What's your thoughts on a relationship like this?

[Cookiesandough]

I was curious what this relationship is called/if it's possible. Just hypothetical. It is a long term committed relationship where a man and woman are very attracted to each other physically and emotionally. But not so much intellectually. They don't talk much unless necessary. They also don't need to help each other on endeavors/ advice.

 

If either of them needs company to an event they would come along. They only keep in communication to see each other maybe 1 or 2 times a week max and that is to fulfill one other's emotional and physical needs(vent to each other, cuddle, sleep together). They don't become resentful if one can't see the other. The guy can also see other women but prioritizes the girl so when she wants him available he will be there unless other life circumstances interfere.. The girl does not see others but she may not always be there for the guy in which he can call another girl to take care of it.

 

There's no need for communication at all outside of this arrangement. What's this called?

Edited October 26, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[Els]

I'd go with a "one-sided relationship in which I don't understand what the monogamous person is getting out of it".

 

No, seriously. What would the girl be getting out of it? Why be in a monogamous R with a man whom you can't talk to, doesn't help you, AND sees other women?

 

If both parties were free to date around then it would just be a standard casual dating arrangement or FWB. I also personally don't understand how you could be attracted to someone emotionally if they're never there for you AND there's no intellectual connection (hence why I'd call that "relationship" a FWB), but that's just me.

[Cookiesandough]

I'd go with a "one-sided relationship in which I don't understand what the monogamous person is getting out of it".

 

No, seriously. What would the girl be getting out of it? Why be in a monogamous R with a man whom you can't talk to, doesn't help you, AND sees other women?

 

If both parties were free to date around then it would just be a standard casual dating arrangement or FWB. I also personally don't understand how you could be attracted to someone emotionally if they're never there for you AND there's no intellectual connection (hence why I'd call that "relationship" a FWB), but that's just me.

 

Tysm Elswyth. She is getting a lot. She is getting emotional/physical intimacy with a person she is attracted to at pretty much her beck and call with next to 0 investment. She doesn't have to communicate with or see him if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to help Him as a partner would. He would be there for her because he prioritizes her as there is a strong/emotional physical connection. She probably cannot give as much of the same , but in exchange, he is welcome to get his needs met elewhere. Just wondering how you you would explain this scenario and what it's called without being exploitative or misleading and also appeal to the other person?

 

She also gets a companion to +1 events and not just some virtual stranger

Edited October 26, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[Shining One]

With the exception of the guy seeing other people, it sounds like most of my FWB arrangements. I see what you're saying though: The woman trades in her freedom to see others in exchange for the man making her a priority. I don't think a term for this exists, but FWB seems closest.

[Els]

Tysm Elswyth. She is getting a lot. She is getting emotional/physical intimacy with a person she is attracted to at pretty much her beck and call with next to 0 investment. She doesn't have to communicate with or see him if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to help Him as a partner would. He would be there for her because he prioritizes her as there is a strong/emotional physical connection. She probably cannot give as much of the same , but in exchange, he is welcome to get his needs met elewhere. Just wondering how you you would explain this scenario and what it's called without being exploitative or misleading and also appeal to the other person?

 

She also gets a companion to +1 events and not just some virtual stranger

 

So he DOES help her out, just not the opposite? That's more understandable.

 

Probably I'd still call it a casual dating scenario.

[Cookiesandough]

So he DOES help her out, just not the opposite? That's more understandable.

 

Probably I'd still call it a casual dating scenario.

Lol thank you

Yes he helps her out xD can it be casual though even if there is expected commitment involved? Commitment in that she would like for him to be available to her when she needs. Maybe not forever, but long (several mo to a year)

[Els]

Lol thank you

Yes he helps her out xD can it be casual though even if there is expected commitment involved? Commitment in that she would like for him to be available to her when she needs. Maybe not forever, but long (several mo to a year)

 

Don't think I'd call it that, not any more than I'd call a friend a "commitment".

[GunslingerRoland]

My first thought is that it sounds like FWBs.

 

where a man and woman are very attracted to each other physically and emotionally. But not so much intellectually. They don't talk much unless necessary.

 

If either of them needs company to an event they would come along.

 

But reading this I guess I'm a little unsure. I don't know how much emotional attraction and support I could have/get from someone I didn't really like talking to.

 

And the idea of taking someone to an event that I didn't enjoy talking to seems strange as well. Why would I take a date to say a wedding, and have to talk to them for hours, and introduce them to people I know if I only value them for their looks/sexuality.

[Cookiesandough]

So he DOES help her out, just not the opposite? That's more understandable.

 

Probably I'd still call it a casual dating scenario.

 

She does help him out as well. He gets physical/emotional intimacy. She will provide a lot of the things that come in a traditional rship except the communication aspect and also she is committed to him(not seeing others) so unless she absolutely does not feel like it(in which case he is free to find someone who does) she will be there. She'll alsolisten when he needs emotional support. I think it seems like both could benefit if they were the right people

[Cookiesandough]

My first thought is that it sounds like FWBs.

 

 

 

But reading this I guess I'm a little unsure. I don't know how much emotional attraction and support I could have/get from someone I didn't really like talking to.

 

And the idea of taking someone to an event that I didn't enjoy talking to seems strange as well. Why would I take a date to say a wedding, and have to talk to them for hours, and introduce them to people I know if I only value them for their looks/sexuality.

 

It always seem to me when I heard stories of FWB's that there was no romantic emotional connection and that was primarily the reason they were FWB's . I mean, they obviously like each other a lot and find each other fun but there's no love.

 

 

Maybe I'm wrong. It's not that you don't enjoy talking to them...It's more you don't feel obligated to like you would in a regular romantic relationship. Your lives aren't as entangled. You get along just fine, but neither has the desire or need for innane chatter. Maybe it is a version of FWB but FWB don't prioritize each other or have the strong emotional pull aforementioned.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[Cookiesandough]

Never mind. Sorry, this made no sense. I was just thinking about unconventional relationships due to another thread. . I guess it would just be called having your cake and eating it too. thank you for input and trying to understand.

[GunslingerRoland]

It always seem to me when I heard stories of FWB's that there was no romantic emotional connection and that was primarily the reason they were FWB's . I mean, they obviously like each other a lot and find each other fun but there's no love.

 

 

Maybe I'm wrong. It's not that you don't enjoy talking to them...It's more you don't feel obligated to like you would in a regular romantic relationship. Your lives aren't as entangled. You get along just fine, but neither has the desire or need for innane chatter. Maybe it is a version of FWB but FWB don't prioritize each other or have the strong emotional pull aforementioned.

 

I'm a pretty quiet guy personally, not huge on innane chatter. But I think you still have to have a strong amount of communication to get that emotional aspect to a relationship.

 

I guess ignoring that part, you are saying it's a relationship in that you do things together, but different in that you don't mix your lives. (Except when you go to functions). I guess I still struggle, because it's sometimes that mundane, day to day mixing of lives that brings the emotional connection.

 

It's almost like you are trying to think up a relationship where you can get all of the positive aspects of the emotional connection, but still create this separation to avoid getting too close.

[OneLov]

The “No Label” Relationship.

[1966Seahorse]

Never mind. Sorry, this made no sense. I was just thinking about unconventional relationships due to another thread. . I guess it would just be called having your cake and eating it too. thank you for input and trying to understand.

 

I must admit - the first thing I thought was "having your cake and eating it"!!

[BaileyB]

Friends with benefits.

 

This relationship would never work as a long term relationship for me. I want more from life.

[Sweetfish]

Tysm Elswyth. She is getting a lot. She is getting emotional/physical intimacy with a person she is attracted to at pretty much her beck and call with next to 0 investment. She doesn't have to communicate with or see him if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to help Him as a partner would. He would be there for her because he prioritizes her as there is a strong/emotional physical connection. She probably cannot give as much of the same , but in exchange, he is welcome to get his needs met elewhere. Just wondering how you you would explain this scenario and what it's called without being exploitative or misleading and also appeal to the other person?

 

She also gets a companion to +1 events and not just some virtual stranger

 

 

This can almost be classified as an arrangement aka Suagrdaddy/ sugar baby.

 

There is sooo much word play it almost sounds like such