What type of "environment" fosters FWB relationships?

[johan]

It's not - they're exactly the same thing in this context. If you agree on a STR from the beginning' date=' then it's a FWB arrangement. Arguing otherwise is simply quibbling over semantics.[/quote']

 

I agree. That's what it is.

[Trialbyfire]

Fair enough. I don't argue with your premise that this type of arrangement seems cold, clinical and deeply unsatisfying.

I guess mutual respect and chemistry (emotional, intellectual and physical) are important to me. They're not always important for everyone else, in order to have sex.

[loser101]

When I was younger I couldn't imagine having FWBs thinking it was for saddos that had issues with commitment/relationships/intimacy. Now that the last couple of years I had such a transient life moving around a lot I only had FWBs. or 'STRs by arrangement' as mentioned above.

 

I suppose the most important thing I learnt was that I had to watch attachement and not to allow involvement too much with the same person.

 

This was a temporary arrangement though, now that I am more settled, I am definitely open to LTR and commitment. so yes my FWBs would be with men I had connection with and I was interested in as people as well (not just the sex) but I knew the arrangements could only be temporary so I didn't allow myself to get too close to them.

[alphamale]

.... so yes my FWBs would be with men I had connection with and I was interested in as people as well (not just the sex) but I knew the arrangements could only be temporary so I didn't allow myself to get too close to them.

yes that was sort of what i was getting at with this thread

[loser101]

yes that was sort of what i was getting at with this thread

 

... and I think it's a pity when people hold back to protect themselves but it's the way sometimes.

[johan]

It's not - they're exactly the same thing in this context. If you agree on a STR from the beginning' date=' then it's a FWB arrangement. Arguing otherwise is simply quibbling over semantics.[/quote']

 

I think the distinction is probably more in whether there is any friendship involved or whether it's all about the benefits. When you establish from the start that the relationship isn't going anywhere, you're not necessarily offering friendship either before or after the expiry date.

[alphamale]

...you're not necessarily offering friendship either before or after the expiry date.

we're not talking about milk here johan

[johan]

we're not talking about milk here johan

 

I don't know where I got that term. Seemed appropriate. I've never been involved in a relationship like that, so have to use other people's concepts.

 

But I would think things would tend to go sour eventually.

[Sibyl Vane]

we're not talking about milk here johan

 

I prefer skim.

 

I just read through this thread and it has been about as helpful as...you giving advice on healthy eating. No offence.

 

What was this thread about again?

[Trimmer]

I will have to disagree here..

 

I know for a fact, that some women, have absolutely no emotional commitment but yet, do enjoy the sex with a man..

 

This could go both ways.. the man can get emotionally involved while the woman only uses him for sex.

 

I know it's usually the opposite.. but to think that only men use women for sex is somewhat ridiculous..

In one of those instances where I agree with Lizzie, I'm willing to stand up and say so.

 

I want to point out that for some people, connection does not require commitment. Listen to allina talk about her friend, with whom she obviously has mutual respect and a connection. Works for her.

 

Now at the same time, I acknowledge and understand TBF, for whom that connection requires commitment. More power to her. But I wouldn't call her "prudish" or "cloistered" any more than I would call someone who can have an honest, connected-but-not-committed FWB relationship "sad" or :

 

I mean, you're nothing more than a hole to him.

People need to have some more self respect.

 

 

so yes my FWBs would be with men I had connection with and I was interested in as people as well (not just the sex) but I knew the arrangements could only be temporary so I didn't allow myself to get too close to them.

So again, my point being that some people can make and value a human connection without a long-term commitment, and also that different people have different boundaries as to whether they can incorporate sex into that connection, or whether they reserve it for a committed relationship. I can see and understand both approaches, and I don't think on is inherently any sadder, unfortunate, or less self-respecting than the other.

 

What is sad is if one compromises one's own principles, through external or self-deception, etc.

 

It's not - they're exactly the same thing in this context. If you agree on a STR from the beginning' date=' then it's a FWB arrangement. Arguing otherwise is simply quibbling over semantics.[/quote']I agree. That's what it is.

I disagree; I think it's debating syntax.

[johan]

I disagree; I think it's debating syntax.

 

I can't disagree with you. The benefits are clearly there. But the friends part isn't.

[Trimmer]

I can't disagree with you. The benefits are clearly there. But the friends part isn't.

Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with your point. I just couldn't resist throwing that in there as a subtle joke, a meta-play-on-words about words.

[johan]

Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with your point. I just couldn't resist throwing that in there as a subtle joke, a meta-play-on-words about words.

 

Oh yeah. I saw that. I agreed with it.

[Trimmer]

Oh yeah. I saw that. I agreed with it.

So now I'm not longer sure what we're agreeing to, but it sure feels good. Thanks, friend.

[loser101]

you are right Trimmer, you have to walk into these things with your eyes open. Then thats cool because you are not taken advantage of. I hate the FWB term by the way as I dont have the habit to sleep with my male friends.