Friends with ''Benefits''

[Deidre]

Wondering what you think of this concept?

I posted something last year to this effect on an atheist site, and the reactions were mixed. But, everyone there is an atheist, and I thought it would be interesting to ask the question here, seeing many here come from different spiritual views and backgrounds.

As for me, I don't consider myself the 'marrying kind.' I have a variety of trust issues when it comes to love and commitment, stemming from childhood, that while I'm working on, I still can't see myself giving my heart away forever to one man. When I was a Christian, I still didn't like the idea of marriage, but at least then, I viewed it as a sacred covenant of sorts. Now, I just see marriage as unnecessary and with the divorce rate as it is, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

But...friends with benefits...to have great chemistry and sex with someone whom you trust and call a friend, seems so ideal to me. No commitment, and no strings.

But, then...someone could catch feelings and once that happens, it probably doesn't work. ^_^ lol

What are your thoughts to it? Is it doable? Is it realistic? Do you think that it's immoral?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a great idea.
It's moral.
I don't know anyone who ever managed it.

 

[Drolefille]

Doable: Yes. As long as both people are honest with themselves and are capable of separating sexuality from romantic feelings.

Realistic: Not for everyone.

Immoral: Not in the slightest as long as it's honest.

 

[Deidre]

It's a great idea.
It's moral.
I don't know anyone who ever managed it.

haha! I know, right? Seems like a GENIUS idea, yet...I don't think it holds a high success rate. ^_^

 

[LuisDantas]

It can be no more or less immoral than marriage.

Which, granted, means that it will vary a lot. One of the main problems with marriage as an institution is that it has become a common label for relationships that are very much unlike each other in meaning, purpose and advisability.

My take on the matter is that whatever rapport two (or more) people have is what it is. Having recognition and support from family, friends and government is great, but ultimately secondary.

Marriage is probably a name to be reserved for relationships that are meant to last, though.

It seems to me that you are tackling the matter in the abstract, starting from the concepts of the relationships themselves. Wouldn't it work better to start by developing a clear picture of what kind of relationship you want, which people could take part on it, and decide how you want to name it later?

 

[Deidre]

Doable: Yes. As long as both people are honest with themselves and are capable of separating sexuality from romantic feelings.

Realistic: Not for everyone.

Immoral: Not in the slightest as long as it's honest.

I love your answer...this is how I tend to feel about it.
I had a fling a little over a year ago, with my neighbor, whose been a friend for a few years, since I've moved in here. He developed feelings and I wasn't interested in more than what it was, so...we stopped seeing each other. Even when you outline the boundaries, I think where it goes sideways, is when one person catches feelings. I think the former Christian in me sees the whole concept as somewhat taboo, and the whole notion of Christian 'morality' creeps up on me, and stops me from pursuing another viable candidate. ^_^

A few months ago, I broke up with an amazing guy, he and I were in a relationship. I'd consider him for this, but...we have gone past the friends mark so I'm not thinking it will work as just a friends/sex kind of 'arrangement.' The reason we broke up is he sees marriage in his future, and I honestly don't.

 

[dust1n]

I'm all for them, though I'd hope to find a longer-term romantic interest at some point.

 

[Deidre]

I'm all for them, though I'd hope to find a longer-term romantic interest at some point.

Thanks for your reply.
I think it would be ideal to start off as friends, merge into this FWB type arrangement, and then...you BOTH catch feelings...and live happily ever after.
Not married, in my version of the story. lol

It can be no more or less immoral than marriage.

Which, granted, means that it will vary a lot. One of the main problems with marriage as an institution is that it has become a common label for relationships that are very much unlike each other in meaning, purpose and advisability.

My take on the matter is that whatever rapport two (or more) people have is what it is. Having recognition and support from family, friends and government is great, but ultimately secondary.

Marriage is probably a name to be reserved for relationships that are meant to last, though.

It seems to me that you are tackling the matter in the abstract, starting from the concepts of the relationships themselves. Wouldn't it work better to start by developing a clear picture of what kind of relationship you want, which people could take part on it, and decide how you want to name it later?

You're right, my starting point is off...because I tend to view everything when it comes to dating, in terms of relationship-bound. I appreciate your insights, and my comment to dust1n above clarifies more how I think something like this could 'work.' TY for chiming in, here.

 

[sun rise]

I can really only speak to my personal experience - My personal experience is that the last 38 years of our 45 year marriage have been really really wonderful. The first few years were really rough but both of us are very stubborn people who would rather have died than given up. So we stuck it out in spite of the "fire" that burned us both. And in the process sandpapered both of our rough edges and forged a lifetime bond of love.

And to note that the divorce rate has been getting better The Truth About The Divorce Rate Is Surprisingly Optimistic

As far as morality goes, I think you need to rely on your best personal understanding.

 

[Drolefille]

I love your answer...this is how I tend to feel about it.
I had a fling a little over a year ago, with my neighbor, whose been a friend for a few years, since I've moved in here. He developed feelings and I wasn't interested in more than what it was, so...we stopped seeing each other. Even when you outline the boundaries, I think where it goes sideways, is when one person catches feelings. I think the former Christian in me sees the whole concept as somewhat taboo, and the whole notion of Christian 'morality' creeps up on me, and stops me from pursuing another viable candidate. ^_^

A few months ago, I broke up with an amazing guy, he and I were in a relationship. I'd consider him for this, but...we have gone past the friends mark so I'm not thinking it will work as just a friends/sex kind of 'arrangement.' The reason we broke up is he sees marriage in his future, and I honestly don't.

It's tricky to do if you're someone who tends to form attachments with sex. If you're not or you can maintain those friendships at an intimate friend level rather than having them progress, then it's certainly doable.

I don't know if it would work for me or not, I've had brief flings, and I think I'd be OK with doing it in the future. On the flip side, I tend to feel love for even my friends so I don't know if I'd be able to keep that apart or not for something more long lasting.

 

[dust1n]

Thanks for your reply.
I think it would be ideal to start off as friends, merge into this FWB type arrangement, and then...you BOTH catch feelings...and live happily ever after.
Not married, in my version of the story. lol

I have no interest in a meaningless ceremony for the approval of a being I know pretty much doesn't exist.

I'm just open to whatever happens and trying not to be cynical and keep my heart open to whatever random stuff life may present.

Personally though, I never really understood dating without sex. It would be virtually impossible for me to be romantically interested in someone and pretend I'm working on the basis of a friendship.

 

[Sunstone]

I think "friends with benefits" usually runs into the wall of oxytocin. Oxytocin is the neurochemical in us that is released during sex, and which emotionally bonds us to our sex partner.

The thing about oxytocin that must be understood is that it is, according to some scientists, more addictive than heroin. And it appears to affect women about ten times more powerfully than men. So, when you have sex with someone -- even casual sex -- it is almost impossible to escape from forming at least some sort of emotional bond with them.

Having said all that, I still think friends with benefits is doable. It's just that you must be very emotionally wise to accomplish it because you will always have a yearning for more oxytocin -- that is, for a deeper bond -- just like someone who takes heroin is going to yearn for more heroin. As long as you are emotionally wise enough to deal with that yearning, though, and as long as you are willing to deal with a bit of suffering during your withdrawals from oxytocin, you should still be able to manage a friends with benefits relationship.

 

[dust1n]

I think "friends with benefits" usually runs into the wall of oxytocin. Oxytocin is the neurochemical in us that is released during sex, and which emotionally bonds us to our sex partner.

True... which I suppose makes me a serial monogamous, though I'm always concerned about bonding with someone and what it actually means in me life.

EDIT: I think knowing exactly what you are getting into usually helps deal with the oxytocin factor. That's not to say one won't have feelings, but I think if one is well aware of the nature of a FWB situation, than the mind is a bit more resistant to allowing one to entertain the thought.

 

[Sunstone]

As for the morality of friends with benefits, the same rules apply to such friends as apply to friends without benefits. You try to treat people decently. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes, it's doable.

Yes, it's moral with honesty and respect for boundaries.

FWB is best when contrasted from romantic relationships. Commitments made ought to remain pragmatic, and allow better possibility for maintaining the recreational side of sex in the forefront.

As far as the oxytocin side of it...ride the wave, baby. That is some good potent fun right there.

 

[Sunstone]

By the way, I've known people who seem to have pulled it off. But I hang with a strange crowd in some ways.

 

[Mequa]

"Friends with benefits" really depends on how good friends the two people are to each other, mutually.

Suppose one person "catches feelings", and the other, rather than pushing them away which would be the more ethical thing to do, is more than aware of their romantic interest, yet is happy to string them along and take advantage of their interest in them, enjoying the attention. This creates a power imbalance where one person is dissatisfied with the arrangement yet stays in it, and the other is exploiting them for all they are worth.

I don't think that would constitute being friends. With or without "benefits". The hallmark of true friendship is a genuine concern for the other person's well-being, including emotional and psychological. Such would clearly be absent in the above kind of arrangement, methinks, which is likely to end in serious hurt for one party.

Friendship cannot include such exploitation and blatant disregard for another's emotional or psychological well-being, or it is not worthy of the name. A friend who does not have a friend's emotional well-being in the forefront of their concerns is really no friend at all.

 

[Sunstone]

"Friends with benefits" really depends on how good friends the two people are to each other, mutually.

Suppose one person "catches feelings", and the other, rather than pushing them away which would be the more ethical thing to do, is more than aware of their romantic interest, yet is happy to string them along and take advantage of their interest in them, enjoying the attention. This creates a power imbalance where one person is dissatisfied with the arrangement yet stays in it, and the other is exploiting them for all they are worth.

I don't think that would constitute being friends. With or without "benefits". The hallmark of true friendship is a genuine concern for the other person's well-being, including emotional and psychological. Such would clearly be absent in the above kind of arrangement, methinks, which is likely to end in serious hurt for one party.

Friendship cannot include such exploitation and blatant disregard for another's emotional or psychological well-being, or it is not worthy of the name. A friend who does not have a friend's emotional well-being in the forefront of their concerns is really no friend at all.

I think if I were in a Friends With Benefits relationship and caught feelings for my friend, I would have the maturity to take full responsibility for my feelings rather than expect my friend to take responsibility for my feelings for me.

 

[Mequa]

I think if I were in a Friends With Benefits relationship and caught feelings for my friend, I would have the maturity to take full responsibility for my feelings rather than expect my friend to take responsibility for my feelings for me.

That is true, but if a "friend" is happy to exploit such feelings without reciprocating, I am not sure if they would really qualify as a friend.

Personally, I tend to fall hard and fast, and get very badly hurt when games are played with my emotions by unscrupulous women who love to tease, play games, and seek attention. I don't think a Friends With Benefits situation would work for me personally. I have a tendency to bond fast with sex and become highly vulnerable, something which as a man I often attract contempt and disdain for. I would likely end up badly hurt and the friendship would end in the trash, particularly if there was any exploitation of my emotions going on.

I would furthermore need a highly extended period (measured in months, at least) to fully process the hurt feelings. This is not something I can bounce back from, personally, but something which (in my experience) generally implies not only deep and chronic emotional anguish, but major disruption to every area of my life for an extended period of time.

 

[mainliner]

Wondering what you think of this concept?

I posted something last year to this effect on an atheist site, and the reactions were mixed. But, everyone there is an atheist, and I thought it would be interesting to ask the question here, seeing many here come from different spiritual views and backgrounds.

As for me, I don't consider myself the 'marrying kind.' I have a variety of trust issues when it comes to love and commitment, stemming from childhood, that while I'm working on, I still can't see myself giving my heart away forever to one man. When I was a Christian, I still didn't like the idea of marriage, but at least then, I viewed it as a sacred covenant of sorts. Now, I just see marriage as unnecessary and with the divorce rate as it is, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

But...friends with benefits...to have great chemistry and sex with someone whom you trust and call a friend, seems so ideal to me. No commitment, and no strings.

But, then...someone could catch feelings and once that happens, it probably doesn't work. ^_^ lol

What are your thoughts to it? Is it doable? Is it realistic? Do you think that it's immoral?

great idea ...... God would be proud

its the true slutness of Eden

i know tons of girls who are just....well.....REALLY FRIENDLY


even if you fall in love with one , its no biggy ,

your friends with beniifits and in love

just because your in love with a sexual friend doesn't mean you have to go down the family and kids route..... Lifes about having fun