Let's Bring Back 'Lovers'

July 20, 2011

I read an interesting blog post the other day suggesting the elimination of FWB relationships and bringing back the concept of lovers. The author argues that FWB arrangements seem to rarely include true friendship, as you have to hide your emotions/feelings from each other in order to not seem clingy or crazy.

When having a lover was common, the author writes, people indulged in the emotion they felt for each other. They already knew or felt the relationship was doomed and that it wouldn't be a happily ever after, so instead of straining to make it 'no drama' they didn't take anything for granted. They didn't hide from each other.

From the blog: "...But at least with a lover you’ll be permitted to share your emotions, even if you’ve both agreed early on that you’re not going to end up together and will continue seeing other people. And besides, in a friends with benefits relationship, where the default emotional setting seems to be 'show no emotion for fear of seeming too intense' – well, it all boils over anyway. Eventually, someone is going to show up drunk at your doorstep screaming and crying 'why don’t you love me?' You just don’t get to make passionate declarations about how this other person is your sun and moon and stars first. And those declarations seem exciting and cool and something worth reminiscing with your grandchildren about one day.

Saying 'then he stood me up for two hours so he could play x-box with his friends and I didn’t say anything because I didn’t want to seem "crazy"' doesn’t have the same ring to it."

I like this idea. It's essentially getting into a relationship (or multiple relationships) that will likely not last (as most relationships fail), but in a way they may be healthier because there's freedom to be completely open with each other about how much you care, unlike FWB. Having to hide your emotions is painful, and in the end much more damaging to a relationship.

What do you think about this?

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/forget-friends-with-benefits-let-s-bring-back-lovers-2513378/?pg=2#comments

July 20, 2011

FWBs is the most retarded concept I've ever heard of. And I can't understand why anyone would let another person treat them like that.

Back in the olden days, we had "serious dating" (ie, I could see myself marrying this person someday) and "casual dating" (ie, I'm not ready for marriage). I don't see why things have to be more complicated than that. We don't need 37 different kinds of "relationships".

July 20, 2011

I like it. The few times I tried the whole FWB. It was a train wreck. I think if we could have looked at it as a fun passionate affair... instead of an emotional screw it might have gone better. Good thought.

July 20, 2011

And 'lover' sounds so much more classy than 'FWB' or 'f*ck buddy', don't you think?

July 20, 2011

I can't see things playing out any differently though. When I tried a FWB situation before, I was very honest with the guy at the very beginning. He still "fell in love" with me and went a little nuts. If we had called it something different would it have gone any better? I did treat him good. Cooked meals that we shared sometimes and stuff, just like I would with a good friend, which he was - but isn't any more.

July 20, 2011

I can't see things playing out any differently though. When I tried a FWB situation before, I was very honest with the guy at the very beginning. He still "fell in love" with me and went a little nuts. If we had called it something different would it have gone any better? I did treat him good. Cooked meals that we shared sometimes and stuff, just like I would with a good friend, which he was - but isn't any more.

It could, it could not. But the distinction between having a 'lover' and having a 'FWB' is what is done with the feelings you have--whether positive or negative. When you're in a FWB situation, it's all about hiding your feelings, showing no emotion. You're not supposed to fall in love. There are strict boundaries that almost always end up backfiring in a huge, destructive way. It's exceedingly difficult for many people to not start to care (or pretend to not care) about someone beyond the pleasure you get from them in bed.

What if there were no boundaries? Sure, it could play out the same way as a typical FWB. But being able to openly express what you feel is always better than knowing you have to hide it for the sake of the relationship continuing.

July 20, 2011

I think of "lovers" as simply being like serial monogamy. It's basically a relationship that will never end in marriage. As a former serial monogamist (there was a period where I had LTRs I knew probably wouldn't end in marriage), I can say I think those sort of relationships have value. They definitely helped me find out who I am and what I want, which I cannot imagine getting from something as shallow as a FWB.

A few friends and I were discussing this the other day, and one said, "Serial monogamy is basically what romantics do instead of FWBs." And I think that's kind of true, but it's also kind of false. It's true in a way, but it's also just. . . when you get to serial monogamy that includes LOVE (where the person is not hiding from love or defending against it, simply because they know the relationship most likely -- not definitely but it's not a consideration at the time -- won't be a forever thing), which is what I think you're talking about tigressA and is how I always approached it, then I think it becomes more potentially transformational.

Love is so much more awesome than sex (though the two are best combined). That's why everyone is afraid of it. Because people are obsessed with endings, so they can't even get started.

July 20, 2011

Having a "lover" sounds like you are married and having an affair.

July 20, 2011

Having a "lover" sounds like you are married and having an affair.

That's what I thought too from the title, but in reading her text, I thought it was not what she meant.

July 20, 2011

A women(most guys) can't have a "lover". Things change with time. FWBs seem to work for most women in present time.

July 20, 2011

What if there were no boundaries? Sure, it could play out the same way as a typical FWB. But being able to openly express what you feel is always better than knowing you have to hide it for the sake of the relationship continuing.

But that's the thing. If someone hasn't been laid in a good long while (which I hadn't because I had sworn off R's at that point) but doesn't want to just screw some random guy, what do you do? I thought we had an understanding. I was open with my feelingss which was that I had been through some rough emotional times and was completely against the idea of a romantic relationship. We were old friends, and we both thought things would work out perfectly that way for both of us. Well, obviously they didn't. Additionally, as time progressed it became quite clear to me that even had we met up again under other circumstances (i.e. I was open to a R at the time), we would never have worked out. If I had tried to be with him in a R type situation, I would likely have wanted to knock him the hell out!

There were times when he completely disregarded my feelings on issues. He wanted to drive my new car once, and it was after dark. I live on a country road where LOTS of deer roam. He was going over 70 mph and was scaring the HELL out of me, and he refused to slow down!

Calling us "lover" instead of FWB wouldn't have made one bit of difference. Not in our situation. However, I do agree that the term "lovers" sounds nicer.

July 20, 2011

FWBs were intended by women to fu(k over the average to below average guy

Ex-f(cking-actly...

Really? Are saying average and below average guys don't have FWBs?

July 20, 2011

Average and below average guys can't get FWB. Some might want it but none get it.

Nah, my FWB would be considered "below average" in looks, aspirations, etc. but he was my friend. However, he DID have a nice cock.

July 20, 2011

But that's the thing. If someone hasn't been laid in a good long while (which I hadn't because I had sworn off R's at that point) but doesn't want to just screw some random guy, what do you do? I thought we had an understanding. I was open with my feelings which was that I had been through some rough emotional times and was completely against the idea of a romantic relationship. We were old friends, and we both thought things would work out perfectly that way for both of us. Well, obviously they didn't. Additionally, as time progressed it became quite clear to me that even had we met up again under other circumstances (i.e. I was open to a R at the time), we would never have worked out. If I had tried to be with him in a R type situation, I would likely have wanted to knock him the hell out! There were times when he completely disregarded my feelings on issues. He wanted to drive my new car once, and it was after dark. I live on a country road where LOTS of deer roam. He was going over 70 mph and was scaring the HELL out of me, and he refused to slow down!

Calling us "lover" instead of FWB wouldn't have made one bit of difference. Not in our situation. However, I do agree that the term "lovers" sounds nicer.

You don't have to screw some random person. It could be a friend, an ex, whoever, really. But the whole point is that when you are lovers, you don't act like you don't care about the other person--unless you truly don't care for them aside from the pleasure they give you in bed. The 'no drama' edict in FWB situations means 'no feelings'. You're not allowed to express anything but unbridled lust toward each other, and if there's anything deeper there it has to be shoved under the rug, usually to the detriment of oneself and the eventual downfall of the relationship.

When you are lovers, you revel in those deeper emotions (again, if they are there); indeed, in everything about the relationship. It doesn't matter if you are incompatible for whatever reason, if you know you two would never work out. You enjoy what there is for however long it lasts. I feel like if my second FWB relationship had played out like a lovers relationship, I would appreciate it today. Instead I sort of regret and am embarrassed by it.

July 20, 2011

You don't have to screw some random person. It could be a friend, an ex, whoever, really. But the whole point is that when you are lovers, you don't act like you don't care about the other person--unless you truly don't care for them aside from the pleasure they give you in bed. The 'no drama' edict in FWB situations means 'no feelings'. You're not allowed to express anything but unbridled lust toward each other, and if there's anything deeper there it has to be shoved under the rug, usually to the detriment of oneself and the eventual downfall of the relationship.

And who says you have to "act like you don't care about the other person" in an FWB situation?

I never did that to him. That's why it's called FWB. Friends. I always treat my friends good. However, IMO, "lovers" actually love each other romantically.

July 20, 2011

I always thought the FWB concept was ridiculous.

But they work for some people. Why should we dictate what others should and should not do? We need only make our own principles and stick to them. I would never enter into a FWB arrangement, so it matters little to me.

July 20, 2011

And who says you have to "act like you don't care about the other person" in an FWB situation? I never did that to him. That's why it's called FWB. Friends. I always treat my friends good. However, IMO, "lovers" actually love each other romantically.

Ah, okay. Now I see where you're at. I apologize; when I said 'care' I basically meant in a romantic sense. And there are also FWB relationships that don't even factor in the friendship part. You merely f*ck and run. Only correspondence is about your next 'date'. Though I guess that's more commonly known as a 'booty call'.

July 20, 2011

Average and below average guys can't get FWB. Some might want it but none get it.

Naw, I've known tons of average looking guys and guys I'd never date who've had FWBs. Even with girls prettier than me. Girls dig guys for all kinds of reasons, even in FWB situations, from what I've heard. (If he was bad in bed or butt ugly, then no, of course not, unless the girl is totally nutso or something.) Most of my male friends who have a FWB going are average looking. The really hot guys either tend to want relationships or totally casual sex (no ongoing FWB drama necessary for them; they can just go to a bar and come home with a gal). I think FWB situations were made for average guys, frankly.

July 20, 2011

Non-monogamous, presumably short-term, romantic relationship. Lovers. A summer fling. A European vacation. A night to remember. Everything that Dr. Zhivago is not

July 20, 2011

Ah, okay. Now I see where you're at. I apologize; when I said 'care' I basically meant in a romantic sense. And there are also FWB relationships that don't even factor in the friendship part. You merely f*ck and run. Only correspondence is about your next 'date'. Though I guess that's more commonly known as a 'booty call'.

Ah, shoot! No need for apologies hun! I understand there are people who call a "hit it and quit it" thing FWB, but that's a different thing to me. That's a ONS wherein there is no "arrangement" made for future sex w/o strings. I think that may be where all these gals with these FWB threads are coming from. They have a ONS with a guy (or maybe several) and think it's an FWB thing, then they start hoping for more, but there was no explanation letting them know that there would, in fact, absolutely NOT be more.

But maybe I'm the one who has it wrong. I always thought it was a pre-arranged situation where actual friends decided to have mutual enjoyment but keep it strictly friends only - you know, mutual respect and the whole thing, but an agreement to not take it into a R.

July 20, 2011

Non-monogamous, presumably short-term, romantic relationship. Lovers. A summer fling. A European vacation. A night to remember. Everything that Dr. Zhivago is not

Yes, precisely!

Donna, yes, that is what a FWB relationship is--a pre-arranged agreement to keep it to 'friends who have sex with each other' and nothing more. But as the author of the blog, and in fact, many people on this forum, point out, it is extremely difficult for many people to keep romantic feelings out of the equation. That is the main thing people in FWB relationships struggle with. Chucking the 'friends who have sex with each other and nothing more' boundary is what is being encouraged, what with the extreme likelihood of deeper feelings developing anyway.

July 20, 2011

Ah, shoot! No need for apologies hun! I understand there are people who call a "hit it and quit it" thing FWB, but that's a different thing to me. That's a ONS wherein there is no "arrangement" made for future sex w/o strings. I think that may be where all these gals with these FWB threads are coming from. They have a ONS with a guy (or maybe several) and think it's an FWB thing, then they start hoping for more, but there was no explanation letting them know that there would, in fact, absolutely NOT be more.

But maybe I'm the one who has it wrong. I always thought it was a pre-arranged situation where actual friends decided to have mutual enjoyment but keep it strictly friends only - you know, mutual respect and the whole thing, but an agreement to not take it into a R.

I think you have it right, but people get absolutely nutty about each other too fast. This is what I'd call a FWB---a pre-arranged situation. I think some women just don't want to admit they had ONS/casual sex but want to have it, so they justify it with a FWB? Maybe? I'm not really sure how that happens with the "I slept with this guy I just met. He's my FWB. But he never called me back!" type stuff.

But I thought tigressA was noting the very big difference between friendship and love. It's a huge chasm to most people since everyone likes friendship and most people are terribly afraid of love.

July 20, 2011

Non-monogamous, presumably short-term, romantic relationship. Lovers. A summer fling. A European vacation. A night to remember. Everything that Dr. Zhivago is not

So a lover is NOT monogamous? In my FWB, we were at least sexually monogamous...

TA, are you wanting to change your relationship into one of lovers, rather than BF/GF?

July 20, 2011

Yes, precisely!

Donna, yes, that is what a FWB relationship is--a pre-arranged agreement to keep it to 'friends who have sex with each other' and nothing more. But as the author of the blog, and in fact, many people on this forum, point out, it is extremely difficult for many people to keep romantic feelings out of the equation. That is the main thing people in FWB relationships struggle with. Chucking the 'friends who have sex with each other and nothing more' boundary is what is being encouraged, what with the extreme likelihood of deeper feelings developing anyway.

I must say, the concept sounds lovely for women.... But for most men, the whole point of avoiding a committed relationship is to avoid "feelings," which seem to be a big part of "lovers." So why would they be interested in a exclusive lover-ship, but not a relationship?

July 20, 2011

So a lover is NOT monogamous? In my FWB, we were at least sexually monogamous...

TA, are you wanting to change your relationship into one of lovers, rather than BF/GF?

Holy crap, no! This is nothing to do with my relationship. If it did I would've said it right in the OP. I'm not one to make threads initially geared to general public opinion and then make them about my relationship.

Sign In

Let's Bring Back 'Lovers'

Recommended Posts

tigressA

EasyHeart

April72

tigressA

donnamaybe

tigressA

zengirl

EasyHeart

zengirl

SmileFace

donnamaybe

SmileFace

donnamaybe

tigressA

donnamaybe

Els

tigressA

zengirl

carhill

donnamaybe

tigressA

zengirl

Star Gazer

Star Gazer

tigressA

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...