Author tigressA Posted July 20, 2011 Author Posted July 20, 2011 I must say, the concept sounds lovely for women.... But for most men, the whole point of avoiding a committed relationship is to avoid "feelings," which seem to be a big part of "lovers." So why would they be interested in a exclusive lover-ship, but not a relationship? Good question. In the blog post, the author notes that the relationship would be non-exclusive. There would be an understanding, as in many FWBs, that they were allowed to see other people.
zengirl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I must say, the concept sounds lovely for women.... But for most men, the whole point of avoiding a committed relationship is to avoid "feelings," which seem to be a big part of "lovers." So why would they be interested in a exclusive lover-ship, but not a relationship? I feel like lovers is an old French idea or something, and it's more like, "We cannot be together" because of circumstances (they live too far apart, she's betrothed, he's allergic to cats and she has 13, I don't know, whatever "circumstances" meant then and now) or they are both looking for something that is only a season (a dramatic fling, if you will). In my experience, plenty of men socialized a certain way want feelings but not commitment, but they are afraid of the way feelings = commitment for women in the modern world. Men in America are socialized to believe that feelings = commitment much more strongly, as are women in America. I find it different in, say, South America or Europe. But I could be wrong.
EasyHeart Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 But I thought tigressA was noting the very big difference between friendship and love. It's a huge chasm to most people since everyone likes friendship and most people are terribly afraid of love. I think that's right, but there seems to be some need/compulsion that many people have to fill-in that chasm between friendship and love that I don't understand. I like having bright lines and clear separation between friends and girlfriends. Do we really need all these things in between? And I think it's only in places like LS that people are afraid of love!
Author tigressA Posted July 20, 2011 Author Posted July 20, 2011 I feel like lovers is an old French idea or something, and it's more like, "We cannot be together" because of circumstances (they live too far apart, she's betrothed, he's allergic to cats and she has 13, I don't know, whatever "circumstances" meant then and now) or they are both looking for something that is only a season (a dramatic fling, if you will). In my experience, plenty of men socialized a certain way want feelings but not commitment, but they are afraid of the way feelings = commitment for women in the modern world. Men in America are socialized to believe that feelings = commitment much more strongly, as are women in America. I find it different in, say, South America or Europe. But I could be wrong. I think you're right, Zengirl. When I first read the post I thought it all seemed very European. It would be difficult to adopt this concept of lovers here in America.
OliveOyl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I don't see why it all has to be so complicated. Just make it a "relationship" and know it may (and probably will) crash and burn at some point. Enjoy and learn from it while it lasts. Perhaps add the "exclusive" or "non-exclusive" element to tailor it to your needs. But this whole FWB phenomenon seems like trying to go diving by holding your breath. It is designed to fail after a short period of time.
somedude81 Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Ex-f(cking-actly... Really? Are saying average and below average guys don't have FWBs? Of course they don't. Only the top guys are able to land a FWB. And they are sleeping with multiple girls.
Star Gazer Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Good question. In the blog post, the author notes that the relationship would be non-exclusive. There would be an understanding, as in many FWBs, that they were allowed to see other people. Allowed to see and have sex with other people? Eww, no thanks!!
donnamaybe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Of course they don't. Only the top guys are able to land a FWB. And they are sleeping with multiple girls. Wrong......
EasyHeart Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I don't see why it all has to be so complicated. Just make it a "relationship" and know it may (and probably will) crash and burn at some point. Enjoy and learn from it while it lasts. Perhaps add the "exclusive" or "non-exclusive" element to tailor it to your needs. But this whole FWB phenomenon seems like trying to go diving by holding your breath. It is designed to fail after a short period of time.I agree. It seems like one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice it usually ends up being a situation where one person wants a romantic relationship and the other doesn't, so one of them settle for being unhappy and hoping that the other person will change his/her mind (which never happens except in movies).
zengirl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I think that's right, but there seems to be some need/compulsion that many people have to fill-in that chasm between friendship and love that I don't understand. I like having bright lines and clear separation between friends and girlfriends. Do we really need all these things in between? And I think it's only in places like LS that people are afraid of love! I think it's only on LS that the majority are afraid of love, maybe. But I think all people become afraid of love at some point, since they're afraid of it's end/eventual rejection/etc. Look at how odd people are with saying ILY! I mean, I say "I love you" to my dog all day long, but people will have relationships that go YEARS without even saying they love the person they're sleeping with, spending all their time with, talking to every day, etc. So silly! If you hang around with children, you notice this more, I think. Little kids love everyone when they're young enough. I will walk into a Kindergarten room and get "I love yous" by the end of the day. I'm not saying we should go around loving everyone and certainly not romantically, but we do put up a lot of damn barriers as we get older. Romantic love is the kind most associated with rejection, so it's most feared. But, really, rejection isn't that big a deal if you love yourself. At least that's what I've found.
donnamaybe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I agree. It seems like one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice it usually ends up being a situation where one person wants a romantic relationship and the other doesn't, so one of them settle for being unhappy and hoping that the other person will change his/her mind (which never happens except in movies). Which is exactly what happened in my situation. I hurt him terribly, though I didn't mean to, and I will NEVER be in that kind of arrangement again.
Author tigressA Posted July 20, 2011 Author Posted July 20, 2011 I swear that I will report every single post that is about average/below average/above average people and their chances of getting laid as being off-topic. That is not what this thread is about. Take your whining somewhere else, thank you.
donnamaybe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I swear that I will report every single post that is about average/below average/above average people and their chances of getting laid as being off-topic. That is not what this thread is about. Take your whining somewhere else, thank you. Some guys can't get laid - EVER - so they resort to name calling and belittling.
carhill Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 So a lover is NOT monogamous? In my FWB, we were at least sexually monogamous... My definition would include the presumption of non-monogamy, as such 'baby, you and me only forever' isn't a part of the lover mentality IMO. That doesn't mean the experience would be non-monogamous while it existed. I had one such 'fling', set in the scenic backdrop of Dr. Zhivago, but short-term, many years ago with a wonderful lady from Odessa. Zero expectations, living in the moment with complete emotional involvement. I met my now exW about three weeks later.
somedude81 Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Wrong...... No, I'm not. For the average guy it's really hard to find somebody to sleep with. Most girls still want to have sex only inside of relationships. Unless that part has totally changed now? The simple truth is that all men want sex on a regular basis. The vast majority of average guys would be happy to be in a relationship because it will give them one girl to do that will. They might consider themselves lucky to her. The only reason for a guy to have a FWB is because it means he can be with more than one girl without fear of a commitment. The average dude is not going to be able to land more than one girl. So he sticks to relationships. BTW the exception is when the guy wants a relationship and the girl wants a FWB. I don't really know why those happen.
EasyHeart Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I think it's only on LS that the majority are afraid of love, maybe. But I think all people become afraid of love at some point, since they're afraid of it's end/eventual rejection/etc. Look at how odd people are with saying ILY! I mean, I say "I love you" to my dog all day long, but people will have relationships that go YEARS without even saying they love the person they're sleeping with, spending all their time with, talking to every day, etc. So silly! If you hang around with children, you notice this more, I think. Little kids love everyone when they're young enough. I will walk into a Kindergarten room and get "I love yous" by the end of the day. I'm not saying we should go around loving everyone and certainly not romantically, but we do put up a lot of damn barriers as we get older. Romantic love is the kind most associated with rejection, so it's most feared. But, really, rejection isn't that big a deal if you love yourself. At least that's what I've found.I just wanted to point out that LS isn't representative of the population as a whole. I don't think most people do the kind of analysis we see around here. And of course, no one is actually afraid of love -- it's the pain of losing love that we fear. And one of the things we see so often around here is that people get so busy fearing the (to them inevitable) loss of love that they don't enjoy the actual feelings of love and don't work to keep it going! Five year olds are awesome! Of course, I am very biased because (emotionally) I am still a five year old. The world would be a much better place if we all were, IMO.
donnamaybe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 BTW the exception is when the guy wants a relationship and the girl wants a FWB. I don't really know why those happen.So you just negated your own idea. Thanks.
somedude81 Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 So you just negated your own idea. Thanks. Not entirely. They are the exception not the rule. In most FWB cases, it is the woman who wants more, not the other way around.
EasyHeart Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I swear that I will report every single post that is about average/below average/above average people and their chances of getting laid as being off-topic. That is not what this thread is about. Take your whining somewhere else, thank you. Speaking as an exceptional guy, I really appreciate all those average/below average/above average guys. They make me look good.
zengirl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I just wanted to point out that LS isn't representative of the population as a whole. I don't think most people do the kind of analysis we see around here. And of course, no one is actually afraid of love -- it's the pain of losing love that we fear. And one of the things we see so often around here is that people get so busy fearing the (to them inevitable) loss of love that they don't enjoy the actual feelings of love and don't work to keep it going! Five year olds are awesome! Of course, I am very biased because (emotionally) I am still a five year old. The world would be a much better place if we all were, IMO. Oh, totally - most don't do this level of analysis, which is why so many people go around "afraid of love" when they're really afraid of love going badly (rejection, heartbreak, drama, etc). Plenty of people are awesome and together and self-loving and not afraid of love, too, though. Just not enough IMO. That's why there are so many sad people out there. It's a bummer.
mo mo Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I've got a better idea TS Let's bring back puppies. They are so cute and cuddly!!
zengirl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Men wouldn't say "lovers," they would say "this chick I banged a couple times." Red-blooded men don't use terms like FWB when describing their own activities either. So the discussion is really whether women should call NSA men they are banging "FWBs" or "Lovers." Lovers won't win because "FWB" can be conveniently shortened or rationalized into "Friend" depending on audience and desired level of dishonesty. "Lover" leaves no doubt about what is going on, so can't be rationalized...would never catch on today. Interesting thought thouggh. In many parts of Europe (particularly when I was living in Italy), whether talking about relationships or casual relationships, they'll use the word 'lovers' or corresponding Italian terms with more romantic connotations than "FWB" etc. There's just no sense of romance in America these days, regarding sex especially but even with relationships in so many cases, which I think is what that article is referencing. The idea that no "red blooded man" would use the term is ironic to me since I really do believe it's way more likely to be used in a country with a concept of machismo than somewhere like America.
Author tigressA Posted July 20, 2011 Author Posted July 20, 2011 In many parts of Europe (particularly when I was living in Italy), whether talking about relationships or casual relationships, they'll use the word 'lovers' or corresponding Italian terms with more romantic connotations than "FWB" etc. There's just no sense of romance in America these days, regarding sex especially but even with relationships in so many cases, which I think is what that article is referencing. The idea that no "red blooded man" would use the term is ironic to me since I really do believe it's way more likely to be used in a country with a concept of machismo than somewhere like America. You're really on the ball today, Zengirl.
donnamaybe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 The idea that no "red blooded man" would use the term is ironic to me since I really do believe it's way more likely to be used in a country with a concept of machismo than somewhere like America. Hispanic men are very "macho," but many of them also tell their women when and how high to jump and expect their word to be obeyed. They also feel it's their right to screw around behind their spouse's back. Romance? I think not.
zengirl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Hispanic men are very "macho," but many of them also tell their women when and how high to jump and expect their word to be obeyed. They also feel it's their right to screw around behind their spouse's back. Romance? I think not. Oh, I wasn't advocating machismo. Or necessarily using the romantic = good version. More like romantic, the way "romantic novels" (not romance novels; I'm talking about like the "Romantic" movement in Europe kind of thing) kind of way. Italian guys -- whether jerks or players or sweethearts -- all have machismo (at least most of the ones I met) for better or worse and are quite red-blooded and wouldn't balk at the word "Lovers" was my only point there.
Recommended Posts