BS: Friends with benefits

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Lox
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 10:21 AM

Sorry about garbled nature of last post - was written in 2 minutes before running out door - as was this qualification ...


... bye ... (zooooom)>>>>>>>>>

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Lox
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 10:20 AM

Hi Patsy,

Well I suspect you may be right and that in general girls might tend to be less content with the whole FwB set up, but I have experienced, and know guys who have experienced situations where they have become emotionally attached to their FwB only to be disappointed as she has turned round and said "sorry - I never meant for it to be more than x"

I can say though, honestly, that in those situations there has been a lack of honesty on the part of myself or said other male friends, who have held out hope, not because we genuinely perceived that there was more to the relationship, but just because we hoped that maybe it could lead to more.

If everyone goes into it hoestly, and that means being honest with oneself as well as with ones partner, then misunderstandings are much much less likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 09:12 AM

Man, talk about perverted... I mean, it's one thing to be caught with yer drenkin' buddy's wife but quite another to be caught with an "illegal lobster"... Hard to live that one down but I guess it's a Maine thing, I donno???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:42 AM

I do wonder if 'Friends with benefits' would mean the same for a female as it would for a male. It could be for the young male just a case of having his cake and eating it. It may be alright for a girl to start with but I would like to know what a girl of today honestly thinks about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: kendall
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:49 PM

He was Commissioner of the State fisheries dept. After he retired he was caught with illegal Lobsters. I wish I'd been there.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Lox
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:57 PM

er .. kendall .. when you say ... um ... "former" ... what exactly do you mean? ...

And if you didn't, ........ who did!

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: kendall
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 12:26 PM

I've heard it said by many older people, we only regret the things we didn't do. Now, that doesn't mean I wish I had killed my former boss!

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 10:18 AM

When I was young I read somewhere that one "should not go to bed with anyone whom you would not be friends with OUT of bed". I took that to heart...and missed several 'interesting' offers as a result, but it was better that way.
Still seems like good advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 08:43 AM

>Much better to trust a friend than to commit to an idiom.<

Amen to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Lox
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:56 AM

The truth is that each and every relationship on this planet, whatever label is applied to it, is unique.

Many young folk today go for "friends with benefits" because their experience of friendship is that it is loving and respectful, while their experience of "relationships" is inhibiting and painful.

Much better to trust a friend than to commit to an idiom.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:30 AM

Compare the "friends with benefits" with older traditional practices.

When I was of an age to have an interest, the typical pattern was to date as many persons as possible of the applicable sex, and attempt to discern which were willing and which were not. This meant a continual succession of person about whom you knew relatively little except that their standards were sufficiently low that they'd go somewhere with you.

A significant hazard was that the ones willing quite likely were willing with others, and hence quite likely to expose you to STDs, or were willing because of "personality quirks" that made them "undesirable except for sex."

If one is able to find a "friend" whose "standards of conduct" are reasonable observed and are responsibly adult, and if both are willing to participate, it seems quite reasonable for them to do so. Having such a friend quite likely should significantly reduce the "need" for either to have random "one-nighters," with a significantly reduced exposure to "random harm."

The request that the friend report sexual activities with others needn't mean giving details of the acts and performances. It is instead a necessary part of the "friends with benefits" agreement, since having such a friend is for the purpose of having a sexual outlet with minimal exposure to the risks attendant to being promiscuous. The "reporting" is because you may want to defer further activities until any transmissible problems can be ruled out, or in the case of a sudden and significant change in behavior it may be in your best interest to "cease benefits" permanently.

Friends come and go, and (just like with marriages) there are no guarantees. There is the possibility that the "friendship" will outlast the "benefits" or it may be the other way around. The is also the possibility that another kind of relationship may eventually be grow from it.

The point emphasized by the few I've known who have "had a friend" of this sort is that as long as both friends act responsibly it's a hell of a lot safer than playing the field.

That seems like quite an adult and responsible sort of behavior to me, compared to what we elders of the tribe would consider the "traditional pursuit games."

Of course, a determined fool can muck up any good idea, and it's not unusual for people to "claim the name and cheat the game." No specific results can be guaranteed, but it seems like a fairly rational game for those inclined to seek sex but willing to play fairly in this kind of arrangement.

Of course I can't say what I might have done if this game had been invented while I still had the inclination to play, so persons with actual experince may have other opinions.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:11 AM

Not very long ago my youngest son when in his teens used to say that the girsl he and his friend were girls they went with not going out with. Apparently all staying good friends until they found someone to fall in love with. Times have changed, I wouldn't have dreamt of admitting to sleeping with all my mates even back in the modern 70s. I still can't believe that the green-eyed monster wouldn't arise from time to time even now though.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM

It works well, IF it is done right.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 02:47 PM

It's hard, heh heh, but it can be fine when it works...

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 09:45 AM

Fuck Wits Bragging?

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 09:12 AM

FWB

Fucking Without Baggage?

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 07:55 AM

Good article, Ed - tks for posting.

Here's a couple more, from the male perspective   Friends with Benefits Rules

and the female   Suggestions for ladies considering a FWB relationship

Comparing the two is interesting -- HE says Treat her no different than any other friend, male or female, until the benefits are abound ... You are only helping each other to release some sexual tension ... The best advice is: if feelings develop, stop having casual sex! ... make sure you are not allowing her to take you away from the important things in life! Don't put her before your other mates, job or education ... you need a life to live while you're not getting your rocks off. Make sure you keep it in perspective

Geez, he makes it sound so alluring, eh? Probably has to beat all his friends off with a Big Shtick   

=]

Meanwhile, SHE says It's a very, very rare woman who can screw one guy exclusive and not grow at least semi-attached to him...
Don't be dependent: You are a wonderful woman even without some horn dog licking at your heels. If you are not emotionally stable on your own you should -never- give any man any sorts of benefits, friend or boyfriend...do not let him treat you like a prostitute .. You are a proud, intelligent, independent woman who does not need a man to fullfill your life. Love your body, love your mind, love your soul. There are plenty of men out there who will give you everything you want...

Well, at least they agree on a few things: the importance of communication, safe sex, and having a life of your own while indulging in mutual masturbation sessions. There's hope for the species yet, I suppose   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 08:12 PM

I suspect FWB is not for everyone. Many people get confused when caring + shared values + friendship + sex (lust or otherwise) does not produce love, that love is not always the sum of those parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 08:03 PM

"safety, size and performance"

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 08:02 PM

A kinda related article:

"Junk sex is no better than junk food''


The sexual revolution confronts the SUV

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: kendall
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 07:47 PM

Bill D is right. Communication is the key here. Make damn sure you are both singing off the same sheet.
After all, it's probably the friendliest thing friends can do.

Sex with strangers is lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 07:42 PM

A husband and wife are sitting quietly in bed reading when the Wife looks over at him and asks the question....

WIFE: "What would you do if I died? Would you get married
Again?"

HUSBAND: "Definitely not!"

WIFE: "Why not? Don't you like being married?"

HUSBAND: "Of course I do.."

WIFE: "Then why wouldn't you remarry? "

HUSBAND: "Okay, okay, I'd get married again."

WIFE: "You would?" (with a hurt look)

HUSBAND: (makes audible groan)

WIFE: "Would you live in our house?"

HUSBAND: "Sure, it's a great house.."

WIFE: "Would you sleep with her in our bed?"

HUSBAND: "Where else would we sleep?"

WIFE: "Would you let her drive my car?"

HUSBAND: "Probably, it is almost new."

WIFE: "Would you replace my pictures with hers?"

HUSBAND: "That would seem like the proper thing to do."

WIFE: "Would you give her my jewelry?"

HUSBAND: "No, I'm sure she'd want her own."

WIFE: "Would you take her golfing with you?

HUSBAND: "Yes, those are always good times."

WIFE: "Would she use my clubs?

HUSBAND: "No, she's left-handed."

WIFE: Silence --

HUSBAND: "shit."

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,jeff
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 07:39 PM

There was an episode of Seinfeld where the Jerry and Elaine characters tried this...didn't work. Never does. Dylan wrote about it.

There doesn't seem to be alot of women commenting on this thread...just an observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 07:15 PM

Love it is a killing fit
Beauty its a blossom
But if you want your fanger bit
Just stick it at a possum.

as sung by Frank Warner on February 4Th, 1961 at the University of Chicago Folk Festival

Art Thieme -- who likes what OldDude said anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 07:05 PM

At my age, how solid would play a part.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 06:43 PM

"The surest way to lose a friend is to have sex with one. "

Nawwww... it all depends on how solid the friendship is.... and what one takes the sex to be about.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:54 PM

Ricky... hahahahahaa.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:34 PM

Ah, you mean he is a literary prostitute without a literary relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:13 PM

Hmmm... sounds to me like Nathan wrote a rather eloquent piece of prose as a writer that elicited emotions on a number of levels. Good writer. Does he espouse/endorse/condone what he writes? Who knows? He does sell copies as evidenced herein.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:08 PM

Sounds to me like Nathan needs to grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Lox
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:07 PM

"'friends' & 'strangers'"

There is a wide gap between friends and strangers that is inhabited by acquaintances of all sorts.

An honest person knows who their friends are though.



Richard,

Not sure what is meant by the term "weasel word" but I think you are adding to my point.

There are a million types of relationship, including that which I have with my local shopkeeper, that which I have with my daughter, and that which I have with my girlfriend etc ...

If a weasel word is one that is misused, then the word "relationship" definitely fits that category as its use nowadays heaps an enormous burden of expectation on those whose communion/intercourse it is meant to describe.

Rather than observing and enjoying the nature of their relationship, they feel compelled to impose popular definitions of what a relationship is upon each other and themselves.

"Friends with benefits" is how folk avoid this.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 04:37 PM

"For gay men I know"

By which I mean some gay men that I know, one of whom was a prostitute.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 04:33 PM

Important not to confuse casual sex with strangers or purely sexual no strings attachments with friends with benefits.
Friends with benefits implies friendship first and foremost.
Good mutual friends..

All depends where you draw the line between 'friends' & 'strangers'. See, a pair of people could meet socially and get on as 'mates' and then think there might be a bit of fun there too, without either having been long term friends or there being any evident romantic interest.

That's not cruising, it's "Hey, we have a good laugh together, lets fall into bed?" But in many respects, 'mate' sex is worse than 'stranger' sex or 'friend' sex, because neither party really knows the other.

As for stranger sex, I think that really depends on the social etiquette of one's immediate social group. For gay men I know, it's almost a formulaic ritual faceless congress, where everyone knows the rules. No doubt people do get hurt and some may feel crap about such encounters, but I tend to believe that certain (sub)cultural norms diminish the possible emotional confusion and distress we might otherwise expect to experience in such circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 04:32 PM

"Relation ship" is a weasel word here.

A friend ship is a relationship.

Lots of people use the word to describe a monogamous love attachment.

Misuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM

Casual sex with strangers has always been and will always be dangerous. But, young men in rut, which is 24/7/365, who are poorly educated, seldom learn on their own before it is too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Lox
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 04:07 PM

Important not to confuse casual sex with strangers or purely sexual no strings attachments with friends with benefits.

Friends with benefits implies friendship first and foremost.

Good mutual friends generally want to try to maintain and nurture their friendships so are careful not to let them get damaged.

Good friends have a way of handling things well together, even a bit of mild line crossing.

Casual and sexual relationships where the sex comes first, being soulless encounters, are where the emptiness and emotional longing can be painful hurtful things.

Worse still are sexual attractions and encounters between incompatible people that compel them to form ... ahem ... "relationships" ... ahem ... often leading to unhappy cold meaningless marriages as they have so little else in common.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:48 PM

Then again, there was a baptist lass that went to Bob Jones University that I had benefit with. It did end poorly when she messed up but it was rather beneficial for a while. She didn't go to BJU for long but she learned a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:23 PM

cs... "lock up your bunnies." Hahahahahahaa.

In any case, bad idea. Took me a number of relationships and a marriage to realize that "money changes everything", with apologies to Cyndi Lauper, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:04 PM

"Could it be that with "Friends with benefits" frequently one person feels a bit more attached than the other and feels much more of a loss when it ends?"

Definitely! And that's the risk people take.

You'll get party A who just wants fun, and party B who secretly wants a relationship.
But because they're a bit desperate, party B pretends they're totally cool about it, until they start encroaching on party A's personal space and needing constant attention (which is a more or less normal thing in love relationships as it intensifies) and becoming angry and demanding - and/or manipulative and subtly controlling - when they don't get their emotional needs fulfilled.

Big warning signal is casually introducing you to Mum and Dad, because "Well, we're passing near there anyway and I just need to pick up my Fatal Attraction eyeliner." Time to become 'just friends' again sharpish ..and to lock up your bunnies.

Or of course, party B could simply get themselves really hurt without being any danger to bunnies.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM

"Friends with benefits"?

Not. The surest way to lose a friend is to have sex with one.

Internationally, it seems to work better though. Canada, for example, is a "friend" of just about every other nation on the planet. Except the US. We have a "Friends with Benefits" type relationship with the US      ie    they screw us over, we're still friends    :)

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: kendall
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:33 PM

I've fallen in lust many times over the years and it was ok for the time, but, it never lasted because it was like eating ice cream. Delicious and very satisfying but so temporary.
Now, I'm not knocking ice cream, I love it, but if that was all there was to eat I'd be looking for some meat and potatoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:03 PM

Not sure John - there would be too many inmates!

(again not to say decent relationships can not happen)

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 01:58 PM

Is there room in that cell for another one, Jon?:)

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 01:54 PM

I think it gets far more complicated than that ED but to cut things short. I;d sooner be in jail me boys than be in love again (garden where the praties grow)

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 01:46 PM

Could it be that with "Friends with benefits" frequently one person feels a bit more attached than the other and feels much more of a loss when it ends? I suspect most of these arrangements are short term, though I am open to hearing of contrary examples if you have them to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:38 PM

Cs, that was my take on it. Nathan's version seems to be about acquaintance sex, not FRIENDS with benefits. No friendship involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:33 PM

When I saw the thread, I thought it would be about friends on benefits, I have to admit.

Other than the irrelevant waffle about Her Majesty's Government above, by one of Her loyal subjects, whether he likes it or not..

Sex is good. Love is good. I found the pair together to be better than the sum of the individual parts. I had a "good time" between my marriages, but once the old bastard "love" reared its head, it was time to hang up my spurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 11:26 AM

"emotions always get into the mix when you are that intimate with another ..."

No, they don't, though of course they do sometimes for one or other party, and that's usually the place such agreements go wrong. It really does depend on the people involved on whether or not it works for both of them. Take the above 'excerpt' from our Nath there. Based on the poisonous way he talks of his ex "sex-slut" in that tale, he sounds like he got emotionally involved to me and was demanding much more from her than just 'friendship and some sex'. He got emotionally burned and blamed her for shutting him out when he failed to play by the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:47 AM

There are no free lunches...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Friends with benefits
From: olddude
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM

I never cared what others do especially two consenting adults ... I personally don't see how it will work as emotions always get into the mix when you are that intimate with another ...