thinks.)
C: Drunken sex is had.
D: He has sex with two others, possibly while also having sex with former girlfriend, who is not yet back in 'relationship' status.
E: Sleeping with former girlfriend and talking about getting back together.

Are D and E distinct? Or is he trying to make them distinct in an "I haven't slept with anyone but her in the past week" way, knowing she imagines they are exclusive while considering getting back together? Or was there a month of no contact, in which the other two girls fit but exie wasn't in the picture and they were still firmly broken up?

The fact that he doesn't want to be honest with her is a bad sign. About her, about him, about them together: one or more of those.

SLND: Depends on how often the insanely loud sex is occurring. Apartment life requires permissiveness, but there's a limit. You shouldn't have to plan on dragging ass every other morning.
BAROP: Unless it involves a child or a persistent STI, your sexual history (or activity on a break) is no one's business but you're own.
PID: Creep comes in a variety of flavors, including gay. In all seriousness, he sounds not a little unstable and you should ask yourself if this writer's group thing is necessary (as a fellow writer, I second Dan's nay vote but concede that it may in fact be helpful).

I almost always agree with Dan's advice, but I must take issue with his response to SLND.

I was in a similar situation a couple years ago. Neighbors had really loud sex in the room directly above mine (full-on moaning, furniture banging on my ceiling/walls) at really weird hours. Sometimes it was 4:00pm, sometimes it was 3:00am, and they frequently woke me up on worknights. After a couple weeks of putting up with it, I crafted the most awkward, kindest note I've ever written, along the lines of "Don't mean to rain on your awesome parade, but your sexcapades are waking me up, and I really just need my sleep. Very sorry to bother you, and thanks." I slipped it under their door and never heard so much as a peep again.

You might try going this route, first, then escalate to pounding on the wall, if they continue to be inconsiderate.

Writers just need to write? !!! That's like saying that all you need for an orgasm is to masturbate. Workshopping is essential. Maybe writers only need to write if they're never going to show their finished work to someone else, but if they intend to refine their craft with the goal of publishing someday, they need feedback, and they need the experience of giving feedback. They need the community of other writers. Finding a good writing group is probably harder than finding a compatible sexual partner. PID's red sweatered buddy sounds creepy, but if that's not the explanation, Creep has figured out the perfect way to get rid of the talented competition.

I almost always agree with Dan--but I have to jump on the bandwagon with those who take issue with the advice to PID. Dan's correct--writers need to write--but many of us with all those things that encroach in adult life like partners and kids and meaningful work really rely on the carved out space and deadline that a writing group can provide. Why should PID have to go up to the garret because one of his group's members is delusional? I say take it to the group, and make a splinter group if the rest of the members don't call bullshit.

@7: I agree with you, sort of sideways. I don't think that turning it into a Big Secret is going to work long-term. If that's something she finds important, she is going to dig at it, and probably hold it over his head once she does worm it out of him (or one of his friends). It's just that I don't think it is legitimate for her to find it important. Who he sleeps with when they are not together is officially none of her business, and for her to be worrying about it is a big red flag (unless it's just the matter-of-fact dealing with the STD screen I mentioned).

He should tell her, but he should do so by saying "I am going to have this conversations exactly once, and I will have zero tolerance for bringing it up in future. I did nothing wrong by sleeping with someone while we were broken up, and it will NOT be an ongoing factor in our relationship. So here's my answer. Yes, I did; no, you don't need to know details. This is not functionally different from the people I slept with before we met. That's as much as you are going to get. If you can't live with that, say so now."

If he believes he can't have that conversation with her, then he probably shouldn't get back together with her. I agree that the fact he is trying to hide this is a bad sign.

PID: Tell your drama queen to stop making other people responsible for the contents of his imagination, and to grow the hell up.

If he can't stand being around you, that's his problem to deal with. But you did nothing wrong here. Everything he brought up has been something he concocted in his own head. Coded signals? God. It's called wishful thinking, doofus, in which case he could have cooked up a secret message out of pretty much anything the object of your affections did do (or refrained from doing, in that fevered brain of his).

It's interesting that PID goes on an on about how he's not attracted to that guy, yet he offers no explanation why he wore that red T-shirt.

Interesting indeed...

PID - LW #3: Do what Dan says, in confiding in another friend/friends in your writing group..but it might behoove you to just up & remove yourself to another group. You shouldn't *have* to, it's not right/fair & you may like the rest of the group, but this guy sounds ripe for escalating his nonsense.

If you really, really want to stay in this particular bunch of folks, then always arrive a minute or two late, always leave early, sit as far away from this guy as possible & *don't* interact with him. Someone is likely to notice & ask you about it, which gives you an opening to tell them he's being a creeper.

Me, if that was happening my writing group, I'd be flying out of there like I'd just stolen Hermes' winged sandals & my ass was on fire.

This is just BAROPs way of sending another message to his writing buddy.

=Mulligan=

This is just PIDs way of sending another message to his writing buddy.

While it was kind of PID to put forward a positive anti-stereotype, I must dispute it. If straight men don't like art, then why are museums filled with so many paintings of naked women?

As I hold those who would erase the orientations of others in even lower esteem than I hold straight-chasers, I'd have no objection whatsoever to the stalker being hounded out of the group by underhanded methods. Maybe one of the women in the group could insist that he creeps her out - which is probably not all that made up, though it would serve him right if she invented signals on a par with his own conjuring.

@18: "Me, if that was happening my writing group, I'd be flying out of there like I'd just stolen Hermes' winged sandals & my ass was on fire."

I'll second that shit. Maybe I've just had bad experiences with writing groups, but I have never attended a workshop worth closely interacting with my potential assailant.

Mr. Ven @21: I think the modern straight man drops the pretense of fine art and proceeds directly to internet porn. Then again, so does the modern gay man.

Did PID write the Craiglist bit, or was it you, Dan? Either way, it was genius.

Was it PID who wrote the Craiglist bit, or was it you, Dan? Either way, it was GENIUS.

I was involved in an arts group where Member X started getting all inappropriate over Member Y, to the point where we had to tell X to take a hike. The main difference is that X was doing it in front of everybody, so there was no need to resort to subterfuge.

Personally, I would recommend the open approach of "Look, we have a problem" over making subtle but obvious demonstrations of trying to avoid the guy and hoping the rest of the group notices the tension between the two of you. To Mr. Red Sweater, that's just going to come across as more paying attention to him, aka "teasing." It will also look to the rest of the group like the two of you have something going, which will feed not only speculation, but Drama Boy's hunger for attention.

It will certainly come out in conversation in the group anyway, once the two of them start alternating weeks (which I think is ridiculous), so it's not like quietly agreeing to alternate will be the "private and discreet" (eyeroll) solution.

SLND: a guaranteed way of getting them to stop at that moment would be to pound on the wall and yell "Finish up, big boy!" If that isn't enough of a buzzkill to bring things to a quieter level, he must be deaf as well as creepy.

@vennominon, @lolorhone:
Let's give credit where credit is due - the modern gay man somehow manages to maintain the pretense of fine art while also proceeding directly to porn.

The modern straight man, in contrast, still struggles with basic grooming.

@27: In an apartment 10 years ago. The couple directly above me. The refrain: "Fuck me, fuck me, fuck me!"

My retort: "He's fucking you already!"

Their response: Silence until the end of my lease.

@seandr: Us modern gay men can kill both birds with one stone. On the back cover of Bruce la Bruce's 1996 film Hustler White, there's a quote from the star Tony Ward: "The difference between pornography and art is...the lighting."

@29: about the lighting. I guess I am not too old to learn, after all.

Totally agree with the PID response, the description of his behavior made my skin crawl. The first thing I thought was "paranoid schizophrenic" with delusions and paranoid (persecution) ideation.

Run run run run run run run run run.

PID, trust me from experience that you CANNOT win with Red Sweater Dude. I've had an experience like that in the past....somebody feels like you led them on, were cruel and a tease, and nothing you say or do will make it better. In my case, we were negotiating a FWB situation and I told the person involved THIS IS FWB ONLY WILL NOT LEAD TO A RELATIONSHIP UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU UNDERSTAND NO REALLY I'M SERIOUS DO YOU UNDERSTAND, the person said yes, I understand, and cue instant I'm-coming-to-move-in-with-you-what-do-you-mean-no relationship drama.

Thing is, you are not responsible for either his pantsfeelings or his sadfeels, as the kids like to say. You can't fix them, you can't change them, and you can't make them go away. What you CAN do is minimise any interaction with him inside the group, NO interaction outside the group.

Or you can find another writing group, or tell select people you like and TRUST in the group privately, and get them on your side. If you do that, assume that he'll have done the same.

PID: Disagree with Dan on the writing advice. My experience of writer's groups is that they can be very helpful for feedback on where your writing sucks most, as well as what's good.

Deadlines and social facilitation help you churn out the words and the group can offer solace when you fail to get published or fail to sell more than a pittance even if you wrote a tolerably good book. See Robert Galbraith's debut novel, before Galbraith was outed as JK Rowling.

Not everyone has Dan's innate talent (and as he's said, luck) that landed him a column while he was still in his mid-20s, forcing him to crank out the words while giving him regular feedback from editors and readers.

@32 to be fair, your situation is totally different and doesn't at all rise to the insanity of this one.

So unfair:
All I've got in the way of writing group history are the marathon lab report finish up sessions...
Well, if it wasn't Art, at least it was Science.

@29 Lolorhone,
What, did they die laughing?

Peace

Dan's answer to the 2nd letter reminds me of when Anderson Cooper was asked, back in around 2006, if he was gay, and he gave the long-winded non-answer "I don't care to comment on my sexuality as it might jeopardize my ability to be impartial in my responsibilities as a journalist blah blah blah" which cracked me up, like there's a straight man on the planet who would ever give such a response!

@15: Okay, we're in sideways agreement, particularly with your sample conversation. I think it's entirely possible she's the unreasonable one--that he was supposed to spend the break-up burnishing the flame of their undying love. I can also see where she finds the big "?" over what he's been up to the past month a red flag, e.g. did he go back to his ex, the one who got away? And the version in which he's found a twist on "if we haven't had the talk, we aren't necessarily monogamous... I mean, on my end."

@34: Agree, 32 and PID are completely different. 32, you exhibit an unreasonable degree of surprise that your FWB situation wound up getting messy feelings involved. The preliminary negotiations in which you had to keep insisting with sparkles how it was only sex is kind of a clue that you knew this person wanted it to turn into more and should have found a less emotionally vulnerable FWB. Or, you know, done without an FWB.

I'm surprised Dan didn't refer the noisy sex question to one of his favorite sex toy suppliers. Surely there are gags well-designed to reduce volume levels. Just gift-wrap one and leave it on your loud neighbor's doorstep.

@17: seandr, you got me again. That was funny.

As for SLND's neighbors, I think the assumption is that, given the guy's skeevy vibe, he's likely to view sex as over when he comes. It's a huge leap, but not completely unfounded.

Regarding the crazy, gay, student writer: I'm reminded of the guy who shot John Lennon. He though there were secret messages meant for him in The Beatles' song lyrics. This guy is clinical batshit. The LW should take the precaution of telling several people about the guy's delusions, and tell the guy that other people know so he doesn't think he can get away with anything.

BAROP-- During your on-again/off again relationship, if she accuses you of cheating on her, you could try telling her you were on a break.

There are all sorts of reasons that BAROP's ex-but-now-maybe-again girlfriend wants to know if he slept with anyone during their two-month breakup. One could easily be STI-related. I once was dating a guy to whom I was fluid-bonded. We broke up and got back together about a month later. He knew I had been flirting with someone else during our hiatus, and before we had sex again, he said, "do I need to use a condom?" I appreciated the delicacy of his phrasing, and the suggestion that the only reason he was asking was for disease risk management, but I answered honestly and completely that while I had had several makeout sessions, I hadn't put either of us at risk for any infection. It's a reasonable request.

The gf may very well also be trying to assess the nature of their relationship as they reenter one. She may not be pleased to hear he had sex with other women during their breakup, or she may not especially care. She may want to gauge the level of emotional attachment he felt for those other women--are they rivals for his feelings, or were they emotionally meaningless to him. In that case, it may matter to her (or to BAROP himself) whether they are women he knew before or met during the breakup, or if he still has an ongoing relationship--of any kind--with them. Were they one-offs, or recurring flings?

I think the fact that he doesn't want to have to tell her isn't a good sign. She should be able to handle the idea that while broken up he slept with other people, if he will be faithful to her and monogamous when they are a couple (I'm assuming that this is the way their relationship works). If he knows that she will consider his having slept with the others when they were broken up to be cheating, he should deal with that head-on as they contemplate getting back together. It's possible she will. From his own description, they had broken up and then had sex again--which she may have viewed as a tacit rekindling of the relationship. And while he describes that act as opening some sort of floodgate that allowed to him to have sex with two other women before considering reconciliation, she may view that timing as his having sex with other women after they had reestablished their sexual relationship and thus their commitment.

It doesn't matter what the "rules" are here, regarding breakups and reconciliations; this isn't Friends with the Ross/Rachel "we were on a break" theme. The point is that this couple is considering getting back together; she asked a direct question which she considers relevant; he doesn't want to tell her; he's hoping to start up under conditions of dishonesty.

I think they should talk; I think he should answer her question honestly, even if it will be a difficult conversation. If the truth will keep her from reestablishing their relationship, so be it. Surely if she finds out the truth later, it, plus the compounded fact of his outright lies or evasiveness, will lead to a break up and much more bitterness.

I agree that giving her this information should not be handing her a weapon to pull out every time she's upset. If she can accept that he had sex with others, she doesn't get to use that fact as a weapon. But Avast's suggestion @15 is probably not how I would advise phrasing it.

I'm not a writer. But I draw (obsessively) and when people ask me about how to become a good drawer, my response is pretty similar to Dan's statement about writing. Eventually most of us get pretty good at the things we do over and over and over...with or without group support.

I'm curious as to how many of the people here who are supporting writers' groups are "pros" (as Dan put it). For a fledgling writer or someone looking for a writers' support network ok, but I can't imagine those who regularly churn out pieces for mass consumption pass them around a circle first.

I'm surprised no one has wondered about the content of those workshopped writing pieces. Has PID read them over to see what Red Sweater is seeing in them?

That's not my real question. I want to know what to do when Creep is someone one has to work with. It's harder to avoid being alone under those circumstances, and Creep's accusations are so bizarre that I can easily imagine others in the group thinking that PID must have made them up or taking sides as to who might be right. In addition to avoiding Creep, I'd suggest that if PID is cornered, he ask Creep to put anything he has to say in writing.

Excellent column this week Dan. I laughed at every response.

I do have to say, in all egalitarian fairness, when mustachioed hipster's done AND when screaming betty's done, that's when sex is done. :)

@41: Well, it's on him to come up with more diplomatic wording, but the alternative is that the conversation gets hashed and rehashed every time she is feeling insecure or mad at him over something unrelated, which is equally obnoxious.

I'm disagreeing with Dan's "So unless this woman is an idiot, BAROP, you don't need to tell her. She knows." only to the extent that she keeps bringing it up. If it does keep coming up, he needs to address it. If he keeps trying to dance around the issue, it will only get worse over time. Letter Writer says "So far, I have managed to avoid answering" which sounds like it has come up more than once already. (So the first part of my wording is already a moot point.)

I think it's fair of him to say, "Look, what happened while we were not together has no bearing on when we are together. And I'm not going to supply details, a) for privacy of anyone involved, b) because it's not information you are entitled to, and c) I think it would be unhealthy to obsess on them. The only thing you need to know is that it's over, because of, and prior to, you and I getting back together. If you make this into an issue, we are going to fail, so say so now. I cannot go back in time and change what happened. Either you are okay with it or not. But I refuse to keep having this discussion."

SLND,

The problem with pounding on the wall, yelling and screaming is that Mr. Skeevy might mistake it for more female copulatory vocalization. A duet, in this case, which is OK as many men get off on lesbian scenes. And he might assume its a game, reinforcing his own antics.

Make the message clear: Tell the neighbors. Or slip a note under the door if a face to face conversation is uncomfortable.

On a related (high tech) note: A device has been invented that can silence a speaker. It works by recording and then playing back the 'voice' of the speaker with a fraction of a second delay. Hearing ones own voice in such a manner has some sort of psychological effect that acts to make them cease further conversation. I wonder if this will also work on 'sex noise'?

@44 devinderry - I completely disagree with you, constructive feedback is absolutely necessary for any art field, be it writing, drawing, penis puppetry, whatever. I'm not a professional artist by choice (I do work in the arts field, though), but I used to hang out in an online art community full of professional and amateur artists. My art grew in leaps and bounds from their feedback, regardless of the commenter's skill level, and many others were the same. People who came to the community, having done the same things over and over with little or no constructive criticism, often had a hard time improving their work, because they were so used to doing things their own way and not polishing and refining their work to higher standards. If told they should try this or that to fix technical errors, the response would often be "well, that's just my style and I'm not changing it." And then they would wonder why the online gallery that hosted the community, which was juried and had high standards, would not accept their work.

@PID's letter, I would honestly recommend getting out of that group and joining or starting another, possibly with a few members of the old group, and cutting ALL contact with Mr. Red Sweater. I had a similar type of stalker for a while, where he would see messages in every little thing I said or did after I told him we were just friends. If I mentioned I was listening to a particular song, he would ask if it was because the song lyrics reminded me of him. If I drew a sad picture, he would ask if it was because I was upset at something he said/did. When my friends told him to leave me alone, he saw it as me putting obstacles in his way to prove his devotion to me, and decided that I really meant was for him to overcome all resistance to reach me (he actually told my friends he pictured me as a princess trapped in a tower, and they were the evil guards he had to get past to rescue me. Barf). This continued for almost TWO YEARS after I cut all contact with him. So just cut the cord now and move on as quickly as possible, and hopefully he will eventually go away.

@44/49, people with a liberal arts degree got plenty of constructive criticism from their professors along the way, and if they also have some basic talent, they probably already learned what they need to write non-fiction and get published.

But our school system provides much less feedback for other arts like fiction, poetry, drawing, painting, or penis puppetry (!!). In those areas, beginners probably do need some feedback, though they might be better off paying for professional advice.

If the issue is female copulatory calls, then the sex may or may not be over once the male comes, but the noise should be. If the only reason she is hollering her lungs out is to make him finish quicker, presumably she is quiet when concentrating on her own pleasure.

@44: Anecdotally, I have heard Dan's position from a number of writers: That there are people who make time every single day to write, and there are people who go to writers' workshops and support groups, and people who are or become professional writers tend to be in the first group. (Lindsey Davis included an Ancient Roman writers group in one of her mysteries--they never got anything published, but did not suffer the terrible deaths meted out to the bathroom remodelers in another book.)

Most writers have someone they rely on for feedback, emphasis on "one." Spouse, agent, someone who's in touch with their audience and can give very targeted feedback, "this would be clearer if you..." rather than "what I would do..."

@ 15 and 41: Can we tell if she's asked repeatedly? If she asked once, got his non-answer, and stopped asking, then that means she knows and is dealing with it.

If she keeps digging like crazy, then (and only then) is Avast's response justified. But I'm not sure from the letter which situation he means by "so far I have managed to avoid answering."

LW2, if answering "yes" means the girl won't get back together with you, answer "yes."

PID has every right to belong to a writers' group. The benefit or necessity of writers' groups isn't the primary issue here. He has a right to belong to any social, professional, support, hobby-based group he want. But he may want to steer clear of any group with this unstable guy in it.

He can stubbornly continue to go this group (It's my group--I'm not going to be forced out), and hope that the creepy red-shirted guy leaves, he can go to the group and try to not interact with the guy when they're both there. Or he can find a new writing support group. Put up a notice on the campus where you took the first one--ask the instructor of your former class if s/he could give you the names of some others that s/he may know of.

PID can be right or he can enjoy his writer's group. If it were me, I'd find or found a different group.

@ 49 - You didn't sell me. I worked in galleries and museums for well over a decade and then spent another decade working in graphic design, so I've known tons of artists. And by the time most get to the "pro" level they've left critique circles behind. With or without training or groups, there's special touch to those who pursue their craft obsessively day after day. But I am truly glad that it was helpful for you.

However @51 has a good point that those of us fortunate enough to have been smacked around by profs in the past probably have a big head start in seeing the weaknesses in what we're doing now.

Huh. That's what I get for not hitting "refresh" often enough; I think nocutename has this one.

@ Avast,

The only thing you need to know is that it's over, because of, and prior to, you and I getting back together.

I don't think it's unreasonable for her to want more detail on that front--enough detail to know it's really over, and that he's not just getting back with her until one of his hookups moves back to town. This isn't necessarily a question about ancient history; it's perfectly acceptable to want to be sure of a new partner's current relationship status.

@ 50: If she wants to hear you say you didn't, you have a right to lie.

I don't think he should do it, though, unless they're both under 22. If she won't date him unless he was celibate during the breakup, it's time for a preemptive DTMFA. That he sounds afraid to tell her makes it look like things are leaning in that direction.

@57 >> by the time most get to the "pro" level they've left critique circles behind. >>

Yes, but that's different from saying that beginners can't gain anything from critique circles. If you can afford it, you're better off with a class; but if you have to choose between art supplies & tuition, I could see paying for art supplies and using a free critique circle to get some basic feedback.

@51 and 57 - Yes, I know, I went through art classes and acting classes where, some days, all we would do is sit around and critique each other's work or performances. :) But that doesn't mean that, once you leave school, you are automatically a pro and should shun all feedback and constructive criticism. Like I said, I hung around with plenty of professional artists, many of who stressed the importance of continuing to receive feedback to learn new techniques or a different way of doing things or looking at things. I personally don't think it's possible to improve in a complete vacuum, and that it's rather arrogant to think that one is so good, one is above others' advice or opinions.

I could relate my own personal experience (I have almost ten years' experience in graphic design myself, thanks), but that would make this post ridiculously long and boring (if it's not already), so let's just say that I think it's important to have people tell you when something is not working the way you think it's working. No one is so perfect that they don't make mistakes - Neil Gaiman was a NY Times bestselling author when he wrote Anansi Boys, and even he admits that, if he could go back, he would have done it differently. I also just think it's good to never stop learning or improving, even though I'm considered to be at a "professional" level, because there's always something new or different out there that I know nothing about, and won't hurt me to look into.

Also, EricaP, look up Puppetry of the Penis if you're curious. I've never seen one of their shows myself, but I've heard it's awesome and hilarious. :)

@ 60 - Could they gain something from a circle or class? Sure. But I've also seen people use them as crutches from putting their stuff out into the world at large. Personally, I'm more in the camp of what Dan said, "a bonus pro tip: Writers don't need a writers' group to write. They just need to write."

@58: This isn't necessarily a question about ancient history; it's perfectly acceptable to want to be sure of a new partner's current relationship status.
Agreed. She certainly has a right to know whether they're exclusive *now*, while the negotiations about starting in again are ongoing. I kind of suspect he knows she's asking about the 'between breakup and first drunken sex' time, believing that's the only time he would have slept around, and he's trying to finesse this by implying that if there was canoodling it was in this acceptable timeframe, without getting into the details about how he was technically sleeping around while she thought they were back together. (Though her being of the crazy variety is possible, in which case any time you need to lie to someone you're thinking about dating--very low commitment threshhold--you need to think about the 'date someone you don't want to lie to right off' option.)

If she won't date him unless he was celibate during the breakup, it's time for a preemptive DTMFA. That he sounds afraid to tell her makes it look like things are leaning in that direction.
Plausible, but so is the thought that he's afraid to tell her because he's holding a fig leaf of "we didn't have a new 'are we exclusive' talk so I was okay."

@61: Not getting much use from circles of randomly-selected and never-published amateurs isn't the same as shunning all feedback and constructive criticism.

I think Dan is short-handing a popular writer's interview question:
A: What do you advise people looking to become writers?
W: Write. Every day. Even when it's hard. Every day.
A: But... that's hard.

One of my favorite bits of advice from a writer was that he sat at his typewriter, every day, at a set time. Even if nothing was happening, if the muse struck it would at least find him sitting before a blank sheet of paper rather than in a bar somewhere. Though nowadays one sits in front of a laptop and surfing the internet for cat videos is always possible the moment creativity flags...

@ 63: She certainly has a right to know whether they're exclusive *now*, while the negotiations about starting in again are ongoing.

Yeah. I'd even go one step farther, and say she has a right to ask about relationships that are recent enough to be relevant--it's reasonable to want to be able to evaluate potential risk factors to the stability of the relationship before getting into it.

"I hooked up with some other girls, but I'm not interested in a relationship with them and they're not interested in a relationship with me" is very different from "I hooked up with this one girl every day for a month, but then she decided to try to work things out with her ex for a month or two, and I really really liked her and I'd be dating her right now if she broke up with her ex, which will probably happen in the next couple of months," and it's entirely sensible for her to want to know whether the hookups were the first kind or the second. And if a prospective new boyfriend doesn't tell her up front, she's within her rights to ask, and to ask repeatedly.

Plausible, but so is the thought that he's afraid to tell her because he's holding a fig leaf of "we didn't have a new 'are we exclusive' talk so I was okay."

I hadn't noticed that aspect--but yes. If he wouldn't be okay with her having slept with other people in that same time frame (or has reason to believe she thought they were exclusive), then he's being an ass.

@63 (IPJ) I agree that the gf is probably only considering the time period from the initial break-up to the drunken sex. She likely considers the drunken sex to be the start of the renewal of their monogamous romance. Hence BAROP's equivocation: he knows perfectly well she will consider those other hookups to be cheating.

Ok, first of all I’m beginning to feel guilty that this sub-thread has nothing to do with the meat of the LW’s problem. FWIW PID, I’m of the camp that you should find or start another writer’s circle. Sitting across from this guy is not going to do anything positive for your writing and he sounds like the type that is only going to escalate.

@ 61 – I said nothing about eschewing feedback or feeling like all that could be known is known upon graduation. I frequently ask for feedback from people who's opinion I respect. Some of whom are other artists, some aren’t. Most of the professional creatives I know do the same.

And while many of these people participated in some degrees of group crits early in their educations and careers, most I know would currently pass on sitting around in a random circle and sharing their work like that now. IMHO that leads to artists making art for other artists, which is only a half-step from a circle jerk.

I find this discussion of writing circles interesting and mildly amusing. I think it's safe to say that some people get a lot of out of these things, but many people, including a lot of professional writers, really don't need it.

People can say Dan is wrong and that these things are essential, but then how many books have those folks sold and how many has Dan sold? Clearly Dan doesn't go to writing circles, yet he has several really good books under his belt.

As a musician who composes I am of the school of thought that what makes art different from craft is that art says something. And personally I can't imagine how I can create something that says what I want it to say if I am constantly listening to other people tell me what I am doing wrong.

Input is one thing. Certainly, after I think something is finished I have a very few trusted ears I let review it, but all I am concerned with is not their critique but if what I am tying to say is what they are getting when they hear it. If not then I know I need to go back and refine and fix what ever is getting in the way. But as much as I trust these people I really don't care what they think of the work itself. Only if it is effectively conveying what I want it to. That is the technique, but the content has to come from only me or it isn't my art any longer.

For people who don't have mastery of their craft, and are lacking in their technique, then some guidance can be very helpful (although many folks can develop good technique on their own given time). That can be a circle or a professor, or a private tutor, or just paying attention to, an studying what the people who do have good technique have created. But once you have mastered your instrument (be it a musical instrument, pen, paint brush or what ever) then it is up to you and damn the circles, teachers and critics.

@53 This makes much more sense to me than writing circles. You are writing for readers not for other writers. It's inevitable that when you write yourself, you will want to do everything your way. I feel the same way at my job and hate checking other's work (not exactly writing but close) precisely for this reason. It's very hard to draw a line between "this doesn't work at all" and "I would never do it this way".

Also with a crowd of amateurs trying to appear pros there's a risk to get such "useful" advice as "Never use the verb "say"! Use other flowery verbs!" because obviously saying something like, "she implored" sounds more sophisticated even if totally ridiculous.

"And finally, PID, a bonus pro tip: Writers don't need a writers' group to write. They just need to write" is like saying that only missionary sex is real sex.

Besides, even if you might not derive writing help from a group, networking and socializing with writers can help introduce you to agents and publishers.

67: That makes him look pretty skeevy. I'll stand by my recommendation that he disclose, just so she can know what she'd be getting (back) into. That doesn't address whether she's crazy or not, though; if she's not being crazy about it (just wants to know where they currently stand), then he should tell her, so she can make an informed decision.

If (in the unlikely event that we have a skeezy douche and a psycho) she is being crazy about it (if she's asking about the pre-hookup days, and thinks he kept being her property while they were broken up) and he's misinterpreting this in the way mentioned in 67 (he led her to believe they're monogamous post drunk-hookup, and thinks she's asking about that period), then my judgment changes: He should not disclose, and they should get married immediately.

@72 lol

@72: I don't think she's necessarily crazy; I think he is being skeevy. There is nothing in his letter to suggest she's psycho. He's writing to an advice columnist who is known to advocate open relationships and who sometimes appears to give a pass on less-than-full-discloure, and who sometimes gives a pass on cheating (though I don't think he would advocate outright cheating in this couple's case) to get permission to not disclose something his would-be gf wants to know before they get back together (and may make the knowledge of which a condition of getting back together), which he knows or has reason to suspect would keep her from getting back together with him. He's seeking approval for lying by omission.

IMNotSoHO, that's skeevy.

Ah, the joys of self-delusion.

PID should suggest his admirer watch the documentary movie Chicken-hawk. There's a hilarious/horrifying scene in which a pedophile is musing on how he could tell that the kid he just talked to is *so* into him, while of course everyone else is seeing that the kid just wants to quit talking to this weird guy.

Maybe Red Sweater could see himself there. But, probably not.

@ 74: I wish I knew how old they are. Letter #2 strikes me as being written by someone very young--that age where all the crazy girls think their crazies are the Universal Rules of Relationships, and the guys are too dumb to know otherwise.

I didn't get the impression he's old enough to know that hookups when they're broken up are largely none of her business, but that he shouldn't hook up with anyone else during times when she thinks they're being monogamous. If they're both 28, then either you're right or he's seriously stupid.

Neither of those is mutually exclusive with her being crazy, though. If he's not skeevy and she's crazy, he should disclose (so that she'll freak out and dump him). If he's being skeevy and she's being reasonable, he should disclose (so she'll either freak out and dump him, or make a bad decision with her eyes wide open).

The one thing he should not do is disclose, let her round it up to cheating, and then let her torture him with it forever. The best choice for him is to disclose, provide whatever details she could reasonably need, and then not put up with any shit over it. If she thought they were monogamous during Hookup Week, it comes down to whether or not she had a reasonable grounds to think that. If yes, then she's due an apology.

So my issue with your read of it is that you're portraying him as someone exhibiting quite a bit of forethought and analysis, in terms of considering Dan's temperament and preferences in detail and selection advice columnists carefully and rationally. Does he really seem to you like the kind of guy who put serious consideration into what kind of answer Dan is likely to give?

LW1 doesn't seem to me like the kind of person who puts that kind of thought into anything.

Should have added: Also want to know if LW2 asked her if she's hooked up with anyone else, and if so, what she said. That part seems conspicuously absent.

The frequency of SLND's problem is a missing tidbit. If it's rare, say once a month, that would be one thing. But if they're waking you up every week or every night, either they don't realize how thin the walls are or they're assholes.

Being SO IN LURVE, or just horny-and-good-at-it, is no excuse for tormenting your neighbors constantly. Not everyone can fall back to sleep immediately after the noise ends, so it's not just the ten minutes or whatever that is lost sleep time. I'm sure Hipster Mustache and his GF are home together at times that are NOT 2:30 AM. Everyone in the building should not have to be strung out on Ambien all the time just to tolerate living near them. Stick a note under their door spelling this out.

Nobody's mentioned it yet, but you can always change your wireless SSID to "WeCanHearYouFucking" and see if that helps....

So no one else is going to laugh at PID's acronym? It's the medical abbreviation for Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, also known to ER employees as "Pussy in Distress"

Okay, I'll laugh by myself.

@30: The lighting really does make all the difference.
@35: I think they were both mortified. I kind of was myself- I just blurted the "He's fucking you already" thing and I didn't expect it to be audible to them. However, the howling (and I do mean howling) sex routinely started between 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock A.M. and I was still in college i.e. I had shit to do early in the morning. I'm completely pro-sex and I'm a chill neighbor but there's a limit, you know?

@71: A closer analogy would be to say that if you're an inexperienced virgin who wants to learn about sex, a group of similarly inexperienced virgins who meet once a week to talk about their understanding of how it works probably isn't going to help much.

Which is not to say it would be zero help: could be you have someone who's very observant about relationships in there, on the same wavelength as you, and they teach you something.

There's nothing *wrong* with enjoying a writers' group, or biking group, or any other fun social group. (I also think there's something to the idea that you can write for your personal pleasure without publishing, just like you can play an instrument or sing without wanting a paid career as a musician.) But these groups rarely include working writers, and so they do not work well to put you in touch with agents and publishers. Very few successful authors point back to their writers' club as the key to launching their career.

A friend of mine lived in an apartment, and a new couple moved in upstairs. They played really, really loud music and would have screaming monkey sex at like 3am. She was exhausted and we told her she had to ask them to tone down the noise.

She did go and ask them to turn the music down and mentioned that the walls and floors are thin and you can hear everything. The couple kinda blushed, she said.

Then, that night, the screaming monkey sex was even louder! The couple totally got off on knowing that they had an audience. This went on for months.

She ended up breaking her lease and purchased a condo to get away from them. She apparently had spoken to them about the noise a couple of times, and that just made them LOUDER in the middle of the night. Ugh. Some people are jerks.

One of Dan Savage's friends was eaten by Jeffrey Dahmer? That's pretty sad.

@67: You are probably right about her likely take on the timing. Less clear is his motivation for keeping it dark and whether he is on firm footing.

By his wording, LW clearly wants to leave the impression that events happened serially, and that the sex with the other two was very limited: a) breakup, b) months of celibacy, c) one drunken hookup between now-platonic friends, d) two specific, individual one-night stands, e) resumption of regular sex with the ex, f) talk of getting back together, and interrogation.

If d) and e) were actually happening in parallel, then yes, he's being skeevy. It's not unreasonable for her to think the relationship was rekindled once they had started having sex regularly. On the other hand, if c), d), and e) were strictly serial, even if separated by only a few days each, he's on firm ground. If she can't chalk that up to a miscommunication of expectations, and she regards him as a cheater because of it, they shouldn't get back together, and he shouldn't try. Hoping to get together by strategically omitting what would be a dealbreaker is a recipe for failure down the road.

I have to disagree with Dan that getting laid means you get to make your neighbors lives a living hell.

Part of living with other people is learning to shut the hell up, even when you're having an orgasm.

@84: That's when you involve the cops to come quiet them down. There are noise ordinances, after all, and I don't think they distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable sources, merely time of day and disturbance level. Waking you up night after night is infringing on your quiet enjoyment of your own premises, and should be actionable.

SLND: If it's every once in a while, so what. If it happens regularly, yes, it's okay to tell them to quiet down. And call the police if they don't.

(I doubt that female copulatory vocalizations are ONLY for the benefit of the male. If they were then lesbian sex would be silent.)

BAROP: "Yes, I had sex with a couple other people; the last time was X weeks ago. I used protection but I'm willing to get tested again if you want. I'm not interested in seeing them again - I would like to resume a monogamous relationship with you now, and those other partners are not a threat to our relationship. How about you?"

Telling her you're never going to give her any more information seems rather defensive and even antagonistic to me. A healthy relationship should be able to tolerate some genuine curiosity in my opinion, so as long as she doesn't grill him or indicate that she thinks he's done something wrong, there's no reason for him to behave as if he did. I don't think the "exclusive conversation" is a fig leaf - if you've been broken up for months, you need to have the Define The Relationship conversation again. If they slipped back into couple mode before he had the two other encounters, then there's some gray area though.

PID: If you like your group (I infer that you do), first tell your friends in the group what happened. Then tell Red Sweater Creep: "I'm not interested in you or your imagination. I'm not going to stop going to my group, or alternate with you, or make any other arrangement because of your fantasies. If you ever bother me again I'll tell the group about this conversation. Now leave me the hell alone."

Whether anyone here thinks PID should be going to his writing group or not is irrelevant noise - he didn't ask for advice about that, and it sounds like he finds it worthwhile at the moment, enough that he's reluctant to give it up because of some creep hitting on him. And leaving the group just rewards bad behavior on the part of Creepo.

@89: You should register, oregonbird, because your comment deserves to be read and many will skip over it.

In short, to those pooh-poohing writers' groups: Inklings, bitches.

@86 "If d) and e) were actually happening in parallel, then yes, he's being skeevy."

I disagree. How many times did they have to have sex before they returned to an exclusive relationship? As far as I can tell, if they decided to start back up the relatioship, that means they had a discussion and started their exclusivity at that point, not retroactively. Treating non-monogamous-relationship sex as skeevy just because at one point there WAS a monogamous relationship is wrong. At any point, she had the right to ask if they were exclusive AT THAT POINT (e.g."are you sleeping with anyone else") not in hindsight ("did you sleep with anyone else")

@ 89 - Noted, but just because greats of the past did something does not mean it remains culturally or artistically relevant. Nor does it answer the question posed: are those here voicing support for writers'/artists' circles actively publishing/showing work? Personally I think @69 laid it out the far better than I could.

Correction, they have not had the conversation yet, and "may get back together." If they aren't even together NOW, how can she expect exclusivity they haven't even discussed? And if they aren't exclusive, how can sleeping with anyone else be skeevy?

@lolorhone: The lighting really does make all the difference.

And here I thought it was the soundtrack. Damn, I really should have minored in Gay back in college.

seandr @96: In pornography, I think soundtrack music over the actual sex is distracting. The actual sound of sex can be as arousing as the visual, and slap-bass or bad techno pulls me right out of the experience. For transitions and title and closing sequences, music is appropriate. Otherwise, deeply corny.

P.S.

The only way to minor in Gay is to major in Theater.

@95: She might be surprised to discover they are not together now. She might at least put a stop to the regular sexcapades if she was informed they were discussing "if" rather than "so last time X was a problem, here's how we'll deal with it now."

Sex when you're single is perfectly reasonable so.... why does LW want to lie to her about it? Could be she's crazy, sure, in which case looking for a noncrazy person he doesn't want to lie to right off could be a thought. Or could be that he is well aware she thought things were more serious between them than they were. If you think your partner believes you're in a monogamous relationship--especially if they wouldn't be having sex with you if they knew it wasn't monogamous--then trotting out "but we didn't have The Talk!" to try and cover your sealed lips is pretty dirty.

If it's avast's 2 1-night stands at a time he had every reason to believe there was no rekindled romantic relationship between them, no big deal. There are a lot of reasons for her to be perfectly normal, non-psycho curious about what the ground they're standing on now looks like, and an honest answer from her not-crazy, not-wildly-misleading her, not-now-but-maybe-future bf shouldn't be hard for him to produce.

Ew.

"Secret messages" that nobody else detects are a classic red flag of schizophrenia. DO talk to the other people in the group and DO, seriously, consider disbanding the group and re-forming without the Red Sweater Creeper.

And Dan is right about writing... it is not a group sport.

@55: " Can we tell if she's asked repeatedly?"

Not really, so treat my answers as "if...then..." hypotheticals.

I took "So far, I've managed to avoid answering" to imply that he thinks it was likely to keep coming up, which is in itself a bad sign. If she had been approaching it the first time as "No problem, dude, I just want to know if it's even necessary to get a fresh STD screen before we dump the condoms" I don't see why he would have felt the need to be cagey.

Ah, the joys of apartment dwelling! I can sure relate to SLND.
Fortunately, we have some good neighbors surrounding me from all sides on 5 floors now. But boy, howdy, we also have had some in our building that easily qualify under the category of " brothel-level noisy sex", too!
In addition to neighborhood waking moans, this included loud thumping through brick walls (like someone's filming a porn flick?) in the wee hours. Not fun if one is having to go to work or morning classes the next day.

@lolorhone: The only way to minor in Gay is to major in Theater.

Sigh. If only you had been my faculty adviser.