Eternal Sunshine Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I have been using the term "lovers" jokingly for a while now. When I start dating a guy and know it's not going to go anywhere, I tell my friends that I have taken on a lover
Stung Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 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. In my varied history, I've dated very seriously and monogamously (including living together and being engaged), dated casually (which might or might not have meant exclusivity or sexual activity, on a case by case basis), had open relationships with clearly defined rules, and had some flings who I would classify as lovers. I suppose I always thought of them as something akin to the proverbial "ships in the night," romantic and fun while it lasted, but never meant to be anything more. Similar to Carhill, a couple of them were overseas romances, never meant to be more than a few weeks of promise and excitement, an emotional and sexual bloom against an exotic backdrop. A couple of them were closer to home, but I don't remember really getting into any discussions of expectations of monogamy, as I never expected them to turn into anything I would incorporate into my life long-term--however, I think they actually were monogamous for the most part, as they were mostly fairly intense and involved a lot of time together. They were like short hot bursts of flame that burned bright and then died, just never banked and coaxed into lasting embers. For all that, I've never had a relationship that falls under what seems to be the definition of the FWB umbrella, where everybody tries to pretend they're just friends with a little extra meaningless friction. My actual friendships don't involve magnetic sexual attraction, if they do they're not exactly friendships--and I wouldn't want to have sex with anybody I didn't feel some level of that with. It just seems--awkward, and short-sighted in some way, the whole premise of FWB, and I've never been into it. I would rather have a lover and a sexualized romance with an acknowledged shelf-life designed to die a natural death, than mess around with the strange compartmentalization and "not quite good enough" status that seems implicitly built into FWB. I was starting to think it was just me. Of course at this stage in my life it's a moot point.
zengirl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I was just talking about linguistics and attitudes towards language, dasein, and as I said to Donna Maybe didn't mean "romantic" = better. No need for a thesis on your problem with gender relations in America. Re: how men talk with men--- How would I actually know that? I like to think any decent man declines to speak at all and goes a bit stoic in terms of the gals he's sleeping with, personally. And I'm told that's what decent fellows do by my male friends, but of course, while I'm around, it's not just men among men, now is it? So I only have to rely on their words.
donnamaybe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Men SHOULD do more now than in the "olden days" when most women stayed home all day. Some men are PO'd that women now have choices, i.e. we make our own money and do NOT have to put up with any crap from a man.
zengirl Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Your post quoting mine was plain in meaning. If you don't want to discuss it further, don't discuss it as opposed to being disingenous. And the reason romance is dead in America has everything to do with gender relations. LOL @ "thesis" I've seen your posts and you are in no position to carp about someone making long posts. Oh, I wasn't carping about the length; just the general vitriol. And not being disingenuous. I really was speaking from a linguistic perspective since that's basically the point of the whole thread---- what we "call" something. Women certainly don't do that today, why would men be any different? I smell lots of double standard bearers in this thread. Well, I do. I'll talk about dates, but not about sex with a guy. My friends and I rarely talk about sex or guys in those terms --- we might tell a particularly funny story from the past or something in rare occasions. Most gals don't talk like SATC even today. At least not the gals I know, and I'm not conservative in my friends, really.
torn_curtain Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) It does seem like modern relationships are different from what they once were. I think it's partly that in the past "lovers" were people who may have loved each other passionately but couldn't be in a committed long term relationship because of external forces. There were more barriers in the past and people were more marriage-minded. Some of these barriers include class differences, distance at a time when communication and travel weren't easy, the taboo surrounding divorce. Ironically the fact that they knew there was no chance of committing may have also allowed them to be more free with their emotions because nothing was at stake. Now with most of those barriers gone people will usually try a relationship out if the feelings are there. I think people are also less free with their emotions than they once were. I'm not sure why. They seem more hung up on defining things; love has become more mechanical. It may have to do with abundance of choices in modern society. When you have many options it's easy to slip into a grass is always greener mentality. Edited August 1, 2011 by torn_curtain
Hot Chick Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) "lover" "FWB"...it really means that the guy doesn't care about the woman enough to have a relationship with her and basically just wants the sexual aspects. How much the guy tolerates emotional outbursts, etc. is up to the guy. It's all just semantics for "girl is good enough to do for now until I find another girl who is actually relationship material." Edited August 1, 2011 by Hot Chick
FitChick Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 FWB strikes me as a man being too cheap to pay for a prostitute. That is about as "no strings sex" as you can get.
Recommended Posts