|Well I just said NO to a offer of friends with benefitsPage 7 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)|
people who bash FWB, need to understand that if it's a 1-on-1 friendship w/ benefits, you're basically in the same realm as an on-going casual dating situation. So one has to bash casual dating too, because the fuzziness & bonding is still there too, if you casually date for too long
I think this is backwards. Bashing FWB isn't about also bashing casual dating by inclusion, but it's about bashing the weasly words that people use, the way you say it or call it (and of course the mindset whereby someone wants to have sex on a regular basis and nothing else - it's either impersonal, which is what's being bashed, or, it's definately personal but the people who think they're in what they think FWB is, are just playing games with themselves by using such weasly words and descriptions)...it's addressing the fact that it's casual dating, as you say, using your term, yet someone feels that they need to call it FWB, when actually it might not even be just casual dating. I could never find full agreement on what "casual dating" even means. So from you, I get that "casual dating" means having sex on a regular basis with almost no expectations or committments, yet are "on friendly terms". To others, "casual dating" is just spending time around each other as friends, not committed, "no pressure", but also no "benefits"...no sex.
Otherwise, I'm in agreement with confidentrealist - POF isn't a monogamous/marriage-minded exclusive club. It's for a variety of people, used by a variety of people. Myself, I kind of like it that way, as a non-casual, monogamous, long-term-minded type of guy...the mixing of agendas, opinions, and mindsets is an opportunity for all to learn about themselves, each other, and all of the issues involved. Especially when you have a feature like the forums, which, in my opinion, is that extra dimension that makes POF even begin to be worth a damn.
But also, the fact that someone can find casual sex offline more conveniently is used as a logic to show that an online site can't or shouldn't be used for casual sex. This doesn't make sense to me, and I disagree with it. Obviously many people prefer to search for casual sex online, for all kinds of reasons, including benefits which it offers over offline avenues, if not just plain-ole more adventurous to some in some way.
No, thinking that a woman would want a FWB is not a joke, and thinking that she'd come online to find it is not a joke. My opinion is that the whole idea of FWB itself is a joke through and through...but it's not untrue nor a joke that there are females who want this nor that they'd come online for it.
|Well I just said NO to a offer of friends with benefits|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:09:41 AM
|Categorizing human interactions by arbitrarily assigning ambiguous and demeaning terms, denies the participants of any emotional responsibility to themselves and each other and instead, replaces obligation and responsibility with a self serving, narcissistic entitlement. In addition, an inherent dishonesty, aversion or ignorance of an emotional truth exists. Labeling attempts to compartmentalize and discard emotional obligations and responsibilties that are an inherent part of ANY human interaction or "relationship", regardless of the implied, imposed "label". Whether acknowledged or not, FWB, FB, bar body, this buddy, that buddy, dating, etc ., are "relationships".|
As relationships, people are worthy and deserving of the same respect, emotional responsibility and obligation. Labeling does not absolve the participants of their emotional responsibility or obligation should the interaction bring about an emotional circumstance that may not neatly fit into a convenient, self imposed "label".
People should not be viewed as dispensible nor do they exist solely at the discretion of another's selfish, whimsical or impulsive narcissistic needs. Also, just because both parties involved may agree to participate, does not mean that it is healthy or wise.
As civil human beings, we are obligated and responsible to ourselves and each other to be emotionally truthful by our words and our actions.
|Well I just said NO to a offer of friends with benefits|
Posted: 7/25/2013 1:04:10 PM
Bashing FWB isn't about also bashing casual dating by inclusion, but it's about bashing the weasly words that people use, the way you say it or call it (and of course the mindset whereby someone wants to have sex on a regular basis and nothing else - it's either impersonal, which is what's being bashed, or, it's definitely personal but the people who think they're in what they think FWB is, are just playing games with themselves by using such weasly words and descriptions)
The words "friends" left by itself can easily be a weaselly word. I'd be bashing the person using the term in a vague sense so they can fill-in-the-blanks on the fly to their own discretion for natural (but often rude) power control. But it doesn't mean the word "friends" by itself is weaselly. But yes, the same can be said for FWB -- and "casually date". Anything that leaves it open-ended with an implied "don't want to go too far" is subject to playing (word) games for their own upper hand (even if not intended to).
But again, that doesn't mean when one says "friends" or "FWB" or "casually date" that they Are playing word games. But they can be... so I don't bash the words or phrases, if with explanation & Continual openness. Just the people when playing games with them. You wouldn't want them not to just LEAVE it at that or to aim as much as possible to leave at just that, as it begs questions. I have little sympathy for many people walking into a situation with someone else, letting them leave it at that, and then crying foul when their interest grew and found out it wasn't what they thought it was. (Dammit, ASK -- Get on the same page!)
Whether acknowledged or not, FWB, FB, bar body, this buddy, that buddy, dating, etc ., are "relationships".
... or uncle, or guy sitting 2 cubicles down from you at work, or the person you've exchanged a few emails with who you never met. Yes, Technically pretty much anyone you've engaged with in any way has some sort of relationship between you two...
As relationships, people are worthy and deserving of the same respect, emotional responsibility and obligation.
I disagree. A girlfriend deserves more emotional obligation than Larry, the guy one talks to in the cafeteria. Just because there is a "relationship" between you and someone else, doesn't mean they're all even remotely close to equal or deserve remotely equal obligations & responsibilities...
Labeling does not absolve the participants of their emotional responsibility or obligation should the interaction bring about an emotional circumstance that may not neatly fit into a convenient, self imposed "label".
Oh, I agree. You are what you do. So if what you Do and have been Doing with someone will trump whatever "label" one wishes to put on it. I totally agree with your assessment on the problems of people applying labels as if they're free and clear to be & do anything they want because the label they put forth was uncontested.
People should not be viewed as dispensible nor do they exist solely at the discretion of another's selfish, whimsical or impulsive narcissistic needs
Relative to what though? People can have a spring fling, know it's going to be just a spring fling (Sally's leaving to another state) -- so they set up expectations about it... The mentality of Billy is going to be that yes, she is dispensable, and so he is he to her, to some underlying degree during Spring, and in a stronger sense at the end.
I think the real PROBLEM is leading people on. Calling it something it's not. Saying "We'll be FWB," but really not wanting to hang out amongst friends, bond as friends .... but instead just wanting a Booty Call at the end of the night 2-3 times a week.
Or to call something "casually dating" when they really just want to be FWB (ie no intention of ever wanting to be in a Relationship or have any level of real romance). Or the other way around... one says they just want to be FWB, but really, they want the romantic aspect and to "take it slow" in the dating process (but in the bedroom? nah, ya don't have to slow that part down).
I think everyone deserves the respect of communication & having a heads up on things. Some people will utilize labels as an escape-hatch or "clause" to be able to get more obligation out of someone they don't know (call it serious dating when they only make themselves available once every 10 days but expects the other to say 'How High' when they ask them to jump).... or to be able to chase the opp-sex if need be, without any worries (by call it "casual dating" or "FWB" but hanging out all the time and doing what couples do in and out of the bedroom).
7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)