oppath Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 There was a recent NY Times article summarizing a collegiate study on Friends with Benefits. Of course, you need to read the actual study because journalists are notoriously bad at summarizing science to the general public. 10% of FWB became romantic relationships.1/3 ceases benefits and became just friends1/4 ended the relationship alltogether, including friendship1/3 continued friends with benefitsSo one conclusion is that it works out, keeping the friendship or more, 75% of the time. The problem with that conclusion, however, is that 1/3 of the people are currently in a FWB relationship; it suggests that represents the 1/3 continuing number. Since if it was a continuous FWB, they'd likely already be in a romantic relationship if it continued for some time, when those continuous benefits end, what happens? Using the probabilities in the study... If you enter a FWB relationship 10% become a romantic relationship51% return to being friends39% have no relationship whatsoever, not even friendshipHow participants define being a friend isn't clear, and we see this all the time on LS, where people who say "I'm friends with all my ex's" are really saying "I'm a civil acquaintance who exchanges emails twice a year" from someone else's perspective. The study also found that people really didn't discuss their relationship much at all, something like 75% of FWB didn't have ground rules or talk about things until the relationship dissolved, most likely because the top concerns were one person developing feelings for the other, un-reciprocated, and loosing the friendship. It also suggested people really weren't all that honest with each other; they entered it believing there would be more openness and trust, that it would be more safe and satisfying, when in reality, that openness wasn't necessarily there because people didn't want to rock the boat. Personally, I feel FWB relationships are fine, for a limited duration (a couple months), and are best had with people who are more civil acquaintances than friends. You know, the guy or girl you see 6 times a year at parties. That sort of person. There are times when having a relationship isn't in the cards but you still want sex or feeling physically close to someone. The FWB study did reveal less passion and less intensity in bed than romantic relationships (and obviously, less commitment). It makes me wonder, if people did discuss their FWB relationship, if more would turn into romantic relationships, and more friendships would be saved. Link to post Share on other sites
Lyssa Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I just don't get FWB. I can't have it. I think I need to be emotionally attached with my man. If I don't have that, I just can't get myself involve with the 'benefits'. Link to post Share on other sites
Author oppath Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 I'm a guy and I can't really do it either. Maybe for 2 months, but then it becomes too intimate and it feels really inauthentic and, yes, I worry about hurting the other person, or myself becoming attached and them not. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 The term FWB is a misnomer. You're not friends if you don't have some form of mutual respect, trust and like, for each other. If you add in lust, you have the recipe for love. If you're only wanting to engage in the physical, you have to be emotionally unavailable, therefore, not really friends. The term friends denotes some form of emotional closeness. Link to post Share on other sites
Lyssa Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Although I find it wrong, in some ways I admire those who could pull this whole FWB. Most of my friends who had gone through FWB ended getting hurt or hurting the other person. So I really don't see it as a win-win situation as some people put it. Maybe because they don't have any emotions etc. Link to post Share on other sites
tanbark813 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Those stats look about right. The term FWB is a misnomer. You're not friends if you don't have some form of mutual respect, trust and like, for each other. If you add in lust, you have the recipe for love. If you're only wanting to engage in the physical, you have to be emotionally unavailable, therefore, not really friends. The term friends denotes some form of emotional closeness. What about if you respect her for having nice ta-tas? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 What about if you respect her for having nice ta-tas? Is that respect or lust? Link to post Share on other sites
tanbark813 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Is that respect or lust? Well I can't speak for everyone but I, for one, have tremendous respect for incredible ta-tas. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Well I can't speak for everyone but I, for one, have tremendous respect for incredible ta-tas. Lemme' guess. You have intense conversations with her bustline. I can see it now... Link to post Share on other sites
Author oppath Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 Lemme' guess. You have intense conversations with her bustline. I can see it now... This is something you women don't understand. Your breasts speak to us in a language only men can understand. They are having conversations with us, which is why we are always staring at them. The one on the right is talking about Hesse's Steppenwolf's place among literature, and the one on the left is talking about how the NBA will never be as relevant as when Jordan-Bird-Magic ruled the league. The only thing that saves me from this debacle is that I'm not a basketball fan. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 This is something you women don't understand. Your breasts speak to us in a language only men can understand. They are having conversations with us, which is why we are always staring at them. The one on the right is talking about Hesse's Steppenwolf's place among literature, and the one on the left is talking about how the NBA will never be as relevant as when Jordan-Bird-Magic ruled the league. The only thing that saves me from this debacle is that I'm not a basketball fan. All I'm going to say is that y'all must be good at creating your own realities. What an udder fantasy... Link to post Share on other sites
tanbark813 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Lemme' guess. You have intense conversations with her bustline. I can see it now... I'm sorry, were you saying something? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I'm sorry, were you saying something? I rest my case... Hopeless... Link to post Share on other sites
Author oppath Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 I should note, those who had a FWB believed they could work; those who didn't believe they could not. I think they can, but I define friends a little differently. I wouldn't sleep with a genuine friend. If friend means someone I hang out with in groups every now and then but otherwise don't interact with...that is something different. I don't define those people as friends, they are just people I know. Link to post Share on other sites
Blackfrost Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I should note, those who had a FWB believed they could work; those who didn't believe they could not. I think they can, but I define friends a little differently. I wouldn't sleep with a genuine friend. If friend means someone I hang out with in groups every now and then but otherwise don't interact with...that is something different. I don't define those people as friends, they are just people I know. I agree with this. I could never have a semi regular with a close friend - or feelings would definitely come into play - and then I'd start becoming attached. It's just too natural, after a few times, to start actually caring about the person i'm with. Takeaway from this: If i'm sleeping with you, you're not my friend Link to post Share on other sites
Krytie TV Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I've been in a FWB situation for about 2 months and it's absolutely perfect... no complaints. No feelings for more or anything like that. I could also see it continuing indefinitely. I only aspect I can't comment on is what it will become when someone gets into a serious relationship. To comment on the study, I would be curious to know the sample. If it was a sample of 18-22 year old college students, the results are utterly worthless to the general population. The typical 30-something is nothing like the typical 20 year old. In college people are still emotionally underdeveloped. Link to post Share on other sites
Author oppath Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 It was college. I'm not sure you can say they are emotionally undeveloped though. I feel the risks are the same, but as you are older, you may be more willing to DISCUSS the relationship. That was the one thing the subjects didn't do. How will that effect the relationship when the benefits end? I don't know. I'm willing to bet you still have 40% of people feeling hurt and not being friends. I also believe that when people are older, the people they choose are less likely to be their close friends. Older people will probably choose FWB who are on the outside of their social group, more of a casual sex partner, as opposed to a friend. The friendship is often develop along with the benefits, not before. Link to post Share on other sites
marlena Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 TBF, My sentiments exactly! Great analysis! Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Thanks marlena. You see it happening all the time, especially on LS, where there are threads upon threads of people who settle for a physical relationship when they really crave the intimacy of something more, with the particular person of interest. It sounds like you've been reading the same threads. Link to post Share on other sites
Author oppath Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 Thanks marlena. You see it happening all the time, especially on LS, where there are threads upon threads of people who settle for a physical relationship when they really crave the intimacy of something more, with the particular person of interest. It sounds like you've been reading the same threads. but you can say that about any relationship, and LS is likely biased towards people who haven't communicated what they want or lack the self esteem to assert it. People do get in these relationships, including women, and they are content with them. I believe the key thing is to be honest with yourself and your intentions. I know for one, I can't do it for more than 1-2 months. I'd get attached or it feels too intimate. Some people can. the thing is...despite the word "friend" attached, it is JUST F*CKING. That is all it is. Don't kid yourself. It is available, convenient, easy sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 but you can say that about any relationship, and LS is likely biased towards people who haven't communicated what they want or lack the self esteem to assert it. People do get in these relationships, including women, and they are content with them. I believe the key thing is to be honest with yourself and your intentions. I know for one, I can't do it for more than 1-2 months. I'd get attached or it feels too intimate. Some people can. In a situation of a purely physical relationship, don't people set out the ground rules first? If not, then they're asking for it. In accepting less than you want, you empower behaviours. the thing is...despite the word "friend" attached, it is JUST F*CKING. That is all it is. Don't kid yourself. It is available, convenient, easy sex. Which is why I classify it as a misnomer. Link to post Share on other sites
marlena Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 If you're only wanting to engage in the physical, you have to be emotionally unavailable, therefore, not really friends. The term friends denotes some form of emotional closeness Totally in agreement! One term cancels out the other! I see your logic, TBF!! Benefits (i.e. no strings attached sex) can only mean an emotional unattachment. True friendship entails a wide spectrum of emotions. It is, IMO, a contradiction in terms. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Another one of those politically correct terms that misreps what the purpose is... Link to post Share on other sites
tanbark813 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 You could use the term: f**k buddy. It's more versatile. Link to post Share on other sites
Author oppath Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 I agree with you on the misnomer. however, people often consider themselves friends, and they add sex to it. That doesn't mean they aren't close emotionally. Though I do feel that few people would have sex with a close friend. Therein lies the misnomer. We call people "friends" when in reality, it is just sex. Therefore, does friendship really take priority? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts