Guys, do you respect women who have fbuddy relationships? Is that a "low-grade"chic?

[Anela]

 

Support often comes with a huge helping of condescension. When I'm hurt, I need to rub some dirt on it and get back out on the field. It's the reason we are reticent to seek medical attention... and many other things. I have no interest in being labeled a crybaby or a weakling. Women are just as complicit in this mentality as men.

 

Actually, I'm impressed by men who would get that sort of help, and I know other women would be as well.

[theBrokenMuse]

Actually, I'm impressed by men who would get that sort of help, and I know other women would be as well.

I don't know about impressed but I think it's safe to say that the real strong men are the ones who get the help they know they need irregardless of the way others will view them for it.

[sally4sara]

Except that I suspect I mean this in a very different way than you do, LiveWell. In this and your previous incarnations, I'd say you have a tendency to over-interpret with insufficient data.

 

Instead of guessing this or that about sally4sara's intentions or those of her husband, and deciding who must have been "courting" whom, perhaps it would make more sense just to ask if that's relevant?

 

I suspect that her point was simply this: She saw him, at the time, as someone attractive that she wanted to have sex with. She isn't someone who expects a guy to pay, so she paid for dinner. They had sex. She enjoyed herself. Some time later, it became more, and they got married. She's quite happily married and says nice things about her husband and marriage; hence, he's a lucky guy. Because they have a happy relationship, not because he got his rocks off for free.

 

Interpreting what came in the interim is fruitless; far better just to ask her and go from that.

 

You interpreted it pretty accurately.

 

These fellas can howl about what kind of women they won't have relationships with all they like and what those women are likely to do in a relationship, but it isn't supported by fact. Whether or not they would date a particular woman for a particular reason is something that occupies their thoughts - not the thoughts of someone else living however makes them happy. They can guess all they want about what kind of marriage or relationships "these kind of women" have, but their beliefs don't dictate the outcome. It only dictates what kind of attitude they give off to others.

 

Why care what others do is all I wonder when I read their angry posts? They should be worrying about what they do and if it is working for them.

Do you sleep alone? Does anyone love you? Will anyone call you back after the first date? Do you get dates at all? Over here is the pool of people you've decided are beneath you? Well over there is the another pool of people who won't give you a chance either. Good luck to ya!

[Untouchable_Fire]

Actually, I'm impressed by men who would get that sort of help, and I know other women would be as well.

 

First, men are more to blame than women in propagating this mentality. At the same time... most women don't find overly sensitive guys attractive.

 

I know you want the tough guy who has a sensitive side... but those personality traits are so opposite they don't often coexist. So, I see most women go for the tough guy/bad boy whatever you want to call it type... and just hope for some sensitivity later. It's fairly rare that you go for the guy who cries at the sunset hoping he has a bit of a toughside. It happens... but just not that often.

[sweetjasmine]

Actually, I'm impressed by men who would get that sort of help, and I know other women would be as well.

 

Yeah, I actually get very irritated with people I care about who are reluctant to get medical attention or psych help when they need it. To me, it's a sign of weakness to sit there and suck it up because you want to be "manly", and going to the doctor or shrink is what pussies do.

 

In my experience, men who refuse to get help either bottle up their thoughts/feelings and act out in some way (drinking, irritability, aggression, odd/irresponsible/reckless behavior) or end up dumping everything into someone else's lap, someone who isn't equipped to help beyond saying, "Go get help." Both of those are more destructive than just sucking it up and getting professional help in the first place.

[sweetjasmine]

It's fairly rare that you go for the guy who cries at the sunset hoping he has a bit of a toughside. It happens... but just not that often.

 

Actually, in my experience, the guys who make a big deal out of being tough and bad are deeply insecure. If they trust you, they let their guard down and drop the tough guy act, and what you see is a scared little boy.

[Woggle]

Like I asked in another thread if a woman is not interested in a relationship why does she care if a man considers her to be a candidate for one?

[Anela]

I don't know about impressed but I think it's safe to say that the real strong men are the ones who get the help they know they need irregardless of the way others will view them for it.

 

That's what I meant - that's why I would be impressed.

[LiveWell]

Except that I suspect I mean this in a very different way than you do, LiveWell.

 

How is it possible for me to mean something in a different way than I mean it?

 

 

 

In this and your previous incarnations, I'd say you have a tendency to over-interpret with insufficient data.

 

Stop generalizing and be a little more specific. If you disagree with something I've posted, state what it is, don't make any personal attacks against me, explain why you think I'm mistaken, and we can discuss that if you like.

 

The fact of the matter is if I stated a fact or opinion which is clearly "wrong" you could presumably very simply quote it and dispose of it.

 

Things that are not clearly right or wrong are more likely matters of opinion than of fact, and therefore are not "wrong" simply because you or someone else might hold a different opinion.

 

 

 

 

Instead of guessing this or that about sally4sara's intentions or those of her husband, and deciding who must have been "courting" whom, perhaps it would make more sense just to ask if that's relevant?

 

It's not necessary to "ask" because sally laid all the necessary objective "facts" out on the table. And also she, like some of the other women who are seemingly identifying with women who participate in FWB's, is overly sarcastic/defensive anyway.

 

In any case how did sally characterize her first "date" with her now husband? She paid for HIS dinner, then had sex with him.

 

If the genders were reversed, no one would have much trouble characterizing that as a pretty ordinary "date" in which the male "got lucky" with the woman on the first date. That constitutes "courtship." Since I'm not a sexist, it doesn't make any objective difference to me that in this case, it was the female who was courting the male by buying him dinner first before having sex with him. A date is a date. This was a very successful first date.

 

 

We also know, objectively, that the two of them continued to have sex for a year; she then introduced him to her child, which indicates the relationship had ramped up; and then they got married at some point.

 

That's "courtship." And in fact it's pretty ordinary garden variety courtship. The fact that now for ego-salving or other purposes the woman in question wants to claim it was "in reality" a FWB situation is not objectively relevant. No woman wants to have to admit that at least initially she had to chase the man, rather than the other way around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect that her point was simply this: She saw him, at the time, as someone attractive that she wanted to have sex with.

 

Maybe, but she was also a single mom with a young child. As proved by subsequent events she most likely was also sizing him up as potential husband/stepdad material from the start. There's no way she would have wasted a year or more of her time with him unless she perceived her potential, because she had no need to. Obviously if all she wanted was casual sex then I'm quite sure she could have had sex with any number of other guys, and perhaps without even having to buy them dinner, first.

 

You may think that I'm speculating but so what of it? She's taken a position and she's not going to deviate from it. That's fine, so all we can look at are the objective facts and what we know about how similarly situated people tend to behave.

 

IME single women with young children, IF they are emotionally healthy (big caveat there), ALWAYS date "with a purpose." No, that doesn't mean they can't have a fling or a ONS without it leading to more. But it is pointless for a woman in that position to restrict herself to dating one guy for over a year unless she believes it to have more potential than "just sex." Why waste her time on that? Why not have sex with someone who has potential to be more than just a sexual partner? There's no reason not to, and in this case, he WAS more than just a sexual partner.

 

 

 

She isn't someone who expects a guy to pay, so she paid for dinner.

 

Nice try. If it was simply that she didn't expect him to pay for her they would have split the bill. Dutch treat. However it is a truism that when a woman agrees to go "dutch" it probably means she's not interested in the guy. When she lets him pay it's not a promise but it is a signal of more interest. Generally speaking.

 

So let's not be sexists. When sally agreed to pay for her date's dinner, it signaled to him that she was interested in him. If she was not pursuing him, why pay for him? Or more to the point: Why did she MAKE A POINT of stating, in this thread, that she paid for his dinner? (It only matters because she made a point of it, indicating that it was a significant point. The only thing it signifies to me, is who was pursuing who.)

 

Besides, why are you so "bothered" by the notion that it was sally who pursued her now-h, rather than the other way around?

 

Is it because that would imply that somehow, she was "less desirable" than if he had pursued her, or if neither had pursued the other?

 

You see I don't care about that because I'm not a sexist. But I do care about reality because I'm a realist. What really happened? Well one thing that no one can argue about is who picked up the tab.

 

 

They had sex. She enjoyed herself. Some time later, it became more, and they got married.

 

....which is how most "normal" people get to the point where they get married to each other, nowadays. They meet, have dinner together, have sex, sometimes on the first date if they click right away, continue doing so, deepen the relationship, then ultimately if things shake out the right way, they get married.

 

That's NOT "Friends With Benefits." That's "a couple." That's a "relationship." That's "dating." What I can't really figure out is why sally is so intent on characterizing what in all respects appears to have been a perfectly normal and healthy dating relationship/courtship with her now-husband as "FWB."

 

 

 

She's quite happily married and says nice things about her husband and marriage; hence, he's a lucky guy. Because they have a happy relationship, not because he got his rocks off for free.

 

So why does she feel a need to implicitly denigrate her husband, herself, and her relationship by insisting on now characterizing him as an FWB when it's pretty clear, at least from objective criteria, that FWB isn't at all an accurate description of what their relationship was?

 

 

 

Interpreting what came in the interim is fruitless; far better just to ask her and go from that.

 

OK. Sally why are you calling your husband your former FWB? Do you think that's "better" than simply referring to him as your "boyfriend" that you ended up marrying?

 

Why is that? Does it make you hip or something?

[Untouchable_Fire]

Actually, in my experience, the guys who make a big deal out of being tough and bad are deeply insecure. If they trust you, they let their guard down and drop the tough guy act, and what you see is a scared little boy.

 

Insecurity and sensitivity are different.

 

But, what you are saying is very true.

[sally4sara]

more crap

 

I always prefer to go dutch. In our case it was a last minute invite (I did the asking) and I bought some ribs at a fest and shared.

[donnamaybe]

I'm not a sexist.

Now THIS is rich!

[flying]

 

So why does she feel a need to implicitly denigrate her husband, herself, and her relationship by insisting on now characterizing him as an FWB when it's pretty clear, at least from objective criteria, that FWB isn't at all an accurate description of what their relationship was?

 

You are missing the point. She's not denigrating him.

 

She doesn't see the fact that they started out as FWB as denigrating him. That's all you.

[hopesndreams]

Guys, do you respect women who have fbuddy relationships?

 

How can you expect someone to respect you if you don't respect yourself?

 

This goes for either gender.

[flying]

Like I asked in another thread if a woman is not interested in a relationship why does she care if a man considers her to be a candidate for one?

 

And as I replied in another thread, on what planet is having a FWB the same as not ever wanting to be in a relationship??

 

Was it that way for you?

 

I am aware that there are guys who think it's different for men and women, biologically. I don't think you are one of those guys, Woggle. That's why I'm not buying this from you.

[LiveWell]

I always prefer to go dutch. In our case it was a last minute invite (I did the asking) and I bought some ribs at a fest and shared.

 

 

LOL that's quite a bit different from implying or saying that you "paid" for his dinner.

 

You paid for YOUR dinner, then you SHARED food with him.

 

Sharing food in that manner, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is an "intimate" act. People who are romancing each other share food like that.

 

LOL in actuality you had a perfectly normal dating relationship didn't you? What I don't get is why you insist on denigrating it by calling it a "FWB." It was never "FWB", IMO, at least the more you specifically describe your actual interactions, the more obvious IMO that this was a pretty standard relationship which led to marriage.

[sally4sara]

OK. Sally why are you calling your husband your former FWB? Do you think that's "better" than simply referring to him as your "boyfriend" that you ended up marrying?

 

Why is that? Does it make you hip or something?

 

Because thats what he was. I didn't go out with him once and then hang my moon of him nor he for I. I accepted casual dates from others for another 4 months, but didn't feel interest in any of them for more than a meet up or movie.

 

Around the 4 months mark, we discussed exclusivity and he became a non serious boyfriend. Somewhere around 8 months in I felt more than casual about him and we became serious.

 

He says he does not feel denigrated and agrees that FWB is a pretty accurate assessment of what we were for quite a while.

[Anela]

First, men are more to blame than women in propagating this mentality. At the same time... most women don't find overly sensitive guys attractive.

 

I know you want the tough guy who has a sensitive side... but those personality traits are so opposite they don't often coexist. So, I see most women go for the tough guy/bad boy whatever you want to call it type... and just hope for some sensitivity later. It's fairly rare that you go for the guy who cries at the sunset hoping he has a bit of a toughside. It happens... but just not that often.

 

Well, I don't cry at sunsets... unless I'm feeling especially emotional over something. Did you get that from the movie "Bedazzled"? I loved that movie, and their exchanges:

 

The guy: "I want to be the most sensitive man in the world. No, wait! I want to be the most *emotionally* sensitive man in the world!"

Devil: "Damn, I could have had a lot of fun with that one."

 

He cries at sunsets, writes poetry, is gentle, and the girl runs off with a jock. I see what you're getting at, but I've known someone who is both sensitive and tough... he admitted to some feelings that scared me, and I took a deep breath, and told him that I trusted him to get any help that he needed. He warmed up to me even more - that softened his energy and cheered him up - but he not only didn't get that help, he was the one who slept with hookers in Bangkok (which left me no longer wanting to have any involvement with him).

 

He wasn't involved with someone, because of his own insecurities. He has a lot of great qualities, but he lets his darker moods and impulses win, which brings out his colder side, as people react to those darker moods. I wish things hadn't gone the way that they did, because he meant a lot to me, but I also learned a lot from him: his self-defeating behaviour held up a mirror to me concerning my own behaviour and issues.

 

I want to respond to sweetjasmine, but I have to go. I'll be back later.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Anela

[LiveWell]

You are missing the point. She's not denigrating him.

 

A FWB is someone who is not worth the emotional energy/investment to be involved with other than sexually. That's the point of it. It's not someone who is "spousal material." That's the whole point of trying to make a distinction between FWB and a relationship with might be expected to lead to something deeper than just sex.

 

Just because the initial interactions with a new bf become sexual rather quickly does NOT mean it's an FWB. Rather it means that the two people have a lot of chemistry. Sometimes the sexual passion can grown from the emotional attachment; but a lot of times it works the other way around. The sexual chemistry happens immediately, that's what causes the couple to want to spend time with each other, and that leads to bonding and the development of an emotional relationship.

 

That's NOT IMO a FWB. An FWB is where the two people deliberately get into a sexual relationship where they EXCLUDE the possibility of any meaningful emotional attachment developing. If it's not that, what's the difference between an FWB and....any other relationship which includes sex?

 

She doesn't see the fact that they started out as FWB as denigrating him. That's all you.

 

Sorry, but by calling him her FWB she is stating explicitly or implicitly, take your pick, that in her view he was "not good enough" to be considered as potential husband material.

[flying]

A FWB is someone who is not worth the emotional energy/investment to be involved with other than sexually. That's the point of it. It's not someone who is "spousal material." That's the whole point of trying to make a distinction between FWB and a relationship with might be expected to lead to something deeper than just sex.

 

Just because the initial interactions with a new bf become sexual rather quickly does NOT mean it's an FWB. Rather it means that the two people have a lot of chemistry. Sometimes the sexual passion can grown from the emotional attachment; but a lot of times it works the other way around. The sexual chemistry happens immediately, that's what causes the couple to want to spend time with each other, and that leads to bonding and the development of an emotional relationship.

 

That's NOT IMO a FWB. An FWB is where the two people deliberately get into a sexual relationship where they EXCLUDE the possibility of any meaningful emotional attachment developing. If it's not that, what's the difference between an FWB and....any other relationship which includes sex?

 

 

 

Sorry, but by calling him her FWB she is stating explicitly or implicitly, take your pick, that in her view he was "not good enough" to be considered as potential husband material.

 

Relevant section bolded.

 

That is your view. It's not hers. Sorry, but nothing else matters, because you aren't in her relationship. She is, and her husband is. That's just all there is to it.

[utterer of lies]

So you could apply that same rule like this:

 

Someone who has not commited murder (or had a FWB Relationship), should not judge someone who has(Who has). Because they themselves have never murdered?

 

Hehe, would it stand in court?

 

What a perfectly great analogy, comparing murder, the premeditated killing of a human being to a type of relationship between consenting adults.

 

Ouch.

[LiveWell]

Because thats what he was. I didn't go out with him once and then hang my moon of him nor he for I. I accepted casual dates from others for another 4 months, but didn't feel interest in any of them for more than a meet up or movie.

 

LOL actually that's pretty cute, you were absolutely smitten with your now husband from that first barbecued rib, you just don't want to admit it for some reason. What you're describing--going out with other guys but not being really interested in them is a big indicator--is what used to be called "falling in love" with your now-husband. The reason you couldn't get interested in the other men is because you were emotionally getting invested with your h. That's how most women roll anyway.

 

It may be difficult for you to understand because you're immersed in your own relationship but since I'm not I can look at what you're describing with a little bit of space and objectivity. I would feel the same opinion about anyone who described what you're describing as having happened in your relationship.

 

 

 

 

Around the 4 months mark, we discussed exclusivity and he became a non serious boyfriend.

 

LOL maybe I don't really get these "distinctions" people want to make. It certainly sounds to me like he became a pretty serious boyfriend when you went exclusive at four months. "Exclusive" is pretty serious, don't you think? And the timing is exactly right too--relationships generally escalate from the casual to the serious somewhere between the two and four months mark, if they're going to progress at all beyond the initial stages.

 

 

Somewhere around 8 months in I felt more than casual about him and we became serious.

 

Again the timing is right, at about this point things are starting to get REALLY serious, spending LOTS of time with each other, maybe even having early thoughts of marriage. Listen if you were exclusive you were serious when you were exclusive. Also, even though you were not openly exclusive before four months, you indicated that after the first time you had ribs with your husband, you were never at all very interested in anyone else. this means in your brain or in your heart or both, you probably knew this guy was "the one" that very first night, but you didn't want to screw up/jump the gun.

 

So you tried a few dates with a few other guys but since you had met your true love they just couldn't interest you.

 

Again this is all perfectly normal but IMO does NOT indicate an FWB type relationship.

 

He says he does not feel denigrated and agrees that FWB is a pretty accurate assessment of what we were for quite a while.

 

Again his perspective might be very different from your perspective. But if he like you had a few dates with other women but nothing really happened and he wasn't interested in them then the same reasoning would apply.

[utterer of lies]

An FWB is where the two people deliberately get into a sexual relationship where they EXCLUDE the possibility of any meaningful emotional attachment developing. If it's not that, what's the difference between an FWB and....any other relationship which includes sex?

 

Friends with benefits.

 

So you don't have any kind of meaningful emotional attachment to your friends? Or what's your point?

[LiveWell]

Relevant section bolded.

 

That is your view. It's not hers. Sorry, but nothing else matters, because you aren't in her relationship. She is, and her husband is. That's just all there is to it.

 

Of course my opinion "matters" since someone has presented their personal situation as perceived support for their position in a discussion. If she's going to state her opinions about her relationship as part of her argument, then anyone else participating in the same discussion is entitled to render their own judgment about that in response. If she didn't want people to do that, she wouldn't have injected her own specific relationship into the discussion.

 

You'll notice I haven't done that. My personal relationship is irrelevant to my participation in the discussion unless I choose to use my relationship to prove some kind of a point.

[hopesndreams]

Friends with benefits.

 

So you don't have any kind of meaningful emotional attachment to your friends? Or what's your point?

 

It's a "pretend" friendship so you can get physical without the shame. FWB is just sex. That's it. That's all Folks.