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

[Untouchable_Fire]

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.

 

I was actually referencing that movie when I mentioned crying at sunsets!

 

Just remember that most guys would rather choose to be the guy you cheat with rather than cheat on.

 

Keep that in your head while dating... because it can often lead to a "I'm going to get her before she gets me" attitude.

 

Especially if your considering the FWB situation.

[flying]

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.

 

Ah, but you can't tell her what she meant. You can only describe your own interpretation.

 

Thus, I amend my earlier statement: Sorry, but your interpretation does not dictate her interpretation. You can say what you think it means all you want, of course, and that's fine for you. But telling her what it must mean? Nope.

[LiveWell]

Friends with benefits.

 

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

 

Depends on who the friend is. But if I choose to have sex with a friend, then the friend is a "lover." And what I'm getting out of the relatinoship is not snarkily denigrated as "benefits."

 

YMMV. I value sex more than you do apparently.

 

 

 

Or what's your point?

 

You seem to ask that question quite a bit.

 

Do you often have this much trouble understanding what the point is?

 

I'll try to be as clear and simple as possible next time, for your benefit.

[utterer of lies]

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

 

Physical without shame? What??

 

And it should be obvious by now that your (this) definition of FWB is not universal.

[utterer of lies]

Depends on who the friend is. But if I choose to have sex with a friend, then the friend is a "lover." And what I'm getting out of the relatinoship is not snarkily denigrated as "benefits."

 

YMMV. I value sex more than you do apparently.

 

No, I seem to value friends more than you do, apparently.

 

 

You seem to ask that question quite a bit.

 

Do you often have this much trouble understanding what the point is?

 

I'll try to be as clear and simple as possible next time, for your benefit.

 

Oh, nice. But lets pretend it was a serious question and not just puerile trolling, and answer it as such.

 

No, I usually don't have this problem, but in your case, it seems to be based on the fact that you assume a lot of things that don't generally hold. Such as that FWB=emotional dysfunction, or that a FWB cannot be a friend in the original sense of friend, too.

Edited October 26, 2010 by utterer of lies

[LiveWell]

Ah, but you can't tell her what she meant. You can only describe your own interpretation.

 

Riiiightttt....this is a discussion forum, isn't it? That is, where we each get to offer our "own interpretation"? At least I thought it was?

 

 

Thus, I amend my earlier statement: Sorry, but your interpretation does not dictate her interpretation.

 

Amend away, if you think something you've previously written is inaccurate.

 

I completely agree with your new, corrected statement, my interpretation obviously does not dictate her interpretation, she can interpret things any way she chooses.

 

 

 

You can say what you think it means all you want, of course, and that's fine for you. But telling her what it must mean? Nope.

 

You just contradicted yourself, since obviously I am entitled to give my interpretation of what something means. Which is exactly what I did.

[LiveWell]

No, I seem to value friends more than you do, apparently.

 

The question you need to focus on is not how much you value your friends, but how much they value you.

 

 

Oh, nice. But lets pretend it was a serious question and not just puerile trolling, and answer it as such.

 

It was a serious question. Do you have a comprehension problem? If not, stop asking "what was your point."

 

 

No, I usually don't have this problem, but in your case, it seems to be based on the fact that you assume a lot of things that don't generally hold. Such as that FWB=emotional dysfunction, or that a FWB cannot be a friend in the original sense of friend, too.

 

May I assume that a person who chooses the screen name, "utterer of lies," is someone who is 1) truthful or 2) not truthful?

 

Do you "comprehend" that question? If the answer is 1) you are truthful, then why did you choose that screen name? If the answer is 2) and the screen name is accurate, what is the point of the conversation?

[utterer of lies]

It was a serious question. Do you have a comprehension problem? If not, stop asking "what was your point."

 

May I assume that a person who chooses the screen name, "utterer of lies," is someone who is 1) truthful or 2) not truthful?

 

Do you "comprehend" that question? If the answer is 1) you are truthful, then why did you choose that screen name? If the answer is 2) and the screen name is accurate, what is the point of the conversation?

 

Oh, stop the petty insults of my intelligence. It doesn't contribute to this discussion and I'm not getting upset about it, so it's pretty much pointless.

 

Also, there's some fun to be had that you chide me for asking 'whats your point' just before asking me 'what's the point'.

 

 

But back to the topic: You still did not give any arguments on why you think that having FWB-relationships is a sign of emotional dysfunction.

[theBrokenMuse]

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 is only one of the reasons people choose to see someone in a FWB role. Sometimes the FWB status has nothing to do with what they perceive as the 'quality' of the other person to be. Not everyone WANTS commitment, marriage or monogamy at certain points in their lives. Some folks go through phases where they want sex and some light companionship but don't like the idea of investing in an actual relationship. It's not something I'd be particularly interested in but I realize that my preferences are just that... mine. To each their own.

[LiveWell]

Oh, stop the petty insults of my intelligence. It doesn't contribute to this discussion and I'm not getting upset about it, so it's pretty much pointless.

 

I didn't insult your intelligence.

 

I asked you a direct question based on your repeated, but apparently false, assertions that you did not understand the point(s) I was making. If you understand what I was saying, fine. Stop pretending you don't understand something, then when asked about what it is you don't understand, turn around and get angry that someone has "insulted your intelligence" by asking you to specify what it is that you claim not to understand.

 

 

Also, there's some fun to be had that you chide me for asking 'whats your point' just before asking me 'what's the point'.

 

I asked you "what the point" of being involved in a discussion with you if your screen name is literally correct. I think it's a legitimate question.

 

 

 

But back to the topic: You still did not give any arguments on why you think that having FWB-relationships is a sign of emotional dysfunction.

 

I did. Re-read the thread if you're still curious about what they are.

[stillafool]

When sally bragged about screwing her now-husband on the first date, I first took it as a "serious" comment. If so, maybe her husband isn't as lucky as she was. Then it occurred to me that we don't really know what quality of a man she married, so maybe he was just as lucky, or luckier, than she was, to marry her. Ultimately I decided that maybe she was just being sarcastic/defensive/overly sensitive, but since we don't really know any details about how this FWB turned into a courtship turned into an actual marriage, it's impossible to say.

 

I guess she wasn't being sarcastic, she was actually seriously opining that the fact that she screwed her husband on the first date (and paid for both of them) says something positive about her. I'm not sure what that would be, given that the reason she screwed him on the first date was because at that time they were FWBs (according to her, now, anyway). Her paying for the date for BOTH of them actually implies something completely different, however--that it was SHE who was "courting" him, that at the time, he was the one who wanted a sex only relationship, and that she acquiesced to that with the hope that it would evolve into something more. If so, then it's only in restrospect that she's characterizing the relationship as FWB, because that put things on a more equal footing, moreso than saying "I chased him and put out sexually for him and even paid for his dinners until I persuaded him that it would be a good idea to perhaps get married to me, a single mom with a small child."

 

 

 

 

You really are a hateful little man, aren't you? Do you feel good about what you said above? You're telling us you actually know what Sally's husband was thinking?

[lenny]

For me personally, I have had fbuddy relationships in the past and I don't feel cheap nor a cheater. If someone I had this relationship with hooked up with anyone, I was out of there - even in one situation where during fights with the new woman the guy would come sniffing around for a booty call.

[Surrealist]

The level of defense amassed against posts challenging FWBs and other casual sexual encounters is amazing since I last saw this thread yesterday. If you people are so comfortable with your encounters and your conscience clear, why the defensiveness? I would of thought that if these encounters were so healthy and beneficial, there would be a sense of comfort, happiness and contentment from those who engage them?

 

I wouldn't hold it against a girl if she's had a few casual encounters over time, but if she's slept around a lot then yes that would be a big no no. If that is being judgemental, then I wear my judgementalism like a badge of honor. Having said that though I practise what I preach - so to speak. If I was sleeping around I would feel like I was cheating on my future partner. But that's just me, like I said, I have my scruples.

[stillafool]

I know someone who is married to a man she slept with on their first date. They have one of those relationships that people envy, and have been together for nine years now (their happiness just seems to continue to grow).

 

I know plenty of couples who had sex on the first date and went on to marry. My brother and his wife did and they are still happy after 17 years.

[stillafool]

The level of defense amassed against posts challenging FWBs and other casual sexual encounters is amazing since I last saw this thread yesterday. If you people are so comfortable with your encounters and your conscience clear, why the defensiveness? I would of thought that if these encounters were so healthy and beneficial, there would be a sense of comfort, happiness and contentment from those who engage them?

 

I wouldn't hold it against a girl if she's had a few casual encounters over time, but if she's slept around a lot then yes that would be a big no no. If that is being judgemental, then I wear my judgementalism like a badge of honor. Having said that though I practise what I preach - so to speak. If I was sleeping around I would feel like I was cheating on my future partner. But that's just me, like I said, I have my scruples.

 

It seems to me that the people on here who have engaged in these relationships are certainly less angry than the ones who think it's wrong. Maybe those posters should engage in such relationships.

[LiveWell]

That is only one of the reasons people choose to see someone in a FWB role.

 

The perceived non-suitability of the FWB for an emotionally deeper "relationship" is an essential part of what "FWB" means. Regardless of why the FWB is initiated, it is clearly perceived as of lesser value by its participants. And by the society at large.

 

 

Sometimes the FWB status has nothing to do with what they perceive as the 'quality' of the other person to be.

 

If that was actually true, there would be no need for FWB. The FWB would just be "my boyfriend" or "my girlfriend." People get into FWBs because either 1) they are perceived as being not good enough for boyfriend/girlfriend "status", and they know it; or 2) they perceive the other as not good enough for that status. FWB is the name attached to the relationship with someone who doesn't rate being called a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend."

 

 

Not everyone WANTS commitment, marriage or monogamy at certain points in their lives.

 

That's fine. That's what "dating," "boyfriends," and "girlfriends" are for. By calling someone a "FWB" you are saying "boyfriend/girlfriend? god no" You don't want to hold yourself out to the public as boyfriend/girlfriend. Or at least one of you does not.

 

 

Some folks go through phases where they want sex and some light companionship but don't like the idea of investing in an actual relationship.

 

"Sex and some light companionship" with a member of the opposite sex, either one or more than one, is called "dating." "FWB" is just wanting to have sex with someone because they're not good enough for you to be in an explicitly public dating relationship with. If you just want sex and light companionship with someone, and are not ashamed of being with them, then you date them. Period. That doesn't mean you have to be exclusive or serious.

 

 

It's not something I'd be particularly interested in but I realize that my preferences are just that... mine. To each their own.

 

Another seeming female defender of FWB who actually doesn't buy into it.

 

No they are not just "your preferences." They are your implicit recognition that whatever else FWB relationships might be, they are not good enough for you.

[Woggle]

These couples usually were not FWB but just decided to have sex early. Women rarely make the transition from FWB who wants no commitment to loving and faithful wife. Even if they do marry something snaps after a while and they want out.

[LiveWell]

You really are a hateful little man, aren't you?

 

LOL. If you're going to insist on making ad hominem attacks, please try to make them a little more creative and entertaining.

 

 

Do you feel good about what you said above?

 

I was asked to explain my thought process, and I did. It has nothing to do with "feeling good" or not. I have no particular feelings about it one way or the other, and am kind of surprised that anyone would persistently have such intensely emotional responses to a rather dry and abstract discussion on a forum like this one.

 

 

You're telling us you actually know what Sally's husband was thinking?

 

No, I didn't. Please read more carefully next time?

 

Thanks.

[LiveWell]

I know plenty of couples who had sex on the first date and went on to marry. My brother and his wife did and they are still happy after 17 years.

 

 

OK, but whoever said that having sex on the first date = FWB???

 

I'll tell you what: Next time you are visiting with your bor and sister in law, refer to them as each others "FWB" or "F buddies" and see what kind of reaction you get.

 

If I called my sister and bro in law "f buddies" or "FWB" or if I called my wife's brothers and their wives respectively, F buddies or FWB I think they all would be extremely offended.

 

Like I said since you brought up your bro and sister in law why not ask them what they think and let us know. All input on this is welcome, right?

[LiveWell]

The level of defense amassed against posts challenging FWBs and other casual sexual encounters is amazing since I last saw this thread yesterday. If you people are so comfortable with your encounters and your conscience clear, why the defensiveness? I would of thought that if these encounters were so healthy and beneficial, there would be a sense of comfort, happiness and contentment from those who engage them?

 

Implicit in the discussion is the notion that they are not really that "comfortable" with the whole issue. In fact there doesn't even seem to be any agreement on what FWB really means. I think most of the time, the reality is that an FWB-type relationship occurs when the woman is chasing the guy, and the guy isn't that interested, except for the sex part. Simply because typically guys have more difficult sexual access to women than vice versa.

 

If a woman truly just wants casual sex, there's generally no reason for her to limit it to one guy in particular, her "FWB" or "F buddy." Conversely, for most guys, in order to have exclusive and continuous sexual access to a woman over a period of time, he is going to have to be perceived by her as extremely desirable. He's willing for her to be his FWB because of the likelihood that it will not be that easy to get another girl willing to just have sex with him--he has to find someone who actually digs him that much to just have sex with him and only him.

 

It's very interesting but in all the talk about FWB's, not one of the women advocating them or claiming to have participated in them, admits to being in one because she really dug the guy and he wasn't that into her. Therefore in order to get him to spend time with her, she had to give sex without any kind of a formal romantic relationship.

 

They're all trying to claim that the reason it was an FWB was because they (the female that is) wasn't particularly interested in the guy. (Even if they ended up GETTING MARRIED to the guy!)

 

Knowing what each of us do about human nature, and the way men and women typically behave, is that very likely? Or do we just have a six sigma distribution of female FWB in this particular sample set?

 

Look, all these women who give lip service to "modern" viewpoints really aren't all that different. They still want guys to buy them dinner. They still want splashy weddings. They still want to be pursued and courted.

 

Since people haven't changed all that much, then the most likely explanation is that "FWB" is just a face saving device for women who are so desperate for a relationship with a particular guy that they will agree to have meaningless sex with a particular guy even knowing that he's not that interested in them other than for the sex itself.

 

 

I wouldn't hold it against a girl if she's had a few casual encounters over time, but if she's slept around a lot then yes that would be a big no no. If that is being judgemental, then I wear my judgementalism like a badge of honor. Having said that though I practise what I preach - so to speak. If I was sleeping around I would feel like I was cheating on my future partner. But that's just me, like I said, I have my scruples.

 

I don't mind if a woman has had a variety of sexual partners as long as she hasn't degraded herself.

[theBrokenMuse]

The perceived non-suitability of the FWB for an emotionally deeper "relationship" is an essential part of what "FWB" means.

There is no assessment of a person's suitability for a non-existent position. In other words, no one is going to make assessments about a person for a role in their lives they have no interest in filling.

 

If that was actually true, there would be no need for FWB. The FWB would just be "my boyfriend" or "my girlfriend."

That's an actual relationship which many people take pretty darn seriously these days not an ultra casual non-relationship in which there is little emotional intimacy but a good deal of sexual intimacy.

 

People get into FWBs because either 1) they are perceived as being not good enough for boyfriend/girlfriend "status", and they know it; or 2) they perceive the other as not good enough for that status. FWB is the name attached to the relationship with someone who doesn't rate being called a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend."

Once again, no. Not everyone wants a relationship or emotional intimacy with a member of the opposite sex. Not everyone thinks as you do or wants the same things in life. You seem to be projecting your own desires onto others and it is impeding your ability to look at this with objectivity.

 

No they are not just "your preferences." They are your implicit recognition that whatever else FWB relationships might be, they are not good enough for you.

Now the above is just silly. Just because something is not my taste doesn't make it inherently bad nor would I suggest that it's not good enough for me. It's not something which would be a right fit for me. I get very emotionally attached to someone whom I sleep with and also I prefer deep emotional intimacy so a FWB situation would be a disaster in my case. My preferences, however, are nothing other than subjective desires for my own life based upon an intimate understanding of my own psychology not a framework for what I think should be of any importance to anyone else.

Edited October 26, 2010 by theBrokenMuse

[abouttoloseit]

What a perfectly great analogy,

 

I know! Im so glad you explained murder, I didn't quite know what it was. But what you're saying is, if somebody has no experience of something, they have no "right" to form an opinion about it?

[sally4sara]

LOL actually that's pretty cute, you were absolutely smitten with your now husband from that first barbecued rib,

 

It would make for a wonderful flourish to the story of how we got together, but it would be inaccurate. I thought he was too loud, perhaps not trustworthy, and much too young. I'd known of him for about a year but not well. I'd heard a few people speak ill of him in that time.

 

I just wanted to go to the ribfest and wanted company. Over the next few months, I told him to take a hike a number of times for the reasons I listed above. He was too loud (still is sometimes), he wasn't trustworthy (at first) and he is younger than I and I doubted he had the maturity to deal with being in my son's life.

 

HE decided to make some personal changes in the time he began to get to know me better. Like learning to be more honest because he was dealing with an honest person. And he turned out to be an excellent father. Had he continued on as he was presenting himself initially, we would not be here today.

 

I don't care how YOU define anything. I don't care if you want to take me at my word or if you want to read into it with ideas you cannot know to be fact. This is again, another instance of whatever you want there fella, but how is it working for you?

how it worked for me was I stopped worrying whether or not someone I was seeing approved of me or my life and started caring more about if I approved of them and how well they fit INTO my life before making them an important factor in my decisions. What you would call a FWB, I wouldn't even bother with. What I call a FWB, you call a boyfriend. So what.

[MrNate]

So is this yet another thread we can't take anything useful from?

[fltc]

I'm starting to really enjoy this thread! I figure we're only a few posts away from pistols at dawn soon to escalate to tactical nukes! <G>

 

One thing I learned, people really don't agree on ANYTHING about 'FWB', not even on the definition!

 

BTW, accept the fact that, for men anyway and probably for women, 'making love' and 'having sex' are two VERY different things, I hope that will help some folks get a better handle on the FWB thing?