| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 6:35:58 PM | I would like to here your opinon why people want only Friends with benefits and mostly men!
You act like FRIENDS and have the BENEFIT of physical intimacy.
It seems that the idea of "Friends With Benefits" must have been invented by a man.
because they want to enjoy sex from women without having any obligation to them.
| |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 6:49:43 PM | That is not entirely true. My neighbor called me up. Said she wanted to be friends with benifits. I almost dropped the phone. I never expected that. Because up to that point, we were only friends. Just that. We had not even kissed. But at the last minute, she backed out. Then she got really sick. Maybe the sickness drove her to that? I do not know. But i am hoping for a rain check.  | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 6:53:35 PM | | No offence but I know only men that want to have this relations. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 6:56:04 PM | ^^ Well, no man has ever asked ME to be his FWB.
So there! Shot a hole in your theory! | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 7:05:13 PM | | umm only men want these relationships? Well who are they having the relationship with then other men? If you are FWB then both partners know about it..geez what is the big deal? Let people do what they want..live your life and stop worrying about everyone else's life. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 7:11:27 PM | Well, here is my 2cents.
Pink is correct about a lot of men wanting the friends with benefits relationship!..I have been approached to that in the past personally. And, in my opinion, if the man is upfront and honest about it, power to him..at least you know from the start, if you want anything more, look elsewhere, because he's not willing to take it any further. And its ok, that's the way he has chosen to have a relationship....He's choice. I personally , think it's worth the time and risk to meet men that are open to all the adventures of meeting someone.. being a friend, a lover, and all the other great things that may occur as a result to it. Everyone has to make their own personal choices, whether we agree with it, or not.. And yes, though i don't know , but i'm sure some women choose this approach too..Maybe its due to the fact that after being single for a long time , you get used to having your life solo and dont want to change or share certain parts of it... Guess we wont know , until we hear from the people that live by that choice. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 8:08:07 PM |
It seems that the idea of "Friends With Benefits" must have been invented by a man.
because they want to enjoy sex from women without having any obligation to them.
Well, no, I think the FWB was invented by women. See, if it had been invented by a guy, it would be a booty call with absolutely no conversation, no public appearances and would last as long as the BJ. We'd get in there, do what we needed to do, wipe off on the drapes and leave. There would be no call until the next time we needed to see you. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 8:08:09 PM | | I have a great friend with benefits and it works for us. I have an out of state FWB and i have one in state lol they can work sometimes but only if both people know whats going on and is ok with it. but once one person starts to develop feelings for the other person that relationship is done normally jealousy starts to take over then | |
|
| |
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 9:06:19 PM | I think a lot of men enjoy the FWB because they don't have to invest any of the commitment you do with an actual relationship.
There are plenty of women that can do this as well... | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 9:20:15 PM | | and some people don't think its fair to have a weak relationship with shallow people, but like the benefits and simplicity of an understanding between two people. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 9:28:09 PM | | I think the concept is ridiculous! I don't understand why anyone considers this....and for the one that this is proposed to it only means that you're good enough to have crazy sex with...but when someone better possibly comes along.....you're cut off....because...well, you weren't good enough for the SO label.....ugh....I wouldn't put myself in that situation.... | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/12/2007 9:38:23 PM | You might get offended ladies. But last I checked the only way men can get anything is when the women spreads them and says go for it.
You women stop saying yes, then the men will stop getting it.
So if there are such creatures as Friends with Benefits, it has got to be a Joint effort.
And guys wouldn't expect sex if women would stop giving it away like candy.
cause once you give a guy candy, he'll always be back for more.
I first learned about "Friends With Benefits" One YEAR ago. Right here on POF.
I could go into what thoughts that sends thru my mind. Lets just say I believe these folks help contribute to the spreading of STD's. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 12:18:50 AM | I consider being a friend a significant obligation. It is not restrictive that is for sure.
The benefits part removes any unnatural boundaries between a man and a woman. I have a much closer friend as a result of it. The risk is that one or both partners will develop feelings that eventually absolve the friendship. Some risks in life are worth taking and some experience worth having.
The fear that I might develop feelings for a woman is not in me. I am more than happy when that happens. Who wrote the law saying that people have to be in a long-term relationship to love a woman and want to be with her. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 4:12:46 AM | I do not understand the "concept" of "friends with benefits" (and the term sounds ridiculous to me) and the idea and two people who are friends (rather than ... enemies or strangers) who make love to each other but live separately rather than be in each other's face all the time should be called "benefits". "Friends and Lovers" seems more appropriate to me, but hey, I am European (and I live in Europe).
But I do not understand the concept of LTRs, hang out, having sex on the first or second date, etc, etc.
In short, IMO boy meets girl and THEN what develops develops. Putting tags and objectives sounds IMO so missing the point and the essence of romance etc. I cannot understand people who NEED to be coupled at all times or people who need to be "single" at all times. But then I also do not understand "serial dating", "speed dating", "one night stands", "serial SOing" etc. All these reflect a mentality which is so unEuropean and really makes me wonder about the dating antics in America. They sound so weird.
"Friends + Lovers" does not imply promiscuity or polyamory. It is the clinginess implied by many relationships that is scary!! I can understand women who seek a male because they want to become mothers (and men who want to become fathers). But for the rest, I do not understand the labeling/tagging aka pre-determination of what the affair will develop into. Too deterministic/"socialistic" for a "land of the free" (America)!
And btw, STDs are not spread by responsible individuals who are not into "monogamous LTRs" but irresponsible and unprotected people who cheat while in supposed monogamous LTRs. Why all the pretence and under the table affairs, people in America? Why not call a spade a spade? I like American women but am soooooo glad I am not "Dating in the USA". The "market" for US dating seems sooooo "distorted" and some Americans' views on relationships seem so "socialist" to me! Not what you would expect from a country built on individual freedoms and a distaste for determinism and "communism"!!
| |
|
| |
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 4:46:28 AM | By equivalance one COULD also generalize and say that (many or most) WOMEN are Commitment Addicts or Singledom Phobics! But I will not. I will merely say that many MEN are responsible enough not to put a commitment before the woman (the carriage in front of the horses) and that they take the idea of commitment too seriously, seriously enough to stay away from commitments without fundamentals and viability. There are many men and women who enter very hastily and irresponsibly into "commitments" and the fallout is troublesome to them and to society in general.
And of course there can be no sex (even in the so called FwWBs) without feelings or emotion, unless people and robots or braindead. It is the "emotional dependency" which is the issue here. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 4:47:03 AM | nothing wrong with it as long its out in open between the two and done correctly!!
if you believe that sex should be part of a loving relationship then thats fair enough,i personally think its a blinkered way of looking at things in todays open minded world,each to their own opinion though!
if we take the emotional element away from sex then what do we have.....a past time,hobby,an activity just like ping pong or any other 2 (or more) people activity
would anyone be called names or labelled if they had more than one ping pong partner?no they wouldnt!!
and remember it wasnt that long ago when sex out of marriage was frowned upon
to me a friend is important,being a friend to someone is important AND maybe if relationships started from friendships then maybe there would less break-ups and divorces because the relationship came from a stronger background than just mutual physical attraction,thats my hopeful outlook on things,what you believe is up to you
logically sex is sex,an activity between 2 consenting adults,its the emotional content that makes it excellent or messes it up,its how we each percieve it that makes the difference | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 4:56:15 AM | Like so many other worn out and all-too-often-used phrases this "friends with benefits" has taken on it's own life and accompanying meaning. The more it's used in everyday conversation the more distorted it's original and true meaning become---it seems to fade into recent history. It originally started as a politically way to say "fvck buddies" which is really the more accurate and descriptive version. Today it seems many believe it's actually an agreement more based in friendship but sex is part of it "well, because that's just the way it is...........". Wow----could that be any more wrong?
SOME men are looking to get laid quickly with no strings attached---that's been discussed here ad infinitum, ad nauseum and waaaaaaaaaaay too much too!! LOL IF these same guys can find a way to present this to vulernable women who key in more on titles instead of content then they'll use that as long as it works to their wants. "Friends with benefits" sounds much, much nice than "fvck buddy"---doesn't it?
SOME women go into these things still thinking it's NOT about sex but people who hang on to that foolish notion are the same ones posting here about one more bad experience they encountered in one of those situations. If this whole thing was new or so recent that it wasn't yet known by the masses for what it is that would be one thing----it's been around long enough those who don't know might be related to ostriches!!
Back in my day we had the exact same thing---sex with no strings attached only then it had other names: relationships of convenience, in the 60's it was "free love" and in the 70's it was "swinging". It's still the same thing------SEX with NO strings!!
FWIW it's NOT men only who do this---------as I recall it takes two ?!?! | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:08:58 AM | | sorry pink martini i think your find it works both ways one time had a few girl friends who just use blokes for a one night stands, when they need sex. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:11:15 AM | | It's not only men...I'm a female looking for exactly that type of relationship. To me..it's about finding someone you enjoy spending time with, are able to be intimate with, yet you aren't concerned with revamping your whole life. I had this type of relationship for a year, and by far it was the best relationship I've had. If I could find it again...I think it would be the perfect solution for what I do and don't want... It doesn't have to be a sleazy or immoral situation...that depends on who you are to begin with. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:14:38 AM | In very few occasions sex is just about "sex". It usually involves feelings and friendship too. I call it "Friends-Lovers". Time for new terminologies to "escape" from the confusion of weird ones. How many people want sex and just sex? Not that many! For those, in many countries, there is a legal option: Prostitutes. No feelings, no talk, no frienship not even kissing: Just in and out! and "Next"!
PS. Msg 21 makes some valid points! | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:27:48 AM | Fwb is one of those sneaky words that mean sex on call. The words friend + benefit + sex are words that are used so superficially today that they are basically meaningless.
I agree with msg 17. If I call you friend it's for life , if I call you lover then I'm enjoying you in the present, the benefit becomes mutual and normally enjoyable in and out of bed. That's the whole point isn't it. Otherwise there are escort services for that type of transaction. | |
|
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:35:03 AM | You mean I can call an escort service to have someone go on a fishing trip with me? They'd send someone over to watch a hockey game over some beer? Wow, silly me to think I could find someone that might be on the same level as me, and enjoy a more casual style.....Guess I'd best whip out my credit card and dial-a-man so I don't offend some sensibilities....  | |
|
atlast
|
Joined: 2/25/2007
Msg: 25 | |
| Friends With Benefits
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:36:29 AM | | As my dad used to say, why buy the cow when you can get the milk free? Friends with benefits is just a less crude way of saying booty call. If you want to let someone use you for sex, that is your business. If it is mutual, well, you are both adults. Well, not really. Adults aren't afraid to take on the responsibilities involved with a mature relationship, and if you can't live without sex, isn't that kind of like not being able to live without alcohol? I'm not saying if a hot babe came along looking for that I would turn her down. I'm getting old, but I'm not dead. I think that I would seriously consider it, but knowing I am looking for much more than a roll in the hay, I would have to say, thanks, but no thanks, and send her elsewhere. I am trying to uphold a certain degree of morality, and to sell out for a few minutes of pleasure now and then would make me feel like I am weak. I'm not preaching. That is just my opinion. | |
|
Home
login 
