Friends with ''Benefits''

[Deidre]

I used to feel this way. I appreciate your view.

This(friendship benefits) is sign of immorality.
Sex should happen through marriage.
Thats my personal belief tho.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I suspect that is the problem.
Far to many people concentrate on the benefits and let the friends part go to ****.
So then it becomes about the benefits and not the friend.

I have never seen a relationship based solely on sex last.

Same here. And this is a point I think that ought to be emphasized more.

Friends with Benefits implies that the friendship must come first and must always be the impetus. When I engage in these relationships, I make it a point to say "Friends First." The sex is the benefit, and that we act in a way that the sexual engagements occur as an agreed part of this friendship.

Ending these arrangements only ends the sexual acts, but the friendships - when emphasized - remain. It's natural to be disappointed particularly if the sex is highly enjoyable. But friendship before and after in these instances outlives the temporary disappointments.

I'm still friends with men and women - and GOOD friends at that - with whom I've enjoyed these moments and arrangements through the years.

 

[allfoak]

While on the surface it seems to be a great idea, there is a very good reason why the success rate is bad.
Sex, male and female is for the purpose of making connections soul to soul.
This connection is the beginning of new life emotionally.
It is just as real as a physical life being conceived and if not nurtured it dies.
The problem that arises then is that you don't want to nurture this new life, you just want "benefits" for a little while and then forget this newly created life exists.
This is why we have so many neglected children in the world.

 

[Deidre]

Perhaps this is why I've never entered into a FWB arrangement. Perhaps on some level, I'm keenly aware of the reprocussions and any "benefit" that I might gain, wouldn't be worth the potential loss of a very good friend.

Hmmmm...

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Perhaps this is why I've never entered into a FWB arrangement. Perhaps on some level, I'm keenly aware of the reprocussions and any "benefit" that I might gain, wouldn't be worth the potential loss of a very good friend.

Hmmmm...

Nothing wrong with that. FWB, serial monogamy, celibacy, open marriage, and all other pair-bonding arrangements cover a spectrum of choices. We all have different desires, different circumstances, and different orientations and identities. There is no one broad brush rule for everyone, save for the ethics of consent.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

the potential loss of a very good friend.

Yes, that's happened to me before.

 

[Deidre]

Yes, that's happened to me before.

Oh really? Sorry.
I can see it being a hard balance to strike, in some cases.

 

[Mequa]

This thread seems so far to concern "in-person" friends with benefits relationships.

Here is another proposition: How about the concept of online friends with benefits?

That is, friendships over the Internet which also include a bit of cybersex (whether through explicit chat, email, photos, videos, or even teledildonics). I mean as a part of actual (online) friendships too, where there is trust and personal disclosure, not merely online casual acquaintances. And where the "friends" part may well long outlast the "benefits" part.

E-FWB, in other words. Is that doable and realistic? What would constitute an emotional condom (e.g. appropriate personal boundaries) in such a case?

I have experienced several online friendships like that in the past. Generally such "friendships" tend to be quite superficial and do not last, one party often terminates contact unilaterally, in my experience (that is, in my case, the other party).

But what about in the context of a deeper online friendship, where there is genuine trust and concern for each other, it looks like the friendship may endure, yet there is chemistry too and both parties evidently turn each other on a lot? Could E-FWB be viable, with (as was discussed earlier) the friendship coming first?

My thoughts are that depends on the maturity of the two people involved, and their ability to set appropriate boundaries to mutually avoid both suffering and inflicting hurt. Then the online friendship would not be threatened by such "play", but may stand a good chance of long outlasting any "benefits".

Thoughts?

 

[mainliner]

I agree with the above ..... Yes i do

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Oh really? Sorry.

It wasn't awful, but afterwards I do remember thinking "I wish we'd just stayed as ( platonic ) friends."

 

[mainliner]

You make friends with some ..... Great
you get drunk with a some ..... Great
you go for a meal with a some..... Great
you argue with some ..... Great(ish)
you have sex with a some .... Great

alllllll goood

 

[allfoak]

This thread seems so far to concern "in-person" friends with benefits relationships.

Here is another proposition: How about the concept of online friends with benefits?

That is, friendships over the Internet which also include a bit of cybersex (whether through explicit chat, email, photos, videos, or even teledildonics). I mean as a part of actual (online) friendships too, where there is trust and personal disclosure, not merely online casual acquaintances. And where the "friends" part may well long outlast the "benefits" part.

E-FWB, in other words. Is that doable and realistic? What would constitute an emotional condom (e.g. appropriate personal boundaries) in such a case?

I have experienced several online friendships like that in the past. Generally such "friendships" tend to be quite superficial and do not last, one party often terminates contact unilaterally, in my experience (that is, in my case, the other party).

But what about in the context of a deeper online friendship, where there is genuine trust and concern for each other, it looks like the friendship may endure, yet there is chemistry too and both parties evidently turn each other on a lot? Could E-FWB be viable, with (as was discussed earlier) the friendship coming first?

My thoughts are that depends on the maturity of the two people involved, and their ability to set appropriate boundaries to mutually avoid both suffering and inflicting hurt. Then the online friendship would not be threatened by such "play", but may stand a good chance of long outlasting any "benefits".

Thoughts?

The last word you posted sums it up.

Thoughts

Thoughts have life, and they are used in building life.
The question i would ask is : "What am I building"?
If something i have built falls into disuse it doesn't go away until I clean it up.
I would rather be more discriminate about what I build than having all of these useless and sometimes even hurtful memories to clean up.
That was my perspective.

Here is the Rule:
All people are different and are here to learn different things.
As long as we do not infringe upon the right of another to live the way they please, all things are lawful and in some way beneficial.

 

[Laika]

I'm ok with the idea of Friends with benefits. But I think in practice, this may be avoiding the fact that sex quite naturally produces all the chemicals in the brain to make you want to be with someone. I support Free Love, but Friends with benefits is trying to have all the fun without dealing with the very complex sense of commitment that goes with it.

It sounds more like trying to avoid all the hard issues of being with someone in the name of being 'care-free'- but being able to work through problems is probably the most rewarding part of a relationship as it means that person means so much to you that you're not afraid to put aside you're differences. It shouldn't matter whether that relationship is with only two people or more; commitment should not be a prison from which we try to escape but something voluntarily given out of love.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This thread seems so far to concern "in-person" friends with benefits relationships.

Here is another proposition: How about the concept of online friends with benefits?

That is, friendships over the Internet which also include a bit of cybersex (whether through explicit chat, email, photos, videos, or even teledildonics). I mean as a part of actual (online) friendships too, where there is trust and personal disclosure, not merely online casual acquaintances. And where the "friends" part may well long outlast the "benefits" part.

E-FWB, in other words. Is that doable and realistic? What would constitute an emotional condom (e.g. appropriate personal boundaries) in such a case?

I have experienced several online friendships like that in the past. Generally such "friendships" tend to be quite superficial and do not last, one party often terminates contact unilaterally, in my experience (that is, in my case, the other party).

But what about in the context of a deeper online friendship, where there is genuine trust and concern for each other, it looks like the friendship may endure, yet there is chemistry too and both parties evidently turn each other on a lot? Could E-FWB be viable, with (as was discussed earlier) the friendship coming first?

My thoughts are that depends on the maturity of the two people involved, and their ability to set appropriate boundaries to mutually avoid both suffering and inflicting hurt. Then the online friendship would not be threatened by such "play", but may stand a good chance of long outlasting any "benefits".

Thoughts?

Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.

Same rules apply, IMO.

 

[Deidre]

Re: e-friends with benefits...

It can be great fun but I've decided that it isn't in my best interest to do that anymore. Unlike offline life, there is too much to chance online if you send someone pics or have sex talk, and my experience has been that it can create an illusion of the friendship being more than it is. I think it can work but it's not for me.

 

[Deidre]

This is an interesting comment especially the part about wanting to avoid the hard parts of a relationship. That would be me. lol

I've never tried a FWB type thing but in all honesty it does infer that we can have our cake and eat it too...and we probably can't. Good points!

I'm ok with the idea of Friends with benefits. But I think in practice, this may be avoiding the fact that sex quite naturally produces all the chemicals in the brain to make you want to be with someone. I support Free Love, but Friends with benefits is trying to have all the fun without dealing with the very complex sense of commitment that goes with it.

It sounds more like trying to avoid all the hard issues of being with someone in the name of being 'care-free'- but being able to work through problems is probably the most rewarding part of a relationship as it means that person means so much to you that you're not afraid to put aside you're differences. It shouldn't matter whether that relationship is with only two people or more; commitment should not be a prison from which we try to escape but something voluntarily given out of love.

 

[dawny0826]

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

Sure it's doable if those involved are content with it and honest about their intentions. It's realistic for those comfortable with such a relationship. I'm a Christian and I don't consider honesty immoral in the slightest. At our core, it's just us - faced with our own feelings, thoughts and desires. I consider honesty with self and in follow-through to be far more moral and respectable than living a lie for the purpose of meeting a constructed standard - or simply to appease others.

 

[Mequa]

"Friends with benefits" is not the same as "no strings", and I think it is immoral to interpret it this way, particularly if this is a real friendship and the friendship comes first. "Fun" has to be tempered with serious responsibility to both yourself and your friend, as discussed below:

I agree with much of what Epicurus said about friendship. Friendship is a social contract, agreed to by both parties, based on a mutual commitment to avoid both suffering harm and inflicting harm - including both physical and emotional/psychological harm.

In modern terms, this translates into both parties maintaining healthy personal boundaries.

To avoid suffering harm means to be assertive, non-aggressively assertive, and not allow a friend to cross reasonable lines, which would constitute abuse - and to make continuation of the friendship conditional on the other party not becoming abusive. If they become abusive, ditch the friendship, and it may also be a good idea to maintain no contact.

To avoid inflicting harm means to take one's friend's emotions seriously, and that includes (as an example):

- Finding out how they really feel through pro-active enquiry.
- Empathising with them (attempting to place oneself in their shoes).
- Communicating healthy and reasonable boundaries, directly, not assuming they should be obvious.
- Making a commitment not to transgress those boundaries (including in anger or hurt). This also rules out a tit for tat if one feels hurt - communicating the hurt openly has to replace retaliating with spite.
- Keeping this a mutual arrangement, on both sides, keeping the relationship balanced.
- Keep the relationship and power dynamic "horizontal" and egalitarian.
- Do not become abusive.
- Modern research suggests avoiding like the plague the "Four Horsemen": Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling. These are so toxic they can very accurately predict the end of a friendship or relationship.
- And so on...

Now, the exact "rules" one may decide upon may differ from person to person, but in every case they ultimately boil down to the same thing: A mutually agreed-upon social contract, put in place to guard against both suffering harm and inflicting harm. "Harm" in this case also includes emotional and psychological harm (which is ultimately in the body too), including serious hurt.

"Neither harm nor be harmed".

Now, THIS is the emotional condom I had in mind for FWB (and e-FWB) relationships. A Neo-Epicurean flavoured condom.

 

[Deidre]

I think that's an excellent approach, Mequa.

I make things simpler for myself these days when it comes to friendships, relationships, etc...and it's simply this...I treat people as I'd like to be treated. Of those friendships/relationships where I've been most hurt, is when I'm doing my part to be respectful, but the other person isn't. I give a few chances to see improvement, and then when I don't...I decide to keep the person at an arm's length, or sever things entirely, if the pain is that great.

I vow to make 2015 a different year than the past few, and that is to stop second guessing myself. If I'm uncomfortable with another person's 'requests,' I'm not compromising in order to preserve the friendship. For that isn't really a friendship if I'm always changing who I am to accommodate someone else.

The more we experience, the greater the growth.

 

[sun rise]

I think that's an excellent approach, Mequa.

I make things simpler for myself these days when it comes to friendships, relationships, etc...and it's simply this...I treat people as I'd like to be treated. Of those friendships/relationships where I've been most hurt, is when I'm doing my part to be respectful, but the other person isn't. I give a few chances to see improvement, and then when I don't...I decide to keep the person at an arm's length, or sever things entirely, if the pain is that great.

I vow to make 2015 a different year than the past few, and that is to stop second guessing myself. If I'm uncomfortable with another person's 'requests,' I'm not compromising in order to preserve the friendship. For that isn't really a friendship if I'm always changing who I am to accommodate someone else.

The more we experience, the greater the growth.

I really think that's the way to go - if you try to compromise who you are, then sooner or later it won't work. Real friendship is built on accepting the other person for who they are. Of course there are small things that people can do to make the other person happy but violating what you really believe in because the other person demands it is to me the wrong choice.