Ah, modern dating -- and FWB

[zengirl]

Terminal mate? God, that sounds like a death sentence! A friend with benefits sure sounds a lot more appealing than a TERMINAL MATE.

 

Eh, I like it better than life partner, so I started adopting if for the anti-marriage-just-live-together-forever crowd.

 

I think you first brought up the argument that seeking a chemical reaction blocks you from intimacy and bonding. And I'm saying that there's an implicit judgment in that. You're saying that intimacy and bonding are superior to chemical reactions.

 

I'm saying that intimacy and bonding are more helpful in building a successful long-term relationship than chemical reactions. That's my opinion. It's not meant to be "an air of superiority." I don't judge people who have FWBs (as friends and people and such---I would judge them as romantic partners, but I don't date women so it doesn't matter to me one bit if a woman does it; and anyway that's no different than any other way of judging romantic partners, and you have quite a list yourself, right? We all do) and have said so many times, as long as they're honest. I think what you're doing is fine, but you responded to me a long time ago in this thread that you want a LTR and to me getting a LTR and participating in a FWB seems contrary. Again, just my opinion, and feel free to prove me wrong! I've no dog in this fight. I wish everyone who wants one a happy LTR.

 

I'm saying that it's really all the same thing.

 

Well, that's where we disagree. If you rely on chemical reactions to build the foundation of your love, it WILL fall apart 9 out of 10 times. Chemical reactions just cannot sustain love enough. They smooth the way at the beginning, but you have to be above them to a degree to get anywhere.

 

Though I'm not really sure why my disagreement bothers you so.

[Ruby Slippers]

I'd be down for said pics.

If you promise to keep them to yourself, I'll send you some.

 

Outside of that, it doesn't seem to add up to me. There are plenty of smart, financially-independent guys out there.

Here are some examples of the deal-breaker issues that my single friends and I have encountered over the past few years:

 

- Lifelong depression, taking medication for it

- Trouble keeping a job

- Living with parents/grandparents, unemployed

- Serious anger issues that came up out of nowhere about a year into the relationship

- Serious emotional/crazy-making issues

- Crippling insecurities on their part that tore down an otherwise good relationship

- "You're too good for me and can find someone better" messages from the guys, over and over

 

It's hard to be objective about myself, but I can definitely say of at least a couple of my friends that they are gorgeous, successful, loving, hardworking, all-around awesome women.

[Ruby Slippers]

Well, that's where we disagree. If you rely on chemical reactions to build the foundation of your love, it WILL fall apart 9 out of 10 times. Chemical reactions just cannot sustain love enough.

I'm not trying to build love with an FWB. I'm trying to have some fun and good times, for both of us, until we both find someone we want to love and who wants to love us.

 

If someone wants to exclude me because I sought human companionship during a love drought, that's his business.

[zengirl]

I'm not trying to build love with an FWB.

 

I never thought you were. Not sure how that was unclear.

 

And, as I said, my point wasn't so much about men excluding you for it as I have to wonder if the psychology of seeking a FWB doesn't go with the ultimate psychology for easily finding a good LTR. (I don't know, of course, as I said many times---just put forth a premise.) So not sure why you twisted my points around. . . .

[VertexSquared]

Well, that's where we disagree. If you rely on chemical reactions to build the foundation of your love, it WILL fall apart 9 out of 10 times. Chemical reactions just cannot sustain love enough. They smooth the way at the beginning, but you have to be above them to a degree to get anywhere.

 

Though I'm not really sure why my disagreement bothers you so.

 

For one thing, everything in our brains is basically an electrochemical reaction, so I am not sure what use there is to be had in saying we must be "above the chemicals." Clearly the impetus in your argument is one of listening to different impulses -- ones of pragmatic stability over utility. I dare say this is a poor way to tackle love.

 

You don't have to sacrifice the chemicals to find a stable love. Sure, if you approach things from a base level of physical attraction alone, that variable by itself isn't sufficient in justifying other metrics required for stability such as honest character traits, ability to support, financial strength, intellectual compatibility, personality mesh, and all that jazz.

 

We all have various needs ranging from the sexual to the intellectual to the emotional, and there's no problem looking in different realms to have each need fulfilled if we don't have the luxury of synergizing the entire package from one person if we have yet to come across them.

[Ruby Slippers]

I never thought you were. Not sure how that was unclear.

 

And, as I said, my point wasn't so much about men excluding you for it as I have to wonder if the psychology of seeking a FWB doesn't go with the ultimate psychology for easily finding a good LTR. (I don't know, of course, as I said many times---just put forth a premise.) So not sure why you twisted my points around. . . .

You obviously have a deep need to be RIGHT.

 

So here you go: YOU'RE RIGHT!

[Ruby Slippers]

We all have various needs ranging from the sexual to the intellectual to the emotional, and there's no problem looking in different realms to have each need fulfilled if we don't have the luxury of synergizing the entire package from one person if we have yet to come across them.

Well stated.

[zengirl]

You obviously have a deep need to be RIGHT.

 

So here you go: YOU'RE RIGHT!

 

Huh? I just have a deep need not to have my points misconstrued/misunderstood.

 

I'm not even sure I'm right, so not trying to convince you of it.

[VertexSquared]

If you promise to keep them to yourself, I'll send you some.

 

Sure thing!

 

Here are some examples of the deal-breaker issues that my single friends and I have encountered over the past few years:

 

- Lifelong depression, taking medication for it

- Trouble keeping a job

- Living with parents/grandparents, unemployed

- Serious anger issues that came up out of nowhere about a year into the relationship

- Serious emotional/crazy-making issues

- Crippling insecurities on their part that tore down an otherwise good relationship

- "You're too good for me and can find someone better" messages from the guys, over and over

 

It's hard to be objective about myself, but I can definitely say of at least a couple of my friends that they are gorgeous, successful, loving, hardworking, all-around awesome women.

 

If what you're saying is true, then I must ask where you're looking for potential LTR's. I'm a bit younger than you at 24, but I'd consider myself a financially-stable, intelligent guy (albeit with hints of a dark past, which I know you've related to in some of my older threads) who has many likeminded, creative friends... and I can safely say that none of these issues listed plague this particular group (and I do have friends who are ten years older than me). We're all in stable, happy relationships free from drama and I think it's been the result of looking in the right places and not settling for anything less than what we really want.

 

So the problem may simply be one of looking in the wrong places, as simple and potentially naive as that sounds.

[zengirl]

For one thing, everything in our brains is basically an electrochemical reaction, so I am not sure what use there is to be had in saying we must be "above the chemicals." Clearly the impetus in your argument is one of listening to different impulses -- ones of pragmatic stability over utility. I dare say this is a poor way to tackle love.

 

You don't have to sacrifice the chemicals to find a stable love. Sure, if you approach things from a base level of physical attraction alone, that variable by itself isn't sufficient in justifying other metrics required for stability such as honest character traits, ability to support, financial strength, intellectual compatibility, personality mesh, and all that jazz.

 

We all have various needs ranging from the sexual to the intellectual to the emotional, and there's no problem looking in different realms to have each need fulfilled if we don't have the luxury of synergizing the entire package from one person if we have yet to come across them.

 

To the bolded: Oh, I would never say you do. My point was more what you say later---that utilizing chemical reactions alone as a springboard for love is a poor idea. I believe one needs chemistry certainly. But by "above the chemicals" I mean making the relationship about much more than the love drug reaction. Which was a specific aside based on something the OP said about "being a slave to chemicals."

 

And I'm not about "right" and "wrong" on this; from my POV, I was positing a theory (FWBs are not effective in and are in fact destructive to the process of finding a LTR). I don't really know why it became a whole big thing. I didn't intend to attack the OP, as I said many times. I am fine with anyone doing whatever they want or works for them. Maybe the OP will find a FWB tomorrow and a LTR the day after and prove my theory wrong for all I know.

[OliveOyl]

I'm not worried about this. I think I approach FWB differently than most people, and I'm fine with that. I don't really do anything casually, and that includes FWB. My last FWB was someone too immature to be my boyfriend, but who had plenty of qualities that made him a great hangout and sex partner. It was never a wham bam thank you sir deal for me. It was basically like we were dating, just without going on dates or binding ourselves to any commitments beyond being honest with each other. We talked about everything in depth, cooked dinner together, watched movies, listened to music, cuddled, kissed and made out, and had great sex.

 

I would never choose an FWB partner that I didn't really like and feel attracted to. The guy I chose last time, and the one I am discussing in this thread, only fall short of being relationship material for a couple of reasons, and they aren't reasons that are too out there. In fact, they are irrelevant when we are just hanging out. So, they're 90% boyfriend material, but that last 10% or so is deal breaker stuff. I like this guy a lot, and think I would love hanging out and having sex with him -- but I do think I can find a better match for long term, as can he. And I've told him why, and he says he understands.

I think you should hold off for the full relationship you want, OR go for a "short term relationship" knowing that it probably won't lead to living together or marriage. What you're describing here isn't really a FWB.

 

But the main reason I think you should hold off for the whole package is what I call the "vacuum effect" which others, like ZenGirl, have mentioned in this post. Creating a vacuum kind of helps motivate and guide you to what you want faster, in my opinion. As long as someone is filling 90% of your needs then the motivation to find the 100% will be watered down.

 

Before I met my current BF, I was casually flirting with a guy online for a short time. There was no way it would lead to anything, but it filled a small component of my social needs. I realized that it was dragging me down and I cut off all contact with this guy. I had created a vacuum and it was scary; there was no fallback, nothing. However a few weeks later I met my now BF. It's that kind of thing I'm talking about. I just wouldn't have been as receptive if my energy was spread out with one or more other guys.

 

The other thing is, even if you don't think it's going to end up in marriage (if that's your long term goal)... you never know... There's you, there's the guy, and there's that third element, the relationship, the alchemy between you two. Sometimes that can be very transformative. Maybe the guy will change... maybe that 10% will turn into 5% and the other 5% will become a non-issue.

 

I wouldn't go into a relationship expecting people to change or improve or update. I would accept them as they were. If it really is a deal-breaker then just move on. But I'd rather go into a full relationship even if it only seems to be 90% and determine whether that 90% is a firm 90%, instead of keeping one foot in, one foot out.

 

Not sure if this makes any sense. But since you have stated a desire for a real relationship, actively looking for a FWB is essentially saying it's okay to settle. Is it?

[VertexSquared]

To the bolded: Oh, I would never say you do. My point was more what you say later---that utilizing chemical reactions alone as a springboard for love is a poor idea. I believe one needs chemistry certainly. But by "above the chemicals" I mean making the relationship about much more than the love drug reaction. Which was a specific aside based on something the OP said about "being a slave to chemicals."

 

And I'm not about "right" and "wrong" on this; from my POV, I was positing a theory (FWBs are not effective in and are in fact destructive to the process of finding a LTR). I don't really know why it became a whole big thing. I didn't intend to attack the OP, as I said many times. I am fine with anyone doing whatever they want or works for them. Maybe the OP will find a FWB tomorrow and a LTR the day after and prove my theory wrong for all I know.

 

Well I think it's clear that with each FWB I've heard Ruby speak about, she's typically pretty firm in her stance that a lot of these guys aren't boyfriend material. If they actually were, truly, I'm sure she'd be trying for something more than FWB.

 

But how can FWB be destructive to finding a LTR here? Clearly it's much harder to find a good LTR than it is to find a good FWB because the requirements aren't as strict, so I see no problem with using FWBs to fulfill sexual needs until you manage to come across someone who is suitable for a LTR.

 

I mean, the places I'd look for FWB's and LTR's would be different -- so for me, the only way I could see FWB's being a problem is if I stopped looking through my "LTR channels" because I was spending so much time with FWB's, even if what I really wanted was an LTR. The problem is just one of managing time and not so much one of the nature of FWB's, standalone. But from what I can see, here, Ruby isn't cutting off all options unless I've misread somewhere.

 

Of course, being totally honest in a FWB situation goes a long way.

Edited July 20, 2011 by VertexSquared

[zengirl]

Well I think it's clear that with each FWB I've heard Ruby speak about, she's typically pretty firm in her stance that a lot of these guys aren't boyfriend material. If they actually were, truly, I'm sure she'd be trying for something more than FWB. I don't think there's any attempt to "springboard" here.

 

Huh? I agree and, as I said above, never thought as much.

 

But how can FWB be destructive to finding a LTR here?

 

Are you actually asking? (I can't tell if this is rhetorical.) If you are: I've said how loads of times in this thread. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but I think part of it is the vacuum effect Olive Oyl mentions and part of it is the way it changes your psychology in regards to intimacy and sex as being not as "big a deal" (the OP says she still doesn't take it lightly, and I understand that, but it still becomes a more routine thing by arranging not only sex but meshing it with friendship in a "rules" type manner like a FWB).

 

Again, this is a theory. It fits what I've seen all around me. I'm not saying I'm absolutely right or anything. But I was rather surprised when the OP said she's looking for a new FWB but also looking for a LTR beyond that. To me, the two mindsets are not compatible for success. Mileage may, of course, vary on this. Totally cool with someone disagreeing with me.

[VertexSquared]

You can still have a great LTR and still not think sex is a "huge deal," so I'm not sure why "numbing the importance of sex" (if I may rephrase your argument) through FWB's is necessarily a bad thing. It may not be "numbed" at all if you already have a certain opinion about sex.

 

For instance, my girlfriend and I share many views about things like sex. We've had sex with plenty of other people before we met, and we don't view it as some huge, earth-shattering act. But that doesn't preclude us from having a hell of a good time together behind closed doors, nor does it stop us from enjoying intimacy or bonding.

 

What's more important in our relationship is not an inflated perception of the importance of sex, but our mutual ability to be there for each other, provide emotional/intellectual compatibility and stimulation, enjoy each other's company through both new and shared interests, maintain financial stability in order to fuel the consistency of our lifestyles and future plans, teach each other to become better people, and communicate openly and honestly.

 

Enjoying FWB's in no way numbs you from any of these things. If anything, I think FWB's can be quite useful in terms of not only fulfilling needs, but teaching new things you may have not known about yourself.

[Ruby Slippers]

I want a great relationship. (I also want a great house, a great job, a great body, a great guitar and recording studio, etc., etc.)

 

I realize that I might not ever have all of this, or any of it.

 

Until I find a great relationship, I will enjoy what I can from a light, short-term relationship/FWB/lover/casual dating partner/whatever you want to call it. (I will also enjoy my modest house, very good and getting better job, good and getting better body, OK guitar, and mediocre recording studio.)

 

Accepting these OK versions of all the great things I want in my life does not hold me back from going after the great things I want. And it's way better than having no sexy fun with a guy/being homeless/being unemployed/being obese/having no guitar/having no recording equipment.

[zengirl]

You can still have a great LTR and still not think sex is a "huge deal," so I'm not sure why "numbing the importance of sex" (if I may rephrase your argument) through FWB's is necessarily a bad thing. It may not be "numbed" at all if you already have a certain opinion about sex.

 

You're missing the key: it was sex AND intimacy. A FWB is repeated sex and shared experiences with the same person. It is a poor relationship simulation essentially. I actually don't think truly casual sex is a hindrance to looking for a LTR as much as a FWB would be, ironically. (Not that I'm advocating people go out and sleep with strangers. I mean, if they want to, sure, but I understand it has risks and such.) But this is all just a theory. People should do whatever makes them happiest. I just doubt the efficacy of looking for a LTR while having a FWB.

[VertexSquared]

You're missing the key: it was sex AND intimacy. A FWB is repeated sex and shared experiences with the same person. It is a poor relationship simulation essentially. I actually don't think truly casual sex is a hindrance to looking for a LTR as much as a FWB would be, ironically. (Not that I'm advocating people go out and sleep with strangers. I mean, if they want to, sure, but I understand it has risks and such.) But this is all just a theory. People should do whatever makes them happiest. I just doubt the efficacy of looking for a LTR while having a FWB.

 

But FWB's don't need to be held to the same standards, so I'm not sure why you're saying "it is a poor relationship simulation" when it's not *meant* to be the same sort of relationship. They can fulfill both sexual and intimate needs without necessarily invoking love.

 

If we desire traits A-Z in an ideal LTR, but we can't find them all just yet, what's wrong with getting A-G in one place, H-P in another, and Q-Z elsewhere? As long as you aren't hindering your ability to hopefully hit the jackpot and find one source that carries A-Z, what's the problem?

[Ruby Slippers]

What's more important in our relationship is not an inflated perception of the importance of sex...

Again, excellently stated. I definitely used to inflate the importance of sex, and I see it as healthy maturation and growth that I now see it more for what it is in reality. It's just sex. Can it be a beautiful, connected, earth-rocking experience? For sure! But it doesn't have to be. And taking that pressure off can be quite freeing.

 

I love sex and always have. I am no longer willing to wall myself in from something so fun and healthy just because I haven't found husband material.

 

Enjoying FWB's in no way numbs you from any of these things. If anything, I think FWB's can be quite useful in terms of not only fulfilling needs, but teaching new things you may have not known about yourself.

Yes! One of the things I have enjoyed most about this is that the men are obviously VERY honest with me, because I am very honest with them. They are not telling me what they're supposed to as my man -- they're telling me what they really think.

[zengirl]

But FWB's don't need to be held to the same standards, so I'm not sure why you're saying "it is a poor relationship simulation" when it's not *meant* to be the same sort of relationship. They can fulfill both sexual and intimate needs without necessarily invoking love.

 

If we desire traits A-Z in an ideal LTR, but we can't find them all just yet, what's wrong with getting A-G in one place, H-P in another, and Q-Z elsewhere? As long as you aren't hindering your ability to hopefully hit the jackpot and find one source that carries A-Z, what's the problem?

 

First of all, I'm not trying to say there's anything "wrong" with it perse. My motto is, so long as you're honest and not hurting anyone (which I've agreed many times and even argued against others who attacked the OP that it sounds like the OP fits this criteria impeccably), do what you want!

 

What I'm saying is that it seems like it won't work out well and that I've never seen someone meet a fantastic partner easily if they were engaging in a FWB relationship. I've said why, and I don't think I've ever confused the fact that a FWB has different goals than a LTR so not sure why you're stating that -- I totally get that.

 

What I'm saying is that the way to a LTR in my experience is to leave yourself wide open to one, which means not putting energy into a FWB "Just good enough" relationship (the vacuum effect, as Olive Oly so lovely put it) and that the psychology of having your intimate needs fulfilled outside of a LTR makes it difficult to be in the best state of mind to attract a great one. This is what I've observed. It could be totally wrong for all I know, but I would say that this mindset:

 

They can fulfill both sexual and intimate needs without necessarily invoking love.

 

is precisely what makes it inefficient and counterproductive to finding a loving, awesome, amazing LTR, particularly the absolute (terminal, life partner, soulmate, whatever you want to call it) one. Again, your mileage may vary, this is only a theory, but I don't want my point misconstrued.

[VertexSquared]

What I'm saying is that it seems like it won't work out well and that I've never seen someone meet a fantastic partner easily if they were engaging in a FWB relationship. I've said why, and I don't think I've ever confused the fact that a FWB has different goals than a LTR so not sure why you're stating that -- I totally get that.

 

What I'm saying is that the way to a LTR in my experience is to leave yourself wide open to one, which means not putting energy into a FWB "Just good enough" relationship (the vacuum effect, as Olive Oly so lovely put it) and that the psychology of having your intimate needs fulfilled outside of a LTR makes it difficult to be in the best state of mind to attract a great one. This is what I've observed. It could be totally wrong for all I know, but I would say that this mindset:

 

is precisely what makes it inefficient and counterproductive to finding a loving, awesome, amazing LTR, particularly the absolute (terminal, life partner, soulmate, whatever you want to call it) one. Again, your mileage may vary, this is only a theory, but I don't want my point misconstrued.

 

That might just be a difference in empirical findings, then, because I know plenty of people in great relationships who were having FWB setups beforehand.

 

I could just as easily argue that having an FWB takes a lot of the edge off and helps you focus on what matters in finding a LTR so you're not so prone to overvaluing sex. I could argue that it helps boost your self-esteem and confidence, especially if you're engaged in an open dialogue with your FWB in order to learn more about your strengths and flaws.

 

In what way would having intimacy fulfilled externally put you in a "bad state of mind" for attracting an LTR?

 

I want a great relationship. (I also want a great house, a great job, a great body, a great guitar and recording studio, etc., etc.)

 

I realize that I might not ever have all of this, or any of it.

 

Until I find a great relationship, I will enjoy what I can from a light, short-term relationship/FWB/lover/casual dating partner/whatever you want to call it. (I will also enjoy my modest house, very good and getting better job, good and getting better body, OK guitar, and mediocre recording studio.)

 

Accepting these OK versions of all the great things I want in my life does not hold me back from going after the great things I want. And it's way better than having no sexy fun with a guy/being homeless/being unemployed/being obese/having no guitar/having no recording equipment.

 

Yep! And this is all perfectly well and fine -- and it gives you a great journey to look forward to. Part of the fun is building up to greatness, imo. I'm not there yet myself, but I get a lot of enjoyment out of trying. Actually seeing the results of my efforts materialize after lots of planning and hard effort is well worth it. No point in living in an all-or-nothing state of mind when, much of the time, goals take a hell of a long time to achieve.

 

Anyways I must bounce for now, but I'd still love to see those pictures sometime! XD

Edited July 20, 2011 by VertexSquared

[Ruby Slippers]

What I'm saying is that it seems like it won't work out well and that I've never seen someone meet a fantastic partner easily if they were engaging in a FWB relationship.

I have 4 pretty close female friends, and I've known most of them for 10-20 years. Most of these friends have been far more casual about sex than I ever have. The most active one has had at least 100 partners. I am the most conservative, having had about 10 partners over almost 20 years of sexual activity.

 

All of us have been in stable relationships for most of our dating lives, and some have had casual partners when not in relationships. Two of these women are now in stable marriages, with 2 kids each. I was the maid of honor for one of them.

 

Both of the married women admitted to me that they gave up some of their personal and career aspirations and made compromises in marriage so they could have a family. And both of them had plenty of FWBs and casual sex partners along the way.

 

So, at least among my friends, your theory does not hold water.

[EasyHeart]

But FWB's don't need to be held to the same standards, so I'm not sure why you're saying "it is a poor relationship simulation" when it's not *meant* to be the same sort of relationship. They can fulfill both sexual and intimate needs without necessarily invoking love.

 

If we desire traits A-Z in an ideal LTR, but we can't find them all just yet, what's wrong with getting A-G in one place, H-P in another, and Q-Z elsewhere? As long as you aren't hindering your ability to hopefully hit the jackpot and find one source that carries A-Z, what's the problem?

I don't think anyone has said it's a "problem" or advocated that FWBs be made illegal and have you marched off to jail. Why so defensive?

 

We've had dozens of threads on this topic, and what's been clear to me is that there isn't any agreed-upon definition for what an FWB relationship even is, so it seems pretty futile to debate in the abstract when people are clearly talking about different things.

 

I think that any habitual sex-as-stimulation (as opposed to sex-as-intimacy) tends to make it much harder to develop intimate relationships. That's why I tend to discourage (note I said "discourage", not "forbid") people from pursuing casual sex or FWB sex. Personally, from what I'd read about it here on this forum, it sounds really lonely and depressing. But that's just me.

 

I think it's certainly legitimate to be concerned that a FWB relationship would hinder you from finding a complete relationship. First, it seems to me that it would reduce your incentive to pursue other relationships. Second, it might limit your opportunity with relationship-minded people. If I found out that the woman I was dating was sleeping with someone else while dating me, that would be the end of it. (and yes, this has happened to me -- twice!)

 

I also take issue with the notion of someone having an A-Z list of requirements for a mate. I realize it was just an example, but it goes to a very serious issue that we've also talked about a lot on LS: the tendency many people (especially women) have of making absurdly detailed lists or requirements for any potential date. It really gets quite absurd. Honestly, pretty much the only "requirements" i have before I'll date a woman is that (1) she has to be cute and (2) she has to be nice to me. Pretty much everything else is negotiable. It gets pretty silly when people say things like, "OMG, I'd can't date him because he's only 5'8"!!!" or "I can't date him because he's 36 and my upper-limit is 35!!!"

[GoodOnPaper]

One of the things I have enjoyed most about this is that the men are obviously VERY honest with me, because I am very honest with them. They are not telling me what they're supposed to as my man -- they're telling me what they really think.

 

So you would expect a lower level of honesty in an LTR . . . yet the FWBs (in which you are getting this great level of honesty) are simply passing the time while you still look for an LTR? Why bother looking for the LTR? It sounds like it will have less substance than your current FWBs . . .

[Ruby Slippers]

So you would expect a lower level of honesty in an LTR . . . yet the FWBs (in which you are getting this great level of honesty) are simply passing the time while you still look for an LTR? Why bother looking for the LTR? It sounds like it will have less substance than your current FWBs . . .

I hope to carry this total honesty into all future relationships, whether casual or serious. I imagine it would be hard to go back to anything less than full honesty now that I've had it.

[VertexSquared]

I don't think anyone has said it's a "problem" or advocated that FWBs be made illegal and have you marched off to jail. Why so defensive?

 

We've had dozens of threads on this topic, and what's been clear to me is that there isn't any agreed-upon definition for what an FWB relationship even is, so it seems pretty futile to debate in the abstract when people are clearly talking about different things.

 

I think that any habitual sex-as-stimulation (as opposed to sex-as-intimacy) tends to make it much harder to develop intimate relationships. That's why I tend to discourage (note I said "discourage", not "forbid") people from pursuing casual sex or FWB sex. Personally, from what I'd read about it here on this forum, it sounds really lonely and depressing. But that's just me.

 

I think it's certainly legitimate to be concerned that a FWB relationship would hinder you from finding a complete relationship. First, it seems to me that it would reduce your incentive to pursue other relationships. Second, it might limit your opportunity with relationship-minded people. If I found out that the woman I was dating was sleeping with someone else while dating me, that would be the end of it. (and yes, this has happened to me -- twice!)

 

I also take issue with the notion of someone having an A-Z list of requirements for a mate. I realize it was just an example, but it goes to a very serious issue that we've also talked about a lot on LS: the tendency many people (especially women) have of making absurdly detailed lists or requirements for any potential date. It really gets quite absurd. Honestly, pretty much the only "requirements" i have before I'll date a woman is that (1) she has to be cute and (2) she has to be nice to me. Pretty much everything else is negotiable. It gets pretty silly when people say things like, "OMG, I'd can't date him because he's only 5'8"!!!" or "I can't date him because he's 36 and my upper-limit is 35!!!"

 

I don't think I'm being "so defensive" -- I'm just defending my position. Zengirl has stated that she feels FWBs pose a problem to finding LTRs, and that is the "problem" I am addressing.

 

I would disagree that sex-as-stimulation makes it harder to develop intimate relationships because I don't feel that sex is what generates the intimacy. I think sex is a vehicle through which intimacy is carried. If I have a bunch of care-free sex, it's not going to make it harder to have great, intimate sex with someone who I really click with.

 

As for the bit about sleeping with others/dating others at the same time, you're certainly free to impose that restriction. But if a girl told me she was having FWB sex but was interested in a LTR with me (and I was interested back), I'd simply expect her to drop the FWB sex if we decided to have a committed relationship. Monogamy isn't typically a hard-set expectation until that occurs, imo. Besides, if Ruby is OK with FWB sex but the potential-LTR person isn't, then can we really say they are on the same page and compatible with respect to sexual views to begin with? Someone who is self-confident isn't going to care about a woman's sexual past as long as they're committed to each other and they agree to be loyal. Up until that point, it's all fair game. Crudely put, if you don't want someone having sex with others, ask them out!

 

And the A-Z analogy wasn't meant to represent a "checklist of traits" but rather a list of essential needs. You might get sexual needs met in one place, emotional needs met from another, etc. It can be hard to find them all in one ideal mate.

Edited July 20, 2011 by VertexSquared