Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating and Love Advice  > She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 SC67
Joined: 6/21/2009
Msg: 76
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?Page 4 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
why do you assume that because a person has a FWB that either that person OR the FWB are more promiscuous than the person who does NOT have a FWB?

I hate FWB threads, but I'm going to offer my opinion on why that is logical.

If you are capable of a FWB relationship, you are capable of sex without emotional/romantic entaglements. Therefore, you (& your FWB) would naturally be more comfortable with other forms of NSA intimacy. After all, it's just scratching an itch, right? If your FWB is looking to get their itch scratched & you aren't available it stands to reason they'd look for someone else to do it.

All the FWB fans can say they don't do it that way & their friends love them too much for that (as friends), but I've seen the most ridiculous things done between platonic friends & between married couples who have promised to love & cherish one another. People lie to avoid uncomfortable situations. They may lie to keep a friendship or they may lie to continue to have sex. These mythical perfect FWB situations are made up of humans so it stands to reason there's just as much lying & cheating going on with them as with any other relationship. Just because you think you've removed the "stakes" by swearing there's no real relationship doesn't mean the other person isn't going to lie or mislead to continue getting benefits and/or to keep the friendship.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 77
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/18/2011 11:08:35 AM

Is it OK to have a friend that you have phone sex or sexting with while dating or in a relationship?

I wouldn't personally be bothered by it. She wouldn't be actually having sex with anyone.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 78
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/19/2011 9:39:06 AM

I still don't understand the ``bye bye any other dating prospects.'' I averaged 2 first dates/week.

Not just for you, but the other person if they go exclusive -- they could have more than you.

I don't get the going steady part. Going on dates one person at a time is not going steady or a relationship. It's an agreement to sh*t or get off the pot. If a woman couldn't figure out whether or not we clicked, we didn't click.

Going steady means you're exclusive. No, it doesn't mean "relationship", but it means being exclusive. Going exclusive means you only go out with that person and only that person (until it may falter). Many people wait too long on whether they want to be an item (ie go exclusive) -- and frustrate the other wanting to say "sh!t or get off the pot". Going exclusive doesn't mean it's serious.

I contacted exactly one woman who had a problem dating one person at a time and I talked to at least 100 who
found that appealing

From my experience, if not meeting the person or knowing beforehand (apart from a few emails and pics seen), most don't want to go exclusive right off the bat. But, I think a lot of people don't want to be datING more than one person at a time, which is taken in a different context. I'm not a fan of "friends first" -- which is not a taking-it-slow, but trying to re-create a situation which can be found IRL where you're friends with someone in a social circle, get to know each other, THEN actually decide go out on a Date. But at the same time, there's another approach which I find very common -- even if you click pretty well, you don't go Exclusive right off the bat. I think some demographics may like that more than others, though... but regardless of demographic, I think most do find frequently seeing more than one person at a time (datING someone) unappealing.

If the first date isn't really convincing enough, what's the point in going on a second date?

Not everyone wants to go Exclusive just because things clicked pretty well. If they didn't know them much at all beforehand and never met or barely met beforehand, they may be happy about it -- and naturally be not-that-interested in other prospects... but to go Exclusive to them would feel like it's going too fast -- if they are someone who has prospects usually floating around when they're Single.

someone insisting on staying friends with an ex, is like someone who advocates peeling a Band-Aid off slowly, rather than just ripping it off quickly

I pretty much agree. Theoretically it CAN be okay for someone to have an ex as a friend, but a recent ex? Uhhh, no. Someone they consider to be "a friend" if/when bumping into each other, sure. But even for a non-recent ex, where it is a case where there'd be basically zero-chance of anything happening and not being close friends, it's out of respect for the Significant Other not to -- because they don't know for sure, and it is statistically too common that people will think about or revert back to an ex to some degree if things are a bit rocky (thus rockiness will more likely lead to breakup, or something not-too-rocky can become rocky). Best to get anything related to thoughts & feelings about an ex, more importantly more recent one(s), out of the picture altogether when going steady with someone.
 MutedEnthusiasm
Joined: 7/8/2011
Msg: 79
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/19/2011 9:29:08 PM
Msg188: quit assuming that EVERYONE who has a FWB is automatically not going to have multiple.

No such assumption was expressed. The post you’re responding to clearly says “it is not true in the case of most of the people whom I personally know” thus leaving open the possibility that it might be true for others.
The assumption you think is there simply isn’t. Your rebuttals are misdirected. And I find your language quite offensive.
 stargazer977
Joined: 11/7/2011
Msg: 80
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/20/2011 1:30:00 PM
This woman was being honest with you. FWB is nothing to brag about (at least with most people). So what was the game she was playing? She doesn't mind being single and waiting for a good guy---but in the mean time doesn't want to go without the sex either. Men do it all the time.

That's why majority FWB situations never amount to anything of substance--it isn't meant to be. It is just to fulfill a need that isn't being met by a person who she deems worthy enough to become emotionally attached to.

Now, if that doesn't sit well with you--then that's completely fine. You should never change your wants/needs or settle for anyone---but please don't go calling it game playing when she was upfront with you
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 81
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/20/2011 7:44:54 PM

In the meantime, it's nice to hook up with a friend on occasion. I'm not going to be celibate for the next three years.

And I think the problem is, there are some people who hiss at this concept -- and think you can't ever be really open for a relationship if you have a friend who, when entering the actual Dating scene, still is an optional benefit at the same time before you start actually datING anyone. And some people go so far as to think that because you have had a FWB, you're sleazy, sleep around or sleep with people who sleep around, and really don't want an LTR.

People like simple explanations & designs to things. It's easier that way. But sometimes we get into situations that sound more complex than they are, and in fact, are pretty simple.... but to others' emotional experiences and belief systems, it's perplexing when it's really not.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 82
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/21/2011 12:50:37 AM
Ooh, better leave myself an out: I personally think that you sound inconsistent and arbitrary.

There's nothing inconsistent or arbitrary. Talk is talk and sex is sex. It's only inconsistent and arbitrary if you conflate talk with physically having sex. For that matter, you might as well throw watching porn in there, if you're worried that someone you date will be turned on by another person. I really don't care as long as she doesn't act on it.

*EYEROLL* So it's ok for her to have phone sex.....or sexting but you don't expect a woman to actually have physical sex until she meets you....Oh please... what a joke...You have been soooo judgmental for a woman with a FWB but she can have a phone sex buddy.

That's the kind of thing people say when they have no actual argument to offer. In addition, you have also made a completely false statement in order to even write that content free reply you posted. I haven't said anything negative about having an fwb. I've said something negative about having sex with an fwb AND dating someone at the same time. I'm sorry if you find it more difficult to rebut what I've actually said, but attributing statements to me which I did not make is not really conducive to making you look very honest or ethical.

Clearly you are most chaste, you and your hands must have a great relationship between SERIOUS relationships...

Maybe by comparison...
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 83
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/21/2011 11:03:08 PM

Sorry but that sounds controlling to me, and I have dated control freaks who try to tell me who I can and cannot be friends with


How is that controlling? I don't care who my partner has as friends. If she chooses to keep her Ex lover as a 'friend' then she is equally free to find someone who will accept that.... Expecting me to accept her "ex-lover-friend" when I don't want to would equally be controlling....


I think "control freak" is an often misused term, personally - a person only has "control" as long as the other person is willing to be a "doormat" and let them. You either leave the relationship, don't date them, etc, or you are in essence accepting their "terms" and dooming yourself to a relationship full of conflict. If you *choose* the latter, for any extended period of time, its a *choice* you've made. You can't continue with a "control freak" without simultaneously being somewhat of a "doormat" yourself.

I mean, one could easily change the terms of that and choose a simple statement of "I won't date anyone who is doing drugs or drinks excessively" - and call that a "control freak" if that's the case... I mean, c'mon, they just want to "have some fun" hanging out with their drinking/drugging buddies on occasion, and you just "want to control them". If you've dated one of these, and have tried to issue an "ultimatum" to change them, you're obviously a "control freak" then, using that kind of definition.

A true "control freak" goes way beyond that - it would extend to virtually *everything* in their life, not one particular thing they don't like.
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 84
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/21/2011 11:12:20 PM
There comes a time when you have to pull up your big boy pants and stop being jealous over somebody's PAST lovers and concentrate on the future with that person.


And therein lies the rub... once we've met and have a 2nd date lined up, if she's still sleeping with her FWB he's no longer a *PAST* lover is he? She is at that point *dating* me (if not 'seriously/sexually') and yet has a *CURRENT* lover, since at that point presumably both her and I (or there wouldn't be a 2nd date) are obviously making efforts to/have interest in pursue(ing) something past that first meet. At that point the FWB stops being in the "PAST". I suppose, differently from the OP, I would not have just "ejected from the chat" with the woman - I would have plainly told her I don't want to date a woman who's got a FWB going, no hard feelings but not for me, and then stopped communicating. There's more than enough women who *aren't* like that, that I don't need to deal with it. Seems a bit of a double standard to be talking about "concentrating on the future" with someone new, while banging someone else on the side. I dunno about anyone else, but when I'm having sex with a woman, I'm probably *not* "concentrating" on much else at that moment.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 85
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/22/2011 6:28:07 AM

I never said I was going to have sex and date "someone" ...

On the contrary, you said precisely that you would do that (in a reply to me, even):

Abelian- You expect a woman to drop what she has for you after ONLY a first date? There will be lots of first dates...Or even a first meet...You ask a lot...I would be willing to drop my Benefits if I knew things would be headed to commitment. Because I refuse to sleep with anybody else until I know things are progressing.


I don't see anything wrong with that, because there are no men I am committed to.

Dating someone doesn't imply committment, unless you don't call it dating until you're in a committed relationship. Although, it's possible you define dating that way, that definition is at odds with any definition that most anyone else would use. The only way to make both of your statemtents consistent is to really be saying that you're going to continue having sex with an fwb and dating someone until you feel like stopping the sex with the fwb, at which point, you'll officially admit that what your doing with somebody else is dating him, regardless of whether the guy in question is under the impression that you're dating. Hey, if you can get away with that, it's a plan that might work for you.

And who are you to question my honesty or ethics?

Well, given that I'm just a random guy, I could be like many other random guys who would do the same, but who might actually meet. What you do is up to you, but what conclusions people draw from that is not up to you. How much that matters probably depends on how little or how greatly that affects your dating pool.

I am however still having sex while looking. I don't see anything wrong with that,

I didn't say there was.

Again, you only know of me from the posts I have made

What's your point? That's what I have to work with, so if my impression is incorrect, then you aren't saying what you mean and only you can fix that.

(no need to quote every single thing I have said in other posts once again-Kinda made you look creepy and stalkerish the first time you did it)

If you're bothered by seeing what you wrote come back to haunt you, posting on the internet is not a good idea. When responding to something specific, it's proper etiquette to include the context. Leaving out context is generally a tactic people use to deliberately misconstrue what someone else wrote.

I think every person has a right not to talk about their past sexual partners with current ones...

Like I've already said, you have the right to do whatever you want. You don't have the right to decide whether or not someone finds that acceptable. If some guy wants to ask about the past, he has the right to ask. If you don't want to answer, you have the right to not answer. How that plays out is not up to you alone, nor is anything about it unfair. You decide what you want to do and accept how that affects you.

I don't care to know whom my partner boned before me,

As often as people say that, it still seems to come up eventually in some way. The fact is, most people do care or they wouldn't be so adamant about not discussing it. I personally don't care either way. If my fiancee wanted to describe her past in detail, fine. If not, fine. If asked, I answer. It seems rather weird to ve sexual enough to go through all of this with an fwb, yet be so inhibited that talking about it would be objectionable.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 86
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/22/2011 1:54:53 PM

You fail to differntiate between types of talk. F'r instance, talking about school bus cancellations due to freezing rain, is considerably different than talking about engaging in a swarming-robbery, both of which are different than talking about sex.

It's still all talk unless there is follow through or intent to follow through, both of which I would also find unacceptable.

There's a marked difference between watching, say, a Disney movie, and a porn. Just sayin', as some people are seemingly unable to make this distinction...

Not really. People watch either for whatever entertainment they get from each. Some days, I like steak and some days, I like sushi.
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 87
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/22/2011 2:08:49 PM
One reason why I wuit well before hand is the risk of the old thing re-entering my life while I am involved with the new thing, it's happened before, even with several months of quit between the two and before the new thing got off the ground and the re-entry completely blew the new thing out of the water. It's just a risk too great for me. If you want love and LTR. and happy ever after, consider the future risk to it, doing without for some time prior is a small price to pay for happy.


And yet, you're here on thread about a woman "looking for an LTR, yet having an FWB on the side" arguing the "merits" of an FWB. Nobody here is arguing what you do *outside* of searching for an LTR, only that if you are searching for an LTR, keeping the FWB around will limit your options.

People really need to stop approaching this as if "those who disagree are *against* FWB's" - I could give a rats-a** whether she's been in an FWB before me. But if she is *hanging onto* an FWB while we're dating, that's a problem. *THAT* is the discussion.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 88
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/24/2011 9:05:59 AM

once we've met and have a 2nd date lined up, if she's still sleeping with her FWB he's no longer a *PAST* lover is he? She is at that point *dating* me (if not 'seriously/sexually') and yet has a *CURRENT* lover

I think Lover may be too strong a word for all FWB situations. Same goes for Dating, if one went on a 1st date and the two plan on going out on another one. Both can imply something stronger than what may be really going on. IMO, many FWBs are just friends in which you and they provide the opportunity to scratch an itch, and "Lover" I think would imply more than that. "Dating" in many contexts implies that you Have been dating, and IMO, by default, implies many dates have been had, many to come without any planning process necessarily (ie it's a given), thus to some extent you're an item and there's assumed exclusivity. Having a 2nd date lined up, IMO, wouldn't fully constitute them being someone you're "Dating" in the classic context.

Sounds like the definition-police, but honestly, generic situations can be made to sound bigger than it is, or smaller than it is, merely by utilizing certain terms.

Seems a bit of a double standard to be talking about "concentrating on the future" with someone new, while banging someone else on the side.

I think at the point of having A date or a second date, not much concentration is needed. What you point out sounds bad, sure. But when people are single, but will go out on a date here or there, a lot of things can end up sounding bad. It does sound a bit hasty though, in the end, to expect Exclusivity after a 1st date. IMO, that sounds odd in a different way. But hey, if they agree and the demand doesn't scare them off -- then honestly, that's great. Problem is, from my experience 1st and 2nd hand, most outgoing, attractive gals would be scared by that demand.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 89
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/24/2011 10:04:31 AM
You're going out of your way to deliberately miss the point.

No. I have no idea what your point is, but whatever it is, it isn't obvious from the way you're presenting it.

Is your doctorate in psychology?

Nuclear physics.

Problem is, from my experience 1st and 2nd hand, most outgoing, attractive gals would be scared by that demand.

Depends on what they get out of it, I guess. I've never found exclusivity to be a problem and I've never had to actually discuss it other than online.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 90
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/25/2011 10:46:07 AM

My point was/is, talk is NOT "just talk": the subject of the talk very much makes a difference. I thought it was quite clearly expressed.

Well, I disagree. Talk is talk. Nothing you said made your point.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 91
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/25/2011 11:15:08 AM
As dynamic as your world is you must name things at some point. If not Lover then what? Fracker? Fracking Friend? Benni Fit?

It's just in the same context as calling someone a "Partner". Let's say you go out on a date and are one of those who wants Exclusivity because another date is to be had, that person agrees, and you throw your black book into the fireplace. Would you introduce them as your "Partner" when bumping into a buddy of yours while on your 2nd date? Even someone agreeing to go exclusive off the bat may find that to be "too strong". For a FWB -- usually they're going to be a friend, not a Lover. You're not even making love to them and not expecting ever to, you're just fooling around when mutually convenient, if they're just a friend (w/ benefits on the side). I would say for common FWBs, what do you call them? A friend-but-more-than-friend? A FWB? Does it need a label?

Crudely speaking intent is to rack up numbers and pick best of the group. Common logic I see for a Subject is Date must outshine the Fracker.

Not necessarily. Someone in your black book in which communication lines are still open (FB or FWB) isn't in consideration for Dating. The times I've been out in the dating circuit, while having open lines of communication with someone in the black book, did not affect things one iota, and was 100% the same as when I haven't. A FWB or FB has no obligations or expectations, nor you to them.

Now, when it comes to other Dating Prospects (not just a 'Fracker'), then it's a different story, of course. Classic dating prospects get in the way, where classic FBs or FWBs don't. Of course, if it's a "Fracker" it makes the concept sound dirtier/sleazier despite them not at all competing for a relationship, or sexual or romantic partnerhood in any way... but in the end, we don't know for sure what's going on and it should be taken as competition as far as we know or would expect to believe. Other dating prospects, void of any negative connotation or stigma, though, is definitely competition.

Date is faced with a cold, hard reality they they are not a special little snow flake but nothing but a number.

For someone who expects to only be in position to ever go out on a Date with only one person with a time-frame, sure. I would say they're sensitive. Some people don't feel that way. Does emailing more than one girl at a time on a site like POF make you feel like you're thinking of a gal just like a number? Do you think she's a player if you found out she (gasp) has been emailing a lot of guys and continued to with a date set up?

There is nothing wrong with shopping around. It is the intent that matters.

I agree... the intent, from my position, is the same as many women out there at the same time -- not locking down until you get to know someone well enough, and A date or two isn't enough. It's not to bang-as-many-as-you-can or see how long you can juggle as many as many women as you can at once. It's the same as exchanging emails with more than one woman at once. You know she's doing the same. Going out on a date, things get weeded a bit more by that time, but exclusivity off the bat isn't the main desire during the feeling-out-portion. But I will admit, of course, people want to feel wanted -- so if they Hear about you having other prospects -- that will make them feel less special... but it's not hiding anything by not making a pre-emptive announcement, because they could easily have them too and that'd just make things a bit odd, IMO.
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 92
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/25/2011 12:30:29 PM

For such a smart feller with all that there edumakashun, you sure don't know when to stop talking... I'm at least glad that you qualify it as something that wouldn't "personally" bother you, although given your vociferous disapproval of seeing a FwB while dating, or remaining friends with former sexual partners, I have to say that your little snippet quoted above sounds, shall we say, "inconsistent".

Ooh, better leave myself an out: I personally think that you sound inconsistent and arbitrary.

And Arlo? I completely agree with you. It is inconsistent.


*EYEROLL* So it's ok for her to have phone sex.....or sexting but you don't expect a woman to actually have physical sex until she meets you....Oh please... what a joke...You have been soooo judgmental for a woman with a FWB but she can have a phone sex buddy.

That's the kind of thing people say when they have no actual argument to offer.

And this is the type of response generally posted by someone who's been in a compromising situation in which an SO finds out their supposed "faithful" partner has been having an online tryst or trysts (including phone/text sex) without their knowledge. I seriously doubt any unsuspecting SO would be too thrilled to learn that she's/he's not allowed to remain friends with anyone she/he has had sex with in the past, only to learn (or rather, be shocked by the reality) that the BF/fiancee/SO/whatever-you-call him/her's time spent online (declared to be innocent forum-posting-time-wasting) has turned into something much different than simply wasting time posting in forums or checking the Doppler non-stop, but is rather time spent hooking-up-electronically to scratch some itch (whether emotional/mental/physical or a combination of these things.) Hypothetically speaking (or something like that) I'd assume one's personal opinion would change from "Oh hell no." to "I wouldn't be bothered by it." should they have been caught with their pants down (or would that be with their hands on the keyboard???) Regardless, to each their own. It is either something disclosed PRIOR to doing it, or it shouldn't be being done. At least in my opinion.

~OT~ FWB threads are always the same. There is the "No way." camp and then there are those who are in the "It's not my business til it's my business." camp. Makes no real difference who's side of the camp-ground you are on. Just make certain to go fishing with those who share your side of the camp-ground and the potential problem is eleviated. JMO
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 93
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/25/2011 1:31:02 PM
*EYEROLL* So it's ok for her to have phone sex.....or sexting but you don't expect a woman to actually have physical sex until she meets you....


I'm a bit curious how you'd expect a woman to have "physical sex" before she meets me, unless its with someone else ... she could have "phone sex" with me, or anyone, but I think its kinda hard to have 'physical sex" with someone you are not 'physically' in the presence of.

Last I knew, I can't get any "physical" uncurable diseases from "phone sex"... but if that's changed, please let me know... I am thoroughly unaware of any uncurable diseases/STD's that apparently I can get over the phone.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 94
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/25/2011 7:39:49 PM
Last I knew, I can't get any "physical" uncurable diseases from "phone sex"...

It's not about diseases. Cheating doesn't require sex. Sex just puts the nail in the coffin (no pun intended) of the concept of cheating in a Relationship. I wouldn't want a gf or wife to be exchanging love notes & emails at work... or mutual masturbation via web-cam with a dude she corresponds with on POF. "Ehhh, he's inconveniently a bit too far of a drive away... that's cool," would not be my thoughts nor most other people's.

I don't think his post saying he's okay with online/phone sex & chatter is necessarily inconsistent -- if he wants an open relationship outside of physical contact, fine. I think it's not consistent with most views in which people want exclusivity, but hey, some people have their odd rules, exceptions, etc. But perhaps he can clarify. Maybe he's okay with paid-entertainment (like 1-900 #s) online/phone sex, where it's not different from going to a strip club, but would not want her chasing some dude on a dating or sex site for a sexual pen-pal situation.

Makes no real difference who's side of the camp-ground you are on. Just make certain to go fishing with those who share your side of the camp-ground and the potential problem is alleviated.

I think one doesn't truly know what "camp" the other one is in, is the problem. The other FWB thread is about if one should announce it, and if so, when. It's about the assumption as to what default area of the camp-ground a Date is to be. Sometimes you can figure it out with a high degree of probability, but many times not.... but either way, IMO:

- If you're not exclusive, it's not the other person's business to know outright what "options" you have or may have. The only thing that should be outright is if you're not single or living with an ex (or other things along those lines as far as other people are concerned).
- If you're not exclusive but want to know more than that, it's up to you to ask -- not for the other person to pre-emptively announce -- unless for some reason you've made it clear that your belief is that the other person is 100% celibate & other-date-free and will be as long as you're in contact with them
- If want to be exclusive, it's also up for you to ask (which if agreed upon, would/should erase anyone in any black book)

Other people who differ from me, think that it should be announced if you have anyone in your life to any degree in which sexual relations could potentially be had in the present or near future before exclusivity occurs.
 MsMicki
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 95
view profile
History
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/25/2011 7:46:17 PM
I'll have to add that it does thoroughly confuse me that one can repeatedly state in thread after thread that he will not accept woman in his life being friends with someone she has had sex with.....yet turn around and state that he would be okay with her having phone/internet sex with a man.
How do you rationalize that it is okay for a partner to engage in an online sexual relationship with what amounst to a stranger......yet not okay to converse,non-sexually, occassionally with an ex boyfriend??
Me thinks someone's "lines" blur to rationalize personal behavior......


It keeps being said someone with a FWB wouldn't be emotionally available to a potential date........so how can someone that is engaging is sex chat really be fully emotionally available when their mind is on their last yank off session with their internet "friend"?
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 96
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/25/2011 11:32:23 PM

so how can someone that is engaging is sex chat really be fully emotionally available when their mind is on their last yank off session with their internet "friend"?


Because they are able to compartmentalize, and view the sex chat as just another form of pornography, albeit a bit more interactive. As long as their mate allows it, I don't see the problem.
 MsMicki
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 97
view profile
History
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/26/2011 8:39:42 AM

Because they are able to compartmentalize, and view the sex chat as just another form of pornography, albeit a bit more interactive. As long as their mate allows it, I don't see the problem.

But if it happens frequently.......wouldn't that be a type of relationship?
And what if it was being done behind their mate's back?

Halycyon....There is no way in hell I will ever believe that you would be okay with your boyfriend having sex chats with another woman from POF on a regular basis...
 SC67
Joined: 6/21/2009
Msg: 98
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/26/2011 9:02:04 AM
This phone sex thing is off topic, but there is NO WAY I'd be ok w/ my man having phone sex with someone else. I would be pretty damn hard to handle if I found out that was happening.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 99
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/26/2011 11:02:29 AM

The digresion is going way off topic. Time to get back on topic
 MsMicki
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 100
view profile
History
She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?
Posted: 12/26/2011 11:10:03 AM
Wouldn't a friend you are sexting on the internet with...be considered a FWB?
it is a friend - you are getting sexual gratification from your talks - and it could potentially affect your search for..... or already in... LTR.
Seems completely relevant to the topic to me.
Show ALL Forums  > Dating and Love Advice  > She was looking for LTR, but has a FWB on the side?