"Friends with Benefits" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

themischievous1 -> "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 12:01:17 AM)

"Friends with Benefits"
 
I'm sure it has always been around. It's just that its name is being bandied about a lot more and I'm sure a lot of us have already tried it with various success rates, whether willingly or unwillingly. It used to also go by the name of "fuck buddy."
 
Do you think more women are beginning to desire, accept, or even tolerate this type of arrangement, more than they used to say twenty years ago? Why does it seem as if this kind of thing is becoming the norm now?(certainly for men at least, or am I wrong about that and women are embracing this idea too?) Is everyone becoming seriously jaded to real intimacy and commitment?
 
What I see occurring is that few are willing to make a marital commitment anymore, even though they seem to be willing to embrace the idea of a long term relationship and living together. When the tough times hit though, most aren't making their LTR's last, are they? I'm also wondering how any kind of serious D/s, M/s, or other lifestyle dynamics can develop the necessary trust to survive, much less possibly exist 24/7 in a friends with benefits type of arrangement.
 
I've always likened this kind of "relationship" to a very casual arrangement for sexual gratification purposes and convenience. It seems more and more though that many people will tell you they want a long term relationship when they really only intend to be your fuck buddy or a friend with benefits. So how do you tell the difference between those who are on the level and are seeking something more meaningful and those who just want the casual? Often it seems that if you start into the playing, scening, and various other intimate sexual activities that you've already started on the path toward the friends with benefits relationship. And if not, what makes it more meaningful and permanent for you so that it doesn't turn into this?



Lordandmaster -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 12:05:27 AM)

What I've noticed, actually, is that fewer MEN are willing to get married, and women who used to assume that any long-term relationship had the ultimate goal of marriage find themselves in the position of having to, shall we say, recalibrate their expectations.

Maybe women are also less inclined to get married than they used to be; but I have to say, I haven't seen that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: themischievous1
What I see occurring is that few are willing to make a marital commitment anymore, even though they seem to be willing to embrace the idea of a long term relationship and living together.



AquaticSub -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 12:06:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: themischievous1

"Friends with Benefits"
 
I'm sure it has always been around. It's just that its name is being bandied about a lot more and I'm sure a lot of us have already tried it with various success rates, whether willingly or unwillingly. It used to also go by the name of "fuck buddy."
 
Do you think more women are beginning to desire, accept, or even tolerate this type of arrangement, more than they used to say twenty years ago? Why does it seem as if this kind of thing is becoming the norm now?(certainly for men at least, or am I wrong about that and women are embracing this idea too?) Is everyone becoming seriously jaded to real intimacy and commitment?
Probably because the only reason it wasn't incredibly common before was because of unreliable ways to avoid making babies.
 
quote:

 
What I see occurring is that few are willing to make a marital commitment anymore, even though they seem to be willing to embrace the idea of a long term relationship and living together. When the tough times hit though, most aren't making their LTR's last, are they? I'm also wondering how any kind of serious D/s, M/s, or other lifestyle dynamics can develop the necessary trust to survive, much less possibly exist 24/7 in a friends with benefits type of arrangement.
As soon as the law allowed people to get divorced because they just didn't get along anymore the divorce rate shot up to 50 percent and has stayed relatively close to there since then. The sad fact of life is that your standerd LTR only has a 50-50 shot of staying together. I highly doubt this is a new thing. Now society just lets people in LTRs break up without a whole lot of social stigma.
 
quote:

 
I've always likened this kind of "relationship" to a very casual arrangement for sexual gratification purposes and convenience. It seems more and more though that many people will tell you they want a long term relationship when they really only intend to be your fuck buddy or a friend with benefits. So how do you tell the difference between those who are on the level and are seeking something more meaningful and those who just want the casual? Often it seems that if you start into the playing, scening, and various other intimate sexual activities that you've already started on the path toward the friends with benefits relationship. And if not, what makes it more meaningful and permanent for you so that it doesn't turn into this?



I don't think you can, at least not very effectively. I found the best method for me to weed them out by telling them I wasn't interested in anyone who wouldn't consider getting married and having kids sometime in the forseeable future. The M and K words seem to scare off a lot of guys who aren't interested in trying to the long haul. 



mistoferin -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 12:08:42 AM)

To answer the question of whether or not this has become more common...no I don't see that. 30 years ago people were finding themselves a good fucking friend. I'm sure it occurred before that too but I have no personal point of reference beyond that.



CuriousLord -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 12:15:15 AM)

Who knows? We can poll for opinions and points of view, but none of us really have data on the subject. Our experiences are inaccurately recorded and extremely subjective, not to mention the non-scientific pool from which they're drawn.

Still, neat enough thing to consider. Perhaps, as the view on sex is less towards the practical end of reproduction, and more towards fun, this will become more common?

Perhaps, when safe-sex is perfected, there will be something somewhat equivalent to a post on something not overly dissimilar from a message board, "Siblings with Benefits?"



Vendaval -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 12:25:10 AM)

This is a fairly common scenario with the younger crowd in their 20's-30's.
The problems happen when one or both persons are not honest about
their wants and needs with themselves or each other.




BlindUnknown -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 12:25:42 AM)

<OP>

Oh yes this has been around from the dawn of time i'm sure, even to "Krug like boobs, but not want Gla's baggage"

my perspective is from that of a college student.  a 21 year old who doesn't like sex or drinking mind you.  The vapid wastes of space i am forced to associate with wouldn't know commitment if it came up and kissed them full on the mouth.  Likely, they wouldn't even notice they were being kissed and yawn it off.  A trend i personally have noticed at my school, is what i guess you'd call "fuck circles" where collections of boys and girls (for that is what they are) openly sleep around with each other, but only within that social circle.  And then of course the sharing of said escapades (how i am forced to learn about it from loud mouthed roommates). 

Time will tell if this carries on as my generation grows up.

However, people have confused my love with simple friendship, i guess because i am so naturally reticent that the small emotion i display publicly barely passes as what people think of for friends these days.  And, that is what we're searching for right?  For a long term relationship?  Someone who, when we're all old and gray, can still count as our best friend?  I can't imagine a romantic relationship where you can't consider it friendship as well.



ExSteelAgain -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 2:19:56 AM)

Sure times have changed. There used to be a stigma attached to women who slept around or lived with someone out of marriage. Families would talked hushedly about such women. Now it is no big deal for Susie to bring her live -n boy friend along when she visits Mom and Dad. Plus, look at what BlindUnknown says about the norm in college.

Birth control, less emphasis on religion and more freedom of expression in America precipitated the change in mores, I believe.



m0rgan -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 2:34:25 AM)

casual marriage is equal to, and certainly no better than, casual sex. in fact, if one or both parties enter into it with the view that it is only a temporary thing, it is probably more reprehensible than a series of honest one night stands.
casual sex is morally more honest and honourable than frivolous marriage!



Quivver -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 3:11:35 AM)

I'm in full agreement with LAM when he say's 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
fewer MEN are willing to get married, and women who used to assume that any long-term relationship had the ultimate goal of marriage find themselves in the position of having to, shall we say, recalibrate their expectation
quote:


Of course I recalibrated my expectations after having tried that traditional route.
Personally I despise the term ~fuck buddy~ & ~ friends with benefits~. 
What I want is a friend for a lifetime that never will require the state's involvement.
Marriage anymore is a financial arrangement, it has nothing to do with love or commitment. 




eyesopened -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 3:27:18 AM)

Back when the world was new, i had the very best "Friends with Benefits" relationship.  It was affectionate booty call that went both ways... i could call him and he called me and we had this arrangement for over two years. 

Lately i have found men who are willing to be Friends with Benefits but only they get to do the calling...not acceptable in my opinion, i would like the arrangement to be a two-way street.

i can't say that it's gotten to be more acceptable in recent times or not.  In my personal experience it had more to do with my age and stages of a person's life than the decade in which it occurred. 



PsyVamp -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 3:50:15 AM)

I enjoy having a friend that I can sleep with.  With this type of set up, I don't have to worry about the weird stuff, the emotional baggage.  The attitude of  the "dating" or "relationship" rules.  Who calls whom, how many times, how many days between, trying to read between the lines of a comment made off the cuff. 
I am not into one night stands, I like to have things long term and if I found someone who could make a commitment without all the juvenile crap that tends to go on, I would not have a problem and would do it in a heartbeat.

The problem I find with most men, (sub/dom or 'nilla) is that they all want to "own" me, they are jealous of my time spent away from them and then I have to deal with whiny passive agressive behavior.  They may have no problem having a boy's night out but it never seems to go both ways.  This is the reason I refuse to have another relationship right now and instead have a friend with benefits.. (doesn't seem to stop the jealousy, but it sure as heck stops me from having to care what they think)

Psy



zumala -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:30:39 AM)

I don't know if it's personality, childhood training, or both... but I never gave just anybody sex.  Friends are friends.  They don't get benefits.
 
My husband is the one who made me a comittment for life, and I did the same.  He's the one that I trusted with my heart and also with my body.  Sex is a personal thing to me.  Something that I can only give to someone that I love and trust (and who loves and trusts me) to that level.
 
I agree with BlindUnknown:
quote:

And, that is what we're searching for right?  For a long term relationship?  Someone who, when we're all old and gray, can still count as our best friend?  I can't imagine a romantic relationship where you can't consider it friendship as well.

 
My relationship began with about a year and a half of 'just' friendship and then three years of dating and friendship before making the jump to engagement and marriage.  Our relationship is the closest of friendships at the core, and all else springs from that.  I wouldn't want it any other way.
 
zuma




Rover -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:32:22 AM)

Friends with benefits... the vanilla equivalent of the collar of consideration?
 
John



MadRabbit -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:36:07 AM)

I dont think its anything really new.

I think, however, that as social contigencies regarding sexuality as taboo slowly dieing (very slowly) and women are encouraged more to be sexually assertive, the enviroment is just more open and acceptable to talk about such things.



mLadyDragon -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:37:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: themischievous1

"Friends with Benefits"
 
.....
.....
 
What I see occurring is that few are willing to make a marital commitment anymore, even though they seem to be willing to embrace the idea of a long term relationship and living together. ...................
 
---------------------------------
 
marriage does no longer ensure a long term relationship.  i have never married , i will not take vows until death while one of us is planning for the divorce.  so a long term relationship or living together makes more sense to me. 
 
the friends with benefits situation has been used by most i know when both were between relationships and usually only lasts a night or two.  it stops the loneliness while each is searching for that one person they need in their life.
 
blessed be
mLady



becca333 -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:51:30 AM)

Ok, I'm going to swim against the stream here. 

I think we're going back to a much older point of view.

It's only fairly recently (historically speaking) that the concept of a lifelong soulmate partner who'll answer all your needs was developed.  For millenia people didn't expect their sexual mate to provide all the emotional support they needed.  People lived in extended family groups, they lived in villages where everyone was probably related, they had strong ties to the community.  You chose (or had chosen for you) a partner who was a hard worker, a respectable person, a good breeder, the best your parents could afford.  If you were lucky you'd develop affection and respect as you worked together to raise and support your familly.  Other friends and family provided emotional support.  Love - our idea of romantic love - didn't exist.

(Btw - when 'romantic' love was first invented, it was knights of the round table stuff, all tied up with chivalry.  A knight would do great deeds for the lady he 'loved'.  This lady would have been married to some lord at the Court.  There was no sexual component at all.  Sex and marriage was a business arrangement for status, wealth and children.  Romantic love was all about desire and yearning and doing heroic deeds.)

So now we have people making clear-headed arrangements for sexual satisfaction, without the huge emotional component of romantic love making things difficult.  We've returned to the idea that sex is something we organise in a way that most benefits us, without a big emotional commitment.

Nothing's new.



KatyLied -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:57:03 AM)

quote:

Maybe women are also less inclined to get married than they used to be; but I have to say, I haven't seen that.


I'm curious about your sampling.  Is this coming from the never-married woman or the divorced woman?  As a divorced woman, I have no interest in a second marriage.  Second marriages have worse statistical outcomes than first marriages.  I always say the primary reason for not getting married is:  divorce.  I would love to have a longterm monogamous relationship, without making it a legal contract (marriage).  For me it does not make sense to marry at this point.  Of course things could always change, but I don't see myself as someone who's going to take the huge leap (take a huge chance) into a second marriage, not when things are pretty good as is.



slaveish -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 5:17:41 AM)

The answers to your question I do not have but an opinion I can give.

Among my circle of friends, a fairly large group comprised mostly 40+ women (although there are younger ones) it is asserted that we will date men, we will enjoy men, but we will not live with men, marry men, or even spend the night too often. We want friends with benefits when ~we~ want them (and I am using the collective "we").

How to tell the difference? From experience, if he comes over and doesn't expect you to blow him, fuck him, titillate him,. if he is around just to kick back and talk and enjoy your company, if he doesn't leave less than an hour hour after getting off when you do have sex, then he's interested in the whole of you. If the only time you see him is when he has his fingers up your skirt and his tongue down your throat, well then that makes him a fuck buddy.



Aubre -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 5:25:21 AM)

KRS-One said, "Jimmy hats are now in style / cuz you can't trust a big butt and a smile"



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875