Friends with Benefits

[Shinka]

Some men value sex holistically just as some women. Some women see sex as a simple physical act just ad some men. Then at times, those ideals will fit differently for different relationship. I see it on a continuum, not an either/or or black/white choice.

I think the ladies here who are talking about detachment, I for one, are saying it's not a forced detachment. It just is. That's the only way to describe it when you ask me " how are you able to not get emotional about it". I just am 9 times out of 10. it was fulfilling a need for pleasure...that was it. Pure sexual attraction-dude turned me on that way.

Just because women engage in detached sex or sex outside of "traditional" relationships doesn't erode the whole idea of meaningful sex or monogamy.

Men have always found ways to please their simple sexual urges- animals,prostitutes, masturbation, apple pies, rape, adultery. even in societies where women held their virginities as gold. Some FWB benefits isn't going to change an individuals view sexual fidelity. A person will commit when they r ready to commit.

I think many more women would satisfy their urges too if we werent taught for centuries that is wasn't okay for us to experience PLEASURE. This doesnt necessarily have to be with FWB, but touching oneself, enjoying sexual things etc. But many women have this repressed sexuality and then romanticize it.

Is there a spiritual component to sex? yes it can be. Is it always? no. Just like kissing: his tongue is in my mouth. Doesn't have to mean I feel these deep emotions. I could just have an oral fixation and like the feeling.

a penis and vagina are parts of the body with nerve endings. They are not these magical means of getting closer God.

Not all people and societies believe in this notion that sex is simply for procreation or has to happen between married partners nor that their souls are damned every time they engage in noncommittal sex.

What happens if the guy you are so in love with is playing you and you don't know it, Does that sex you engage in with him still have a spiritual significance after you discover he's a cheater?

What about matriarchal societies where they can have many lovers? Is it okay then to have many joined spirits?

Sex is multidimensional, but every dimension doesn't have to be "activated" to enjoy & engage it. Everyone is not looking for the " one" or A soul mate.

 

[mischka]

But many women have this repressed sexuality and then romanticize it.

Tell me about it. Sheesh.

 

[aribell]

As I said at the end of my post, what I said is relevant to whom it's relevant. As I also said, there are women who want to know how they can learn to detach. If you're asking that question, then the FWB game is not for you. And regardless of the meaning or lack thereof that we choose to place on sex, it has consequences in and of itself, and yes, there are broader societal implications involved.

 

[mischka]

Why is it wrong for them to want to be able to separate sex from emotional attachment though? That is a very slippery slope into the argument that you should not experience sex unless you are in love - is that what you're really saying?

 

[Shinka]

Is emotional attachment a learned or innate behavior?
Maybe they feel that was the only way they were taught to view sex....

I think many women in the area of male/female relationships are trying to become more logical in their choices. Think about all the books: " the rules" " act like a lady, think like a man." I'm not advocating for one or the other. Grass is not always greener on the other side. Maybe it's a skill they want to build.

On another note:

All sex has potential consequences. Part of that is using measures to protect yourself from the unwanted- STD & pregnancy (for me). FWB or Committed relationships don't exclude that. Unfortunately nowadays even marriage doesn't protect one from disease.

Some FWB are monogamous ( i know folks who do this)and they do decide to get tested a d engage in risky behavior. Guess that's their level of trust. I think it's delusional to think FWB means no STD

 

[aribell]

Why is it wrong for them to want to be able to separate sex from emotional attachment though? That is a very slippery slope into the argument that you should not experience sex unless you are in love - is that what you're really saying?

Honestly, neither "wrong" nor "should" were used in my post. I only say that because I think that a lot of women do have a lot of guilt surrounding their sexual desires and so if someone comes along suggesting that not engaging in casual sex might be better, *some* women have the gut reaction "Oh no, another person is trying to heap guilt on me for having a libido." It has nothing to do with guilt or shame. I can talk about theology, but nothing that was said depends on any particular religious outlook.

My point was simply that if you have to attempt to separate emotional attachment from a sexual experience, then clearly the two are joined (at least in the mind of the person trying to separate them). Women have been made to feel silly and irrational for according deep significance to sex and now many are thinking that maybe they need to get rid of that tendency and learn to see sex just as something physical. I'm saying that women don't need to learn anything of the sort--their intuition was speaking truth to them.

I think that common sense suggests that sex is more than that--if only because you could end up with a child because of it. I didn't at all suggest that you should only have sex to produce children, but that maybe the fact that a new life could be the outcome indicates that there's a little more going on in that act than nerve endings being stimulated.

I also don't buy that this is women's sexual liberation. There is a difference between feelings of guilt and shame regarding sex and feelings of bonding. A woman feeling guilty for having sexual desires and woman becoming deeply attached to a man she has slept with are two different things. The attachment issue isn't about social imposition of guilt, but rather about chemical, emotional, and psychological attachment to a man. So women learning to separate sex from any ensuing attachment isn't fighting historical oppression of women's sexuality. I think that these particular conversations are more a reflection of the fact that many women can't get the relationship that they actually want and so are trying to figure out how to get at least a little something in the meantime. It's often reflective of desperation rather than empowerment. Again, that applies to whom it applies. If it doesn't apply, then it doesn't.

 

[mischka]

I think many women in the area of male/female relationships are trying to become more logical in their choices. Think about all the books: " the rules" " act like a lady, think like a man." I'm not advocating for one or the other. Grass is not always greener on the other side. Maybe it's a skill they want to build.

By that same token, I don't like the implication that a woman can only be having sex without commitment because the man isn't offering it to her - not because that is what she wants too. For some reason it's so hard for some people to consider the idea that a woman just isn't that emotional, or is capable of not being that emotional. Sometimes I would LIKE to become attached to men more easily! For this very reason - I know it makes me an anomaly, and people are not going to understand or are going to disapprove of my choices. I just can't force myself to have those feelings when they're not there - but it doesn't mean I don't still like, enjoy, value, or appreciate the guy.

In the situations I described above, to illustrate my point - I said I could be affectionate with one guy. This is a guy I was comfortable spooning with - tongue kissing - massaging - hand holding - spending the night. And we could talk for hours. But we just did not have the right chemistry for a relationship. He was too laid back, which works on a friends level, but did not provide the excitement or intellectual stimulation I need in a partner.

The best friend - I loved him dearly and could spend unlimited amounts of time with him, and to this day he is one of the few people in life that I could say truly "gets" me. But he put me on a pedestal and frankly I wasn't sexually attracted to him - though we did have sex a few times. So the FWB was my demand only because I refused to be his girlfriend (and refused to have sex with him more than the what - three times I think I did. However, technically, since we did have sex, we were friends with benefits).

The problem I have is the moral judgment. @nicole.kirwan, you are trying to present your argument as though you are only concerned for the emotional well being of the woman, but it seems to me youre saying even if a FWB relationship is emotionally healthy and functional, casual sex should just not be a choice a woman should take. Otherwise what's all that hoo ha about societal implications and shaping yourself as a person and sending messages to men, etc? Come on now. Own up to what you're saying.

I just don't like the implication that a woman is lowering herself to have casual sex, which to me, stems from a fear of an accusation of not being "good enough" for a man. It looks like there's some big issue going on here with women feeling like men need to "choose" them, apparently... I don't subscribe to either of those ideologies. For the record, comments like this:

I think that these conversations are more a reflection of the fact that many women can't get the relationship that they actually want and so are trying to figure out how to get at least a little something in the meantime.

reveal more about you than anyone else. Why do you make this assumption? Why do you assume women want a relationship?

I would advocate for women to approach relationships from a logical standpoint instead of always throwing their emotions over the top, letting it override everything - simply because I don't believe women legitimately have a real emotional attachment to every man they have sex with. Yet 9 times out of 10 women are demanding monogamy and a relationship from every man they have sex with. It seems to me that's just a justification, and the need to disapprove of casual sex is a result of the accompanying cognitive dissonance.

by the way I know based on what you have said, about how what you're saying applies to whom, your comments/criticisms are not directed at me personally, and I am not taking them personally. We're just having a discussion here.

 

[aribell]

@mischka, like I said what I wrote doesn't apply to everyone. If it doesn't reflect your experiences, then it doesn't apply to you. There are a lot of other women reading and you don't have to justify yourself or your experiences. For other women, FWB may be something that they are doing at the moment, but it is not their ideal. Clearly my post would be more relevant to their experience.

It doesn't seem like you are acknowledging the reality of women who don't experience things the way that you do. Your comment that my statement reflects something about me rather than something that might actually be true irl seems to ignore the fact that, well, women all over the place, including this board, are wondering all the time why their guy won't commit, whether they slept with him "too soon," whether they can truly do FWB and "get away with it." The questions wouldn't even come up if women on the whole were comfortable within themselves with casual sexual relationships. And they also indicate that it is often the woman who ends up feeling like she is waiting to be chosen. I didn't say that was good, but it is real.

The problem I have is the moral judgment. @nicole.kirwan, you are trying to present your argument as though you are only concerned for the emotional well being of the woman, but it seems to me youre saying even if a FWB relationship is emotionally healthy and functional, casual sex should just not be a choice a woman should take. Otherwise what's all that hoo ha about societal implications and shaping yourself as a person and sending messages to men, etc? Come on now. Own up to what you're saying.

I just don't like the implication that a woman is lowering herself to have casual sex, which to me, stems from a fear of an accusation of not being "good enough" for a man.

Lots of women are lowering themselves to have casual sex. If a woman gives something that she feels is valuable to someone who doesn't value it, she will feel devalued. This isn't new or extraordinary. Steve Harvey wouldn't be making as much money as he is, there wouldn't be shelves upon shelves of He's Just Not That Into You, The Rules, Why Men Love B**ches, etc, etc. if women weren't obsessed with figuring out how to get what they want out of relationships and from men. There was just this new study put out showing that women in college are sleeping around more while at the same time complaining that they were getting less than they want from their boyfriends with respect to committment. I will post it if I can find it again.

I understand that such an idea is not likeable. But it really has nothing to do with my opinon or anyone else's--or likeability. I'm talking about what's going on in society as a whole, not my own experience or that of any particular woman.

I don't subscribe to either of those ideologies. I would advocate for women to approach relationships from a logical standpoint instead of always throwing their emotions over the top, letting it override everything - simply because I don't believe women legitimately have a real emotional attachment to every man they have sex with. It seems to me that's just a justification, and the need to disapprove of casual sex is a result of the accompanying cognitive dissonance.

Regarding the bolded, first, science tells us clearly that a part of women bonding through sex is purely chemical. That is a biological reality that women can't fabricate. Second, I don't think that anyone can make the judgement that someone's emotional attachment in such a situation isn't "legitimate." If a woman's perception of her body and the act of sex is emotionally significant to her, on what basis is someone going to say that it's not "legitimate"? That seems to be equally as judgmental as people complaining that they're judged for having attachment-free sex.

And that's what I mean when I said that women are being made to feel silly and irrational for according deep significance to sex, like they just need to become more logical about it. Says who? Why, and to what purpose? What's wrong with simply not having casual sex? Why should women be pressured to act against what their own minds and bodies are telling them isn't in their longterm interest?

I don't really have anything to "own up to" regarding what I've posted other than that I don't think that women on the whole have much to gain from forcing themselves to change their own mind about the significance of sex. And I'm quite suspicious of arguments attempting to get women to do so. I feel like I've said this 10x over, but I know there are lots of women who don't attach. What I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with attaching. TBH, I think that the attachment is a perfectly sane response to the implications of sex. There's nothing weird, repressed, silly, or immature about viewing the act of having sex with someone as deeply significant and worth treating as such.

 

[mischka]

@mischka, like I said what I wrote doesn't apply to everyone. If it doesn't reflect your experiences, then it doesn't apply to you.

I know it doesn't apply to me. Does that mean I can't challenge your comments if I think they are fallacious?

It doesn't seem like you are acknowledging the reality of women who don't experience things the way that you do. The questions wouldn't even come up if women on the whole were comfortable within themselves with casual sexual relationships. And they also indicate that it is often the woman who ends up feeling like she is waiting to be chosen. I didn't say that was good, but it is real.

Two things: if my posts seemed to ignore the reality that this is the case for a lot of women, I didn't intend to come across that way. I know a lot of women feel powerless or uncomfortable with their sexual relationships. You win some, you lose some. But: I am addressing the negative moral judgments in your views on casual sex, which appear to be directed to casual sex in general, not just women who fail at it ("societal implications"). And two: I argue for casual sex because I believe if women were able to choose who they have sex with independently of a need to foist emotional attachment, they would have better control of their relationships. These two things stand independently of the reality of failed casual relationships.

Lots of women are lowering themselves to have casual sex. If a woman gives something that she feels is valuable to someone who doesn't value it, she will feel devalued. There was just this new study put out showing that women in college are sleeping around more while at the same time complaining that they were getting less than they want from their boyfriends with respect to committment.

I've read that article. I agree that some women lower themselves to using sex as a bargaining chip but again, you can't use this to make a blanket statement about all women, which includes the ones who want to learn to be more emotionally detached. You said you weren't saying anything was "wrong" or what women "should" do - but the fact that you keep advocating against emotional detachment is obviously a direct contradiction. Some women said they might like to try a more casual relationship - why do you encourage them not to even though they want to? It seems like to me if a woman is saying she WANTS to have a more casual relationship, she wants to be able to date without commitment, right?

Regarding the bolded, first, science tells us clearly that a part of women bonding through sex is purely chemical.

Both men and women, along with most mammals, produce that chemical, which is called oxytocin. Pop psychology would have you believe only women produce it which is a way of reinforcing a patriarchal agenda of keeping women barefoot and pregnant blah blah blah - long story short, biology does not dictate women suffer involuntary attachment to a man because they had sex, no more than a man does. Attachment styles are a psychological concept, not a biological one.

Second, I don't think that anyone can make the judgement that someone's emotional attachment in such a situation isn't "legitimate." If a woman's perception of her body and the act of sex is emotionally significant to her, on what basis is someone going to say that it's not "legitimate"?

On the basis of recognizing "denial" and "rationalization."

That seems to be equally as judgmental as people complaining that they're judged for having attachment-free sex.

Perhaps.

And that's what I mean when I said that women are being made to feel silly and irrational for according deep significance to sex, like they just need to become more logical about it. Says who? Why, and to what purpose? What's wrong with simply not having casual sex? Why should women be pressured to act against what their own minds and bodies are telling them isn't in their longterm interest?

I don't think women should be pressured to have casual sex. But I do think that there should be a dialogue examining why we as women feel that we have to follow special rules when it comes to sex, rules that I feel ultimately subjugate women in favor of men. I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that a woman can have sex simply because she wants to, because the constant reinforcement of sex HAVING TO HAVE SOME DEEPER MEANING reinforces the idea that women aren't sexual beings, period, or shouldn't have/don't need/deserve sex simply for the ske of the pleasure it can bring. Nothing is wrong with not having casual sex. Something is wrong with the idea that you can ONLY have NON-casual sex. Shaming female sexuality reinforces that, since apparently you seem unaware of that fact. My views allow for both to coexist. Yours only allow for your own.

I don't really have anything to "own up to" regarding what I've posted other than that I don't think that women on the whole have much to gain from forcing themselves to change their own mind about the significance of sex.

Ridiculous - and you don't see the outrageous implications of making that crazy assumption.

There's nothing weird, repressed, silly, or immature about viewing the act of having sex with someone as deeply significant and worth treating as such.

It isn't. But that isn't the only way to view sex, and your views don't allow for any other interpretation. I don't have a problem with you holding that view for you personally. My problem is with you shaming and criticizing women who don't want to hold that view, or who want to explore other ways of viewing sex. Who are YOU to tell them they shouldn't? That they're "forcing themselves to change their own mind"? Your views don't apply to me personally in terms of my life and my choices, but the sexism in this same ol' argument is relevant to me as a woman. Ultimately, what you say reinforces a sexist culture that shames women into not exploring sex, and that's what you need to own up to instead of pretending it's for the good of all mankind or something that sex be a religious experience.

Anyway... it's clear you don't see any problem in what you're saying, so I'll agree to disagree.

 

[aribell]

My problem is with you shaming and criticizing women who don't want to hold that view, or who want to explore other ways of viewing sex. Who are YOU to tell them they shouldn't? That they're "forcing themselves to change their own mind"?

I think you're reading to find assumptions and exaggeration. I never once said that women were forcing themselves to change their minds. I said that a woman would not have anything to gain from forcing herself to change her mind. There's a real difference between the two. I don't mind having this conversation, but it's pointless if what is written is continually misread and taken out of context.

And yes, I have clearly said that I would encourage a woman who is trying to learn to detach to stick with her intuition because it's telling her something true. I don't feel the need to apologize or be defensive about that. That neither shames nor criticizes anyone. Is that somehow more strident than your insistence that women would benefit from learning to not attach, or your claims that such attachment is often a "justification" for "cognitive dissonance," and judging the legitimacy of such attachment by "recognizing 'denial' and 'rationalization'"? I don't think your view is as open as you are claiming that it is.

Also, I didn't say sex has to have meaning, I said it does. You are speaking of women "foisting attachment," I'm saying it naturally arises and is OK. Not all ideas can coexist together. The reason I repeatedly said that if it doesn't apply then don't worry about it is that I understand that people have very different worldviews that will lead them to reach different conclusions about such things. Attempting to make people's views mesh with your own leads to the same judgmentality that you are accusing me of. I specifically said that if you don't agree, keep moving, and those who find it beneficial can take it for what it is. I feel no need to argue anyone into agreement with me, or to argue you into a view that will be compatible with mine.

 

[mischka]

This conversation has mostly just made me wanna get laid, tbh.

 

[Honey Bee]

mischka, You've completely described my feelings on this topic. I've had many, many fwb's relationships and I enjoyed them thoroughly. There's a method to it, and I guess I hadn't realized, but I am a bit detached. I look at relationships differently than most, I guess. I never intended for fwb's to become relationships, that was the whole point: to sleep with a guy without being publicly attached to him. I went to boarding school and was involved in my hometown's private school scene, there were too many options and not enough time.

Brittster, Unpopular opinion alert: I cosign your desire to become detached. Not to 'sleep around' or whatever, but just because, one cannot expect marriage as a result of every roll in the hay. I know you don't, I'm just saying, all this talk of chemical responses and such makes it sound like we don't have a choice and we absolutely do. You can 'test-drive' a potential and find him lacking, it's okay, don't start spurting oxytocin, keep your wits about you.

In response to the op,

Is the whole “friends with benefits” concept doomed from the start with problems with fidelity? Unplanned pregnancy? Hurt feelings? Unfulfilled expectations? Only if you let it. I never got pregnant and I never got any std's and I was really doing the most. You just have to be prepared for any possibility. I'm a planner by nature, so I always carried a kit of sorts, but if you're not a planner, it's not for you. :shrug: Same thing for feelings. Why would I get caught up emotionally with a guy I'm just messing with? That doesn't make sense. I remember in college, I had a 'friend' and we had established the boundaries off the bat. He was a senior and I was freshman so he thought I wouldn't be able to deal with it. By the time he graduated, he was trynna wife me up! (I'm talking about one of those 'good black men', Ivy-educated, etc) Very politely, I had to decline. He wasn't black American.

Or does this type of “arrangement” lead to healthy “relationship outlook” for both parties - men or women. I actually agree with this, I do think my outlook was healthier. Like I said in another thread, I had an extensive list of requirements for my FH and being able to isolate 'sex-related feelings' helped me stick to my on-paper req's. It's easy to get swayed by a dude with good d* game, a girl naturally needs to build her defenses. Otherwise, you end up with sub-par 'baby fathers' and women distracted from their original goals.

 

[mischka]

Not to 'sleep around' or whatever

People equate "casual sex" with "random indiscriminate sex" and they are two different things.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

STD's can happen in a so called committed relationship. A husband can have a million other "buddies" Not attacking your Luckiestdestiny, but I don't like sweeping assumptions like that.

Hey ThickHair, I realize you're not attacking me. I actually see your point and actually made the same point in my post. I wasn't trying to make sweeping assumptions which is why I said "could" as an example because you're not even committed. He "could" change women as he changes socks, or not, but you don't know because you can't ask or demand or assume anything. You're just there to get your freak on. It's kinda like swinger parties, just without the party...how do you know who else is revolving around his pole especially in an environment where it's already encouraged to have sex with not strings attached, versus one where commitment is at least encouraged? No judgments about commitment versus no strings, but I think it's not the same type of risk (std wise).

AND he has not even promised to stay true to only you so you can be sure that there is a dynamic already that encourages just getting off with other people possibly more so then if you picked a guy who is say your best friend for years and you know them inside and out and this person is the faithful type. Whom you already know their behavior with other women, and now you're getting married, so you already know for the most part what to expect. Now could they slip? Sure...but less likely Versus a guy whose a "friend" but is seeing others and fine with a "buddy" situation as it frees him up to see others too.

BUT I understand where you're coming from ThickHair. There are no guarantees in life. Still though (as an analogy for risk of stds):
I can cross the street and look both ways, or do it with my eyes closed. One is going to allow for more possibilities of getting hit. Can I make a mistake and misjudge and get hit by a car (similar to picking the wrong guy to marry and getting an std as he cheats) sure, but to me that's different then crossing with my eyes closed (no strings attached sex w/ a partner who I do not know their sexual history/behavior nor can I ask) and saying I'm free from getting hit(using that to say I'm freer from the likelihood of stds). Both require risk but one requires more risk than the other and that's what I'm getting at. That was my only concern. The rest is just individual opinions about if friends with benefits is for them or not (and that's why I threw in my two cents about me)...and even that opinion I can't judge. Everyone should follow their own heart.

I'm not judging the behavior just the thought that you're freer from stds when you're really at a higher risk. I think people shouldn't stick there head in the sand when it comes to that is all. I did say that you don't even know in a committed relationship so how can you know with a random dude whose a "buddy" that was my point really.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

Why is it wrong for them to want to be able to separate sex from emotional attachment though? That is a very slippery slope into the argument that you should not experience sex unless you are in love - is that what you're really saying?

I know this wasn't directed at me but I can only speak for myself and that's what I did earlier. Meaning I want to be in love. someone else can want to be in lust, or stand on their head for all I care. what I do has nothing to do with others. And vice versa. My only concern was the idea that f buddies gives you a relationship that's free from std's and that's delusional. It makes you more susceptible than a committed relationship (if you're picking guys right, and sometimes we can all make a mistake but I know there are some guys out there who are committed and don't cheat.). I think that was my only issue. If she said f buddies equal getting your freak on yay! Fun for all, I'd be like whatever because that's her beliefs and she's entitled to it. BUT to be like: freedom from std's

If I go to a club every night and have sex with a new guy (and condoms aren't 100 percent) versus being in a committed relationship...which one is high risk? I'm not going to say oh I'm free from std's as I go from guy to guy. I'll know that ish is high risk. Well I'm saying with a f buddy, you're doing something similar because the guy could be at the club every night, or with other f buddies, or just you (flip a coin because who knows nor is he committed nor can you ask about his sexual behavior).

That was my only point. This is not about love versus sex or whatever. This is about risk assessment (and that was my point) in the middle of that I did throw in speal about my beliefs just as everyone else is about theirs. And it is what it is.

 

[mischka]

That was my only point. This is not about love versus sex or whatever. This is about risk assessment (and that was my point)

Is it? I assumed any moron would realize that more partners equals greater risk of STDs and that anyone interested in having casual sex would understand the need to ensure protection. That's why I didn't bother addressing that point because I figured it was a foregone conclusion. I don't know how or why anyone would think a non-monogamous relationship could somewhat mean fewer risk of STDs.

 

[Sosoothing]

In my case, Im not even sure that I would have called everyone of my FWBs "friends". A couple I can think of, we simply were "sex friends" I guess. We never hung out and did other social activites. We simply got together when we wanted to have sex with each other. That was all it was. No chit chatting before or afterwards, no cuddling, no dinners etc. At the time I wasn't interested in having a relationship. But I did want to have sex.

The other guy was a friend to whom I was physically attracted. He ended up deciding he was in love with me, but I didn't feel the same way. I just wanted to keep having sex but we couldn't continue because he wanted a relationship after a while.

In my case, the was no chance for hurt feelings or unfulfilled expectations because I didn't expect anything more than sex from my FWB.

I don't think it affects my outlook on a good or healthy relationship. I was at a point where I didn't want to settle down with anyone or have a relationship. I still however wanted to enjoy the company of a man.

ETA: I have never been one to get attached easily when it comes to emotions. We all have different personalities and this is part of what makes me. I really can't tell you any other way how I was able to have FWB and not develop feelings for them. Interestingly enough all my FWB developed feelings and wanted a relationship.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

Is it? I assumed any moron would realize that more partners equals greater risk of STDs and that anyone interested in having casual sex would understand the need to ensure protection. That's why I didn't bother addressing that point because I figured it was a foregone conclusion. I don't know how or why anyone would think a non-monogamous relationship could somewhat mean fewer risk of STDs.

I assume so too but then op opened with "freedom" from std's(one of her friend's reasons) which is the only reason I even started typing in the first place. Usually lately I read a thread and KIM. I almost fell outta my seat.

I would think it was a given and quite obvious but again I was going by the open breakdown of the friend which did not make that assumption, and what I assume isn't necessarily what others think.

 

[jwhitley6]

Well.....First off, I think there is a difference between f*@% buddies and Friends with Benefits. If someone is a true friend, a sexual relationship with them may not be a problem. I think issues arise when folks who really aren't friends to begin with just want sex for selfish reasons or in hopes of winning the other persons affections.

True FWB know that they are not romantically the best fit, but they care for each other and enjoy each other's company. Sexual gratification with someone you trust is then truly a benefit. JMHO...I'm not condoning, promoting or anything.

 

[Ladybelle]

If FWB means: he pays my mortgage,keeps my car clean, keeps my hair & nails done, and cuts the grass just to name a few of the "benefits" I expect, then sure. But, other than that it is of no "benefit" to me to give my goodies away to someone who is just getting the goodies. On top of all of that, the sex must be absolutely amazing or else it's a waste of time and sin.

If we want to make this a moral conversation, then I will say a "FWB" relationship is certainly not the Godly thing to do based on MY beliefs and it would be best to save oneself for marriage.

I think I'm too old for all of that now. I would much rather have a serious relationship/marriage than have to deal with all the drama.

 

[MzLady78]

Damn, y'all writing dissertations up in here.

 

[Ladybelle]

^^^ You right though.

 

[nathansgirl1908]

"Friends with benefits" is the new term for p-r-o-m-i-s-c-u-i-t-y.


And someone almost always falls for the other person which leads to disaster.

 

[LoveisYou]

I don't view sex as a purely physical action, so it's hard for me to even fathom detachment in any form of sexual relationship.

 

[anon123]

Is FWB a Facebook status? (bad non-contributor )

 

[mischka]

Damn, y'all writing dissertations up in here.

Any subject can be discussed intelligently if one is capable.

 

[WhipEffectz1]

Damn, y'all writing dissertations up in here.

And you know I'm not reading no angelic/encyclopedia /L7 posts about how one should not occasionally enjoy a pre-marital roll in the hay. Just not happening. lmao!!!!

 

[MzLady78]

Any subject can be discussed intelligently if one is capable.

Yes, I'm aware of that, thanks.

 

[MzLady78]

And you know I'm not reading no angelic/encyclopedia /L7 posts about how one should not occasionally enjoy a pre-marital roll in the hay. Just not happening. lmao!!!!

That's what I was getting at, I didn't foresee this particular topic eliciting such posts. Some good points are being made, though.

 

[caligirl]

I would be so hurt if a guy only called me up every couple of months for sex =(