Poor guy - he listens sensitively, tells you how nice you are, carves out time with you and then doesn't tumble for a roll. It is possible, just possible, that this guy liked the writer because he liked the writer, and spent time talking, visiting, relating - because he liked her, and NO MORE! What a revolutionary thought! Especially since every man is supposed to be lasciviously plotting the seduction of every female within pherome-transmitting distance, rutting, itchy beasts that we are......

Is it possible that there have been two tracks during your various conversations, one in which the writer thought she was "flirting" and the guy just thought he was having a nice conversation? Maybe he's not used to flirting, maybe he can't identify it, maybe, in the post-divorce slump, he is "blocking" it. Maybe, in his post-divorce slump, he is enjoying it, but not taking it at all seriously. And - maybe the author was not too clear about her own intentions; flirting being a game, essentially, that can be as meaningful or as meaningless as the players wish it to be.

Did she "assume" that a guy has instant radar that can interpret deep intention from "flirty" language over the telephone? And if so, why the hell did she do THAT? In a post-modern world, she could state her interest on the face of it, and entertain a discussion that would unfold a future-perhaps not the one she wanted, but a clearcut one, with no animosity. Of course the guy felt she had "an agenda", she DID. Of course he was pissed off when she carted him around like a stud horse....... She wanted pysical/sexual intimacy with him, and it is clear that this was not part of HIS "agenda". Maybe he, deluded into believing that it is possible for people of opposite genders to enjoy deep friendships, just assumed that her flirting was her way of relating to men in general..... and his response, that she was wonderful, that he really liked her, may, on the face of it, be exactly how he feels.

This woman could process this circumstance to death, and in the process, play out all of her insecurities to the degree that she wishes. However, I think the writer has several choices:

She can apologise for making an assumption of "intent" without crosschecking with him as to where he was at with the whole idea. (It is, in this day and age, possible for two adults to entertain a discussion about sexual intimacy without stammering, blushing or giggling or - hiding behind incessent "flirty" behavior). She did, indeed, have an agenda, and she needs to acknowledge it. Had she articulated it as a wish, they could have talked, and her "agenda" would not have been "hidden".......... . Then, maybe, they can have a discussion about "mixed messages", "communication Styles". (And, while she's at it, she can apologize for carrying him around like a trophy stud. Even if he was, that's just tacky.)

She can tell him that he's not the man she thought he was because he didn't tumble for her, attracive, witty, strong and assertive woman that she is, and a fine catch to boot (or booty). This will, if the guy has any balls, lead to the end of any friendship on the basis of terminal arrogance.

She can continue on precisely the belief path she is currently engaged in, which is to assume that the root cause is that HE misled HER by responding to her "flirtyness" in a manner that suggested that her "hidden agenda" would be deeply recipricated, which is, I believe, where this woman's head is at. This will, if the guy has any balls, lead him to tell you that he ain't Svengali, he can't read minds, and will lead to the end of the relationshp on the basis of terminal obsfucation.