DEAR SUSAN: I've been going with this guy whom I met more than 10 years ago, when he was assigned to our office. He left after two years to work for another company, but we kept in touch — and he even attended my wedding. (I've since divorced.) He always has had a "thing" for me, and quite honestly, it has been mutual. Well, two years ago, we started seeing each other — maybe once a month. The frequency has increased to about once every two weeks. He is fun to be with, treats me with respect, holds my hand and spares no expense when we go out. He says our sex is "great." So what's the issue? He says I can't go to his place, because he's embarrassed about the mess there. I know he's not married, and I suspect he's a hoarder. That I can deal with. What irks me is the fact that he calls me infrequently. It can be weeks before I hear from him. But I know he dislikes phone conversation, and besides, I'm afraid I'd lose him if I complained. At 50, he's never been married. Am I a fool to continue with this man? — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: C'mon now. You're not exactly a farmer's daughter meeting her first beau. You've been married and met all sorts of people out in the business world. And somewhere in your heart of hearts, not too deep in your psyche, you know full well this man's a bad bet. He's a nowhere man, playing out a purported "life" with you — and how many other women?! He says he dislikes talking on the phone, but you're too afraid to ask the real reason he calls infrequently, afraid the truth will burst the bubble and expose the fantasy your hopes have built. Girl, where are your values? A hoarder's psyche doesn't bother you, but his scattered calls get under your skin! After sharing all that with me, your good sense kicks in with the question about being foolish to continue. (Sigh of relief.) Yes, dear reader, you'd be foolish to the nth degree to inhabit this daydream a day longer.

DEAR SUSAN: I know breakups are uncomfortable for both parties, but can't we be adult about the matter and at least speak to the person? If not face to face, we should at least talk over the phone. I've had the dubious honor of being broken up with by letter, and it wasn't a pleasant experience. It would have been much easier to hear a voice or see a face, as opposed to reading a coldly formal piece of paper. I still see this person in social situations, and it's extremely uncomfortable. So, people, please, give the person you were dating the benefit of your backbone and do not write a letter! The conversation feels awkward for only a minute or two, so the respectful and considerate thing to do is allow the other person to hear your voice. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: Yes, but — yes, but — those moments when tension is at fever pitch and denial threatens to cast its net over the whole deed are dreaded by anyone of character because such a person knows how awful it is to be on the receiving end. I'm still not sure about a thumbs-down on a handwritten letter to do the announcing. After all, it's clean and brisk, and the paper can always be crumpled into a ball and tossed into the circular file, as if to be forgotten. No, that's not possible; rejection still stings, even on paper, but at least the dumpee has a hand in the action, a part to play in the ghastly proceedings. That may count for something. And hearing the dumper's voice may not be the best way, either. Hearing those familiar tones can tickle past intimacies and shared pleasures back into existence. Either way, whether you're the dumper or the dumpee, it's a grisly business. But it's no reason to barricade your heart. The very highest peaks of joy are reached only by risking our hearts. Take a chance.

Have a question for Susan? You can reach her directly at [email protected].