RE: "Friends with Benefits"

RE: "Friends with Benefits" (Full Version)

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

Message

CreativeDominant -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 11:58:57 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? 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? You know, I have mentioned on here before that between my first ex and my second ex, I had what I termed a "fuck buddy" while I was in chiropractic college. But now, as I read these distinctions between the two, I would have to say that she is definitely upgraded to a "friend with benefits". We laughed together, cried together, learned some new things with each other, talked and danced and skiied and boated together, went to events together and oh yeah, we fucked like crazy. She was the first one to receive an extended spanking from me and the first one to get ever so wet about it and then begin playing a slightly submissive role in my life. To this day, we are still friends so Betty...you know where you are...~soft smile~...please accept my apology for referring to you as only a fuck buddy and please know that I now realize that you were so much more. And...since I know you feel the same about me, I am happy to know that with your intelligence, you now know that I was more than just a "fuck buddy" too.

robertolapiedra -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 3:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: themischievous1 "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?" Hello themischievous1. It has always been around. Everyone into this practice called their partners : "boyfriends", "girl friends", "fiancee", mistress, madam, etc. Media only started to talk about different forms of casual (or recreational) sex in the mid fifties (Playboy magazine for example). Now that we post about these old "taboos" in forums, it only "seems" more prevalent. The only thing I have seen changed, is the age at which these practices start. Young adolescents are definitely more promiscuous at a younger age than before, in "casual" sex. In my opinion, women today are just "admitting" to casual practices that they were not admitting before. Men? you ladies know we are dogs! RL.

sublimelysensual -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 3:51:37 PM)
I've been divorced for three years now, and no, I will probably never marry again. I can't speak for all women with a submissive personality, but for myself, leaving was the hardest (though most rewarding) thing I've ever done. I'm not saying that it's any easier to leave when legalities aren't involved. Well, okay, maybe I am, lol. I viewed marriage as a very sacred thing. I didn't go into the marriage thinking "well, if it doesn't work out, we'll just divorce." I didn't go into it thinking divorce was an option. I don't think a lot of people do. If we hadn't been married, and were just living together..I think it would have been easier to leave, that the whole amount of guilt over breaking that bond would have been reduced, etc. I don't regret the marriage, but I would not get myself into that type of legal entrapment again. I'll live in sin with someone for 40 years, but I very seriously doubt marriage would ever enter the equation. Not to say that it will never happen..never say never and all that, but there would have to be some pretty good reasons aside from "it's what we should do", for me to do so. I also think some attitudes have changed/are changing in regards to women having sex outside of a commitment. Personally, I think it's long overdue. There's been a double standard for a very long time. That isn't to say I have sex with every man I go out with, or ever will. Just not who I am as a person, but it's nice to know that stigma is slowly disappearing. The only comment that really bothered me in the OP was this one: 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. I don't view two people in a long term relationship, living together, sharing life, as a "friends with benefits" arrangement. I personally find it insulting to insinuate that unless a couple is married (ie, have a legal document saying they're together), they can't possibly be as committed to each other, or trusting of each other as a married couple are. I've met people in LTR's that are much more successful in their relationship than people with a marriage license, and vice-versa. As for tough times hitting, look at the divorce rate..those people are making it stick? What matters isn't a 2 hr ceremony and a piece of paper, it's the commitment the people involved have to each other. Anyway..just my two cents, as always.... -a

AquaticSub -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 3:59:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross I had someone email me today saying that my partner was just a friend with benefits and that I was just so young and didn't know better. Of course she blocked any reply. It felt good to feel young again :) Wow.. there is a love note sensation going on. I got one of the "fat cow" ones yesterday. I'm waiting to see when I get my next "Your dom is a child and you are too stupid to know better because you are a woman" one. [:D]

LightHeartedMaam -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:03:46 PM)
I, personally, don't care what the "new morality" is doing. I set my own priorities and expectations. If you want a family, marriage first. I think there is a stage people go through in their teens, 20's and 30's. When you begin your mid-40's and on, you start to think about some kind of permanency. The fuck buddies of the past are long gone.

HornyToadsMI -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:14:35 PM)
I have friends who are just not "in the place" for a LTR. But batteries can only take you so far.....

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:15:27 PM)
Why do you have to get married to have a permanent relationship? quote: ORIGINAL: LightHeartedMaam I, personally, don't care what the "new morality" is doing. I set my own priorities and expectations. If you want a family, marriage first. I think there is a stage people go through in their teens, 20's and 30's. When you begin your mid-40's and on, you start to think about some kind of permanency. The fuck buddies of the past are long gone.

HornyToadsMI -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:20:11 PM)
I agree! BTW....i love your picture......not sure if i had told you before.....it cracks me up everytime i see it.....Thanks for giving me a smile! Now...all you Parrot Heads...."why don't we get drunk...and screw......"

Petronius -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:35:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I believe that females were raised with a different mindset. In other words, it was perfectly ok that males had a sex drive and went about satisfying that particular human need. However, I don't think females were quite as liberated. We were still brought up (in many cases) to think that sex was only something that was had in a committed relationship, or casual sex was only for the young. While some were brought up a bit more open minded, being 38, I can tell you that it wasn't quite that way yet for everyone. I have a different recollection from that period. Mine is that the major group calling certain women "sluts" were other women with an anti-sexual mindset. The same women did not believe it was somehow "OK" for men to engage in sexual activity. They had quite hostile terms for those men as well. Despite claims of some society-wide "double standard" I never really saw it. What I observed was a group, largely of women, who had a distaste for sex, an overall hostile view to both men and women who engaged in it, and who attacked a fabled well-established "double standard" that existed mainly in their fantasies. (And yes, there was a male analog to the women. Those were the men who routinely and loudly proclaimed "all women are whores." But that is a different topic.)

spankmepink11 -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:46:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: Maybe divorced women are less eager to remarry than they used to be. There must be some hard numbers about whether there are fewer second marriages now than in the past. Yeah, I would love to see some stats on that stuff, as well as stats on the success of second marriages (after the kids have left the house). I know in talking to people who have failed second marriages, it was mainly because of finances and/or disagreement over child rearing and dealing with stepkids. These are people who went in with every intention of making their second marriage work. This is why I know that the best intentions don't mean too much. I know I sound cynical, but that's me. I think thats dead on Katy. And those are some of the biggest reasons i never pursued any type of marriage minded relationships while actively child rearing. I also think, (based mainly on experiences of myself and a few others) that as a result of the years in an unhappy marriage, some are just far less likely to want marriage. I've often stated that i would much rather be lonely on occasion and single, than be with the wrong person...just to be "with" someone.

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied 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. The above is my stance on the subject as well..Tempting

WhiplashSmile -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 4:58:13 PM)
Ummmm... 20 years ago. I had a "Fuck Buddy" and we would refer to each other as "Fuck Buddies" LOL... so I don't know how much has changed since then. I've been rather preoccupied with longer term relationships. In terms of Friends with benifits, I had one M/s relationship with somebody that was a friend. Well, she was a friend, she had been released, did'nt have much of anything to her name. I was single at the time, so why not do this for awhile? It was of benefit for both of us. Perhaps this sounds emotionally shallow but it was a great arrangement for as long as it lasted. But there was one thing that bite me in the ass, she started to become emotionally attached to me, and I was not feeling the same way. Trust me, I have a long last memory of me laying on my waterbed with her over me.. sobbing in tears.. pounding on my chest.. and pleading for me to not give up on her, to not give up on us! Wow, crap! I was so stunned when this happened that I just layed there stunned and speechless.... When she stopped I asked if she was done... Blah blah blah blah blah... OK, I just wanted to share this with anybody who is contemplating accepting a friend as a slave, that things can/might change. It might not be a pretty situation when or if they do. Just a little food for thought..

LightHeartedMaam -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 6:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Why do you have to get married to have a permanent relationship? quote: ORIGINAL: LightHeartedMaam I, personally, don't care what the "new morality" is doing. I set my own priorities and expectations. If you want a family, marriage first. I think there is a stage people go through in their teens, 20's and 30's. When you begin your mid-40's and on, you start to think about some kind of permanency. The fuck buddies of the past are long gone. Please re-read the portion of my post I have highlighted in red.

becca333 -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 7:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I believe that females were raised with a different mindset. In other words, it was perfectly ok that males had a sex drive and went about satisfying that particular human need. However, I don't think females were quite as liberated. We were still brought up (in many cases) to think that sex was only something that was had in a committed relationship, or casual sex was only for the young. While some were brought up a bit more open minded, being 38, I can tell you that it wasn't quite that way yet for everyone. I have a different recollection from that period. Mine is that the major group calling certain women "sluts" were other women with an anti-sexual mindset. The same women did not believe it was somehow "OK" for men to engage in sexual activity. They had quite hostile terms for those men as well. Despite claims of some society-wide "double standard" I never really saw it. What I observed was a group, largely of women, who had a distaste for sex, an overall hostile view to both men and women who engaged in it, and who attacked a fabled well-established "double standard" that existed mainly in their fantasies. (And yes, there was a male analog to the women. Those were the men who routinely and loudly proclaimed "all women are whores." But that is a different topic.) Traditionally women were divided into two groups: 'damned whores' and 'God's police'. Since marriage was one of the very few ways women could find a place in society, and since virginity was important for a good marriage, women weren't anti-sex to be mean-spirited. It was necessary for social survival. Girls were also taught to dislike sex ('lie back and think of England') because society required that young women would, on the one hand, not engage in sex freely, but on the other hand would accept whatever mate they were given. So they were taught that sex was horrible and nasty, and that fortunately you only had to do it with one person. It meant that sex within marriage wasn't a whole lot of fun for anyone (men often didn't see their wives naked ever, during their entire marriage), but it was accepted, and expected, that men would have mistresses for the fun stuff. I prefer the situation today. Ohhhh boy do I prefer it. Aren't we fortunate to have the fun we do?

BlindUnknown -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 8:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imthatacheyouhav I just can't do casual sex. Lord knows i've tried in my day...it just makes me feel really bad...almost sick to my stomach. I am zero good at "sport fucking".....thats just me...i realize others can and do enjoy it... sagely nods his agreement

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 9:37:40 PM)
Still doesn't really explain what you're talking about, but enjoy whatever works for you. quote: ORIGINAL: LightHeartedMaam quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Why do you have to get married to have a permanent relationship? quote: ORIGINAL: LightHeartedMaam I, personally, don't care what the "new morality" is doing. I set my own priorities and expectations. If you want a family, marriage first. I think there is a stage people go through in their teens, 20's and 30's. When you begin your mid-40's and on, you start to think about some kind of permanency. The fuck buddies of the past are long gone. Please re-read the portion of my post I have highlighted in red.

themischievous1 -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/3/2007 10:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sublimelysensual The only comment that really bothered me in the OP was this one: 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. I don't view two people in a long term relationship, living together, sharing life, as a "friends with benefits" arrangement. I personally find it insulting to insinuate that unless a couple is married (ie, have a legal document saying they're together), they can't possibly be as committed to each other, or trusting of each other as a married couple are. I've met people in LTR's that are much more successful in their relationship than people with a marriage license, and vice-versa. As for tough times hitting, look at the divorce rate..those people are making it stick? What matters isn't a 2 hr ceremony and a piece of paper, it's the commitment the people involved have to each other. Anyway..just my two cents, as always.... -a I think you make a valid point in that the legality of marriage doesn't necessarily guarantee or equate to a stronger commitment than the couple who simply resides together; however it is easier to walk away from the commitment without the legalities, wouldn't you agree? A lot of folks take a marriage contract more seriously and will at least pause and attempt to pull out all the stops before completely throwing in the towel, hence the great many legal separations. I feel comfortable making the generalization that the people I've known and spoken with over time have taken a marital commitment more seriously than a living together commitment or even just an exclusive dating commitment, but I think many of these people are probably in their forties and fifties and are part of the boomer generation that were raised to believe that marriage is the ultimate commitment. Over the years I've heard a lot of men claim that living together is "shacking up," and listened to them state that as long as there wasn't a wedding ring on their finger, they didn't owe anyone real fidelity. I think this attitude is more pervasive than we may realize, even now. Certainly many of us remember the old saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free..." If you weren't privy to or don't recall this lovely little bit of advice, think on it for a time. Once you've gotten naked, played, scened, and have essentially gotten it on with your new guy, find out if a wedding ring is forthcoming (in the event you want one, that is..) I'm just guessing and have no way of knowing this as concrete data, but from my own experiences, I don't see a lot of men interested in tying the proverbial knot anymore, after they've already gotten the goods. To be fair, however, I don't necessarily see a lot of women being very vocal about doing so either.. Is this because women are afraid they'll scare the men away or have they truly been "turned off" to the idea of what marriage used to stand for? The vows in the past were "for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part, etc." Few truly grasped the implications of those vows when they took them, I think, and then there are those who were forced into divorce despite desiring to keep their vows because of abuse and god knows what all. This OP has been a thought provoking venture for me and one in which this inquiring mind wants to know and question what is on people's minds when it comes to making the 2007 ultimate commitment. I wonder how we do that anymore if marriage is now "out," especially in a BDSM, D/s, M/s, etc. dynamic. And then another thing that seriously weighs on my mind is this: How many "relationships" does one want to go through, or watch go down the drain that didn't become long term relationships as one hoped? How many do we sit back and watch crash and burn (along with your heart) before we pull back and say "hold up..something's wrong here!" No, we can't make anyone truly commit and we have no way of knowing what the outcome will be, but at what point do you wonder what these relationships that come and go really mean in your life. And if they're not just "friends with benefits" or "fuck buddies," then what about the people who will have had say 20 or 30 or even more by the time they're fifty? I like to ask the serious questions. I like to ask myself the serious questions, and that is all this thread is. I try to stay away from judging people in black and white as to whether or not their actions are "good or bad." My sole intent is to provoke thought and exchange ideas on this rather involved topic.

wifeandi -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/4/2007 12:08:47 AM)
My wife and I have been married for 25 years and like many marriages the sexual side of things had become stale and our relationship began to suffer as a result. We met a couple at a formal dinner function and after becoming the best of friends we discovered that there was a sexual attraction between us and that led to us having a foursome on new years eve. On new years day we were inroduced to the world of bdsm. A week later we had our first session with this couple. My wife and I are submissive and they are a switch couple who are both bisexual. Mistress and Sir have decided that we are not to be sexual with each other without their consent. For the past ten weeks I have worn a CB2000 to prevent us doing so. Mistress sees my wife three or four times a week but I only have a session with Mistress and Sir once a month. My wife has become a bisexual and now prefers sex with Mistress a lot more than with Sir or I. After locking my manhood away in the CB2000 Mistress decided to introduce me to her slave erica and informed me that we were to become fuck buddys regardless of whether we felt any atraction to each other. I was instantly attracted to erica who is a 23 year old model but the attraction was not mutual at first. I know erica snd I would never be fuck buddys if not for Mistress and Sir. Mistress and erica hold the keys to my CB2000 and I now see erica on the days when my wife is with Mistress and Sir. We have become the best of friends and passionate lovers. Our sex life has elements of bdsm but both being submissive there is no power exchange between us. We speak two or three times a day on the phone and have phone sex on the nights when we are apart. It has only been ten weeks but it seems we have known each other a life time.

darkslife -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/4/2007 12:18:52 AM)
I am very unlikely to ever get married. I honestly don't believe that a religious ideal applies to me when I myself am not a religious person. Somehow a few of you seem to be under the impression this means I will fuck anything that moves. Aren't generalisations wonderful? I am currently in a committed, long term relationship. 2 years and counting. She knows and understands my reasoning. I am also upfront and honest about it. As to fuck buddies, never really had one. Not really my style.

domiguy -> RE: "Friends with Benefits" (7/4/2007 12:57:23 AM)
To me there is no difference between the terminology of fuck buddy or friends with benefits or FTF.....It implies that there is a connection that is beyond sex....Otherwise the "fuck buddy" would fall into the category of just being a piece of ass or a booty call. Since I get more ass than a toilet seat...lol. I have seen the positive side to having a fuck buddy or twenty.....It is a woman that you truly dig their company ....So you hang out.....Drinks, dinner maybe a movie or just chilling out at home...There are no real expectations...If you fuck you fuck...It's no big deal it is a friendship first and foremost. Now the booty call or P.O.A is a person that you have deemed not worthy of primetime....They are the afterthought to a night of drinking or if you need "some" but for some odd reason jerking off just won't hit the spot....Booty calls are not for the long run...they run out of steam purely based on the limitations of the arrangement... Today I see people (young'uns) randomly hooking up in greater numbers than ever before....one night stands can be cool but rarely satisfying....I think it is just a sign o' the times...No big deal. As we get older we are not the pliable piece of shit that we were when we were younger...The things we might have found acceptable in our youth no longer hold merit or worth, and many of the people that I might have dealt with when younger I wouldn't give a second glance at today. The friend with benefits can be a very cool arrangement as long as both parties are on the same page and understand each others limitations...Which are probably the main reasons that the relationship is one of fuck buddy in lieu of becoming a significant other. The end.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875