Gee, can't imagine why a guy who made it clear that he only wants casual sex would be unwilling to reply to a text that says, "Let's go look at the moon together in my backyard."

I view this as less rudeness on his part then presumption on hers. As you point out (and she herself admits), mouth says, "Casual sex, only," glands are saying "till death do us part."

It's little wonder he doesn't reply to his mistress of the mixed messages. He probably feels it's safer that way.

But she may not need to force herself to walk away from this. If she keeps up with the text-mushages, he'll do the walking.

The policewymyn of gender neutrality have led many women to believe they can do anything a man can do.

When we've had discussions about this on another blog I'm on, most of the women have been admanant that they, and their female friends, are just as capable of having "no-emotional-attachment-whatsoever" casual sex as men are. I'm somewhat skeptical but who knows? Maybe they are.

Make that adamant. Don Draper would be admanant.

> Because it's in women's genetic interest to get
> men to commit to more than an hour of sexercise

I'm curious about this. From what I've read it wasn't until quite recent times (genetically speaking) that humans realized the connection between sex and babies:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/734/when-did-mankind-figure-out-that-sex-babies

Without knowing this, a woman would have no reason to try and get a man to stay with her.

Jeez, the way my last sweetie and I were going at it, you'd think her oxytocin would have had her all over me like glue. Instead, she dumped me after four sordid months.

... most of the women have been adamant that they, and their female friends, are just as capable of having "no-emotional-attachment-whatsoever" casual sex as men are. I'm somewhat skeptical but who knows? Maybe they are.

And maybe they just want to think they are. I'm sure a lot of us women think this way, but when it comes right down to it, we eventually want more than just a friends-with-benefits relationship, even if we've spent the first five months saying, "Nah, it's cool, I'm good with this" and crying ourselves to sleep afterwards. Especially when the guy we were with hooks up with someone else in a "real" relationship. There were a couple of guys I was f-w-b with but damn, I was pissed when they married someone else! I got over it pretty quick though, and I will admit, after thinking more about it, that I really was okay with it.

But I told myself, never again.

"I get that we're not dating..."

No,your letter is a complaint that he is not acting more like your boyfriend.

He isn't.

Brace yourself, reader, I am going to be frank.

If he is below 60 years of age, during those weeks he is not calling you, my strong suspicion is he is having sex with someone else. If he is in his twenties or thirties or forties, he is certainly have sex with other women. Guys generally will not go weeks at a time without sex.

So given the cycle you describe, and assuming this guy is a healthy male, my supposition is you are part of a rotation of women he sees.

My additional supposition is that he is a relatively desirable male, which explains your fixation on him. Accordingly, other women feel the same way about him, so he can get away with this behavior by simply not bothering to diabuse the various women in his rotation of their status as "3rd week of the month" or whatever.

If that sounds right, you have a decision to make. If you are looking for a long term mate, go find one. This guy is not him, however much you desire him. If you are looking for the attention of a desirable man, and can accept his ability and willingness to see other women, stay with this guy.

This guy will not turn into the long term mate you seem to want.

Oops, "inform" not dia-whatever I typed.

Letters like this make me despair. Dear LW, people will treat you as well as you allow them to treat you. If you want a relationship with a man, hold out for one.

What you have here is a guy who treats you like a volunteer whore. He gets sex on demand and he doesn't even have to leave money on your dresser. Yipee!

You, on the other hand, don't even get sex on demand - you get it on his schedule, from a guy who doesn't even think enough of you to return your texts. Is that enough perspective for you?

BTW, all that activity on his phone is the other women he's using, has used, or is getting ready to use, plus the guys he's sneering at you with.

The LW is far out of her depth with this guy and the most striking example is that bit about the moon. Not only is it godawful...not only is the LW unaware that it is godawful...the LW is so unaware that she writes an advice column and quotes this line as an example of how good her pitch is. So LW...first some communication basics...when you initiate conversation you do so either in the receivers terms and for guys that's sports or cars or neutral terms which is weather or sex. A man can reach out to you and talk about the moon or ponies or sunbeams. You don't do it to men and especially not this man who is clearly an uber male stone cold player. Hopefully you realize he is texting other women and lots of them. He's not texting the office or really close with his mom or any other excuse he might give. They are all women. I suggest you google Corey Holcombs bit about the Five Woman rotation and figure out where this guy slots you in his rotation. Then decide if that's how you want to see yourself. If yes then please go buy some car magazines and develop some better lines.

T is right - the guy is a stone cold player, and the LW seems very young - this is probably her first experience with one. Poor kid.

I was one of those women who had genuinely casual sex. Indeed, more than once I hurt guys because *they* assumed that the fact that we were boinking meant more than it did. Lots of one night stands, lots of guys who really were nothing more to me than convenient lays -- generally more than one at a time (not group sex, just that I had a choice of casual f*ck-buddies.)

That said, I didn't expect to fall madly in love with my husband, nor he with me. We thought we'd contract a weekend marriage license, then move on. 22 years later, here we are. But I'm not sure if that's a consequence of oxytocin from hot sex, or the fact that the hot sex was accompanied by genuine affinity on a whole lot of other levels.

I do know that hormone tests show that I have unusually high levels of testosterone for a woman, so that may explain the ability to play sex as a game.

And maybe they just want to think they are. I'm sure a lot of us women think this way, but when it comes right down to it, we eventually want more than just a friends-with-benefits relationship, even if we've spent the first five months saying, "Nah, it's cool, I'm good with this" and crying ourselves to sleep afterwards.

I tend to agree with you, Flynne. As I noted, I'm somewhat skeptical of the assertion these women have made. I should add that I'm sure it's true for some of them* -- look at Dana's post as a case-in-point -- but I think that, as a group, women are much less likely to be able to separate sex from emotions.

*I'm probably in that "some of them" minority when it comes to men. Although I usually haven't had sex with a woman without having feelings (more than just feelings below my navel, that is) for her, the few times I've had casual sex, it's created some degree of emotional attachment in me.

I figured out in college that: 1) I *already* had feelings for the guys I wanted to have sex with, and 2) I had no interest in having sex with guys I had no feelings for.

Then there were the guys, who just wanted to have sex with everybody. I sort of envied them - it seemed like they had more fun that way. But I realized I simply wasn't like that. It would have been nice, but there was no way it was happening.

I feel for this gal - she seems very young, and she's going to get her heart broken. But the player she's been hooking up with - that most certainly is not the way a guy treats someone he is really into. If a guy is really into you, you can't hardly get rid of him. It's probably a good idea to start with THAT pool of men, and then choose from there.

The guy is funny, charming and great in the sack. Of course you want more.

If you were equally funny, charming and sexy he might feel the same way.

Likely the fella had to work long and hard to make himself so appealing. Can you say the same?

Amy chastises the girl for not taking "casual sex" at face value, which has some merit.

However, in my world, casual sex is usually just dating lite with extra deniability sauce. The girl most likely isn't wrong in her feeling that she had a slim opportunity with this guy and SHE blew it.

"BTW, all that activity on his phone is the other women he's using, has used, or is getting ready to use..."

If he's up front with the women he's banging about what he wants, and they're all consenting adults then how is he "using" them? Obviously the women agreeing to this arrangement are getting something out of it. Otherwise they'd be with someone else.

"However, in my world, casual sex is usually just dating lite with extra deniability sauce. The girl most likely isn't wrong in her feeling that she had a slim opportunity with this guy and SHE blew it."

Interesting observation and in my opinion very true.

If you want a relationship, hold out for a relationship. You can't fuck your way into a guy's heart.

If he's up front with the women he's banging about what he wants, and they're all consenting adults then how is he "using" them? Obviously the women agreeing to this arrangement are getting something out of it.

Get with the program, JJ. Women are always men's victims.

He may just be giving her the treatment she's accepting. Sometimes if you call a guy on that shit, they'll change. Sometimes they won't, but if she likes him, it's worth a shot. She should just tell him in person how she feels. His answer might surprise her, or it might not, but being honest is the best thing.

"If a guy is really into you, you can't hardly get rid of him."
Pirate Jo-
This is SO VERY TRUE! My then boyfriend, now husband, pratically lived with me after about 10 dates! He occasionally went home to shower and get more clothes but I would have had to move to get rid of that boy, not that I wanted to! :)
I was young and had gone through the same nonsense as this girl. My husband was the 1st guy to be that way (I was all of 20) so I married him!

FWB only works if both people are on the same page, and LW needs to figure out where she stands.

If she'ss actually interested in this guy and "watching the moon" is a ploy to spend time together in a romantic way with the hopes of ultimately leading up to dating...well that horse is already out of the barn. She's already branded herself as non-relationship material; might as well cut your losses now, chalk it up to learning experience, and don't make the same mistake next time.

On the other hand, if LW is truly content with staying FWB and "watching the moon" is just a euphemism for hooking up, the situation is probably salvable...just need to cut the euphemisms. If this is a representative example of her texts, it's no wonder the poor guy isn't responding, but it may just be that LW is embarrassed to be more forward, or she doesn't realize she's sending the wrong message. A text along the lines of "I'm feeling horny ;)" will get the point across much clearer and I'm willing to bet she'll start getting a better response.

"The guy is funny, charming and great in the sack. Of course you want more. If you were equally funny, charming and sexy he might feel the same way"

Maybe...maybe not. Depends on whether those are qualities he also values in a girl, and more importantly whether or not he's even interested in a relationship period. All the funny, charming, and sexy in the world won't do much good if the guy is set on playing the field, which sounds like it might be the case. If so she may never have even been up to bat in the first place, in which case there's no point beating herself up about something that wouldn't have happened anyway.

Without knowing this, a woman would have no reason to try and get a man to stay with her. - Snoopy

And since people didnt know until recently that the heart pumps blood there is no reason they needed to focus on making their hearts beat right? Oh wait, you mean certain biological processes run in the background regardless of what our concious mind understands?

When I was single and wanted casual sex, I typically had it with guys I would not or could not actually date. I made sure they were way too young to get emotionally tied to; sort of had "boy toy" types who understood this was just for fun.
This was when I was from about 30-45 years old because I met my husband when I was 45.
It was easy. The guys usually had no problem with it because they got to have hot sex with an older women who didn't mind them getting dressed and leaving when we were done.
Sometimes I sort of miss how easy it was and how it stroked my ego to have attractive young guys think I was attractive and doable.
It was nice to be sexually satisfied and I think that helped me in my dating life with men I could get emotionally involved with. When you are already sexually satisfied, I think you are more attractive and confident. Plus, I was less likely to move a dating relationship forward to the sex stage until I got to know them better.

I catch myself getting crushes on men who act this way, who will randomly call or text out of the blue after a period of silence, who may or may not respond if I text them. I'm pretty sure, part of it is the anticipation, dissecting everything they say, and the mystery in my own mind of whether they like me or not (spoiler alert: they don't (at least not in the way I'm leading myself to believe I want)).
The LW is getting intermittent positive reinforcement, which is very addictive (like gambling). So the chemical rewards she is getting in her brain from the times when he calls her or responds to a text is similar to winning a jackpot. He is not likely to change in his behavior since he is getting no strings attached sex with little on his part. Similarly casino owners are not likely to close their casino just because gambling addicts are spending all their money.
I've had to teach myself to call the behavior what it really is, disrespectful and flaky. Then I move on. I liken it to someone who takes a vacation and wins or loses at the slot machines but then goes home and puts all of their effort and the best of themselves into their job for their regular salary. Trying to turn a guy like this into a boyfriend through giving him my time, my body and the parts of myself that are most witty and charming would be like spending all of my time and money at a slot machine. Even if I "win the jack pot" in either scenario how long will it last before the emptiness sets in and I need a new way to get a high.
This guy has shown the LW who he is and how much he will put into the relationship. She needs to believe him and if she is ready to put in the effort it takes to have a real relationship, find someone else who will put in that effort too.

A lot of commenters take it for granted that the LW deserves more than she is getting.

Why this assumption?

In the real world, most people, especially young people I meet fall FAR short of being sufficiently sweet, attentive and charming to merit a bf (or gf) who treats them that way.

In the real world, if imperfect you wants to be treated like a prince(ss) you date down a little (or a lot).

In the real world, the LW has probably treated some ex the same way when she was equally ambivalent about him.

In the real world, completely heartless "players" are actually pretty rare. But guys with standards dating women who think that self improvement only applies to men is much more common.

@TheRealPeter--

I agree with you in general but in this situation I think you're missing the point. It's not like this guy is just going to scroll through his list of fuck buddies, find the nicest one, and make her his girlfriend. LW might very well be sweet, attentive, charming, and gorgeous but none of that matters when she's already established herself as an easy booty call as opposed to relationship material. Better luck with the next guy.

To the LW: Romance novels and soap operas are not real life. Do you remember the scene from, I believe the 2nd or 3rd Twilight movie that opens with Edward quietly lying in a field with Bella staring at her? I quote Rifftrax on that scene: "Teenage girls, your boyfriends will never, ever do this."

You want a boyfriend. He wants sex with no strings attached whatsoever. You're not going to change him. Throw him back, try again, and never again ask a romantic interest who is not at least engaged to you to come stare at the moon with you. Unless it's a clever way to break up with a guy by driving him away, that is.