Dear Eva,
I’ve been seeing this guy really casually for a few months, meeting up for a drink and sex at his flat when we happen to be free. It’s really fun, but neither of us wants anything serious at the moment because of work, life, etc. Still, it’s been two weeks now since he replied to my texts, and I don’t know if he’s just busy or if he’s lost interest. Maybe he’s dead! (Joke.) It’s really starting to spin me out; is he ghosting me?
Ros
Got a question for Eva? Drop her an email, here: AskEva@condenast.co.uk.
I mean, yes? I think, probably, yes? And I have to say, I hate this sort of shit. Bad communication irritates me, for many reasons, not least because a person being polite enough to acknowledge the existence of a human being they have been naked with is surely the bare minimum one should expect from them, however casual the relationship.
I mean, I understand why people ghost. It’s far easier to ignore a message than it is to end something, explaining that the situation’s changed, their ex is back, their mum is ill, the ick arrived, whatever, and then to deal with how that might make you, the recipient of said explanation, feel. But by choosing not to message, I find, the ghost makes it so much worse. They compound the pain they might have caused by simply saying they didn’t want to see you anymore, and often it cuts deep. It changes how you interact with men in the future; it affects who you trust, who you open up to, who you might meet up with in the new year for a drink and sex at his flat.
But even if I’m wrong, even if he isn’t ghosting you and replies tomorrow (explaining he was, what, in the 1980s for two weeks with no 4G?), then it’s important to think about how this absence of communication made you feel, and to question, first, what you require from communications in the future, and second, just how casual this casual thing really is.
It’s totally fine – even, I’d argue, necessary – to set some clear boundaries around how you want to be treated by men, and one of those boundaries can absolutely include: they need to reply to your messages. You can help by saying quite simply, right at the start, that you don’t need essays, you don’t need love letters, but you do need, at the very least, acknowledgement. They should teach this in schools, really, but until modern etiquette is added to the key stage 3 curriculum, it will be in the hands of women.
On the second point, I do wonder: if you were really happy with a casual fling, would you have noticed his absence at all? The point, surely, of remaining “casual” is that the relationship takes up less time and space in your life and head. The fact that his lack of attention is spinning you out suggests it was serious for you, or that you may have allowed more feelings to enter the relationship than intended. It happens all the time. As does the situation where you might pretend to yourself that you’re content with keeping it casual, but quietly, secretly hope for more. Either way, if his poor communication is causing you grief, then this casual fling, this man, mining for coal 200 feet below a WiFi connection, is not for you.
