Easy LW, tell him you’d only be interested in hanging out on his dick because you enjoyed it, and to spare you the bs.

People who ghost don't deserve a second chance. There are plenty of people out there for you to have fun with who have enough courtesy to say why they can't be in contact with you for the forseeable future. If you really want to see him again for some NSA good times, go ahead but don't act like everything is okay if it isn't.

As a married guy in a somewhat open relationship, I hope you kick this guy to the curb. I swear, as hard as it is for married guys in open relationships to find someone that is interested and won't run when they find out about the pre-existing relationship, I am always stunned at the number of guys who find success and then don't appreciate what they have. When we were swingers it was the same. There are many single guys looking to hook up with couples, you'd think it would be easy to find someone that was decent. But time after time they ghosted us, even after a lot of conversation. We finally gave up on single guys and just stopped pursuing it.

She doesn't say if she texted him in that month or not. If she did and he didn't answer then it's a ghosting. If she didn't then I don't think it is really and they just didn't talk for a month. I can easily go that long with no contact if I'm busy (unless it's someone I'm romantically interested in)... If he did in fact ghost you then yeah Dan's advice is perfect but I would also add the advice from the above. Sounds to me like he realised there wasn't much out there for a guy in an open relationship and so came back. That would be an automatic no for me.... *Unless the sex was really good ... Which is unlikely after only one time

Life is too short to deal with rude people.

i find ghosting to be an ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS AND WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE CHOICE AND BEHAVIOR. i'd rather be called a bitch slut c*nt stinky coochie (which its not) than get ghosted. is immature, selfish, rude, inconsiderate, stupid, and childish (did i saw that already). honest to god, its so common now and its crazy that its become an acceptable or expected, even when its not, form of behavior. FUCK NO RUN FOR THE HILLS LADY. signed SaN Struck a Nerve

oh and COWARDLY. no coward is putting his dick in my cookie!

No, you shouldn't. You're dating a married dude who might have a busy ass job. If you're insecure about being "ghosted" for a WHOLE MONTH by a guy you only went on a few dates with and hooked up once...then you're not right for him.

Hm. I'd rather be ghosted than being told I'm too annoying to hang out with.

Cute.

Make a date then stand him up. That's all.

Make a date and then stand him up. That's all.

AGO, my first thought was are you sure this man is in an open relationship? If he is a CPOS, it could explain why he wasn't in contact for a month.

That said, there are a few benign explanations that you may only get the answer to if you message him. Did you two discuss relationship expectations? Was there a point at which you agreed how often you would be in touch? Relatedly, is he is new to non-monogamy? Perhaps he as yet to learn how to balance his marital relationship with an outside sexual relationship. Do you know much about his circumstances? Perhaps there are personal issues with family members that he is not comfortable divulging to you.

At the end of the day, is a guy whose dick you like inside you worth keeping in your orbit for an occasional fuck if you know he might go radio silent for a few weeks at a time? Nothing is stopping you from plowing your emotional and sexual energies into another extra-marital relationship, and if you would enjoy it and have the time, fucking Mr. Once-in-a-while for your pleasure. But if fucking Mr. Once-in-a-while makes you feel like you're being asked to deliver sex when he wants it, and that makes you feel badly about the sex that you would have. Then your choice is clear.

Fubar @10: I was thinking more in terms of make a date, have sex, leave before he comes.
Not serious advice. Serious advice, this guy is rude, he doesn't deserve more time from you. I'm with Bumhole @5. Next!!

Misanthrope @7: This guy wasn't too "busy" to communicate before he got his dick wet. No, she's not "right" for a man who lacks basic manners. You fuck someone, I don't care how busy you are, you owe them some follow-up words and if you can't manage those, you certainly aren't entitled to assume they'll pick you back up from where you dropped them. AGO, there are plenty more dudes out there.

Maybe, maybe not. Only you know how much you want and enjoyed the D. Having a hissy over ghosting is an older person's problem. You are applying older, usually unspoken, norms to new social constructs.

@12 you beat me to it. I doubt his relationship is all that open: his wife probably got back in town and he couldn't see LW. Skip him and find someone with MANNERS.

He's not in an open relationship. When he ghosted you it was because he was worried about his wife seeing your texts.

It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, ghosting is terrible manners, and people who do it do not deserve a second chance.

Unless there is abuse, ghosting is cowardly. Don't put up with it, or else that will be what you get repeatedly.

@14 Some men have done the in-the-flesh equivalent of ghosting since the beginning of humans. I'm an old guy, and I've been occasionally ghosted by assholes for decades. So no, you guys didn't invent ghosting, just like you didn't invent hooking up. And yes, some of you are being assholes just like many of your forefathers were, but don't try to glorify it by calling it a "new social construct". It's not.

I'm an older person with a number of younger fuck buddies and friends with benefits - and no, ghosting is not universally popular with young men, and no, young men don't all ghost an occasional fuck buddy when they are otherwise busy - a lot of them reply with "I'm busy, I'll get back to you" if that's what's going on. Because they had a good time in the past and want to repeat it in the future.

Ghosting says you're less than fuck buddies - you are random fucks who may or may not run into each other again, and it doesn't matter either way, you're just interchangeable dicks and holes. If that's ok with you, then go for it. I prefer fuck buddies who play with whole people, not just dicks and holes.

@ 12 Even fuck buddies with no expectation on either side of any kind of relationship other than being fuck buddies are under a basic social obligation to be civil. Saying "I'm busy now, I'll get in touch when I've got time again" does not mean you're "in a relationship" in any but the most casual sense. It just means you're being civil to someone you enjoy fucking with.

ECarpenter @19: I think TM was trying to make the equally ridiculous argument that it's only people of a certain generation who are upset at being ghosted. Again, nope -- just because we called it "getting the brush-off" or "the fuck-and-run" instead of "being ghosted" doesn't mean that anyone of any age found it any more acceptable at any time in the past.

And I disagree that the ghosting means the person was lying about his relationship being open. Nope, there are plenty of jerks, single, partnered, cheating, who get what they want (sex) and disappear, and have done since time immemorial. It only proves they're selfish and rude. Which is reason enough for this woman to drop him.

Easy come, easy go.

If you attach strings to things, you probably shouldn't be advertising that you're into no strings attached sex, just a thought.

@21 Yes, "no strings attached" does mean no emotional commitment, etc etc etc. However, the basic social compact that most of us were brought up with applies even to strangers - treat them civilly, if someone is in immediate danger help them, and if possible do no harm. It's a basic golden rule agreement that both religious and non-religious people teach their children and live by, or try to live by, themselves.

If it applies to strangers, it applies to "no strings attached" encounters - including the "treat them civilly" part.

If you're part of a social species and you're interacting with other species members, it's not possible to be completely free of social strings, no matter what #14 and other narcissists believe. Even the most callus asshole out there expects people he hooks up with to refrain from stealing from him, or killing and eating him, for example. They violate parts of the social compact for their own convenience, but expect it to be honored by other people.

I daresay most people don't like to be ignored if they reach out to someone with whom they have been intimate--a simple response of "I'm sorry, I'm busy" or "I'm no longer interested, but I wish you the best" would be perfectly civil. And the only leverage in that people who want to slow the creep of ghosting have is not to climb back in bed with ghosters.

(For the record, I think "ghosting" only applies if person A has reached out to person B and received no response, not simply if person B did not reach out to person A after their liaison.)

Sporty @21: Where did she mention that she met this guy through an ad for "no strings attached" sex?

Oh that's right, she didn't, you made that up. News flash, being an open relationships does NOT mean one is necessarily interested in "no strings attached" sex. Some want only ongoing, concurrent, relationships. If she wanted -- or even hinted that she wanted -- "no strings attached" sex, why did she date this guy for a month before having sex with him? Hmm. (In other words, well done you on the slut-shaming and victim-blaming.)

Collateral @23: I agree, if they both ghosted each other then they are equally rude. And perhaps they deserve each other.

It's not just in sexual relationships. I'm friends with several people younger than I am, folks in their 30s and 40s, people I know through hobby groups or the children of friends my own age. We'll get together at club meetings. We'll get together sometimes for meals or other social activities. I've learned, however, that for some of them, the way to turn down an invitation is just not to acknowledge it in any way. This means that sometimes months go by without hearing from them. 5-6 attempts on my part to reach out can go ignored. Then I'll see them or hear from them, and it's like nothing's wrong-- because from their point of view, from their etiquette set-- nothing is.

Let me note that it's not everyone in the age group, just a smallish subset.

Fichu @26: I would like to know what form these "invitations" are taking. If it's just a Facebook invite, I get so many of those that "not acknowledge it in any way" seems a reasonable response. If you're contacting them individually and requesting an RSVP, it's rude to not reply. But an impersonal invitation to an event requiring only that you show up or you don't, doesn't seem to require a formal answer. (Even replying "maybe" to every single event I get would clog up my calendar so much to render it useless.)

Again, if these are individual invites, or the group is small and close, the expectation of a response is more reasonable. But if you're having, say, a dance recital and inviting half the folks on your friends list, I wouldn't blame these friends for losing those invites in the social media shuffle.

Everyone is right. And surely the most pertinent point is that a woman in an open marriage who wants sex with a straight man not her husband has more choices than the guy. In the circumstances here, my presuppositions (ones that could be revised or rejected, depending on new information, but which I would grant a coarse generality) would be: 1) he's not in an open relationship himself, and may be feeling guilty he had sex with you; and 2) all he wants from you is nsa sex.

27- BiDan-- Individual invitations, usually through email, sometimes by phone leaving a message on voice mail or answering machine, always where the individual or couple are the only invited guests to a meal or a movie, never for a large gathering. It's not that I find it rude-- though I do-- it's that I find it baffling. These are good people I like and get along with when we do manage to get together. If I didn't like them, it would be easy to write them off, but they generally act like this is just the way it's done, or just the way they do it. I didn't think of these few friends (and I'm absolutely still considering them friends) until long in this thread on ghosting until it hit me that this may be manifestations of the same thing. For some people (I've noticed no difference in this between men and women), just not answering an invitation is the way to communicate that they can't make it, and this applies to people one has had sex with and those one hasn't.

Fichu @26/@29: I noticed the same thing, though not specifically with younger people. An interesting variation is when emails are answered normally, yet the "let's get together sometime" part is consistently ignored.

My take on it is: these people don't actually like me (or don't like me anymore) but they don't want to say it out loud. (I wouldn't want to hear that either, see myself @8.) After, say, three times being ignored, I do write these people off as friends and stop contacting them.

I try not to feel bad about such things, nobody is obliged to like me.

Fichu @29: Like Dan says, maybe use your words? If these are people you like, perhaps they don't realise they're behaving in a mildly hurtful manner. "Hey, I've come to realise that 'no reply' means 'no thanks,' but it feels kind of rude to not get a response when I've made an effort to invite you personally. I get that this is fine with bulk Facebook invites, but I wouldn't have left YOU a voice mail/sent YOU an e-mail if I didn't want YOU to come. Next time can you let me know even if it's a nay? Thanks!"

FWIW I do think people one has had sex with are owed a higher degree of courtesy than people one has not had sex with. Sex is great fun but it does involve making yourself vulnerable -- to their judgment, their unshared preferences, their surprise kinks, their undisclosed STIs. If someone has taken these risks with you, you owe them some manners.

RE @30: My take on "let's get together sometime" is that many people may consider it a social nicety, like asking "how are you doing?" expecting them to say "fine" rather than to answer honestly. If you do want to see them and you're not just saying it as a nicety, why not actually suggest a date and a thing? "It's been ages, what are you doing next weekend? Fancy dinner?"

If you are ghosted after a hookup, no big deal. Doesn't sound like the LW made a big deal about it. The issue isn't that the man ghosted her. That's a little rude, but whatever- this isn't the LW's first rodeo. The issue is the man coming back after ghosting her. If you are going to ghost someone, do it. But it's not ghosting if you come back a little later. So should the LW hook up wiht him again? Sure, if she's not bothered by the guy being a flake who will disappear and reappear on his own terms. If she's fine with that, go for it. If not, ignore him.

What is not an option is talking to him about ethics in hookups or how to communicate as two partners in open marriages, etc. This is a casual thing, the guy is obviously not concerned with any of that, so take it or leave it for what it is.

BDF @31 "If you do want to see them and you're not just saying it as a nicety, why not actually suggest a date and a thing?"

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I was actually suggesting concrete things, and those suggestions were ignored.

30, 31-- I've used my words. This is the way it is. In a take it or leave it world, I've chosen to take it with these particular individuals.

These aren't "let's get together sometimes" invitations. These are "we're going to be in your neck of the woods this weekend. Would you like to get together for lunch at Main Street Cafe and then see Blockbuster Movie at Cineplex? We were talking at last Hobby Meeting about how much we both want to see it." Sometimes invitations ARE accepted, and sometimes invitations are extended. Just the ones that are turned down are ignored. Mind you, I don't keep chasing after people with no encouragement. Sometimes I do drop friends for the reasons stated. When it's obvious I like them more than they like me, I take the hint.

I agree that sex is a bigger deal than dinner, a movie, and a shared community nightschool class. I was just drawing a comparison.

You're a woman in an open relationship. You're part of a sellers market. Go find another dude that's DTF. NEXT!

I'd like to offer another hypothesis. After your first hookup, perhaps he was undecided about whether he wanted another one. There could be all sorts of reasons that don't involve cheating. Maybe he was trying to figure out if he had enough time for another relationship, given all of his work. Maybe he had some qualms about your politics. Maybe he had a sudden medical emergency that he didn't want to tell you about.

Now he's come to a decision. At least in my view, a one month gap in communications in a new relationship is annoying but not disqualifying. If it drives you crazy, tell him, and let him make a decision about whether he can communicate well enough in the future to meet your needs.

I think the time stamp on the text is also relevant. After happy hours colors it a bit, after 11pm and it's pretty clear what's going on.

It seems like there are so many moving parts in the open relationship scenarios, people coming in out of your life or playing it close to the vest doesn't seem surprising. LW deserves honesty, but what level of commitment are they looking for in a sidepiece? What is realistic?

I've ghosted a few FWBs (four, to be precise) in the last three years. I've been dealing with some health issues that can make sex difficult (IBS, for one), and they kept insisting we get together to have some fun. No matter how often I'd repeat to them that I'd let them know when I was better and available again, they'd contact me over and over under the pretense of getting together as friends, but when we did, they'd start pressuring me for doing more than going out for a movie. So, at one point, I simply stopped answering their messages, as I realized that telling them anything would only lead to reassurances that they really did care... until the whole pattern started again.

I'm sure that, to them, I'm the bad guy of the story. To me, they were disrespectful, selfish liars who didn't give a shit how I felt.

My point is: when ghosted, one should also ask oneself if the ghosting might have been prompted by one's own behaviour and attitude before laying blame on the ghoster.

Addendum to 38: I've been ghosted myself a few times, and my attitude is akin to R.E.'s @ 30 : "I try not to feel bad about such things, nobody is obliged to like me."

I'm leaning towards the "He's a CPOS" theory, barring other information like LW meeting his wife. Not only is his behavior consistent with trying to avoid getting caught, his approximately monthly interest suggests that what he's really after is a side piece to take care of him during the time of the month when his wife isn't up for doing anything with him. And on top of that, if he's in a high-powered job, he's exactly the sort that wouldn't have qualms about being a CPOS because that's often the culture of the executive suite.

@38 what you did was definitely not ghosting. Stopping communications with someone who won't accept "no" for an answer and who is clearly manipulating you is reasonable and justified.

Ghosting is just stopping communication in the middle of what seems like an acquaintanceship where you'd been civil to each other. You've been getting together with another person, both sides seem to be having a good time, then - just empty air, an abrupt end to responses.

I think sometimes it's because people don't know how to say "This isn't working for me. I don't think we're a match." Or they're afraid to say that. Other times, people are legitimately busy and don't have time to get together and are in that subset of people who think there's no need to say "Life's busy right now, check back in a couple of months" or "life's busy right now, I'll text when my time frees up." or something like that.

If people who think its a "new social construct" take the time to experiment, they will find that life works more smoothly when they keep communications open with people they may want to see again. If they say "I'll get back to you when I can" instead of silence, they're greeted more warmly in the future when they do want to get back together. It's like "please" and "thank you" - some people think those are old fashioned social constructs that are no longer needed in the modern world, but those who use them still find that the world works more smoothly.

ECarp @ 41 - "what you did was definitely not ghosting."

It doesn't matter how you or I define it. To them, it was ghosting. That's the whole point of my post and advice. The ones on the no-longer-receiving end are convinced they're being ghosted because they never realized that they were annoying. A little bit of introspection, in many such instances, would greatly help them understand that it was just a reaction to their behaviour. But people generally prefer to be the victim than the culprit, so they won't bother.

One of those ex-FWBs saw me on a hook-up site a few months later and asked me why I no longer answered his messages. He called me an ungrateful POS. He obviously had no clue how offensive he had been. I explained to him quite plainly why I had lost interest, and didn't hear a word back from him (not even an apology). He most definitely didn't want to think of himself as the insensitive turd he was/is. He's probably telling all his friends to avoid me because I'm a jerk who ghosts people.

That said, if you were trying to reassure me, let me make it clear that I feel zero guilt about this. I got rid of four problems, which I'm quite happy about. I might have enjoyed the sex, but no matter how good it was, it still wasn't worth putting up with the lack of respect and consideration.

Emma @32: They dated for a month before they had sex. This wasn't a "hookup." I still think it's rude to ghost after sex, but I agree that the strange thing -- the entitled thing -- is that this guy ghosted her and then came back when he wanted more sex, expecting her to just accept his rudeness. That's what makes him an entitled jerk that she should stay away from.
I also disagree that "what is not an option is talking to him." Talking is ALWAYS an option! If we discussed our expectations with partners, no matter how casual, there would be a lot fewer assumptions and misunderstandings. However, she shouldn't expect her words can cure his flakiness.

RE @33: Ah, in that case it does sound like your friends were fair-weather at best. Sorry :(

Fichu @34: Thanks too for clarifying. That baffles me too, I guess I can't offer anything else than the conclusion you've come to -- accept that they have this quirk and take them or leave them.

Ricardo @38: "I'd repeat to them that I'd let them know when I was better and available again" -- agree that this is not ghosting. You told them you'd let them know when you could get together. You were up front and honest about your availability. You clearly expressed your boundaries and they didn't respect them, so you had to take a different approach. If they thought they were ghosted, they were wrong, because "ghosting" means disappearing -without an explanation- and that's not what you did.

Let me also say that I think ghosting after a hookup is justified in some circumstances. If the person was abusive or violent toward you, engaged in any sort of non-negotiated sexual practices (such as, say, slapping one's face without prior consent), or turned out to be a CPOS, their entitlement to manners is null and void. Sure, the world would be a better place if you told them exactly what they did wrong (so perhaps they would learn not to slap faces without asking, like some of us here have and some haven't), but you don't owe it to them. Also, if it is agreed by both parties that the hookup is a one-and-done, no follow-up confirmation is required, though if they text you to thank you for a good time a "you're welcome" is in order.

Hey people, please stop telling me I didn't ghost these guys. You're missing my point completely (which is very clearly expressed in the last paragraph of my post @ 38, then explained further in the first paragraph of my post @ 42).

I didn't miss your point, Ricardo, I just don't agree with it. "From their point of view, they were ghosted" -- then they need to learn what "ghosting" actually means.

BDF @ 46 - "then they need to learn what "ghosting" actually means."

If that's how you see it, you agree entirely with my point.

@43 BDF Yes you are right about it not being just a hookup. That makes his behavior worse, but I don't think it changes the rest of what I said, only makes him rude too. What I meant by discussing it isn't an option is that a dude who would do this and then come back like that has already shown you who he is. I think trying to change people is always a bad idea, but it seems especially the case in a situation in like this in which the LW is unlikely to want to invest much energy into the relationship as it's not even her primary. The wisest thing to do seems to take the dick in the context it's offered if she wants it, or ignore it otherwise. Seems like getting involved in figuring out and discussing why this guy ghosted and why he then felt entitled to come back would be too much work for a piece of ass on the side. And if she's looking for more than a piece of ass on the side (an ongoing FWB outside of her marriage) then I'd say she should go for someone who doesn't ghost and then come back with no explanation.

On the other hand, as Ricardo points out, there could be other reasons and it might be enlightening for her to hear what they are, and has others have mentioned, they might have nothing to do with her and the dude might be able to explain away his behavior. So sure, a chance at a conversation doesn't seem like a bad idea- you are right about that. I just meant it seems not worthwhile to go about trying to change someone, especially in a situation like this in which there is nothing invested in the relationship (other than a few dates) and nothing to gain from it that you couldn't get elsewhere.

I've been ghosted and it is baffling. It's also rude as hell. When I say "ghosted," I mean ghosted as in having gone on several dates, had very good sex, texted and emailed and talked on the phone, and laughed and flirted and complimented each other and set up a lunch date for the following day, then not hearing from the dude ever again. As in, radio silence in answer to my questions, "do you have a preference about where to have lunch?" and 2 hours or so later, "are we still on for today?" And continued radio silence in response to a friendly, non-confrontational text I sent a couple of days later (pretending to myself that something must have come up to prevent not only only the lunch date but the ability to communicate about it). In my opinion and experience, true ghosting seems to come out of the blue and the ghoster never, ever makes contact again, whether by initiating or responding.

It's not a nice thing to do to a person. It sets the hamster in my head upon his treadmill, and that's never good. And it's unnecessary. All someone has to do is give a reason or excuse--and it can be made up: "I'm not ready to be in a relationship right now," "I reconciled with my ex," "I am going to focus on someone else I was dating and see where that relationship goes," Whatever. It's especially easy if there have only been a few dates and it was clear that both parties were casual. I've also heard about people being ghosted after more prolonged and serious relationships--there was someone on Dan's podcast recently who had been dating someone for a year when he ghosted her--and that strikes me as among the most cowardly and bullshitty things to do. If you've been dating for a while and want to stop or break up, you owe the person the courtesy of communication. You can lie about the reason, and I'm not even against breaking up via text, if texting has been the primary method of communication all along and the text is substantial and not filled with acronyms, but disappearing into thin air is an asshole move.

I've also been the recipient of the behavior this lw was describing, although I wasn't in an open marriage when it happened. It happened when I was in my 20s, and it happens in my 50s. It's also inconsiderate. It goes like this: you get together for what is presumed to be NSA sex, or is not presumed to be NSA sex. You don't contact the other person afterwards. No "thanks for a fun evening," or "that was great; let's do it again sometime," or "wow!" or "so are you free next Wednesday?" And then, weeks, or more likely, months later, when you are horny, you call/email/text/send a carrier pigeon to say, "hey."

I view this as inconsiderate, though I am aware that many people define no-strings-attached to mean you don't owe the person you just had sex with even a cursory followup and you can view them as a restaurant you call to order take-out from when you're next hungry and craving either that kind of food, or just food from someplace that delivers. It shows a lack of consideration and it makes it clear that you don't value the person as a person, but instead see them only as a masturbatory aid.

My own definition of NSA is that there is no expectation that there will be a real dating relationship. If it's a true one-night-stand, then I guess no followup communication is necessary, but if you liked the sex enough to think you'll want a repeat sometime down the line, I think you should treat the person who just made you feel good and who made themself (I know, I know) vulnerable (for all the reasons and in all the ways BiDanFan mentioned @ 31) as a person, not a Fleshlight or a vibrator and keep some level of cursory communication going.

Lastly, I want to take issue with the point that others are making that as a married woman, the lw has many options to have sex, that she's the hot commodity. Yes, it's true that if she wants, she can have more sex with more men who will treat her exactly the same way that this man did, but that's not what she wants. What she appears to want is to have some sort of ongoing relationship, a FWB or something with someone. She appears to want to have sex with someone whom she can talk with or who has the manners to send a followup text. Believe it or not, that's not always easy to find, as this letter demonstrates.

As to nocute's last point, I agree. Women generally have an easier time finding a sex partner than do men, but I think when people belabor this point, they are picturing a traditionally attractive woman who is also not very picky. There are plenty of lonely women for similar reasons as to why there are lonely men. Some are not traditionally attractive, some are socially awkward, some have very specific interests/desires, some can only get on with a narrow range of people, etc. Likewise, the fact that you can always find some man somewhere to fuck you doesn't mean that this man would be appealing to the person seeking a partner. I think people sometimes think a buyer's market means that anything is for sale when it can also mean desperate folks aggressively trying to sell junk.

Also to clarify, I agree with nocute about ghosting- both how rude it is and how it can affect the ghosted person. My comments (which seem to blow all this off) are starting with the premise that we are already dealing with someone who ghosts people and then comes back as if he didn't. Though ghosting is rude and despite the fact that it might have its causes or excuses, the fact is that it has already happened and the LW has to consider what to do now that she's receiving an invitation from a guy that ghosted her. If I were in that situation, I'd put my energy into deciding how I feel about fucking someone who I know ghosts and then comes back with zero explanation rather than why/how he ghosts in the first place. He could have a legit excuse that would make him still a decent person, but if so, he'd offer it. So he's probably either an asshole or he's the sort that likes to stir up drama (there are people who wait a certain number of days before responding because they think it gives them the upper hand, who plan things like setting the terms of the communication and lowering expectations, etc) or he could just be selfish/thoughtless/distracted. In any of these cases, does the LW really want to put any energy and emotion into figuring this out? Personally, I would not. If she wants a relationship, she should find someone who doesn't ghost and then reappear without explanation in the first place. If she wants side dick, then she can take it for what it is and compartmentalize- she would hardly be the first to accept that your piece of ass on the side is selfish and not be bothered as it's irrelevant to her own life.

EmmaLiz @48: "there could be other reasons and it might be enlightening for her to hear what they are, and has others have mentioned, they might have nothing to do with her and the dude might be able to explain away his behavior."

Exactly. It also wouldn't hurt for her to take the opportunity to point out to him that his behaviour was rude. If no one has called him on it, he might not know. A few years ago I was ghosted after a first date (that did include sex) with a guy I'd been chatting with online for five months -- it just took that long for us to actually meet up. After the sex, nothing. A few months later, surprise, he texted to see if I wanted to hang out. Instead of saying, are you kidding, take a hike, I said yes and used the meeting to ask what was up with his atrocious behaviour. It was, indeed, nothing to do with me -- he wasn't over his ex and he freaked. I told him that's all well and good but he owed me an explanation after we'd got naked together, for the very reasons Nocute @49 describes -- it left me wondering what I'd done, and feeling like I'd been played. I hope he took it to heart. (And no, I didn't have sex with him again. He lost that privilege!)

Nocute @49 and EmmaLiz @50: applauding both of your posts.

I haven't read all the comments, but some thoughts. I know someone else posted this, but it sounds like they ghosted each other (and they deserve each other). Why is it still expected (in a straight relationship) of the man to tell the woman that he had a good time and suggest that they do it again. AGO still thinks the sex was good. There was nothing to prevent AGO from taking the initiative. If she did and he ignored her then he is scum. That said, if the sex was really, really good then AGO may want to accept his BS behavior.

considered the norm

Was he perchance a Trump supporter?

skeptic, I don't see why you think they ghosted one another when the LW clearly states that the man ghosted her. The rest of it- about men being expected to tell the woman he had a good time, etc- is projection or maybe assumption? What do you see in the letter that supports this? What makes you think the LW did not "take initiative"? I thought about cutting and pasting the relevant bits, but the letter is so short, really you should just re-read it. All she says is that he ghosted her. Ghosting means a person stops initiating and responding to all forms of contact- that they disappear like a ghost. There is nothing in that definition that means that the woman waits for a man to initiate contact. Those are two totally different things so I'm not sure what you are talking about. It's also weird that you'd conclude that they deserve each other. What in those five sentences made you think the LW deserves this?