FWBs and Brave New World

[northern_sky]

There was a time when I thought FWBs might have some appeal. That was before I actually tried them out. As somebody who is rarely offended, I'm disturbed by how ubiquitous they've become in our society.

 

I'm reminded of the commodification of sex in Brave New World. For those who haven't read the book, it portrays a dystopia where love is foreign and citizens are encouraged to engage in commitment-less sex. Is this what the future holds?

 

In my experience there are two possible outcomes of a FWB. I don't get hurt because I don't respect/like the other person to begin with, but then I start to get disgusted with both of us. I get hurt because I genuinely like the other person or I start to like them. I don't think it's possible to fully like and respect somebody and derive pleasure from a FWB, unless your compartmentalization abilities are so superb that you have to turn in your human card.

 

At this point I lose respect for anybody over college age who genuinely desires regular casual sex over a relationship, unless it's a very, and I mean VERY, passing phase. I think half the women who go for this really want a relationship but are settling. The other half just tend to be screwy. And they ruin things for other women, because they make guys feel like they have an endless supply of loose women at their disposal and therefore no need to settle down.

 

I can sort of understand the appeal in an occasional one night stand, but an attenuated version of that just seems...inhuman to me.

 

Thoughts?

Edited November 1, 2010 by northern_sky

[Disillusioned]

Personally, I think most people who live that lifestyle have either become addicted to sex like a junkie to heroin, or else they're just trying to maintain an illusion that they're having a better time than everyone else.

[harmfulsweetz]

I half-agree, and half-disagree. People engage in casual sex for various reasons, and sure, most end in disaster, but if you can both keep your heads, and wits about you, it's ok.

 

The times people mostly get hurt is when they do it because they think they can't get any better, they settle for less because that's all they think they deserve. They have a negative opinion of themselves and this transpires through their actions. They don't want an fwb-but for the time it happens, it makes them feel valued (even if only a superficial way) and desired. It's not the FWB situation that is hurting them though-it's their own self-image and self-esteem. They want more, but believe they can't get more, settle for less, and con themselves into believing it's what they want. I know that feeling a little too well.

 

In the past, I used to just go with whatever the guy wanted, thinking I'd rather have that than nothing at all. Truth is, that wasn't 'me' talking-that was my poor self-image taking control. Nothing damages a person with low self-esteem more than doing this to yourself. It's self-destructive.

 

Now, I don't have such a poor outlook on myself. I'm not saying I can compartmentalize things brilliantly, I can't. I just have a greater understanding of what sex actually is, and what it means for people. Sex doesn't equal love, and love doesn't equal sex.

 

I think problems actually occur in FWBs when they take the 'friend' part too literally-they spend time outside of sex with the person, get to know them, naturally emotions develop and things get confused. Keep it about sex. When you're not having it, you're talking about it, etc. People think that being in an fwb does mean that you're either screwy/skanky or the woman wants more but can't get it. Everyone would rather be seen as the latter. But that isn't the case.

 

Sometimes relationships aren't convenient, and the woman/man doesn't want one, but they still want sex. I don't see finding someone who wants the same thing as being inhuman-it's far better than going into a relationship knowing you don't really have time for/want one. As long as both parties are practising safe sex, and honest with each other there's no harm in it.

[sanskrit]

Agree with OP. A woman with a few ONS or a period of promiscuity during college? NBD. A woman who institutionalizes her promiscuity with terms like FWB and F-buddy? no thanks. I think we are headed to a Brave New World environment where sex is concerned with an underclass of sexual/relationship/love addicts and a more stable, mature base of relationship seeking people. The divide between these two groups will broaden.

[sanskrit]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman having sex with whoever she wants, whenever she wants.

 

The more women who feel this way, the better the odds to get to have sex with one of them.

 

Have a look at the declining marriage rate, the increasing divorce rate or the % of single parent households recently? Guess those are unrelated negative social phenomena?

[northern_sky]

Agree with OP. A woman with a few ONS or a period of promiscuity during college? NBD. A woman who institutionalizes her promiscuity with terms like FWB and F-buddy? no thanks. I think we are headed to a Brave New World environment where sex is concerned with an underclass of sexual/relationship/love addicts and a more stable, mature base of relationship seeking people. The divide between these two groups will broaden.

 

I agree, but we shouldn't downplay the male role in this phenomenon either. Both genders are guilty. I also think there are fewer women who genuinely enjoy FWBs, just because of how women are wired.

 

In BNW the "free love" or rather free sex culture runs across class lines. This is true in our society as well.

[sanskrit]

I agree, but we shouldn't downplay the male role in this phenomenon either.

 

I don't downplay it, but have no experience dating or having sex with men, and am well-known as posting here that the differences in the ways men and women seek and obtain sex is apples/oranges so there is no double standard. Don't want to derail this into that particular double standard or lack of one though.

[northern_sky]

I half-agree, and half-disagree. People engage in casual sex for various reasons, and sure, most end in disaster, but if you can both keep your heads, and wits about you, it's ok.

 

Sure, but the reality is that the vast majority of people can't, unless in very small doses like ONS's. And I think almost anybody who can engaged in long term FWBs has issues.

 

The times people mostly get hurt is when they do it because they think they can't get any better, they settle for less because that's all they think they deserve. They have a negative opinion of themselves and this transpires through their actions. They don't want an fwb-but for the time it happens, it makes them feel valued (even if only a superficial way) and desired. It's not the FWB situation that is hurting them though-it's their own self-image and self-esteem. They want more, but believe they can't get more, settle for less, and con themselves into believing it's what they want. I know that feeling a little too well.

 

In the past, I used to just go with whatever the guy wanted, thinking I'd rather have that than nothing at all. Truth is, that wasn't 'me' talking-that was my poor self-image taking control. Nothing damages a person with low self-esteem more than doing this to yourself. It's self-destructive.

 

Now, I don't have such a poor outlook on myself. I'm not saying I can compartmentalize things brilliantly, I can't. I just have a greater understanding of what sex actually is, and what it means for people. Sex doesn't equal love, and love doesn't equal sex.

I agree that many people (mostly women) rationalize that they want FWBs. Based on what you've related here, I honestly don't believe you personally CAN compartmentalize sex with a regular partner. Especially given what you said about feeling used by guys in the past. If that's the way you fundamentally are (and there's nothing wrong with that), it doesn't change no matter how you try to spin it in your mind. So if you're saying that you're OK with FWBs now, I think you're probably rationalizing. I hope that doesn't come off as accusatory; it's just my take.

 

 

I think problems actually occur in FWBs when they take the 'friend' part too literally-they spend time outside of sex with the person, get to know them, naturally emotions develop and things get confused. Keep it about sex. When you're not having it, you're talking about it, etc. People think that being in an fwb does mean that you're either screwy/skanky or the woman wants more but can't get it. Everyone would rather be seen as the latter. But that isn't the case.

 

I have yet to see any evidence otherwise in regards to the screwy/skanky/self-deluded generalization.

 

 

Sometimes relationships aren't convenient, and the woman/man doesn't want one, but they still want sex. I don't see finding someone who wants the same thing as being inhuman-it's far better than going into a relationship knowing you don't really have time for/want one.

 

To me this is entirely icky, because you ARE dehumanizing the other person and treating them like a piece of meat, even if they are a willing piece of meat. (The "it's consensual" rationalization always feels like a cop out to me. Doesn't make it any less gross.) As I said, I can sort of understand the appeal in a ONS or even short fling.

 

But screwing the same person routinely with no emotions attached creeps me the f%5$ out, because it's cold-blooded rather than a burst of passion.

 

It's inevitable that you'll get to know the other person over time. Their personality will seep into the sex and any small interactions you have.

 

People form attachments over time unless they're emotionally screwed up.

 

As long as both parties are practising safe sex, and honest with each other there's no harm in it.

No, no harm in it but people using other people or letting themselves be used and convincing themselves it's what they want.

[EasyHeart]

Countdown to someone diagnosing Major Issue's Madonna/Whore Complex.

[sanskrit]

Wait, I think Madonna is kind of a whore.

[welikeincrowds]

You should be careful with this comparison.

 

As I recall, Brave New World was a critique of hedonism in the human condition as a weakness, capable of being exploited by society in order to affect total control over individual body and spirit. In BNW, the society had progressed such that if a citizen did not surrender to his hedonism under typical conditioning, he would be actively punished until he did so. The ultimate argument is that hedonism is not a means for freedom, but enslavement.

 

It is true we wouldn't have terms like "**** buddy" if it weren't for the free love movements over the past 2 centuries, particularly the sexual revolution of the 60s. So if there's anywhere to look for more insight, it's there.

 

"Free love" was so named for a reason; it did claim freedoms for women men. Previously, Western society had much more direct control over (women's) bodies. You were either married or a whore. Marriages were arranged by the families, involved financial investment from both parties, and were recognized by the state; liaisons were arranged by the madame, involved financial investment from at least one party, and were recognized by the brothel. Both were (social) contracts, existing outside the body and the will. Those were the only pathways for women -- that, or be celibate, and to be unmarried for too long also came with its own punishment. To have sex outside these arrangements was to have an affair -- to act outside the will of the society and to avoid its surveillance while doing so. This is tangible societal control. This is what free love sought to untangle from the personal experience of body and spirit. From outside -- society -- to inside -- the body.

 

There is no doubt that there is the other direction, the side of the free love vector that points too deeply into the personal, engulfing one in egocentrism. Still, that is an ugliness that necessarily happens on the level of the individual. The only way it represents the whole is that we are all capable of it -- which is a key to Huxley's argument. But what I do not see is the evidence of a society has willed its way all the way back around, as in BNW, unto ironically regained top-down control. **** buddies are still a choice, as is marriage, as are LTRs without contract or jewelry. Instead I see a society under which people are more free to make poor choices, which is a society I much prefer.

[EasyHeart]

K, let's stay on topic. I can see this devolving into meaningless banter.

Ummmm. . . You do realize that there's already a 50+ page thread on this same topic, right?

[sanskrit]

Obviously, you are insecure and have a small penis.

 

Yes, and also very bitter.

 

OP, we live in the most sexually permissive age in history due to the advent of birth control. It has added much freedom to our lives, yet been a curse in some definite ways also.

 

It will be interesting to see which trend will win, towards broken, single parent households or towards more stable couples who carefully plan their offspring to the extent possible. Saying again, underclass-overclass is my prediction.

[northern_sky]

Ummmm. . . You do realize that there's already a 50+ page thread on this same topic, right?

 

the only connection between both threads is they're both about FWB relationships. The thread you're referring to is about whether men hold it against women who have a past of FWBs. Mine is a broader perspective on the predominance of FWBs as a societal trend.

[EasyHeart]

I was teasing you because of the tendency by some posters on this forum to respond to a man's distinguishing between women you date and women you marry (my terms) with either a diagnosis of mental illness or a condescending lecture about double-standards (often accompanied by references to 16th century property laws).

[EasyHeart]

the only connection between both threads is they're both about FWB relationships. The thread you're referring to is about whether men hold it against women who have a past of FWBs. Mine is a broader perspective on the predominance of FWBs as a societal trend.

My apologies. I will endeavor to stay on topic in the future.

[Anela]

Countdown to someone diagnosing Major Issue's Madonna/Whore Complex.

 

Because he would jump at the chance to use a promiscuous woman, but would then look down his nose at the same woman, as a potential girlfriend? I think that's what I'd call a douche... and so many men are this way. A promiscuous man is a turn-off for me.

 

I think a lot of women want to be like a girl I know: both the mistress and the wife, in a relationship. Not seen as the dutiful little wife, who doesn't do much in the bedroom. Her husband adores her, and is faithful to her - she's faithful to him as well, declaring herself as "his", even though she has men falling all over her. They literally fall in love with her, and she has to tell them to back off.

[welikeincrowds]

Oh ****, I thought this was supposed to be about hedonism and Brave New World. I guess it's just a "is that a low-grade chic" part 2? Oh well :'(

[sumdude]

I've never been in an arranged FWB. Though in one relationship she did try to bring up the FWB idea of seeing other guys as well to which I replied.

 

"I'm a serial monogamist. As long as were sexually involved it's exclusive or it's over."

 

So if there's an exclusive friend with benefits arrangement.. well then she's my girlfriend. I mean, she's a girl and she's my friend and there are 'benefits'.

 

So sometimes I wonder what the ruckus about an FWB unless it's situation where someone is regularly having sex with multiple people which I'm just not into. Wasn't the way I was raised. I came from a stable though often dysfunctional family unit. Not saying it makes me better but it made me who I am.

[flying]

But what I do not see is the evidence of a society has willed its way all the way back around, as in BNW, unto ironically regained top-down control. **** buddies are still a choice, as is marriage, as are LTRs without contract or jewelry. Instead I see a society under which people are more free to make poor choices, which is a society I much prefer.

 

Agreed.

 

On a related note, wasn't the hallucinogenic drug soma part of the way that the government maintained its control over the people?

 

Not to take the comparison too far, but I think that the fact that Huxley envisioned the necessity for such an aid to maintain the people in a state of uncaring search for hedonistic pleasure indicates something about whether he considered it to be a natural human condition.

[harmfulsweetz]

Sure, but the reality is that the vast majority of people can't, unless in very small doses like ONS's. And I think almost anybody who can engaged in long term FWBs has issues.

 

I agree that many people (mostly women) rationalize that they want FWBs. Based on what you've related here, I honestly don't believe you personally CAN compartmentalize sex with a regular partner. Especially given what you said about feeling used by guys in the past. If that's the way you fundamentally are (and there's nothing wrong with that), it doesn't change no matter how you try to spin it in your mind. So if you're saying that you're OK with FWBs now, I think you're probably rationalizing. I hope that doesn't come off as accusatory; it's just my take.

 

I have yet to see any evidence otherwise in regards to the screwy/skanky/self-deluded generalization.

 

 

To me this is entirely icky, because you ARE dehumanizing the other person and treating them like a piece of meat, even if they are a willing piece of meat. (The "it's consensual" rationalization always feels like a cop out to me. Doesn't make it any less gross.) As I said, I can sort of understand the appeal in a ONS or even short fling.

 

But screwing the same person routinely with no emotions attached creeps me the f%5$ out, because it's cold-blooded rather than a burst of passion.

 

It's inevitable that you'll get to know the other person over time. Their personality will seep into the sex and any small interactions you have.

 

People form attachments over time unless they're emotionally screwed up.

 

No, no harm in it but people using other people or letting themselves be used and convincing themselves it's what they want.

 

 

The thing with the mindset you have is that you are looking at it as a way too negative a situation. It isn't. If both people want the same thing, and are willing, it's not using in the degrading way. Using someone to me signifies one party taking what they want, while the other doesn't get everything they want i.e. taking advantage of a situation.

 

By compartmentalizing I meant that I had once illusions that sex and love are the same thing, they aren't. I was 16/17 at the time-so read into that what you will. I now know they aren't, and so am more apt to handle situations. Most women would take an R over an FWB anyday. That is most, not all. I know a few women who can have sex without any attachment whatsoever-go figure, and I think it's a confidence thing. They are so confident that all they want is sex, and have no illusions as to what it may lead to, that they successfully have FWBs.

 

The self-esteem thing plays into things more than developing feelings for a person will-most people get hurt because they have a weak self-image, and so they put themselves down for it, and make themselves feel worse. It's not the situation, it's the outlook and perception. Women are so often told that 'sex is dirty', etc while growing up and made to feel embarrassed and shy about it, not to mention ashamed. So a lot of women do not know how to handle situations such as these with confidence.

 

There's no right or wrong way, some people succeed with them others don't. Simple as really.

[Billzebub]

That's what I took away from Brave New World also. Don't get me wrong, I've had a few flings, but overall I believe if sex was given as freely as it was in that book, we'd tire of it as a release/fun thing to do. We'd probably resort to dropping out just like the characters in the book.

[deebeechrisyo]

I've been in one... it was earlier this year actually. I explained beforehand that I didn't want a relationship and she was fine with it, but I know that she wanted more. I felt terrible after because I ended up hurting her.

 

At the same time, the sex felt great, but so does masturbation. Really, the only difference between un-emotionless sex and masturbating is society rewards men for one and shames the other. I won't ever do the FWB thing again.

[flying]

Really, the only difference between un-emotionless sex and masturbating is society rewards men for one and shames the other. I won't ever do the FWB thing again.

 

Which begs the question...was masturbation depicted in Brave New World somehow, positively or negatively? I honestly can't remember.