Is 'friends with benefits' acceptable?

[aosteel23]

I am an INTJ female wondering if any other INTJ females out there have this problem. For relationships, I approach them logically and will not enter into any sort of commitment if I can't see it having a future. Because of this, my relationships rarely make it past the first date - because of a perceived incompatibility of my partner. In those situations I have been called, frigid, emotionless, and distant. I find those reactions baffling. Why would you allow yourself to become emotionally involved with someone if you know that you will not be mentally or physically compatible?

Because of this I have a 'friends with benefits' situation in the works most of the time. This works out beautifully for me in the fact that there are no emotional entanglements beyond a close friendship. I have never had a bad break up or in these situations (except for once when I tried to have this arrangement with an ESFJ (clingy, clingy, clingy)). And those men I choose to have these relationships with always seemed shocked at first that a girl is bringing up this alternative and is completely happy with this type of connection.

Are there any other INTJ women out there, who have found themselves in a similar situation?

[OneHertz]

You really should not be asking other people what is acceptable or not. If you believe it to be, then it is.

I personally don't see anything wrong with it as long as both parties are aware of what it is.

[Santana28]

I dont know about anyone else on here, but I'm very comfortable with a FWB type arrangement, and i've had several that worked fine on my end. Often they would end because the other person would become too attatched to me. These relationships make the most sense logically for me, considering my life circumstances...

However, i'm not one for casual relationships at all, and i could never enter into one of these without there existing a genuine trust and friendship with the other person beforehand.

I guess you could say i'm more into relationships without boundaries or set terms... they're genuine, but i'm also able to maintain multiple relationships at the same time with other people.

I have no problem with a serious relationship though. I don't worry so much about the "future" - i take things one day at a time, and treat every outcome - whatever it may be - as a learning experience. i'm still good friends with every single one of my exes... which is pretty rare i'd say. i value our friendships much more than the sexual aspect of things, and am able to keep those aspects seperate.

[intjdude]

Because of this, my relationships rarely make it past the first date - because of a perceived incompatibility of my partner.

hmm.. Isn't this a bit too soon to come to a conclusion? many people seem to be freaks or weirdos at first... especially if they're nervous / socially awkward

[Santana28]

hmm.. Isn't this a bit too soon to come to a conclusion? many people seem to be freaks or weirdos at first... especially if they're nervous / socially awkward

yeah. i'd agree with this too. of course, i dont make a habit of dating complete strangers - my relationships always begin from pre-existing friendship.

on first glance you can find problems with *ANYONE* ... i like to take factors which lead to snap judgements out of the equation, which means i generally start conversation via the internet/cellphone/text message/social networking sites first before any actual "dates" happen.

[Deliberator]

I feel the same way about a long term relationship but I personally have a big problem with the "friends with benefits" arrangement. Perhaps it was my upbringing. It is a very logical solution to the "I don't want emotional entanglement but goddammit I do want sex" problem, but I have been made painfully aware that sometimes one can develop feelings for a sex buddy regardless of how emotionless one attempts to be. It's probably due to the oxytocin released in copious amounts after sex. I would recommend never staying "friends" with any one person for too long.

[Lucid]

I am a huge fan of the FWB relationships! I tend to be single a lot for many of the same reasons the OP mentioned. Having regular sex with someone you enjoy and trust but don't have romantic feelings for is a wonderful situation. It's important for everyone to be honest, to be up front about their expectations and needs, and it's pretty important (I think) that while you respect and like your FWB, you are not interested in dating them, nor them you.

I've had several very successful arrangements of this kind and would recommend it for everyone who understands the difference between love and sex and does not require one for the other. Incidently, I'm still friends with all of them.

Good times! :thumbsup:

[AliTree]

as long as it doesn't become sex-buddies, i'm all for this personally. i would love to have a very close deep and dear friend of the opposite gender that i could feel physically comfortable with and physically affectionate.

in a perfect world, i would be able to find one that didn't get annoyed of not getting any sex out of it.

[Franklin71]

You really should not be asking other people what is acceptable or not. If you believe it to be, then it is.

But don't try that with gravity.

[azelismia]

absolutely not acceptable from this corner of the room.

[IreOfDesire]

Male here. Personally I dont understand this.

How do we choose a partner for romantic relationship? We select one that we accept on a mental level - having fun together, enjoy conversation, have something in common - and on a physical level - we feel attracted physically and want to have sex with them. So when we get a friend who obviously covers our requirements for the mental level and have sex with that person we have physical attraction.
So why should that does not become a romantic relationship? Why blowing chances to find a suitable mate when we find so few people to who we can relate with. You can always try to form such a relationship because you have nothing to lose. If it does not work you go back to the friendship again.

[Frag]

Because one person becomes attached, and the other not.

Which I guess is all to common anyway. *shrug*

[IceDream]

I think my interpersonal skills are too weak for me to be able to "manage" a FWB type relationship. I'd definitely end up hurting the "friend" in this situation or somehow making a mess. Hell, I can't successfully manage having friends without benefits let alone anything more demanding and complicated.

In theory, though, I have nothing against the FWB concept.

[Aurelia]

I am an INTJ female wondering if any other INTJ females out there have this problem. For relationships, I approach them logically and will not enter into any sort of commitment if I can't see it having a future. Because of this, my relationships rarely make it past the first date - because of a perceived incompatibility of my partner. In those situations I have been called, frigid, emotionless, and distant. I find those reactions baffling. Why would you allow yourself to become emotionally involved with someone if you know that you will not be mentally or physically compatible?

Because of this I have a 'friends with benefits' situation in the works most of the time. This works out beautifully for me in the fact that there are no emotional entanglements beyond a close friendship. I have never had a bad break up or in these situations (except for once when I tried to have this arrangement with an ESFJ (clingy, clingy, clingy)). And those men I choose to have these relationships with always seemed shocked at first that a girl is bringing up this alternative and is completely happy with this type of connection.

Are there any other INTJ women out there, who have found themselves in a similar situation?

Absolutely not. To date someone without first evaluating how compatible they are is a waste of time. Close friends of mine have the tendency to jump into relationships whereas I had a harder time dating simply because I did not settle. Despite not dating as much as my friends, I am the one who is happily married. Quality over quantity.

Finding a good relationship to be in can be difficult. However I would rather be alone than have the 'friends with benefits' situation.

[Lucid]

Male here. Personally I dont understand this.

How do we choose a partner for romantic relationship? We select one that we accept on a mental level - having fun together, enjoy conversation, have something in common - and on a physical level - we feel attracted physically and want to have sex with them. So when we get a friend who obviously covers our requirements for the mental level and have sex with that person we have physical attraction.
So why should that does not become a romantic relationship? Why blowing chances to find a suitable mate when we find so few people to who we can relate with. You can always try to form such a relationship because you have nothing to lose. If it does not work you go back to the friendship again.

For example, one of my past FWBs is a friend of mine who is physically attractive and a cool guy. But he's not as smart as I need someone to be for me to be interested in dating them. So it never became a romantic relationship.

[Harmony]

Sigh, I'm all for the friends with benefits thing... As long as all parties understand what that means. In the past I had one that didn't get it. He got mad because he saw me out at the mall with another guy friend and threw a fit. Now, had he called to see if I wanted to hang out and I would have said I was washing my hair or something, then I would understand, but he hadn't even contacted me. =P

Friends with benefits is much easier for me... All of what I would consider good relationships progressed from friend to friends with benefits to relationship. However, I still haven't found the one that makes me want a permanent commitment... Thought I had, but boy did he show me his true side, and I ran as fast as I could.

[aosteel23]

I always felt that this arrangement was the best for both parties involved. If you go into it with open communication on both sides and make it clear that either party can back out at any time for any reason, I have yet to have a problem. I was hoping to find out if this was something common to INTJ females (or males(or other)).
Also, on first dates I don't reject them because of their social awkwardness as was suggested. I approach relationships logically and if you find out from the first date that there are issues that would eventually come up later in a relationship with problems, why would you go out again and waste time and money? For instance my last 3 dates didn't get a repeat for these reasons: 1. Extremely baptist (I don't care, but since I'm an athiest he would eventually have had problems)
2. Laughed about his large amounts of credit card debt and tried to force himself into my apartment.
3. 30 years old, still an undergrad in college, and trying to find himself.

I'm not saying that I stopped looking for the other person that will be compatible to me, but for a low maintenance fix to a temporary problem FWB works surprisingly well.

[playthestatic]

I remember having this arrangement not too long ago with an ESxJ I never care to speak to again. We had dated for a while before, but it hadn't worked out. He claimed he was still physically attracted to me, and I figured that it would be harmless to go ahead with the friends-with-benefits arrangement, which would be fine, because neither of us had feelings for each other any more. Right? Wrong. It made him develop an unreciprocated attachment to me, and he became spiteful when after some time, I made it clear to him that I didn't feel the same way, and attempted to distance him from me by becoming slightly colder towards him (which was more true to the way I felt towards him than any pretence of affection). Maybe right now I wouldn't have one more enemy in my life if I hadn't decided to go for that arrangement.

I'm not saying that it had all been his fault. Clearly, I was to be blamed too, for making the mistake of thinking such an arrangement was possible and not done anything to stop it even when it was becoming clear that things were not turning out so well. Bottom line, the friends-with-benefits arrangement has many possible, well, benefits, but as others have said earlier, it's very important that both parties are under no illusions as to what feelings are involved. I also think you've got to be careful about who you enter into this with - is this person likely to form attachments despite how clear you've made it to them that they mustn't? More importantly, are you?

[Josephine1012]

Theoretically, I see nothing wrong with this arrangement, assuming that both parties are comfortable with the situation. But for me personally, it would never work. I tend to tie sex to emotional attachment so I don't want to have it with someone I have no romantic interest in, and I wouldn't want to be just a friend to someone if I am interested in a relationship with them.

But if you can do this, more power to you!

[aosteel23]

We had dated for a while before, but it hadn't worked out. He claimed he was still physically attracted to me, and I figured that it would be harmless to go ahead with the friends-with-benefits arrangement, which would be fine, because neither of us had feelings for each other any more. Right? Wrong.

I agree! Hooking up with exes always brings with it inherent emotional baggage. My first attempt at friends with benefits was done with an ex-boyfriend in a similar situation. I was no longer attached and over time it became clear that he was hoping it would lead to something more. Because of that experience, I have been a huge proponent of being as clear as Lake Tahoe about intentions and pick a friend who also knows that we would be incompatible on an emotional level, but share a common physical attraction.

[Synamon]

as long as it doesn't become sex-buddies, i'm all for this personally. i would love to have a very close deep and dear friend of the opposite gender that i could feel physically comfortable with and physically affectionate.



Did you read the original post or question? The point is sex-buddies, not opposite sex friendships.

I have some friends who've gone this route. They did have some glitches where one of the people got attached after a while but they seemed happy while it lasted. Humans need sex, there are different ways to get it, and this makes sense for a lot of people.

[GinaMpls]

It's really no problem for me to divorce emotion from plain good ole sex, so the fwb dynamic isn't a problem for me.

[INTJoe]

I think AliTree was just saying for herself. I'm pretty sure she's asexual at this point in her life.

But yeah, the standard definition of "Friends with benefits" is "people I **** but don't date". lol.

As a guy I've never had this type of relationship. But then, I think OP's predicament is easier for INTJ guys than girls. Guys can get away with the cold-heartedness in a relationship... for girls I would imagine this is much more difficult.

[Synamon]

As a guy I've never had this type of relationship. But then, I think OP's predicament is easier for INTJ guys than girls. Guys can get away with the cold-heartedness in a relationship... for girls I would imagine this is much more difficult.
Why do you assume INTJ women are different than INTJ men in this regard?

[INTJoe]

Not that we're different, but the way the opposite sex views us is likely different.

A typical woman's reaction to an INTJ male is gonna be totally differnt from a typical guy's reaction to an INTJ female.

[Santana28]

Not that we're different, but the way the opposite sex views us is likely different.

A typical woman's reaction to an INTJ male is gonna be totally differnt from a typical guy's reaction to an INTJ female.

this is true. you're going to find a lot more SF female types getting in over their head emotionally speaking, whereas i typically only see NT males which makes a logical/rational need-based relationship much easier accomplished with less hassle.

[Synamon]

As a guy I've never had this type of relationship. But then, I think OP's predicament is easier for INTJ guys than girls. Guys can get away with the cold-heartedness in a relationship... for girls I would imagine this is much more difficult.

Not that we're different, but the way the opposite sex views us is likely different.

A typical woman's reaction to an INTJ male is gonna be totally differnt from a typical guy's reaction to an INTJ female.

this is true. you're going to find a lot more SF female types getting in over their head emotionally speaking, whereas i typically only see NT males which makes a logical/rational need-based relationship much easier accomplished with less hassle.

Except what I think INTJoe meant was that FWB was easier for INTJ guys and what you've said contradicts that Santana. If an INTJ guy were to get involved with someone like you described that would be messy. So maybe it is in fact easier for INTJ women to find someone compatible for this kind of relationship (to paraphrase Santana).

[alphawolf]

I am not a woman, but I have one of these relationships with a woman who also told me upfront that she doesn't anything other than sex. She's a really nice person, but not emotionally available, and I know that I could never fall in love with her because she is just not my type. We do have a lot of fun though, and we sure as hell don't "sleep together".

I actually try to minimize the friends part, as that is crossing the line into caring, which could potentially create assumed feelings in the mind of one or the other and cause undue pain. We agreed to discuss it in no uncertain terms and without hesitation if one or the other starts to develop any kind of feelings for the other.

If it's acceptable to her and it's acceptable to me, then who else's opinion could possibly matter?

[INTJoe]

Except what I think INTJoe meant was that FWB was easier for INTJ guys and what you've said contradicts that Santana. If an INTJ guy were to get involved with someone like you described that would be messy. So maybe it is in fact easier for INTJ women to find someone compatible for this kind of relationship (to paraphrase Santana).

No, I mis-spoke. I meant those types of relationships would be more natural probably for INTJ females than guys.

I meant the predicament was easier, meaning easier to deal with, meaning we (INTJ males) don't have to deal with it as much. lol.

And to think I first wrote "I think it's easier for guys", then went back and tried to make it more clear by saying "I think OPs predicament is easier for guys". lol. I still didn't type what I meant.

What I should have said was "INTJ guys probably don't have this predicament as much as INTJ girls." Because it's easier for us to not run off the opposite sex with our INTJ-ness. I'm only guessing this based on what I've seen many INTJ females on this site say about their difficulties in relationships. Mostly, running off guys because they're too smart.

[TwinStar]

Personally, I love the FWB relationship. I don't mind dating at all--in fact, I probably prefer it--but I usually can't find anyone up to par. Sad, considering my only real criteria for dating is him being smart and me having at least some chemistry with the guy.

I agree with everyone else about the unfortunate side effect of one person getting too attached. Sex just doesn't seem all that meaningful to me, even with people I am attached to or in a relationship with. Oh, well!

[AliTree]

Did you read the original post or question? The point is sex-buddies, not opposite sex friendships.

I think AliTree was just saying for herself. I'm pretty sure she's asexual at this point in her life.

yes, joe is right. reason i put personally in the beginning.
and i don't consider what i described as just a friendship, personally.

[auriga vega]

It's a waste of time for me.

[Sinequanon]

(Is it time yet for the irrelevant types/genders to jump in? ;))

I personally don't understand the concept (well, in the abstract I can see how it might be appealing but I know I could never not get attached in some way). There's a big part of me that wants to stay idealistic/romantic with respect to sex and love, and I sort of hold all that very dear.

Though I can understand with all the morons out there how waiting forever might not be a viable option as well. Hm. Anyway, this thread's fascinating. :)

[Firebrand]

So why should that does not become a romantic relationship? Why blowing chances to find a suitable mate when we find so few people to who we can relate with. You can always try to form such a relationship because you have nothing to lose. If it does not work you go back to the friendship again.

Because what makes relationships last long-term is shared values, 75
% or greater interests (and hates), and compatible life directions. And, you obviously don't speak from experience on the last line. Sex is crossing the rubicon. Once crossed, it is never quite the same. Proceed with caution, or at a minimum, consideration.





Firebrand9 added to this post, 9 minutes and 27 seconds later...

I tend to tie sex to emotional attachment so I don't want to have it with someone I have no romantic interest in, and I wouldn't want to be just a friend to someone if I am interested in a relationship with them.

I think this part is pertinent. Your brain releases all sorts of chemicals when you have sex with someone. Oxytocin is one. These have the tendency to make you deal with all sorts of BS that you would never put up with normally due to the intended purpose of creating a biological pairing that can provide a safe framework to raise young in, thus fulfilling the purpose of sex, IE - Reproduction. Overriding this takes more effort for some than others, and some may produce less of the chemicals, producing varying results. I've seen quite a few cases of people consciously entering into one of these relationships and finding themselves ensnared in something they had never intended to be in.





Firebrand9 added to this post, 4 minutes and 54 seconds later...

Not that we're different, but the way the opposite sex views us is likely different.

A typical woman's reaction to an INTJ male is gonna be totally differnt from a typical guy's reaction to an INTJ female.

We're in the golden age of women's empowerment. Women are capable of the same actions as men. Women in these scenarios are probably not acting much differently than the men.





Firebrand9 added to this post, 5 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Personally, I love the FWB relationship. I don't mind dating at all--in fact, I probably prefer it--but I usually can't find anyone up to par. Sad, considering my only real criteria for dating is him being smart and me having at least some chemistry with the guy.

I agree with everyone else about the unfortunate side effect of one person getting too attached. Sex just doesn't seem all that meaningful to me, even with people I am attached to or in a relationship with. Oh, well!

Wait... You say you love FWB but yet, sex doesn't seem that meaningful to you? These 2 concepts have contradiction in them. And dating is distinctly different than FWB. Dating is seeing if the person has long-term capacity with you which is the antithesis of FWB which has implied limited in duration characteristics.

[JohnDoe]

(Is it time yet for the irrelevant types/genders to jump in? ;))

I personally don't understand the concept (well, in the abstract I can see how it might be appealing but I know I could never not get attached in some way). There's a big part of me that wants to stay idealistic/romantic with respect to sex and love, and I sort of hold all that very dear.

Though I can understand with all the morons out there how waiting forever might not be a viable option as well. Hm. Anyway, this thread's fascinating. :)
Yeah I don't understand how people can do this and not eventually run into trouble... In the long run your either going to call it off because your dating someone or someones going to end up wanting more. Don't kid yourselves on this either, just because they don't say anything doesn't mean that they don't want more; its pretty common for people to not say anything because they don't want to end what they have. I guess over short enough time scales it might work though, but I couldn't handle it (the second INFJ to say this for the record).

[IreOfDesire]

I haven`t experienced fwb situation but I`ve experienced frustration with female friends who are afraid of destroying friendship when involving intimacy. Seems quite irrational fear to me. Maintaining friendship with eXs is not an impossible task.

Perhaps dating is more risky than fwb but without risking I can`t see how one can achieve the goal of finding suitable partner.

And a reminder on which I totally agree:
"A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy."

[wendytwtee]

haha, not for me. To each her own i guess.

[Mina]

I am female, and yes, I would consider entering into an FWB relationship (though I haven't in the past). Of course, the friend in question would have to meet all of my requirements, such as:

- Physically attractive
- Good in bed (I can usually tell if someone will be good before actually sleeping with them)
- Someone who I trust not to be too clingy/possessive/emotionally involved.
- Someone who I trust in general.

Having sex with someone does not tend to increase my emotional attachment to them; if anything I start to lose interest in a guy after having sex...

[dalidaisy]

It's already been said here, but I'll repeat. This type of relationship can be beneficial, but I've found that it is hard to keep emotions out of it. In my experience, my "friend" who agreed to nothing more than sex in the beginning, inevitably "falls in love" & wants more. Then the sexual relationship ends & usually the friendship as well. I don't want to lose the few close friends I have to indulge my sexual desires.

I prefer to meet someone who I find sexually attractive & make an agreement at that time. We don't need to hang out, go to dinner or the movies. We can simply meet up when we are looking for some sexual gratification. If one party enters an exclusive relationship or loses interest, no one is hurt & each can move on. Easy cheesy...

Edit: On second thought, maybe if I had an INTJ friend...

[MaleVolentworld]

This idea is very strange. I can't even comprehend how it would be possible to have sex with a friend and not be romantically involved or emotionally attached...that's weird to me, like having ice cream without the cone, you'd get cold messy hands and...why did my mind give me this analogy???

People...strange things

[NancyS786]

... It's probably due to the oxytocin released in copious amounts after sex. I would recommend never staying "friends" with any one person for too long.

So how long is "too long"?

Also, I wonder just exactly WHAT FWB is. Are these pairs monogamous with each other or not? Why is it just friends, and not more serious, if it is monogamous?

I am quite concerned, because I've been with this guy since early december, neither or us intends to stay for a "really long time". Neither of us feels ready "right now" for a serious relationship.

We even talk fairly often about how long this might last. Maybe a few months is the guess so far...

Thing is, we see each other ALL THE TIME. I've practically moved in with him (because he cuts my commute in half).

How much of a risk am I taking? I seriously don't want to settle for this guy, we don't have enough in common, and he'd drive me crazy as a life partner. He might even drive me crazy and I'll give up on it quite soon, who knows.

I appreciate some advice, I'm really new at this dating thing - had been in a relationship from '96 till '08 and kinda freaked out about being "out there" again.

[Kisai]

So how long is "too long"?

Also, I wonder just exactly WHAT FWB is. Are these pairs monogamous with each other or not? Why is it just friends, and not more serious, if it is monogamous?

I am quite concerned, because I've been with this guy since early december, neither or us intends to stay for a "really long time". Neither of us feels ready "right now" for a serious relationship.

We even talk fairly often about how long this might last. Maybe a few months is the guess so far...

Thing is, we see each other ALL THE TIME. I've practically moved in with him (because he cuts my commute in half).

How much of a risk am I taking? I seriously don't want to settle for this guy, we don't have enough in common, and he'd drive me crazy as a life partner. He might even drive me crazy and I'll give up on it quite soon, who knows.

I appreciate some advice, I'm really new at this dating thing - had been in a relationship from '96 till '08 and kinda freaked out about being "out there" again.

Usually, FWB implies a non-monogamous relationship. I had a FWB arrangement where I would live in San Jose and then go up to San Francisco once a month or so to stay a weekend. It was light and fun. Both of us knew we weren't serious relationship material for the other.

As for you: you've already crossed the line by practically moving in with him. You should distance yourself (or risk losing some of your stuff).

[Indubitably]

I am an INTJ female wondering if any other INTJ females out there have this problem. For relationships, I approach them logically and will not enter into any sort of commitment if I can't see it having a future. Because of this, my relationships rarely make it past the first date - because of a perceived incompatibility of my partner. In those situations I have been called, frigid, emotionless, and distant. I find those reactions baffling. Why would you allow yourself to become emotionally involved with someone if you know that you will not be mentally or physically compatible?

Because of this I have a 'friends with benefits' situation in the works most of the time. This works out beautifully for me in the fact that there are no emotional entanglements beyond a close friendship. I have never had a bad break up or in these situations (except for once when I tried to have this arrangement with an ESFJ (clingy, clingy, clingy)). And those men I choose to have these relationships with always seemed shocked at first that a girl is bringing up this alternative and is completely happy with this type of connection.

Are there any other INTJ women out there, who have found themselves in a similar situation?

I am in total agreement with your reasoning, and would take it a step further by saying that even if you are compatible this is how any romantic relationship should start. Just be open to the possibility that something more could eventually develop. Get to know each other, if you enjoy hanging and are comfortable with each other explore something more physical. Once you are comfortable being physical, and have developed a close friendship, if you find that this person makes you happy, you have developed feelings for them, and you aren't really interested in seeing other people any more you might as well make it exclusive.

At least that is how I like to go about it, and it has worked out when I have dated INTJ females before.

[Solaris]

While I agree with much of what others have said, particularly Santana28 and Lucid, I think it's relevant to mention it so others know my stance on this.

I don't think that FWB has to mean exclusive or not. I think that such things need to be discussed, however. In more open relationships, communication and honesty become even more important. Especially given the types of contagions out there, it's best to know you have honesty. For this reason, in part, I think FWB is better than casual sex -- of which I seem incapable anyway. I require a sort of mental connection, it doesn't have to be love, but it does have to trust and respect in both directions.

[Indubitably]

It's already been said here, but I'll repeat. This type of relationship can be beneficial, but I've found that it is hard to keep emotions out of it. In my experience, my "friend" who agreed to nothing more than sex in the beginning, inevitably "falls in love" & wants more. Then the sexual relationship ends & usually the friendship as well. I don't want to lose the few close friends I have to indulge my sexual desires.

I prefer to meet someone who I find sexually attractive & make an agreement at that time. We don't need to hang out, go to dinner or the movies. We can simply meet up when we are looking for some sexual gratification. If one party enters an exclusive relationship or loses interest, no one is hurt & each can move on. Easy cheesy...

Edit: On second thought, maybe if I had an INTJ friend...

This is probably your best bet for people who's primary judging function is extroverted, but when dealing with P types this is not necessarily the best way to go about it. An INTP for instance, is probably going to be perfectly happy moving between periods of being sexually active and being platonic friends, then wonder why you have decided to stop being friends out of the blue over something as trivial as not wanting to become emotionally attached (for an INTP being emotionally detached is the default mode of operation, so developing a deep emotional connection to you through sex is something that would take a lot of conscious effort over time) . You will probably just make things worse by taking the contractual approach you speak of, and confuse the INTP when you could have just been honest about wanting to avoid romantic commitment in the first place.

[dalidaisy]

This is probably your best bet for people who's primary judging function is extroverted, but when dealing P types this is not necessarily the best way to go about it. An INTP for instance, is probably going to be perfectly happy moving between periods of being sexually active and being platonic friends, then wonder why you have decided to stop being friends out of the blue over something as trivial as not wanting to become emotionally attached. You will probably just make things worse by taking the contractual approach you speak of, and confuse the INTP when you could have just been honest about wanting to avoid romantic commitment in the first place.

Hmmm... Honesty is my thing. I would not enter into a FWB relationship without the friend knowing full well my intentions towards any romantic commitments. Being platonic friends after a sexual relationship is fine. It can even flip-flop in times of need. But, if a friend becomes clingy & needs more emotions from me (indicating they want something romantic), it would put a wedge between us that would be hard to overcome, or so I have found in my experience. Whether I have been with an INTP or not is beyond me. I do not think they would be the type to become clingy while knowing full well that I am not capable of returning their affections...

[Indubitably]

Hmmm... Honesty is my thing. I would not enter into a FWB relationship without the friend knowing full well my intentions towards any romantic commitments. Being platonic friends after a sexual relationship is fine. It can even flip-flop in times of need. But, if a friend becomes clingy & needs more emotions from me (indicating they want something romantic), it would put a wedge between us that would be hard to overcome, or so I have found in my experience. Whether I have been with an INTP or not is beyond me. I do not think they would be the type to become clingy while knowing full well that I am not capable of returning their affections...

Hehe, they would be the type to not become clingy even if you wanted them to be. They may on rare occasion freak out and go through irrational bouts of clingy when under extreme duress, but quickly return to their distant and detached nature upon realizing what is going on. For the most part, the INTJs I've dated have had more issues with adjusting to their roll as the comparatively needy and emotional individual in the relationship when about 95% of the men they have encountered in the past have been more needy than they were.

Trying to force an INTP into a contract that insists that he remain emotionally detached would be like a back seat driver grabbing the wheel and screaming "TURN RIGHT!!" when you were already in the middle of making a right hand turn.

[intjdude]

Ultimately, i think the question we are talking about really is:
What is the actual value of sex?

There's obviously varied answers here depending on your personal preferences.

Sex, like money, has value... its value is inversely proportional to how many 'deposits' are out there (pun intended)

If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?





intjdude added to this post, 2 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Going one step further... if you give it away to just friendship, then sex starts with friendship, no?

[dalidaisy]

If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?


I'm sorry, but I'm starting to take offense. Who says I'm giving it away? Who made the rule that sex should only be "spent" on someone you are romantically interested in?

What will I give someone who I am romantically interested in? Damn, so much more than sex! Sex is a physical act. It does not rely on emotion. And that's what we're really taking about here, isn't it? A deep emotional connection? What right does sex have even entering the equation? Some social stigma that says it should be reserved for marriage or some silly shit like that? Come on!

Love, from what I understand, is about feelings. Love is about sharing. Love is about trust & understanding. I don't think that love has anything to do with sex. Now, I will give you that sex with someone you love sounds wonderful. But so does breakfast with the person you love & traveling with the person you love. Those are physical acts. Can you not seperate this?

Bottom line: I'm not handing out sex here. It's not free. I don't do it with random people I don't have a bond with. But, if someone does like their sex with strangers, what does it matter? Just don't have sex with them if it bothers you so much. We all get our needs met in different ways. Please be understanding of that...

[Lucid]

Ultimately, i think the question we are talking about really is:
What is the actual value of sex?

There's obviously varied answers here depending on your personal preferences.

Sex, like money, has value... its value is inversely proportional to how many 'deposits' are out there (pun intended)

If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?
Going one step further... if you give it away to just friendship, then sex starts with friendship, no?


I would give my romantic interest to someone I was romantically interested in, and potentially my love. These things are far more valuable and meaningful than a physical act.

Sex is not money. Your statement contains the unstated premise that sex is more enjoyable for the 'receiver' than to the 'giver.' This appears to include the gender bias that women should with hold sex and give it to men based on merit for the enjoyment of the man and based on the premise that they will get something in return from the man (love, security, money... what have you). I don't know if that's how you intended it, but it's fucking ridiculous.

Sex is pleasurable for both (or all) parties involved. It is only as sacred or special as the people involved in it make it. What it means to you is not necessarily what it means to me. Terms like, 'give it away' imply that the female (since this is a thread about INTJ females) get nothing from casual sex. You are incorrect. Attach to the act of copulation whatever significance you feel is appropriate, but do not presume to expect others to share that view, or criticize them when they do not.

Having a lot of sex makes it less special? Either you yourself have not had a lot of it and therefore don't know, or you are not holding yourself to the same standard to which you hold others.

[Harmony]

Can it not just be left at everyone has different meanings for different things?

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Everyone has their own preferences. If someone enjoys sleeping with their friends, that's their prerogative...

Just because you don't understand it or don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

There are no laws that say it is only right to sleep with someone you are married to or exclusively dating.

[Solaris]

Ultimately, i think the question we are talking about really is:
What is the actual value of sex?

There's obviously varied answers here depending on your personal preferences.

Sex, like money, has value... its value is inversely proportional to how many 'deposits' are out there (pun intended)

If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?





intjdude added to this post, 2 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Going one step further... if you give it away to just friendship, then sex starts with friendship, no?

Who are you to decide how much value sex with me has?? Why do you think that having sex outside of love is giving it away? I am by no means casual about who I perform any sexual act with. Certainly, I am not giving it away.

The tone with which you made your statements leads me to think you believe those of us who have sex outside of love/romance are cheap. To that, I say that you have not nearly enough information to make that valuation.

I'm also confused by the assertion that sex has less value if I've had more of it. That makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, more experience should make the experience better for me and my partners, thereby increasing the value, not decreasing it.

The statements you made imply that you are a jealous, possessive type to me. Perhaps this is not true at all, I don't have enough knowledge of you to state such things concretely.

How in the world do you assign value to sex? How can you imply that I, or anyone else here, is "giving it away?" If were assigned it no value and simply flung it at passersby, we'd be out turning tricks, not entering into mutually satisfying arrangements with people we know and trust.

[intjdude]

Can it not just be left at everyone has different meanings for different things?

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Everyone has their own preferences. If someone enjoys sleeping with their friends, that's their prerogative...


Isn't this what I'm saying? That the question here really is: What is the value of sex to you?

Those who have FWB see it as lower value
--COMPARED TO--
Those who wait to get married see it as highly valuable.

SO: INTJs being reserved and critical personalities... INTJ women are LESS likely to have FWB than other types. Shall we make it a poll? ;D lol


But this is just me and my silly theories :thumbsup:

[Harmony]

Isn't this what I'm saying? That the question here really is: What is the value of sex to you?

Those who have FWB see it as lower value
--COMPARED TO--
Those who wait to get married see it as highly valuable.

SO: INTJs being reserved and critical personalities... INTJ women are LESS likely to have FWB than other types. Shall we make it a poll? ;D lol


But this is just me and my silly theories :thumbsup:

Why does a FWB see sex as a lower value? Maybe they value their friendships more than you do... My best friend means the world to me, and we've had sex. Does that mean that I have a lower value on sex just because of that? No.

[Solaris]

INTJs being reserved and critical personalities... INTJ women are LESS likely to have FWB than other types.

Completely disagree. I think xNTJ women are probably *more* likely to have FWB because we are A.) Not as tied to traditional cultural values and B.) Less likely to make decisions based upon feeling (though we certainly do so at times). As such, I think we're more likely to admit that we have physical needs, and seek the most gratifying outlet for them.

[intjdude]

Who are you to decide how much value sex with me has??

I'm a nobody... and there's no need to be defensive...

We are talking theoretical only... the value of anything is inversely proportional to its supply... this applies to everything doesn't it?

If you refuse to give anyone a kiss for 50 years...and then you kiss one person, isn't it intrinsically very valuable?

[lamplighter]

I couldn't handle a FWB, but I did have what Dalidaisy mentioned, just a simple f*** buddy, all we did was have sex, the irony is that I had a little bit of an emotional attachment in the beginning but it faded away and she ended up having a strong emotional attachment for me after awhile, one day out the blue she asked if I would marry her. I don't know if I would ever go for something like that again. I just feel better about having sex with someone with whom I have an emotional connection with, and I think about the long term the minute I meet someone, if I can't see myself with someone for at least a year, I won't bother, it feels like a waste of resources to me. So naturally I don't date anybody unless I've known them for awhile, I suppose if I connected really well with someone right off I'd be inclined but that hasn't happened yet. I don't think I would risk a good friendship with casual sex, when someone could end up getting emotionally hurt over it. I know, I know, an INTJ concerned about another person's feelings, doesn't sound possible but in some areas of life I do TRY to be human.

[Harmony]

I'm a nobody... and there's no need to be defensive...

We are talking theoretical only... the value of anything is inversely proportional to its supply... this applies to everything doesn't it?

If you refuse to give anyone a kiss for 50 years...and then you kiss one person, isn't it intrinsically very valuable?

Your last question... I'd have to answer no to... if I have no connection at all with that one person it doesn't have any value... Now, if that person were someone I felt a strong connection to and thought there could really be something there, it becomes priceless. It's all situational....

[Synamon]

I'm a nobody... and there's no need to be defensive...

We are talking theoretical only... the value of anything is inversely proportional to its supply... this applies to everything doesn't it?

If you refuse to give anyone a kiss for 50 years...and then you kiss one person, isn't it intrinsically very valuable?
Theoretical? Some of the people in this thread are sharing their very real experiences. Respect that.

The topic of this thread is INTJ females - Is friends with benefits acceptable? What exactly are you contributing to the topic?

[intjdude]

Why does a FWB see sex as a lower value? Maybe they value their friendships more than you do... My best friend means the world to me, and we've had sex. Does that mean that I have a lower value on sex just because of that? No.

Yes by definition.

If we compare you to someone who will only have sex with THE ONE. Your value of sex is lower intrinsically.

There's no way to argue around that. Because if there's only ONE, the value is never diluted.

[dalidaisy]

Yes by definition.

If we compare you to someone who will only have sex with THE ONE. Your value of sex is lower intrinsically.

There's no way to argue around that. Because if there's only ONE, the value is never diluted.

It's THE ONE that makes the sex special, not the reverse, no?

[Harmony]

So what if THE ONE dies in a horrible accident? Are you never going to have value to your sex life ever again?

[Lucid]

Yes by definition.

If we compare you to someone who will only have sex with THE ONE. Your value of sex is lower intrinsically.

There's no way to argue around that. Because if there's only ONE, the value is never diluted.

I think you're using a word - value - that doesn't fit very well. It's not a matter of how much one values sex, it's more what importance or significance or meaning one attaches to sex. I doubt SERIOUSLY that I value sex any less than someone who waits for "the one." In fact, because I try to have a lot of it, the arguement might be made that I value it more.

Your definition of value also needs some work. You're saying that desirable things which exist in a small amount are more valuable. This is true when it comes to some (mostly material) things. But for other, less tangible things (like love or sex for example) the analogy breaks down. For example, if I think less are my thoughts more valuable? Probably not.

Also, just because we're reserved doesn't mean we don't like sex or are any less capable of or less willing to have it than other types. As you'll find if you hang around long enough, sexual behavior and everything that goes with it varies GREATLY between one INTJ and another. This is true of many, many things. Just because we use the same dominant cognitive processes, does mean there will be some general similarities. It does not mean that we are all alike, and I think you will be surprised at the diversity of views and opinions you find here.

[intjdude]

The topic of this thread is INTJ females - Is friends with benefits acceptable? What exactly are you contributing to the topic?


Plenty if you think about it...

Whether FWB is 'acceptable' really depends on one's own intrinsic value of sex.

And the following question that i've asked before is also about value:
"If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?"

This is not the same as "giving it away"... think about it...

Ultimately, we are talking about "what is your value on sex?"... that's the answer to the OP's question.





intjdude added to this post, 32 minutes and 27 seconds later...

It's THE ONE that makes the sex special, not the reverse, no?

No, it's one's own value of sex that makes it special.

As you've stated "What will I give someone who I am romantically interested in? Damn, so much more than sex!"

This comment doesn't sound like someone who places high intrinsic value on sex. But I'm not judging. I'm just saying that whether FWB is acceptable or not, depends on one's own value of sex.

Certainly, someone who practices FWB has a lower intrinsic value of sex than someone who waits for ONE. This is a conclusion based on definition only.

'Value on' and 'value of' are not the same.

[dogwoodlover]

I am an INTJ female wondering if any other INTJ females out there have this problem. For relationships, I approach them logically and will not enter into any sort of commitment if I can't see it having a future. Because of this, my relationships rarely make it past the first date - because of a perceived incompatibility of my partner. In those situations I have been called, frigid, emotionless, and distant. I find those reactions baffling. Why would you allow yourself to become emotionally involved with someone if you know that you will not be mentally or physically compatible?

Because of this I have a 'friends with benefits' situation in the works most of the time. This works out beautifully for me in the fact that there are no emotional entanglements beyond a close friendship. I have never had a bad break up or in these situations (except for once when I tried to have this arrangement with an ESFJ (clingy, clingy, clingy)). And those men I choose to have these relationships with always seemed shocked at first that a girl is bringing up this alternative and is completely happy with this type of connection.

Are there any other INTJ women out there, who have found themselves in a similar situation?


For many men, a woman openly looking for a "friends with benefits" relationship is like a dream come true.

"Hey so, do you wanna just have a lot of great sex instead of pretending we actually like each other?"





dogwoodlover added to this post, 4 minutes and 44 seconds later...

No, it's one's own value of sex that makes it special.

As you've stated "What will I give someone who I am romantically interested in? Damn, so much more than sex!"

This comment doesn't sound like someone who places high intrinsic value on sex. But I'm not judging. I'm just saying that whether FWB is acceptable or not, depends on one's own value of sex.

Certainly, someone who practices FWB has a lower intrinsic value of sex than someone who waits for ONE. This is a conclusion based on definition only.

'Value on' and 'value of' are not the same.


Correction: they value sex differently.

For instance, someone who is into FWB may value sex over all other things in the world, as a physical pleasure to be pursued at whatever the cost [i.e. a hedonist (I'm not implying that most or any significant number are actually like this)].

Some people see sex as something which should be a religio-spiritual experience, with the side benefit of physical pleasure. Other people just think it feels f**king great.

[dalidaisy]

Plenty if you think about it...

Whether FWB is 'acceptable' really depends on one's own intrinsic value of sex.

And the following question that i've asked before is also about value:
"If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?"

This is not the same as "giving it away"... think about it...

Ultimately, we are talking about "what is your value on sex?"... that's the answer to the OP's question.





intjdude added to this post, 32 minutes and 27 seconds later...



No, it's one's own value of sex that makes it special.

As you've stated "What will I give someone who I am romantically interested in? Damn, so much more than sex!"

This comment doesn't sound like someone who places high intrinsic value on sex. But I'm not judging. I'm just saying that whether FWB is acceptable or not, depends on one's own value of sex.

Certainly, someone who practices FWB has a lower intrinsic value of sex than someone who waits for ONE. This is a conclusion based on definition only.

'Value on' and 'value of' are not the same.

Ok, you took my words out of context. I meant that there are things significantly more valuable in a romantic relationship than sex.

if the people that you speak of think that sex is the most valuable thing they offer to a romantic partner, then you win!

This does not lower my value of sex in the least. To be honest, I value sex very highly & enjoy it immensely. It is a very important element in my life. I know plenty of people who have saved themselves for sex with their SO who value sex far less than me.

[BostonIan]

Yes by definition.

If we compare you to someone who will only have sex with THE ONE. Your value of sex is lower intrinsically.

There's no way to argue around that. Because if there's only ONE, the value is never diluted.

I'll only (hopefully) sleep with a one, but I don't connect with your point, at least not the wording of it. For me, it's more been a process of valuing sex down to zero, accepting that I may never have it if circumstances break the wrong way. If I do end up with a one, that one will be a heck of a lot more lovely than the long dry zero before her, but that doesn't mean sex itself has a higher value in my life. Probably the opposite, all things considered.

[intjdude]

So what if THE ONE dies in a horrible accident? Are you never going to have value to your sex life ever again?

i'm not one to argue for THE ONE... never have... not that it makes any difference here

[Kisai]

Yes by definition.

If we compare you to someone who will only have sex with THE ONE. Your value of sex is lower intrinsically.

There's no way to argue around that. Because if there's only ONE, the value is never diluted.

Oh boy. Good luck finding that absolutely perfect person in which an orgasm is going to bring you to the highest heavens and when you come back, both of you will be in wedded bliss forever and ever.

'Cause it ain't never going to happen.

If you'd like to get really undiluted, why not save your money, go find a $10,000 prostitute that looks exactly as you've envisioned and have sex a total of once in your lifetime? That way, you'll have this wonderful experience that'll never be topped.

[alphawolf]

And the following question that i've asked before is also about value:
"If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?"


Haha. I have a FWB setup, and I will tell you the difference.

I don't kiss her on the mouth except when she arrives and leaves. Don't kiss her neck, back, legs, or stomach. Don't run my fingers through her hair, or caress her face. Don't run my hands all over her body - just the obvious areas. Don't nibble on her earlobes.

In fact, I am not really even attracted to her, but she is nice, funny, and just likes to visit for sex now and then. It's always a lot of fun with her, but the passion isn't there at all - at least not for me.

I really hope she's not lying to me about not wanting more...

[Sinequanon]

So what if THE ONE dies in a horrible accident? Are you never going to have value to your sex life ever again?
*sigh*

Yes, probably.

But I know that probably makes me a "sucker" or something to most of you.

But like I said way, way earlier, I don't see myself being able to do this arrangement.

In fact, I thought Dalidaisy said it very eloquently earlier:

Love, from what I understand, is about feelings. Love is about sharing. Love is about trust & understanding. I don't think that love has anything to do with sex. Now, I will give you that sex with someone you love sounds wonderful. But so does breakfast with the person you love & traveling with the person you love. Those are physical acts. Can you not seperate this?

I agree with all of this. If She (y'know, The One, and yes I do know who she is :)) died, what would be the point of traveling? Would breakfast even have taste anymore?

At this point in my life, I can't imagine that it would be worth living.

Sorry, end of thread derail..

[Harmony]

i'm not one to argue for THE ONE... never have... not that it makes any difference here

So you say that someone who is okay with FWB has less value of sex than one who will only wait for the one.... Yet, you won't argue for the one... If you aren't arguing for the one OR for the person who is okay with FWB arrangement how can you possibly come to the conclusions you have? How do you know what anyone that is in a FWB arrangement feels going into sex?

See I adore my friend, but you don't understand everything in our life. You can't possibly know what we feel for each other and what we are going through. Don't judge someone for their choices when you don't know why they made those choices.

For example alpha's FWB situation is completely different from mine... They are not all the same...

[intjdude]

I'll only (hopefully) sleep with a one, but I don't connect with your point, at least not the wording of it. For me, it's more been a process of valuing sex down to zero, accepting that I may never have it if circumstances break the wrong way. If I do end up with a one, that one will be a heck of a lot more lovely than the long dry zero before her, but that doesn't mean sex itself has a higher value in my life. Probably the opposite, all things considered.

you're confusing 'value of' with 'value on'...

The 'value of' air is low but the 'value on' it is high
If you remove air from the atmosphere, the 'value of' air is high but the 'value on' stays the same (high)

Your 'value of' sex is high (because it's limited to one) but 'value on' sex is low (because it's not a priority).

[Lucid]

Haha. I have a FWB setup, and I will tell you the difference.

I don't kiss her on the mouth except when she arrives and leaves. Don't kiss her neck, back, legs, or stomach. Don't run my fingers through her hair, or caress her face. Don't run my hands all over her body - just the obvious areas. Don't nibble on her earlobes.

In fact, I am not really even attracted to her, but she is nice, funny, and just likes to visit for sex now and then. It's always a lot of fun with her, but the passion isn't there at all - at least not for me.

I really hope she's not lying to me about not wanting more...


Really?? All the FWBs I've had did do things like kiss on the mouth, the neck, run fingers through hair, etc. With at least two of them I've even done that hand holding during sex thing (you know what I'm talking about?) And with all of them there was cuddling afterward and often spooning during sleep. On occasions when I've been hanging out with a FWB on new years we always kiss at midnight too. But then if we go to the bar, I help them get up the courage to talk to women they like. When one or both of us is in a committed relationship, we give romantic advice and are friendly with the significant other. We are, literally, friends - with benefits (benefits including mouth kissing, caressing, cuddling, etc).

[BostonIan]

you're confusing 'value of' with 'value on'...

My mistake, I just scrolled and saw that you qualified the definition in an earlier post.

[alphawolf]

Really?? All the FWBs I've had did do things like kiss on the mouth, the neck, run fingers through hair, etc. With at least two of them I've even done that hand holding during sex thing (you know what I'm talking about?) And with all of them there was cuddling afterward and often spooning during sleep. On occasions when I've been hanging out with a FWB on new years we always kiss at midnight too. But then if we go to the bar, I help them get up the courage to talk to women they like. When one or both of us is in a committed relationship, we give romantic advice and are friendly with the significant other. We are, literally, friends - with benefits (benefits including mouth kissing, caressing, cuddling, etc).

Nice. Wanna be friends? ;-)

Seriously, though, if I were attracted to a woman, I would do all of those things. I intentionally chose a woman that I am not really attracted to for FWB because I want to make damn sure that I don't fall in love/lust right now.

[intjdude]

Oh boy. Good luck finding that absolutely perfect person in which an orgasm is going to bring you to the highest heavens and when you come back, both of you will be in wedded bliss forever and ever.

'Cause it ain't never going to happen.

If you'd like to get really undiluted, why not save your money, go find a $10,000 prostitute that looks exactly as you've envisioned and have sex a total of once in your lifetime? That way, you'll have this wonderful experience that'll never be topped.


haha... well i appreciate the sarcasm cause it gives me a chuckle... ;D
But i'm not one of THE ONE group... a lot of posters seem to be assuming that I'm arguing for this....





intjdude added to this post, 2 minutes and 10 seconds later...

I meant that there are things significantly more valuable in a romantic relationship than sex.

haha... see... this is my point why I say your value of sex isn't very high ;D

[Harmony]

haha... see... this is my point why I say your value of sex isn't very high ;D

She can still have a high value on sex AND still think there are MORE valuable things.....

[intjdude]

Haha. I have a FWB setup, and I will tell you the difference.

I don't kiss her on the mouth except when she arrives and leaves. Don't kiss her neck, back, legs, or stomach. Don't run my fingers through her hair, or caress her face. Don't run my hands all over her body - just the obvious areas. Don't nibble on her earlobes.

In fact, I am not really even attracted to her, but she is nice, funny, and just likes to visit for sex now and then. It's always a lot of fun with her, but the passion isn't there at all - at least not for me.

I really hope she's not lying to me about not wanting more...


Well exactly... this is why I'm not into the concept of FWB... it's like I want to fuck her, but i'm repulsed at the same time.

It's like what Bart says.
"This blows and sucks at the same time" :laugh:





intjdude added to this post, 8 minutes and 50 seconds later...

She can still have a high value on sex AND still think there are MORE valuable things.....

yes, but her 'value of' sex is low... her 'value on' sex is high no doubt

[Harmony]

Like most things in the world... There is more than one aspect of FWB... Some people have multiple FWB, others only have one FWB...

I only have ONE FWB... We are not in a relationships for private reasons... This doesn't mean that I don't deeply care about him. In fact, I adore him. And if everything he says and does is true, the feeling is mutual...

[LaoTzu]

I don't kiss her on the mouth except when she arrives and leaves. Don't kiss her neck, back, legs, or stomach. Don't run my fingers through her hair, or caress her face. Don't run my hands all over her body - just the obvious areas. Don't nibble on her earlobes.


Im the opposite, which is why I prefer FWB... I hold nothing back, it's an all-out, no holds barred kinky as all get-out crazy-ass sex-capade....

In a relationship, I can't help but be somewhat 'reserved'. There's that little extra 'respect'... for want of a better word, for a sig. other. Sex tends to get a little more 'routine' ... tends to get boring after the 100th time... just happens naturally.


For all those waiting to have sex, I'd probably recommend it.
Just....let's not compare stories ok?

[nacht]

Ultimately, i think the question we are talking about really is:
What is the actual value of sex?

There's obviously varied answers here depending on your personal preferences.

Sex, like money, has value... its value is inversely proportional to how many 'deposits' are out there (pun intended)


It is amazing to me how often people confuse finite commodities (money) with non-finite commodities (emotion) or skills (sex).

Sex, simply, is a skill. I it is something that you can practice and get better at. If I become a massage therapist, each person I work on benefits from the experience I gained working on everyone else before them. Similarly so with sex.


It also helps you diagnose what might be wrong with your sex life with a partner if things fade for some reason.

If you want to add emotional attachment or you get more out of it that way, more power to you, but love is not a finite commodity either. You can love more than one person at once, you can love more than one person at once and be sleeping with all of them and it doesn't somehow cheapen or lessen either the love or the sex except in your own mind.


If you give it away to someone who you aren't romantically interested in, what will you give to someone who you are?


More skill and knowledge than I would have had otherwise.

Does massaging multiple people reduce the value of each massage given, or increase it?

Oh, and nothing I've said here contradicts the concept of sex as sacred. You can treat sex as sacred and have a lot of it with people where there are no strings attached, you can treat sex as sacred and only ever have it with one individual. It depends on you, and in no way cheapens the act of sex.

[intjdude]

Seriously, though, if I were attracted to a woman, I would do all of those things. I intentionally chose a woman that I am not really attracted to for FWB because I want to make damn sure that I don't fall in love/lust right now.

Let me put a situation against your situation. I hope you don't take offense. I'm just arguing rationally :)

Lets say that you find one really hot chick that you *absolutely love* in the future. We'll call her #2.

What if #2 asks you the following.
-----------------------
"How do I know that you love me when you've fucked #1 repeatedly without loving her?"
-----------------------

what will you say?

[nacht]

Let me put a situation against your situation. I hope you don't take offense. I'm just arguing rationally :)

Lets say that you find one really hot chick that you *absolutely love* in the future. We'll call her #2.

What if #2 asks you the following.
-----------------------
"How do I know that you love me when you've fucked #1 repeatedly without loving her?"
-----------------------

what will you say?

I would leave her on the spot, because I make it a rule not to date people who have more problems than I do.

Slightly less facetiously, let me rephrase that and see if you still hold to it.

"How do I know that you love me when you went to hockey games repeatedly with X without loving her?"

In the book Unbearable Lightness of Being one of the main characters considers sex no different than soccer games--an activity that you participate in with other individuals. Whether this is true for you is irrelevant in this--there is nothing fundamental to the act of sex that makes it automatically scarce or something you "only share with those you love."

ETA: I also personally believe that if the only way she can tell that you love her is that you are sleeping with her, then something is seriously screwy with your relationship. YMMV.

[firebee]

Hehe, they would be the type to not become clingy even if you wanted them to be. They may on rare occasion freak out and go through irrational bouts of clingy when under extreme duress, but quickly return to their distant and detached nature upon realizing what is going on. For the most part, the INTJs I've dated have had more issues with adjusting to their roll as the comparatively needy and emotional individual in the relationship when about 95% of the men they have encountered in the past have been more needy than they were.

Trying to force an INTP into a contract that insists that he remain emotionally detached would be like a back seat driver grabbing the wheel and screaming "TURN RIGHT!!" when you were already in the middle of making a right hand turn.

Haha, I love this! "You must be less attached, more lost in your own thoughts, and have not been retreating into your Fortress of Solitude nearly often enough. Repair your deficits immediately in this area, or face the consequences!" I'd qualify it by saying that we don't forge emotional attachments easily or often, and when we do, we often don't have the skill to express them particularly well. The former, I figure, is a feature -- the latter is definitely a bug, and fortunately fixable. So 90% of the time we are in fact detached, 9% we appear to be effectively so, 1% "other".

How this relates to my opinion on FWB arrangements -- I'm for and against, and also have personal reservations. I'm not much enamored with the notion of fitting relationships into neat little boxes in advance of actually having the relationship. Simply put -- I figure that if I have to be able to see a future with a person before I have sex with them, I'd never get laid (and I speak from considerable experience in that corundum). Hence, I'm in favor of extending the possibility of intimacy to relationships which don't follow the model of traditional serial monogamy -> marriage, but I wonder about the wisdom of putting such relationships in a definitive "FWB" box. Reality has a way of being a skunk.

On the matter of reservations... Let "FWB" be an intimate relationship with someone with whom one is friendly but where little emotional attachment exists. I'm to think that pursuing such a relationship with someone who is more prone to "getting attached" than I am -- which from my experience seems to be "everybody else" -- is a less than stellar idea. So I'm inclined toward caution -- or possibly inclined toward fooling myself, depending.

[Lucid]

Let me put a situation against your situation. I hope you don't take offense. I'm just arguing rationally :)

Lets say that you find one really hot chick that you *absolutely love* in the future. We'll call her #2.

What if #2 asks you the following.
-----------------------
"How do I know that you love me when you've fucked #1 repeatedly without loving her?"
-----------------------

what will you say?

The problem here is that you're equating sex to love. Or saying that sex is an indicator of love. What if girl #2 said, "how do I know that you love me when you went to church repeatedly with #1 and didn't love her?" That's ridiculous. Sex, like church, can be a very special, sacred, important thing to someone without having to involve love.

[firebee]

We are talking theoretical only... the value of anything is inversely proportional to its supply... this applies to everything doesn't it?

Nope. The cost of some things are inversely proportional to the supply. Sometimes. The question of "valuable" is an entirely different one.


If you refuse to give anyone a kiss for 50 years...and then you kiss one person, isn't it intrinsically very valuable?

Why? I've got no particular need to kiss old people, and if I did I expect I'd have a much better time with someone who's actually done it before. If a kiss is of some great perceived value, I'd suspect that it's more on account of the parties involved than the rarity of the event.

[intjdude]

Sex, simply, is a skill.

Lets see. Electrical engineer, cashier, carpenter. Do any of these skills have intrinsic value?

but love is not a finite commodity either. You can love more than one person at once, you can love more than one person at once and be sleeping with all of them and it doesn't somehow cheapen or lessen either the love or the sex except in your own mind.


Are you sure it's not finite? And doesn't sleeping with one more reduce the intrinsic value of everyone elses?

But lets settle it this way. If it had no value, the OP wouldn't have bothered posting. Obviously it has some value to her.

[Lucid]

Are you sure it's not finite? And doesn't sleeping with one more reduce the intrinsic value of everyone elses?

No... and I'm not sure we can make it any more clear for you. If you're not getting the analogies and examples and explanations yet, it's unlikely that you will. Obviously sex has value to you which can be diminished by having a lot of it. This is not true for everyone. Please just take our word for it.

[intjdude]

"How do I know that you love me when you went to hockey games repeatedly with X without loving her?"


This is a question of value again. If she says this is because it has high intrinsic value to her. But most women wouldn't normally. That tells you that hockey has lower intrinsic value than sex (to her).

If you do have a shared hockey game day, and you decide to blow her off to go with your buddies instead, then wouldn't you say her intrinsic value on that game is higher than other games?

[Sinequanon]

Let me put a situation against your situation. I hope you don't take offense. I'm just arguing rationally :)

Lets say that you find one really hot chick that you *absolutely love* in the future. We'll call her #2.

What if #2 asks you the following.
-----------------------
"How do I know that you love me when you've fucked #1 repeatedly without loving her?"
-----------------------

what will you say?
This is a ridiculous question. If someone asks you this, then either you're with a stupid person (who equates sex to love) or you're not showing her you love her in the billion other ways it can and should be expressed (and it's quite possible you do not love her).

[intjdude]

This is a ridiculous question. If someone asks you this, then either you're with a stupid person (who equates sex to love) or you're not showing her you love her in the billion other ways it can and should be expressed (and it's quite possible you do not love her).

Some people clearly equate sex with love. It's a value thing again ;)
Just because you don't share it, doesn't make it ridiculous.

If sex and love aren't the least bit attached, then why are people highly likely to break up after a sex only affair? Is it a magical thing that just happens with no explanation?

[Sinequanon]

Some people clearly equate sex with love. It's a value thing again ;)
Just because you don't share it, doesn't make it ridiculous.

If sex and love aren't the least bit attached, then why are people highly likely to break up after a sex only affair? Is it a magical thing that just happens with no explanation?
There's a difference between moral/ethical equivalence and numerical equivalence. When you say "What is the value of X," even in the asking of that question, you're missing the point.

If someone witnesses or observes a pattern of behavior and equates that pattern of behavior to a different pattern of behavior, in the case of "You fucked her, and you fuck me, therefore...", they're not necessarily putting a value on the act of "fucking," but rather, asking what is the moral/ethical difference in what you're giving to them that you would give to someone you don't love.

If THAT question can't be answered through your actual actions, then something is clearly wrong. <Instead of repeating myself, now, for the further expansion of this line of reasoning, read my previous post.>

[nacht]

Are you sure it's not finite? And doesn't sleeping with one more reduce the intrinsic value of everyone elses?


What intrinsic value?

Can you love two children at the same time?

Then why not two partners separate--or even concurrent--in time.

[intjdude]

There's a difference between moral/ethical equivalence and numerical equivalence. When you say "What is the value of X," even in the asking of that question, you're missing the point.


Value of sex can go either way... numerical or ethical

THE ONE = numerical at minimum
FWB acceptable? = ethical at minimum

And they both are dependent on your individual value of sex. Who says it must be ethical or numerical only?

I imagine it's both for most people to a degree.

Clearly OP's numbers can climb faster under FWB since her criteria is lower by definition. This is likely why most with high numbers here are pro-FWB.





intjdude added to this post, 6 minutes and 46 seconds later...


Can you love two children at the same time?

Yes you can.

Can you love 200 children at the same time? Yes
Will it be the same for those 200 individuals as if you have only 2? No

It's not limitless

[firebee]

THE ONE = numerical at minimum
FWB acceptable? = ethical at minimum

What the heck are you talking about?

Also: THE ONE person who will make your life complete exists. He was born in China and will be hit by a fish truck next week. Now what are you going to do with your life?


Can you love 200 children at the same time? Yes
Will it be the same for those 200 individuals as if you have only 2? No

It's not limitless

/me crosses legs.

If that's your perspective, it's another good reason not to have more than 199 kids. :P





firebee added to this post, 2 minutes and 2 seconds later...

Lets see. Electrical engineer, cashier, carpenter. Do any of these skills have intrinsic value?

Um... maybe? Carpenters pound wood, do they not? And we all know electrical engineers are good in bed, of course.

[nacht]

Yes you can.

Can you love 200 children at the same time? Yes
Will it be the same for those 200 individuals as if you have only 2? No

It's not limitless

You are confusing time and love.

Time is finite. You can only share your time so much with each individual, but love doesn't work that way. It is just an emotion that you feel.

Sex is fundamentally "just" an act. There are couples who have sex with others for recreation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and it neither cheapens their love nor the act of sex for them.

Sex is a skill and, like massage, it is a skill you practice with other (preferably consenting) individuals. Your comparison to carpentry is interesting, because it shows at a very fundamental level you don't get my comparison here: Even when practiced as a service, carpentry is a skill revolving around the production of a product.

This is not true of massage, nor is it true of sex unless you personally ascribe such value to it, and I will say flat-out that while I see nothing wrong with viewing sex as sacred, and I see nothing wrong with waiting until you are ready, I do believe that your attempt to turn sex into furniture is somewhat misinformed about the fundamental nature of sex.

To get slightly explicit: I have had partners who needed certain things in order to enjoy sex. They found this out about themselves--or we could find it out about them--more quickly and efficiently thanks to experience, which may or may not have been in the hands of someone they/I felt we had a "future" with. End result of previous relationships, be they FWB or romantic or whatever else in nature: everyone benefits.

Life is not a zero-sum game.

[Harmony]

No... and I'm not sure we can make it any more clear for you. If you're not getting the analogies and examples and explanations yet, it's unlikely that you will. Obviously sex has value to you which can be diminished by having a lot of it. This is not true for everyone. Please just take our word for it.

I'm quoting this because I agree 100%. For some reason you seem to think that if you have sex with more than one person it loses value... And like Lucid said, that's not the case for everyone...

If I make a piss poor decision about someone, and later find out they are a jerk does sex with the next person lose value because I've already been with someone else? No.

I can't see living my life the way you put "values" on things.

[Sinequanon]

Value of sex can go either way... numerical or ethical

THE ONE = numerical at minimum
FWB acceptable? = ethical at minimum

And they both are dependent on your individual value of sex. Who says it must be ethical or numerical only?

I imagine it's both for most people to a degree.
Okay I didn't want to tell you this, but you've gotten too close.

There actually is a formula for determining this. It's actually Einstein's Last Theorem. He spent the last 15 years of his life deriving it.

I turns out the "value" of a sexual act is equal to pi/(1-e*rad(e/x)), where x is equal to (approximately) .2 if we're talking straight penis-to-vagina sex, and .6 if you're talking about penis-to-anus sex (the shocking thing here is that the gender of the anus doesn't matter. This was a consequence of the theory that Einstein simply could not accept, so he never published the theory widely).

So, why don't you work with that, and the rest of us will talk about this fairly complex issue as adults, not trying to quantify things that are unquantifiable. Sound good?

[intjdude]

Poll is for INTJs only.
However, discussion is open to all.

Are 'Friends With Benefits' (FWB) relationships acceptable in your sex life?

FWB DEFINITION
----------------
For the purpose of this poll, a FWB is a sexual relationship in which you are not interested in your sex partner for romance or intimacy. It is simply a friend that you also have sex with.

Please explain your answer if it's not a sensitive topic to you.

[Josephine1012]

I personally can not do it. I don't know how to want to have sex with someone I'm not interested in romantically, and I don't know how to not get attached to someone I'm having sex with and am interested in romantically. In there lies my dilemma.

This is just a personal quirk and if my brain worked differently I don't think I would see a problem with it. But I know for a fact that I can't do it.

[Karamazov]

Hasn't this been done before?

[intjdude]

Hasn't this been done before?

With a poll?
I haven't seen it. There's one without a poll... i think polls are better at getting number of answers up rather than just discussion.





intjdude added to this post, 8 minutes and 14 seconds later...

I personally can not do it. I don't know how to want to have sex with someone I'm not interested in romantically, and I don't know how to not get attached to someone I'm having sex with and am interested in romantically. In there lies my dilemma.

This is just a personal quirk and if my brain worked differently I don't think I would see a problem with it. But I know for a fact that I can't do it.

Yeah, I think it's because of that intrinsic 'value of sex' discussion from yesterday that some people didn't like or agree with. Your value is attached to 'romance' as opposed to the wider bracket of 'friends'.

At least that's my explanation of this concept. ;D

[Sinequanon]

Yeah, I think it's because of that intrinsic 'value of sex' discussion from yesterday that some people didn't like or agree with. Your value is attached to 'romance' as opposed to the wider bracket of 'friends'.

At least that's my explanation of this concept. ;D
Not to jump on you (and this isn't so much related to you, so don't feel ganged up on), but it's got a lot less to do with value and more with what you associate the act with. For me, it's a loving act that is hard to divorce emotion from. Just like a person might say that music evokes some emotion in them, that they feel like they couldn't listen to a certain type of music without dancing or tapping their feet or whatever (I know this likely isn't you, I know, you're an INTJ, and ew, emotion, let's not get bogged down in details). The two can be separated but its entirely unnatural and removes whatever goodness the act would have had.

[dalidaisy]

Not to jump on you (and this isn't so much related to you, so don't feel ganged up on), but it's got a lot less to do with value and more with what you associate the act with. For me, it's a loving act that is hard to divorce emotion from. Just like a person might say that music evokes some emotion in them, that they feel like they couldn't listen to a certain type of music without dancing or tapping their feet or whatever (I know this likely isn't you, I know, you're an INTJ, and ew, emotion, let's not get bogged down in details). The two can be separated but its entirely unnatural and removes whatever goodness the act would have had.

Hmmm... Well, who's to say that sex without the possibility of romance is without emotion? Or, excuse me, were you talking about a specific emotion?

As T as I am, I do have a little F & I do have emotions. I find that sex can provide a variety of emotions. However, I have a hard time grasping the concept of "love" as some call it. That feeling that people write poetry & songs & films & stories about is quite foreign to me. I've tried to feel it. I've desired it with every bit of my being, but have been unable to grasp it.

Do I care for the people I have sex with? Certainly. Is it storybook love? So far that answer is no. Can I have sex without emotion? Sure. Do I prefer it? I don't think so.

As far as intimacy goes, I do like to have it in my sexual relationships.

An intimate relationship is a particularly close interpersonal relationship. It is a relationship in which the participants know or trust one another very well or are confidants of one another, or a relationship in which there is physical or emotional intimacy (wikipedia).

I also like passion in my sex life. This can be had without "love".

Now, as friends go, I guess it depends on how we define friendship. Wikipedia gives this definition: Friendship is a term used to denote co-operative and supportive behavior between two or more people.

So, if I went by this definition, I would say that yes, I have sex with my friends.

However, my view of friends is a little different, so I have answered differently before. You seem to like society's standards on this subject, so for your benefit, I am going to say that a FWB relationship is acceptable.

On that same note, though, aren't we also friends with the people that we do have romantic relationships with? Actually, even the people that intend to spend the rest of their lives with one sexual partner are accepting a FWB relationship as well. Their's just lasts longer. That is, if, indeed, they stay together for life (which is quite rare nowadays).

Like, I had sex with the man I married. Is that acceptable to fit into your romance category? But, it did not last. So, does that negate it & turn it into a FWB relationship after the fact? This topic is so frustrating.

Can you tell I like to argue? I promise I tried to stay away, but the thread keeps popping up!

[ToC]

WTH is up recently? INTJs in heat? sex poll, partner poll, attractiveness poll, friends with benefits, dad's with benefits, dogs with benefits... Interesting threads, but I wonder what's causing the sudden surge of collective testosterone.

There some new Jessica Alba movie I'm unaware of?

[Sinequanon]

Hmmm... Well, who's to say that sex without the possibility of romance is without emotion? Or, excuse me, were you talking about a specific emotion?
I was only speaking for myself, in the sort of sense of whether or not I could do it. Y'know, as to the topic.

intjdude has made the assertion that sex has some intrinsic value and that doing it with people you don't like cheapens it, but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Specifically, to separate sex and emotion for me makes ME feel dirty, and while I probably could do it once or twice, eventually, emotion would creep in, and then it'd fuck up (pardon the pun) the whole FWB thing. So I don't personally do it.

[Vagrant]

I personally can not do it. I don't know how to want to have sex with someone I'm not interested in romantically, and I don't know how to not get attached to someone I'm having sex with and am interested in romantically. In there lies my dilemma.

I am exactly the same way -- while I look at porn all the time, I don't think I could ever actually do something similar in real life.

[intjdude]

Like, I had sex with the man I married. Is that acceptable to fit into your romance category? But, it did not last. So, does that negate it & turn it into a FWB relationship after the fact? This topic is so frustrating.

Can you tell I like to argue? I promise I tried to stay away, but the thread keeps popping up!

Yes, this topic is a bit difficult to discuss because there's a lot of definitions of friend, fwb, romance, intimacy, etc. Lets see if we can define some.

Friend here is really just a friend. As opposed to a spouse, for instance, who is a friend PLUS romantic lover, caregiver, moneybag ;D, etc... you get the point.

So:
IdealLover = friend + sex + X
X = the EXTRA stuff you'd like in a partner

FRIEND = IdealLover - sex - X
FWB = friend + sex


WITH SUBSTITUTION:
IdealLover = FWB + X

RESULT:
-------------------
FWB = IdealLover - X
-------------------

- So in this context, a FWB is ALWAYS LESS than your ideal partner UNLESS X=0.

- If X=0, then FWB is your IdealLover

And to make one more point clear. The status of relationship is considered when you are having sex with the partner. Not before or after.

[Sinequanon]

...

And here I thought it'd be silly to use math to define relationships.

[LaoTzu]

Are you figuring this out for yourself? I find it a little inane to be honest...

The best sex I had was with FWB. Not with casual, Not in a relationship.
X- is nice, friends ... sometimes nice... FWB IS my ideal lover. :)


And I suppose you could remove the 'F' from FWB... sex changes that to something a bit more.

[intjdude]

...

And here I thought it'd be silly to use math to define relationships.

;D
In this case we have to so that we are all using the same context. I've noticed some people had different definitions of FWB in other threads.





intjdude added to this post, 9 minutes and 59 seconds later...

FWB IS my ideal lover. :)


for most people, FWB is a "LESS than ideal situation" ... of course you'll be pro-FWB if FWB is your ideal (nothing to argue there)

[LaoTzu]

If FWB IS your ideal lover, then you are on a different context than everyone else... because for most people, FWB is a "LESS than ideal situation"


Most people suck. ;)

You heard it here 1st!!

[daydreamer]

FWB yes. because i'm really picky about whom i call my friends. they'd have to be close friends. (is there any other kind?)

[dalidaisy]

Yes, this topic is a bit difficult to discuss because there's a lot of definitions of friend, fwb, romance, intimacy, etc. Lets see if we can define some.

Friend here is really just a friend. As opposed to a spouse, for instance, who is a friend PLUS romantic lover, caregiver, moneybag ;D, etc... you get the point.

So:
IdealLover = friend + sex + X
X = the EXTRA stuff you'd like in a partner

FRIEND = IdealLover - sex - X
FWB = friend + sex


WITH SUBSTITUTION:
IdealLover = FWB + X

RESULT:
-------------------
FWB = IdealLover - X
-------------------

- So in this context, a FWB is ALWAYS LESS than your ideal partner UNLESS X=0.

- If X=0, then FWB is your IdealLover

And to make one more point clear. The status of relationship is considered when you are having sex with the partner. Not before or after.

Lol! You spend a lot of time explaining the concept but have you answered your own question?

Btw, sex after marriage was far less enjoyable than before. Adding that "status" did not make it an ideal situation. Just saying...

(oh, and before marriage, we were just friends)

[Harmony]

Wow... Now I see why all this nonsense about FWB vs marriage/boyfriend/girlfriend is silly to me. It keeps getting related to math... The only math I need in the bedroom is...

Add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs, and multiply. (Well, I prefer leaving out that multiplying part)

I'm sorry, but intimacy and love have no math equation attached to it for me.

[Tyrant Soup]

Aside from the release of brain chemicals which causes unexpected attachment in some people, there are no unique consequences for engaging in sex. I can't think of any reason why it would be beneficial to restrict the activity to only the person that you would be willing to spend the rest of your life with.

If one values sex, would it be logical to acquire as much of it as possible? The "intrinsic value" assignment is purely arbitrary. Using an objective value rating system, I don't see how sex would end up being at the top of the list.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 6 minutes and 37 seconds later...


Add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs, and multiply. (Well, I prefer leaving out that multiplying part)

LOL. But doesn't the bible require everyone to do mathematical exercises during sex? It said "Be fruitful and multiply on the earth".

[Harmony]

LOL. But doesn't the bible require everyone to do mathematical exercises during sex? It said "Be fruitful and multiply on the earth".

But I don't want to multiply!!! :cry: At least not yet... Ack, 27 and I still am terrified to have children!

[Deadgod]

But I don't want to multiply!!!

Multiplying wouldn't be so bad....if only you were Naruto! :ninja:

The socially-acceptable sexuality is one that is between two people...and two people only. But sexuality has its own entity; it's called the id in Freudian terms. The id needs to be satisfied and a romantic partner alone sometimes cannot provide this input. But I think having FWB has something to do with the status of the romantic relationship. This could possibly be countered with some form of New Relationship Energy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

But who needs sex anyway? Both recreationally and procreatively they seem to produce debilitating and degenerative effects. Look at the effects on population and look at the values Society has. Chastity has better environmental impacts, and increases output of and improves human capital. Maybe with more chastity in the world, the environmental problem would be solved.

Resisting natural impulses is the key, since they have no pragmatic use in a technologically advanced society.

[greenblob]

Are "friends with benefits" usually monogamous or polygamous?

[intjdude]

Lol! You spend a lot of time explaining the concept but have you answered your own question?

Btw, sex after marriage was far less enjoyable than before. Adding that "status" did not make it an ideal situation. Just saying...

(oh, and before marriage, we were just friends)


:)
The math is just to clarify the definitions of terms used like friend, fwb, etc.

Which question specifically are you referring to?





intjdude added to this post, 3 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Are "friends with benefits" usually monogamous or polygamous?

Technically neither since you aren't married... but I presume you mean 1 FWB vs multiple FWB... i think FWB could be either

[nacht]

Are "friends with benefits" usually monogamous or polygamous?

Be careful with terms.

Monogamy -- The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

Polygamy -- The practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

There are also a variety of forms of consensual non-monogamy that have nothing to do with marriage, including but not limited to polyamory, swinging, and a number of different open relationship models.

[greenblob]

Be careful with terms.

Monogamy -- The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

Polygamy -- The practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

There are also a variety of forms of consensual non-monogamy that have nothing to do with marriage, including but not limited to polyamory, swinging, and a number of different open relationship models.

Polyamorous then.

[LaoTzu]

intjdude: are you related to this guy or something? ----> Link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[alphawolf]

Lets say that you find one really hot chick that you *absolutely love* in the future. We'll call her #2.

What if #2 asks you the following.
-----------------------
"How do I know that you love me when you've fucked #1 repeatedly without loving her?"
-----------------------

what will you say?


Rational?

A question that contains this level of insecurity would not be asked by a person in love. Infatuation, maybe, but not love.

[intjdude]

intjdude: are you related to this guy or something? ----> Link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


He's my cousin dude! haha ;D

What I find amusing in here are the assumptions that because of my models, formulas, theories, etc and such that I'm arguing for a particular side... this is VERY incorrect... the model actually works in all ways and it's just a matter of personal preference and correct interpretation...





intjdude added to this post, 7 minutes and 6 seconds later...

Rational?

A question that contains this level of insecurity would not be asked by a person in love. Infatuation, maybe, but not love.

This is the problem when you see sex only your way which is detached from emotions and with unwavering value (or no value)... many members have already stated that for them it's linked and numbers do matter... my argument is an objective model... not picking sides

[Harmony]

Are "friends with benefits" usually monogamous or polygamous?

I think it depends on the people.

For me, I only have one friend with benefits at a time. For others they may have multiple friends with benefits.

[nacht]

Polyamorous then.

Again, being careful with our terms:

I've seen poly models that work that way, but the principle of polyamorous relationship is multiple simultaneous loves, not just sexual partners. The line gets really fuzzy and indistinct here at a certain point, but there is a difference. I think what you are actually asking is: "Are FWB practiced monogamously?"

To which it depends on the person.

[greenblob]

OK, fine multiple partners, or even "non-monogamous" if you like.

I'm asking because it seems like a "purely physical no-strings attached relationship" would be open by default, but from what I've heard, they're usually strictly monogamous.

[SeaCzar]

Ok. Having read all of this......

I think that you have to make a difference here between "friends with benefits" (FWB) and the "fuck buddy" (FB).

I could not have an FWB simply because, if you are truly good or great freinds, you have some sort of an emotional bond. Emotions between friends change, and would be loathe to change any dynamic I have with my true (female) friends. We are very close, and I would never risk the relationship.

Now, I have and an FB. Sex was not only a connection, it was the only connection. There is a big difference here.

[nacht]

So:
IdealLover = friend + sex + X
X = the EXTRA stuff you'd like in a partner

FRIEND = IdealLover - sex - X
FWB = friend + sex


WITH SUBSTITUTION:
IdealLover = FWB + X

RESULT:
-------------------
FWB = IdealLover - X
-------------------

- So in this context, a FWB is ALWAYS LESS than your ideal partner UNLESS X=0.

- If X=0, then FWB is your IdealLover

And to make one more point clear. The status of relationship is considered when you are having sex with the partner. Not before or after.

Incidentally, that has got to be one of the most amazing examples of how not to apply mathematics to relationships I have seen.

I'll be the first to say that all models are wrong, but some are useful, but I'm having trouble seeing how that's even useful: It's the wrong kind of mathematics, to start out with, and human relationships don't tend to be binary, which that assumes. Never mind the stochastic, variable, and downright fuzzy nature of half of that...

So for example, you are conflating that while sex is characteristic of the classification of the relationship (sexual vs. nonsexual), that "extra stuff you want in a partner" might have absolutely nothing to do with the difference between a FWB and a romantic relationship. The latter difference might be more accurately expressed in terms of the goals of the individuals for the relationship. That "extra" stuff, in any quantity, may be present but there may be some practical concern getting in the way of how the individuals plan for the relationship to develop.

[firebee]

What I find amusing in here are the assumptions that because of my models, formulas, theories, etc and such that I'm arguing for a particular side... this is VERY incorrect... the model actually works in all ways and it's just a matter of personal preference and correct interpretation...

I'm not convinced that your model "works in all ways". It's hard to follow exactly what you're trying to put forward -- applying simplistic formulas to human relationships, for instance, is wishful thinking at best -- but I think your model is centered around a particular perspective of human relationships that isn't as broadly accurate as you seem to think.

This is the problem when you see sex only your way which is detached from emotions and with unwavering value (or no value)... many members have already stated that for them it's linked and numbers do matter... my argument is an objective model... not picking sides

To be clear, this is in reference to the question "How do I know that you love me when you've fucked #1 repeatedly without loving her?" I think that taking such a statement as a literal statement of value is misunderstanding the nature of emotions. A statement like this comes from something that is not rational -- that the person feels unvalued, unworthy, or insecure. It's a moving target -- if you hadn't fucked #1, the stated issue would be something else -- that your eyes lingered for too long on #3, or you have a close friendship with #5, or you once betrayed your race to #6 or whatever. Managing this problem by working each successive manifestation into some sort of freakish mathematical model may work after a fashion for most people, but you run the risk of being overconstrained and still crazy.

[JINT]

I can't have sex with my male friends, but one of my male friends were different. We were uneasy when we see each other and if we sit together I get electrocuted;). I fell down in his pants, so he does, and now we're married. Most of my male friends never know about my sexual fantasies(I do LOVE to have sex around the clock makes my husband happy,lol.)

I don't mind if they like "friend with benefits" with others, but not with me. I do like them hanging with me and have fun together like a kid never grow up.:laugh:

I'd say friend and friend with benefits are totally different.

[alphawolf]

This is the problem when you see sex only your way which is detached from emotions and with unwavering value (or no value)... many members have already stated that for them it's linked and numbers do matter... my argument is an objective model... not picking sides


No, it simply speaks to the insecurity of the person asking the question.

It is not possible to be in love and possess this level of insecurity at the same time.

The question being illogical has nothing to do with the theme of sex. The "How do I know you love me when ..." is the insecurity. If you are loved, you will feel it. You won't need to ask it.

[intjdude]

I'd say friend and friend with benefits are totally different.

We can't seem to nail a specific definition of FWB here (i've tried with the formula above but it doesn't seem to be taken seriously ;D) .. the only real benefit i've heard is sex... if it's more than just sex, then isn't it really just some form of lover?

So to me, a FWB is technically just a friend who you happen to have sex with.





intjdude added to this post, 27 minutes and 17 seconds later...

No, it simply speaks to the insecurity of the person asking the question.

It is not possible to be in love and possess this level of insecurity at the same time.

The question being illogical has nothing to do with the theme of sex. The "How do I know you love me when ..." is the insecurity. If you are loved, you will feel it. You won't need to ask it.

if sex is emotional (attachment, intimacy, love etc) to your SO (and there's plenty who claim this) and you have sex with a friend you have no emotions for, your SO could argue that sex with you is no physical proof of love... you can't argue against this cause you admit they're not associated for you...

And you can't argue against her preference either because it's a preference.. notwithstanding any other clues, she can certainly make that statement logically

[Sinequanon]

No, it simply speaks to the insecurity of the person asking the question.

It is not possible to be in love and possess this level of insecurity at the same time.

The question being illogical has nothing to do with the theme of sex. The "How do I know you love me when ..." is the insecurity. If you are loved, you will feel it. You won't need to ask it.
Meh. I don't really agree with this. It does speak to an insecurity, but a person can know they're loved but still need it to be affirmed. Just like they can know they have a killer ass but still ask if they look fat in their dress. Not that I'm calling out a specific gender on this or anything. *cough*

[nacht]

Meh. I don't really agree with this. It does speak to an insecurity, but a person can know they're loved but still need it to be affirmed. Just like they can know they have a killer ass but still ask if they look fat in their dress. Not that I'm calling out a specific gender on this or anything. *cough*

I think the key words here were "this level": it is one thing to need to be reaffirmed, it is another thing entirely to think that someone having sex without love in the past means that they might not love you.

Needing some form of affirmation is natural, but I would assert that anyone who says "how can I be sure that you love me when you slept with X without loving her" is either insecure to the point of lack of function or has such a screwed up value system that they might as well be.

[Sinequanon]

I think the key words here were "this level": it is one thing to need to be reaffirmed, it is another thing entirely to think that someone having sex without love in the past means that they might not love you.

Needing some form of affirmation is natural, but I would assert that anyone who says "how can I be sure that you love me when you slept with X without loving her" is either insecure to the point of lack of function or has such a screwed up value system that they might as well be.
Actually, I'd be disturbed if I found out my wife had such an arrangement with a "friend" of hers in the past. I would like to believe that the woman I'd marry would not be able to disassociate sex and love (this is not a double standard - I can't), and yes, it would cause me to question how she could do that. So it works both ways, honestly.

Let's take it to the extreme (because one or many doesn't really ultimately matter): If you found out your wife had made it through college by being an escort/hooker, would it bother you? What if she was an exclusive hooker (one client, just frequently, who she never had feelings for at all)? I think it does change my impression of a person to know she could do that, and it definitely adds a layer if she could do that and enjoy it.

[nacht]

Actually, I'd be disturbed if I found out my wife had such an arrangement with a "friend" of hers in the past. I would like to believe that the woman I'd marry would not be able to disassociate sex and love (this is not a double standard - I can't), and yes, it would cause me to question how she could do that. So it works both ways, honestly.

Let's take it to the extreme (because one or many doesn't really ultimately matter): If you found out your wife had made it through college by being an escort/hooker, would it bother you? What if she was an exclusive hooker (one client, just frequently, who she never had feelings for at all)? I think it does change my impression of a person to know she could do that, and it definitely adds a layer if she could do that and enjoy it.

No, flatly, it wouldn't. After having spent a significant part of last year in Thailand, I saw plenty of exactly those sorts of arrangements and spoke with the women involved in them and can honestly say such a history would not phase me on the emotional attachment level.

What is important is why she is with me, and that is important regardless of her past.

On the flip side, I've dated a borderline and I've seen exactly what this level of neurosis does to a relationship. I will not do it again. Not everyone at this level is borderline, of course, but there are enough issues that spring from a statement such as that one that I would be inclined to stay well away.

Basically, if she does feel that way, I would want her to be able to articulately discuss it and recognize that it is her insecurity and something to work on and improve within herself.

Also, I would say that the vast majority of my peers sleep together long before they are out of the limerent stage of a new relationship, much less in a settled state of love. YMMV, but I would say that while most people do not separate chemistry and sex or even relationships and sex, most people do separate love and sex to the point where you can have one without the other.

"Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy -- in fact, they're almost incompatible; one emotion hardly leaves room for the other." -- Heinlein

[Sinequanon]

No, flatly, it wouldn't. After having spent a significant part of last year in Thailand, I saw plenty of exactly those sorts of arrangements and spoke with the women involved in them and can honestly say such a history would not phase me on the emotional attachment level.

What is important is why she is with me, and that is important regardless of her past.

On the flip side, I've dated a borderline and I've seen exactly what this level of neurosis does to a relationship. I will not do it again. Not everyone at this level is borderline, of course, but there are enough issues that spring from a statement such as that one that I would be inclined to stay well away.

Basically, if she does feel that way, I would want her to be able to articulately discuss it and recognize that it is her insecurity and something to work on and improve within herself.

Also, I would say that the vast majority of my peers sleep together long before they are out of the limerent stage of a new relationship, much less in a settled state of love. YMMV, but I would say that while most people do not separate chemistry and sex or even relationships and sex, most people do separate love and sex to the point where you can have one without the other.

"Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy -- in fact, they're almost incompatible; one emotion hardly leaves room for the other." -- Heinlein
Having sex without love is one thing, but having sex without emotional attachment is something entirely different. Knowing someone you're with is capable of that is definitely cause for the question to be at least raised in your mind, just as if you found out that your current lover cheated on a past lover, or hit a past lover. It has nothing to do with jealousy. You'd be a fool to not at least wonder and make sure you're protecting yourself.

[alphawolf]

Having sex without love is one thing, but having sex without emotional attachment is something entirely different. Knowing someone you're with is capable of that is definitely cause for the question to be at least raised in your mind, just as if you found out that your current lover cheated on a past lover, or hit a past lover. It has nothing to do with jealousy. You'd be a fool to not at least wonder and make sure you're protecting yourself.

How do I know you love me when you've fucked your hand repeatedly without loving it?

[Sinequanon]

How do I know you love me when you've fucked your hand repeatedly without loving it?
Hmm, so using another human being for emotionless sex is the same thing as masturbation to you? (See the inequality here is that one side has another person on it.)

[Lucid]

Hmm, so using another human being for emotionless sex is the same thing as masturbation to you? (See the inequality here is that one side has another person on it.)

I don't think it's using someone if they get someting out of it as well (such as an orgasm) and are fully aware of what the arrangemet entails.

I think it's understandable for you to be uncomfortable with the idea of having sex with someone you are not emotionally connected to somehow, but I think it breaks down when you try to make that ideal objective and universal rather than subjective and individual. Sex with strangers isn't for me, but I won't say that it doesn't work well for others. I happen to know quite a few individuals and couples who do it with some frequency and have a great time.

[Sinequanon]

I don't think it's using someone if they get someting out of it as well (such as an orgasm) and are fully aware of what the arrangemet entails.

I think it's understandable for you to be uncomfortable with the idea of having sex with someone you are not emotionally connected to somehow, but I think it breaks down when you try to make that ideal objective and universal rather than subjective and individual. Sex with strangers isn't for me, but I won't say that it doesn't work well for others. I happen to know quite a few individuals and couples who do it with some frequency and have a great time.
Yes but there's no time at which I've been talking about any ideal other than my own.

In terms of that, when you say "I don't think it's using someone if they get something out of it as well ... and are fully aware of what the arrangement entails," you're right. The problem is that a person capable of that is also capable of not letting the other party know what the arrangement entails. For myself, it would be better if I were only involved with people who just don't really find themselves capable of doing that.

[Lucid]

Yes but there's no time at which I've been talking about any ideal other than my own.

Oh, then I misunderstood. My bad.

In terms of that, when you say "I don't think it's using someone if they get something out of it as well ... and are fully aware of what the arrangement entails," you're right. The problem is that a person capable of that is also capable of not letting the other party know what the arrangement entails. For myself, it would be better if I were only involved with people who just don't really find themselves capable of doing that.

I don't think this is the case. Why do you say that someone who is capable of having sex with someone they are not emotionally attached to would also be capable of blatant manipulation? While it's possible for a person to be capable of both, I don't see at all how it's necessary or even likely that someone who is capable of one is also capable of the other.

[Sinequanon]

I don't think this is the case. Why do you say that someone who is capable of having sex with someone they are not emotionally attached to would also be capable of blatant manipulation?
Again, would it throw up warning flags for you if your SO had cheated on their past lovers or hit them?

Ultimately in a relationship, you're still dealing with another unique individual with their own motivations. The only uniting tie is mutual trust. If that person can undermine that mutual trust by their actions (either in the present or in the past) then it's definitely a cause for legitimate questioning. In other words, finding out someone I'm with is capable of meaningless sex does undermine, to some degree, the foundation of our relationship. I assure you that many people have found themselves on the losing end of relationships where they were emotionally attached and the other person wasn't, despite sex being a part of the relationship. I want a partner for whom sex is (absolutely necessarily) as much of an emotional investment as it is for me.

[Lucid]

Again, would it throw up warning flags for you if your SO had cheated on their past lovers or hit them?

Ultimately in a relationship, you're still dealing with another unique individual with their own motivations. The only uniting tie is mutual trust. If that person can undermine that mutual trust by their actions (either in the present or in the past) then it's definitely a cause for legitimate questioning. In other words, finding out someone I'm with is capable of meaningless sex does undermine, to some degree, the foundation of our relationship. I assure you that many people have found themselves on the losing end of relationships where they were emotionally attached and the other person wasn't, despite sex being a part of the relationship. I want a partner for whom sex is (absolutely necessarily) as much of an emotional investment as it is for me.

It seems like you think that having sex without emotional attachment is somehow a moral deficiency - like beating your SO or cheating on them. And I just don't see how you're arriving at that conclusion. I can understand your personal feelings on the matter and your stated desire that a partner of yours should require an emotional investment to have sex because you require an emotional investment to have sex. But I don't understand why you think someone capable of having meaningless sex would be more likely to lie to or manipulate others.

[Sinequanon]

It seems like you think that having sex without emotional attachment is somehow a moral deficiency - like beating your SO or cheating on them. And I just don't see how you're arriving at that conclusion. I can understand your personal feelings on the matter and your stated desire that a partner of yours should require an emotional investment to have sex because you require an emotional investment to have sex. But I don't understand why you think someone capable of having meaningless sex would be more likely to lie to or manipulate others.
Well, first off, I don't know how to express clearly enough that I'm talking about my own personal beliefs and what I would tolerate in a relationship except to repeat myself in saying it again. So: I'm talking about my own personal beliefs and what I would tolerate in a relationship. Stop universalizing my beliefs and then wondering why I'm trying to universalize them.

Second off, if you don't agree that being with a partner for whom sex can be meaningless is an issue, that's also fine. Then we're not going to see eye to eye on things and we should agree to disagree. I'm only attempting to clarify what I mean. I'm not trying to draw a moral equivalence between cheating or physical abuse and meaningless sex. I'm saying that to some degree, all of those things can undermine one's (or specifically my) confidence in a relationship, even if they didn't happen to me (which is the only important reason I bring it up).

Finally, I don't know if someone who is capable of having emotionless sex is necessarily more likely to emotionally manipulate their partner, but I do believe that someone who isn't capable of it is accordingly not capable of manipulating their partner in that way. It's not casting aspersions on the person capable of doing it to say that I personally value someone who doesn't have meaningless sex more (just as I might say "I prefer to date only black girls," and you're not black. It's still not a knock on you). Any objections you may have to that are only speaking to your own insecurities.

[Lucid]

Well, first off, I don't know how to express clearly enough that I'm talking about my own personal beliefs and what I would tolerate in a relationship except to repeat myself in saying it again. So: I'm talking about my own personal beliefs and what I would tolerate in a relationship. Stop universalizing my beliefs and then wondering why I'm trying to universalize them.

And likewise I don't know how to adequately express that I understand that you are speaking about your own preferences only with regard to what YOU want in a relationship. Where we went wrong was that it seemed you were saying that a person who engages in meaningless sex was more likely to manipulate or to be dishonest with their partners. Look back at your previous posts and I think you'll see how I might have gotten that idea.

Second off, if you don't agree that being with a partner for whom sex can be meaningless is an issue, that's also fine. Then we're not going to see eye to eye on things and we should agree to disagree. I'm only attempting to clarify what I mean. I'm not trying to draw a moral equivalence between cheating or physical abuse and meaningless sex. I'm saying that to some degree, all of those things can undermine one's (or specifically my) confidence in a relationship, even if they didn't happen to me (which is the only important reason I bring it up).

Finally, I don't know if someone who is capable of having emotionless sex is necessarily more likely to emotionally manipulate their partner, but I do believe that someone who isn't capable of it is accordingly not capable of manipulating their partner in that way. It's not casting aspersions on the person capable of doing it to say that I personally value someone who doesn't have meaningless sex more (just as I might say "I prefer to date only black girls," and you're not black. It's still not a knock on you). Any objections you may have to that are only speaking to your own insecurities.


That's where I was confused, you seemed to be saying that someone who engages in emotionless sex was, necessarily, more likely to emotionally manipulate their partner. Since that's not what you were saying I apologize for the misunderstanding. As it happens I don't have any objections, but I think it would be best for you to hear any I might have had before you concluded that they were the result of my own insecurities or anything else. I just didn't understand how you got manipulation from casual sex - since that's not what you were saying anyway, there's no issue. And I have no idea what you think I might have to be insecure about.

Jeeze.

[Harmony]

Okay, gonna toss an idea out here since it seems to be a new level of FWB acceptance. So now it's come down to the issue of love being absent from the sex. So I present a thought...

Say a girl is absolutely head over heals for her best friend of many years. Madly in love with him. Wants to spend her life with him, but he doesn't feel the same. But he's willing to go for a FWBs arrangement... Say the girl is convinced that by doing this he'll eventually come around to the thought of a relationship.

Would you hold it against the girl for being in love with the boy even though his feelings weren't mutual?

[daydreamer]

no. whatever two (or more) people decide is their business, not mine.

[Sinequanon]

I wouldn't hold it against her at all. If she were someone I cared about, I'd caution her against it (for the same reason I mentioned above, getting involved with someone capalble of sepaeating sex and emotion, it's almost the scenario I mentionedexactly, just with the people involved informed. Well, kinda, since she's being disingenuous about why she's entering into the "false" FWB relationship...). I do tend to believe all's fair in (getting) love, though.. ;)

[alphawolf]

Would you hold it against the girl for being in love with the boy even though his feelings weren't mutual?

I wouldn't hold it against her, I'd just say that she's wasting her time.

[dalidaisy]

I hold nothing against anybody, but I hope she prepares herself for the worst...


I have stopped posting & started reading the posts here. I don't think I've been able to articulate my thoughts on this topic as to demonstrate my actual thinking. But, I'm thinking that I am quite different from many of you. I do not associate sex with love in the least. They are 2 seperate things.

I cannot wrap my head around society's view that sex is only relevant in a loving relationship. Sinequanon said he could never be with someone who seperated sex from emotional attachment. I can't understand why.

In my own little sick head, I have come to believe that emotional attachment is just that, it's about emotions. That dictates the relationship. It's what seperates the man I love from all the others I've been with, emotions or not. My FEELINGS & my trust & my offering of all that I am are what makes it special, not the offering of sexual pleasure.

But here is where I seperate it. My body is the vessel with which I manuever this world. It is not who I am. I use it as I see fit & try to keep it as healthy as possible so that I can do the things I want while I have the use of it. I want to experience what it has to offer. Sue me for enjoying sexual pleasure.

It's only when someone stimulates my mind & provides something that makes me FEEL (something I guess I don't do often) that I develop emotional attachment. My body does not create these emotions, nor does it have any say in them. I think that if I was in love, it would be so satisfying that sex would not be mandatory.

However, sex combined with emotions is great. I'm all for it. It would be the ultimate satisfaction to be sure. I hope that I indeed find the one that makes my heart swoon one day. If I don't, well, at least I didn't waste this highly sexually stimulated body that I wound up with. Maybe I derive more pleasure from sex than most?

I've had all kinds of attachments, emotional, non-emotional, sexual, non-sexual, completely intellectual & completely juvenile. They all satisfied something in me, but nothing has filled all the spaces at the same time. I find that it's best to try everything, especially before you start knocking it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if I fall in love with you, it will be a completely different situation than any of my previous relationships. We all have a past. Why someone wouldn't want me because I have had emotionless sexual encounters is beyond me. It's totally irrelevant. I don't understand.

What if you met a virgin, fell in love & found out she's been "in love" with ten guys already? How would that affect you?

[Sinequanon]

I hold nothing against anybody, but I hope she prepares herself for the worst...


I have stopped posting & started reading the posts here. I don't think I've been able to articulate my thoughts on this topic as to demonstrate my actual thinking. But, I'm thinking that I am quite different from many of you. I do not associate sex with love in the least. They are 2 seperate things.

I cannot wrap my head around society's view that sex is only relevant in a loving relationship. Sinequanon said he could never be with someone who seperated sex from emotional attachment. I can't understand why.

In my own little sick head, I have come to believe that emotional attachment is just that, it's about emotions. That dictates the relationship. It's what seperates the man I love from all the others I've been with, emotions or not. My FEELINGS & my trust & my offering of all that I am are what makes it special, not the offering of sexual pleasure.

But here is where I seperate it. My body is the vessel with which I manuever this world. It is not who I am. I use it as I see fit & try to keep it as healthy as possible so that I can do the things I want while I have the use of it. I want to experience what it has to offer. Sue me for enjoying sexual pleasure.

It's only when someone stimulates my mind & provides something that makes me FEEL (something I guess I don't do often) that I develop emotional attachment. My body does not create these emotions, nor does it have any say in them. I think that if I was in love, it would be so satisfying that sex would not be mandatory.

However, sex combined with emotions is great. I'm all for it. It would be the ultimate satisfaction to be sure. I hope that I indeed find the one that makes my heart swoon one day. If I don't, well, at least I didn't waste this highly sexually stimulated body that I wound up with. Maybe I derive more pleasure from sex than most?

I've had all kinds of attachments, emotional, non-emotional, sexual, non-sexual, completely intellectual & completely juvenile. They all satisfied something in me, but nothing has filled all the spaces at the same time. I find that it's best to try everything, especially before you start knocking it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if I fall in love with you, it will be a completely different situation than any of my previous relationships. We all have a past. Why someone wouldn't want me because I have had emotionless sexual encounters is beyond me. It's totally irrelevant. I don't understand.

What if you met a virgin, fell in love & found out she's been "in love" with ten guys already? How would that affect you?
The long answer to all of that is complicated.

The short answer is basically: Rodents can fuck. Any two (relatively healthy) people on the planet can screw. There's nothing particularly interesting about that, and people often enter sexual relationships (or procreate) against their best rational self-interests. If sex CAN be something more than this instinctual drive, if we don't have to become animals satisfying a genetic imperative, then I'd rather not do it. I don't have emotionless sex for the same reason I don't walk around without clothes or shit on the sidewalk - because I'm a human being and, yes, to some degree, I'm a bit more "evolved" than that. Or at least, I embrace the capacity to be so.

The other element is that divorcing your head from your heart is probably something that comes a bit easier to you, being a T; for myself, it's something that I have little interest in doing as well. So those two things combined make the prospect very unappealing for me.

That said, the preference I have is just a preference. I am not actively judging you (although I will admit there's a passive judgment there, but hell, I live my life the way I want to, and I have no interest in changing you). It is a complete turnoff to me to find out that a person I'm interested in has had umpteen partners who they felt no attachment to (beyond the physical). I don't know what to tell you about that. I think it would be completely fair for a woman who was interested in me to feel the exact same way... *shrug*

[dalidaisy]

The long answer to all of that is complicated.

The short answer is basically: Rodents can fuck. Any two (relatively healthy) people on the planet can screw. There's nothing particularly interesting about that, and people often enter sexual relationships (or procreate) against their best rational self-interests. If sex CAN be something more than this instinctual drive, if we don't have to become animals satisfying a genetic imperative, then I'd rather not do it. I don't have emotionless sex for the same reason I don't walk around without clothes or shit on the sidewalk - because I'm a human being and, yes, to some degree, I'm a bit more "evolved" than that. Or at least, I embrace the capacity to be so.

The other element is that divorcing your head from your heart is probably something that comes a bit easier to you, being a T; for myself, it's something that I have little interest in doing as well. So those two things combined make the prospect very unappealing for me.

That said, the preference I have is just a preference. I am not actively judging you (although I will admit there's a passive judgment there, but hell, I live my life the way I want to, and I have no interest in changing you). It is a complete turnoff to me to find out that a person I'm interested in has had umpteen partners who they felt no attachment to (beyond the physical). I don't know what to tell you about that. I think it would be completely fair for a woman who was interested in me to feel the exact same way... *shrug*

Did you just call me less of a human being than you?

[Sinequanon]

Did you just call me less of a human being than you?
Is that really all you took from that?

We ARE animals, that's not the point. The point is to what degree to we celebrate/embrace the higher functions we have available to us. The capacity for reason, the capacity for love, the capacity for mercy, the capacity for empathy, all of these are things that make us "more" than other animals. There's not a "less human" or "more human" involved. We (humans) can do some fairly horrific things that I can't attribute to any other animal either (such as genocide). Part of being human and living an examined life is the embrace of all of the positives and negatives we're capable of, and then a personal inventory of what you find important. I place a higher priority on emotional sex than you do. So what? It's just a preference. It doesn't make you less human for having a different preference. It just makes you less desirable to me (which honestly is lucky for you. ;)). Why would you even care about that?

[Harmony]

I think everyone views things differently. Some of us don't see sex as a way to show our partner that we love them, some of us think it's the greatest way to show it.

That being said... Some people do crazy things when they are in love. And they can be blinded by it. They can refuse to accept certain things and ignore what others tell them.

I remember in high school when a couple of my friends started dating she said it was going to be so great to marry a man that was also a virgin and they would be each others first on their wedding night. (Anyone see where this is going?) When I heard this I went to tell my friend the truth, her boyfriend wasn't a virgin like he was claiming to be, however, his ex threatened me not to tell her. A few months after that another friend confesses that she slept with him at a party...While he was with my friend...And engaged to her already... Three of us told my friend about the incident and she refused to believe it. Stated that we were all just jealous of what they had, and refused to believe it. Needless to say, none of us got an invitation to the wedding. Their entire marriage is sitting on top of two really big lies. She's a shining example of being blinded by love. She refused to believe anything any of us said... Even when the girl that he slept with told her, she didn't listen.

Its not even that all of us can just divorce sex from emotion. Some might have burned pretty bad by love enough times that they question everything. They stop putting so much feeling on sex because no one else in their life has. So why should they? Maybe it was enough to make them feel like they were wrong, that sex isn't an emotional thing.

I've helped a lot of my friend's with relationships and sex and every story is different. Everyone has different thoughts and views. One friend is claiming born again virgin because of what happened to her in college. She fell in love, got engaged, had sex, and then the guy changed and treated her like dirt. So they broke the engagement and she moved back home. Another friend was waiting for marriage...and go trashed one night at a party and ended up sleeping with someone... She talked to me about it and asked if she was a horrible person. I actually had questions about the next morning, was she sicker than she normally was, felt like she'd been hit by a train... I asked these for a specific reason...roofies. This region is horrible on roofies. It's disgusting, but it's around. If someone had slipped her one of those, she'd of had no control over her actions after that.

Everyone has their different stories as to why they view sex the way they do. Until you here the true stories you can't judge them based off of what you think.

[dalidaisy]

I just don't understand. Maybe it's my high T. People do often confuse me, but I do tend to measure based on my own views of the world.

This sentence: "I don't have emotionless sex for the same reason I don't walk around without clothes or shit on the sidewalk - because I'm a human being and, yes, to some degree, I'm a bit more "evolved" than that. Or at least, I embrace the capacity to be so." - as if not shitting on the sidewalk or wearing clothes is what differentiates you from animals. I've seen people in Germany shit on the sidewalk & plenty of people who don't like to wear clothes. There were humans. But, it seemed like you were saying that you were so "evolved" that emotionless sex was less than human to you. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

I will agree to disagree that needing an emotional attachment for sexual relations makes you any more human than an animal. I believe there are plenty of animals that form emtoional attachments with their sexual partners. There are also many that don't. I do not elevate myself to some high plateau of being because I do not harm or eat animals, which I, as a human, find horrific, but plenty of humans are completely okay with it. Some enjoy it. Regardless...

But, I am capable of emotional sex. Very much so, in fact. I place a very high priority on it, too. It is, of course, what I would ultimately be looking for in a mate. I am totally capable of sustaining a long term monogamous relationship as well. You might be suprised how loving & thoughtful I can actually be.

Is it the fact that there is something about me that allows me to have emotionless sex that makes me less desirable? The fact that I can actually do that? Or that you think that I would be doing it with under the guise of emotions, while not really feeling anything?

I'm just very curious. People are interesting...

[Sinequanon]

The title of the thread is "Is 'friends with benefits' acceptable?"

I took that to mean "To you." If that's the case, then, personally, the answer is no.

If it is supposed to mean "For society," then the answer is personally "Sure, why not/who cares?"

The only time our values need intertwine is when I might become involved with another person. In which case, I feel like I should be able to have some say over who I decide to sleep with. Luckily there are plenty of women out there who have no interest in divorcing emotion from their own sex lives. I only need to find one of them.

Live your lives however you want. I am not trying to judge you.

[alphawolf]

Hmm, so using another human being for emotionless sex is the same thing as masturbation to you? (See the inequality here is that one side has another person on it.)

Your sex organ is your mind. Who are you fucking without loving, while masturbating? How many of them have there been? Do they know about it? Are you going to tell your new lover about them? You sneaky bastard! ;-)

Peace man.

[JohnDoe]

I hold nothing against anybody, but I hope she prepares herself for the worst...


I have stopped posting & started reading the posts here. I don't think I've been able to articulate my thoughts on this topic as to demonstrate my actual thinking. But, I'm thinking that I am quite different from many of you. I do not associate sex with love in the least. They are 2 seperate things.

I think everyone here agrees that they are theoretically two different things

I cannot wrap my head around society's view that sex is only relevant in a loving relationship. Sinequanon said he could never be with someone who seperated sex from emotional attachment. I can't understand why.

Well.. for most of society the answer is religion. For some its more complicated

In my own little sick head, I have come to believe that emotional attachment is just that, it's about emotions. That dictates the relationship. It's what seperates the man I love from all the others I've been with, emotions or not. My FEELINGS & my trust & my offering of all that I am are what makes it special, not the offering of sexual pleasure.

Still we agree.

But here is where I seperate it. My body is the vessel with which I manuever this world. It is not who I am. I use it as I see fit & try to keep it as healthy as possible so that I can do the things I want while I have the use of it. I want to experience what it has to offer. Sue me for enjoying sexual pleasure.

It's only when someone stimulates my mind & provides something that makes me FEEL (something I guess I don't do often) that I develop emotional attachment. My body does not create these emotions, nor does it have any say in them. I think that if I was in love, it would be so satisfying that sex would not be mandatory.

Yeah heres where we disagree. Some people (INFJs) have a bad tendency to love people. I think the relevant quote here is from Ender's game on how when he understood how to destroy the buggers he loved them. Theres a bad tendency that plain love when combined with sex can lead to romantic love. This is especially true for people like Sine or me.

However, sex combined with emotions is great. I'm all for it. It would be the ultimate satisfaction to be sure. I hope that I indeed find the one that makes my heart swoon one day. If I don't, well, at least I didn't waste this highly sexually stimulated body that I wound up with. Maybe I derive more pleasure from sex than most?

I've had all kinds of attachments, emotional, non-emotional, sexual, non-sexual, completely intellectual & completely juvenile. They all satisfied something in me, but nothing has filled all the spaces at the same time. I find that it's best to try everything, especially before you start knocking it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if I fall in love with you, it will be a completely different situation than any of my previous relationships. We all have a past. Why someone wouldn't want me because I have had emotionless sexual encounters is beyond me. It's totally irrelevant. I don't understand.

What if you met a virgin, fell in love & found out she's been "in love" with ten guys already? How would that affect you?
Honestly it wouldn't really effect me at all unless there were other factors. If shes confusing lust with love -- ok time to worry. But I mean theres lots of different types of love.. and intensities. If she said that she had met 10 people she thought she wanted to spend the rest of her life with.. well that might be a bigger warning sign. But being in love 10 times? Sure.
I'm agreeing with Sine here -- the question was is it acceptable to you -- and the answer is hell no. I know I'm going to fall for my friend if I try it. But I don't have anything against those who can manage FWB successfully. I am not one of them however.

[Solaris]

I'm a little sad for those of you missing out because you cannot keep the two separate (love and sex). That's sincere, not sarcastic. I get the idea that some of you feel like you wish you could do this (because it seems most of us do like sex, we agree on that at least), but know that you put way too much emotional meaning in there with it.

To me, part of it is that the things are separate (though learning how to do that did take time); and, part of it is that I know I can have meaningful emotional attachment to more than one person at a time. It's different for each person and means different things, but it doesn't degrade what I feel for any one person. Therefore, it doesn't degrade sex either.

[Sinequanon]

Yeah heres where we disagree. Some people (INFJs) have a bad tendency to love people. I think the relevant quote here is from Ender's game on how when he understood how to destroy the buggers he loved them. Theres a bad tendency that plain love when combined with sex can lead to romantic love. This is especially true for people like Sine or me.
That's a really good way to describe it. I love all of my friends, to some degree (there are all kinds of different loves). I doubt I could physically have sex with someone I was completely indifferent to or repulsed (physically or mentally) by, so that act has the tremendous capacity to create romantic love on my end that would screw the arrangement up.

Something I always thought was kind of interesting, on the show Dharma & Greg (I'm young-ish, and it was the first example I saw it in, maybe not necessarily the best), Dharma's parents continued to have sex even though they were technically "fighting" with one another. For them, the body was somewhat separate from the spiritual, and the conflict was on the mental plane. I suppose I can, in some ways, relate to this, but, it would have to be a relationship otherwise founded on a mutual love anyway, if that makes any sense. So to answer a question unasked, I think I could physically have sex with someone who I was, say, angry with or fighting, or a former lover or whatever without falling for them, but not someone who hasn't crossed that threshold.

I'm a little sad for those of you missing out because you cannot keep the two separate (love and sex). That's sincere, not sarcastic. I get the idea that some of you feel like you wish you could do this (because it seems most of us do like sex, we agree on that at least), but know that you put way too much emotional meaning in there with it.
I'm sure if I prioritized sex higher, I could eventually find a justification that would fit with my own values (lord knows all the fornicating Christians seem to). It's a controllable desire for me, and so I don't really feel like I'm "missing out" on all the random sex I could be having. Ultimately, it's just sex. *shrug*

[Romeo]

I am an INTJ female wondering if any other INTJ females out there have this problem. For relationships, I approach them logically and will not enter into any sort of commitment if I can't see it having a future. Because of this, my relationships rarely make it past the first date - because of a perceived incompatibility of my partner. In those situations I have been called, frigid, emotionless, and distant. I find those reactions baffling. Why would you allow yourself to become emotionally involved with someone if you know that you will not be mentally or physically compatible?

Because of this I have a 'friends with benefits' situation in the works most of the time. This works out beautifully for me in the fact that there are no emotional entanglements beyond a close friendship. I have never had a bad break up or in these situations (except for once when I tried to have this arrangement with an ESFJ (clingy, clingy, clingy)). And those men I choose to have these relationships with always seemed shocked at first that a girl is bringing up this alternative and is completely happy with this type of connection.

Are there any other INTJ women out there, who have found themselves in a similar situation?
Yep. I prefer a friend with benefits.

You didn't mention the if the partner(s) that you are involved with are married.

[Solaris]

I'm sure if I prioritized sex higher, I could eventually find a justification that would fit with my own values (lord knows all the fornicating Christians seem to). It's a controllable desire for me, and so I don't really feel like I'm "missing out" on all the random sex I could be having. Ultimately, it's just sex. *shrug*

I never said, nor implied, that I am having random sex. In fact, the topic we are debating implies that the sex is anything but random. In an FWB relationship, I'm consistently with the same person. I can't do random hookups with men I've just met. I wouldn't even try, because I know I wouldn't enjoy it. There is a mental connection I require before I can be open to that experience and enjoy it.

Also, I am one of those fornicating Christians you mentioned. I disagree with the puritan stance of the church, and I'm ok with that.

[firebee]

You didn't mention the if the partner(s) that you are involved with are married.

Hmm. Why do you ask her that?

Myself, I had a brief FWB relationship with a married man. It was... educational.

[nacht]

You didn't mention the if the partner(s) that you are involved with are married.

Where exactly are you going with this? I've dated (not FWB, dated) several married women.

I know multiple FWB couples where both are single, others where both are married. I'm simply not seeing the relevance here.

[Solaris]

Unless Romeo is referring to open marriages of one sort or another (and there are a few types), then it's not relevant. If, however, he is, then it does change the dynamic of FWB a bit. Well, depending upon what each person is wanting...maybe it doesn't change anything at all. Or maybe I shouldn't think too hard this late at night.

[BostonIan]

So it's okay for men to have casual relationships where they only want sex but not for women?

No, it is okay for neither, sexual promiscuity disrupts family structure, creates fatherless children and leads to instability on the family level. In the case of women, female anatomy is more prone to disease, and promiscuity lowers a woman's perceived value as wife and childbearer, the gut-level reaction being that she's less wifely and motherly, maybe more likely to stray. The perception doesn't have to be logical, I think it's on the DNA level.

Who do you think they're having the casual sex with?

95% men, 5% women, maybe?

It's not okay for a woman who only wants her physical needs met to seek that type of relationship?

No. A physical need is an inherently selfish want, selfish on the deepest animal level. Engaging in those kinds of needs isn't laudable, apes and dogs do no different.

I've had f*buddies as have most women I know and none of our men are cuckolded. He's had previous relationships that were based on sex and so have I. We have no need for them any longer but I don't think it lessens our relationship because we've had them in the past.

Okay.

Or are you against purely physical relationships in general?

Obviously. Overall, what's behind my reply that I didn't mention was the concept of "bidding" and value, what you put into the relationship. Sleeping with a woman at no cost of involvement or effort constitutes a very low bid, a long-term relationship constitutes a high bid, a permanent relationship would be the highest bid.

If a handsome, wealthy, male were to marry, say, an elderly woman or a prostitute, people would wonder what has come over him and gawk that "you could do so much better". If he were just to sleep with her for a night, there would be less commotion, it's considered a low bid. Men sleep with women (low-bid) that they would not marry (high bid). On the other had, if an obese, one-armed man were to marry the same woman, it would be understandable. His high bid of his worth was aligned to the perceived "value" of the woman.

If sexual access from a woman is gained by one man's low-bidding, and then bought higher by another man, I think the concept is that the latter man is bidding like the one-armed man rather than the handsome man. Hence the mention of self-respect.

Sexonomic theory, people mention the virgin/whore duality. I see it more as the wife/concubine/prostitute triality. Short-term, long-term, permanent. Low bid, high bid, highest bid. The bid theoretically is dependent on the man's inherent value, where someone like a king could low-bid a woman that another man would have to high-bid. Men who say they are reluctant to marry, I think they'd have no qualms about marrying a woman who's out of their league. Woman who say they have no intention to marry, they'd marry Prince William tomorrow.

There it is, fire away.

[JustMel]

No, it is okay for neither, sexual promiscuity disrupts family structure, creates fatherless children and leads to instability on the family level. In the case of women, female anatomy is more prone to disease, and promiscuity lowers a woman's perceived value as wife and childbearer, the gut-level reaction being that she's less wifely and motherly, maybe more likely to stray. The perception doesn't have to be logical, I think it's on the DNA level.

It doesn't disrupt the family structure if you're single and not looking for a permanent relationship. We're not talking about someone who is fucking every guy around, we're talking about adults who enter into a purely physical relationship for the purpose of having physical needs met. I suspect you're projecting your ideals onto other men. I'm sure some agree with you but probably most wouldn't. Being wifely :rolleyes: has no relation to how many men she had sex with when single nor does it reflect potential to cheat or stray. For example, I would not cheat. Period. It's one of my principles in serious relationship. It's simply not an option for me. I wouldn't enter into a serious relationship if I weren't in it for the long haul--otherwise I'd stay single and keep a fuckbuddy.


95% men, 5% women, maybe?

I suspect if you polled (outside of INTJf) you'd find it more likely that women have had fuckbuddies than men. the old adage that you ask how many your partner has been with and for a guy you subtract 3 and for a woman you add 3 is more true than one might think. Women tend to lower their numbers so as not to be judged promiscuous while men inflate their numbers to seem more experienced. Which is stupid on both sides.

I conducted a poll in college and I spoke with 500 women OVER the age of 50 who had all been married for a minimum of 25 years. (some had been widowed as had some of their husbands) 75% of the women were NOT virgins on their first wedding night and 60 % of those that had practiced premarital sex had done so with someone other than the person they married.



No. A physical need is an inherently selfish want, selfish on the deepest animal level. Engaging in those kinds of needs isn't laudable, apes and dogs do no different.

tomato, tomahto. To some it's a need and to some it's a want. yes you can go without sex, but you don't have to. If you want to and neither of you are being adulterous I say no harm no foul.




Obviously. Overall, what's behind my reply that I didn't mention was the concept of "bidding" and value, what you put into the relationship. Sleeping with a woman at no cost of involvement or effort constitutes a very low bid, a long-term relationship constitutes a high bid, a permanent relationship would be the highest bid.

If a handsome, wealthy, male were to marry, say, an elderly woman or a prostitute, people would wonder what has come over him and gawk that "you could do so much better". If he were just to sleep with her for a night, there would be less commotion, it's considered a low bid. Men sleep with women (low-bid) that they would not marry (high bid). On the other had, if an obese, one-armed man were to marry the same woman, it would be understandable. His high bid of his worth was aligned to the perceived "value" of the woman.

If sexual access from a woman is gained by one man's low-bidding, and then bought higher by another man, I think the concept is that the latter man is bidding like the one-armed man rather than the handsome man. Hence the mention of self-respect.

Sexonomic theory, people mention the virgin/whore duality. I see it more as the wife/concubine/prostitute triality. Short-term, long-term, permanent. Low bid, high bid, highest bid. The bid theoretically is dependent on the man's inherent value, where someone like a king could low-bid a woman that another man would have to high-bid. Men who say they are reluctant to marry, I think they'd have no qualms about marrying a woman who's out of their league. Woman who say they have no intention to marry, they'd marry Prince William tomorrow.

I wouldn't marry Prince William. He is unattractive and too young. My daughter who is 17 wouldn't either.

Your bidding system is archaic and asinine. Women do not judge men based on their ability to produce children so why should men judge women that way? This is reminiscent of the days when men blamed a woman for not producing sons---surprise it's not her fault.

Most men go to their wedding night not a virgin as do most women these days. How many people you've had sex with should not make you a prostitute nor lower your "value" as a partner to the right person. Most men have no idea how many partners their spouses have had---for this very reason. The idea of marrying out of your league is reserved for blue bloods and snobs. Most people marry for love or convenience these days, not to have children and carry on the family name. You can't help who you love and if it's convenience then I doubt you'd ask for a sexual history anyway---it's in the past and other than BOTH parties being tested for STD's prior to a marriage license being issued it's a moot point because it has nothing to do with the "convenience" you're marrying for.





JustMel added to this post, 6 minutes and 24 seconds later...

As a guy I've never had this type of relationship. But then, I think OP's predicament is easier for INTJ guys than girls. Guys can get away with the cold-heartedness in a relationship... for girls I would imagine this is much more difficult.

Not so much. I had a FWB for years. We weren't emotionally involved. There was no love. It was a convenient thing. I think we were FWB for 2.5 years and only woke up together 3 times. I almost always went home. It was good sex with no drama. If either of us elected to date someone seriously we didn't see each other. No hard feelings. Occasionally we used each other as a "date" to go to a concert or something. One bought tickets and one dinner. Otherwise we spoke about twice a week and it was to hook up and have sex.

He found someone he really wanted to date and get serious with and I bowed out of the equation. His wife sends me a Christmas card from the two of them yearly because I was in his address book when they got together. She asked who I was and he said, "my friend Mel from work". She asked if he'd ever had feelings for me and he told her no. She asked me if I'd ever had romantic feelings for him and I said no. Neither of us lied. It was convenient and we both knew the other practiced safe sex and we did as well. No harm, no foul.

[BostonIan]

A couple of things:

I'd be entirely shocked if the number of sexual partners didn't lower a woman's desirability as a spouse for most men. Take it to the logical extreme, give the woman an absurdly high number of sexual partners and ask any man if she's less desirable as a wife.
The disruption of the family structure comes in the boom in the number of out-of-wedlock births and single mothers. Exhibit A (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Divorce rates, Exhibit B. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Fatherlessness and crime, Exhibit C (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
Because of what? A monkey urge and a physical want. There's the harm, there's the foul.
Also, I'd have to spend a time digging up the stat, but I do believe I've seen that stat correlating divorce and infidelity rates with the number of sexual partners before marriage.
That the subject of past sexual partners is a taboo question to ask speaks to the loadedness of the issue. If it was a non-factor, it would be discussed openly.
My asinine rating system has not much to do with their "ability to produce children", I think that was a misreading, it's more of an understanding of the "buying system" of sexuality.
That so many people have had sex out of wedlock, do not marry as virgins, that many women have f*buddies, is what creates the situation we find ourselves in, where harmful behavior isn't examined as it should be. Taking the details away, creating harmful results while pursuing personal wants would be construed as a negative action.

Edit: for my first point, I guess they've done studies on this sort of thing: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sinequanon]

The disruption of the family structure comes in the boom in the number of out-of-wedlock births and single mothers. Exhibit A (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Divorce rates, Exhibit B. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Fatherlessness and crime, Exhibit C (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


This buys into the myth that the "nuclear family" is somehow natural, historical or preferable.

[BostonIan]

This buys into the myth that the "nuclear family" is somehow natural, historical or preferable.

Right, it buys into the wild mythology that almost every civilization that survived history did so with an institution of marriage, and that crime and poverty have a strong correlation with single motherhood.

If you're referring back to tribal days, I'd be inclined to agree with you, probably why marriage and complete monogamy requires a force of effort. However, a small group of closely related hunter-gatherers isn't quite available to modernity, and even in that case, the father would have likely remained within in the tribe with the child.

[Sinequanon]

Right, it buys into the wild mythology that almost every civilization that survived history(a) did so with an institution of marriage(b), and that crime and poverty have a strong correlation with single motherhood(c).

If you're referring back to tribal days(d), I'd be inclined to agree with you, probably why marriage and complete monogamy requires a force of effort(e). However, a small group of closely related hunter-gatherers isn't quite available to modernity(f), and even in that case, the father would have likely remained within in the tribe with the child.
I've identified, for the sake of brevity, six sites where I believe you can and should do a lot more thinking about the issues you've raised. In order (and again briefly, because this is off-topic):

a.) By "survived history" I assume you mean "That weren't wiped off the face of the planet by the conquering, pillaging, murdering hordes of "civilization""? Or are you referring to all of the communal societies that died out because of their own internal strife? I'd encourage you to cite some examples of such societies if you have them because I'd be interested in seeing them.
b.) The institution of marriage is not required for monogamy nor childbirth. Since your argument appears to hinge on some sort of genetic basis, it would behoove you to stick to natural factors and not on cultural ones. If you want to dip into the cultural realm, I'm sure you recognize that marriage, whatever it is, is significantly more complex than the Judeo-Christian notion.
c.) The phrasing on this seems to employ the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy (yes, I know you did not say "causes" but there is little other reason to make the correlation). There are significant and numerous factors that contribute to single motherhood, crime and their complex interrelation. It is not the case that women deciding to pop out children by themselves directly causes crime. Nor would it be the case that a child made fatherless by war is suddenly destined for life as a hoodlum. If that wasn't your implication, I encourage you to speak with more precision in the future. :)
d.) I was not aware that people do not live in "tribal" societies any longer. Is it not possible to be both "modern" and "tribal", whatever those terms mean? I know you did not mean to imply that those who live in tribal societies are somehow less human or less worth consideration in your Grand Scheme of How Things Are, so I reiterate my encouragement for greater precision.
e.) Or force of culture, religion or society, backed by shame, dominant ideology and force of law (in some cases). It's not exactly easy to be a single mother when the people around you would, y'know, kill you for it. (source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) Even in "modernity." (See f.)
f.) This seems to be based on the myth that history is teleological. There has been a lot of research in the last 30-40 years that seriously challenges this notion. Specifically, I am not aware of any aborigine-level society which has "accomplished" such "advancements" as the atomic bomb or large-scale holocaust. Usually such modern conveniences are visited upon fortunate primitives who, rightfully, rejoice at the idea of being fixed by those who obviously know better.

Anyway, I encourage further investigation into these issues. They're complex and we don't really do any service to the debate by attempting to keep them so simple.

[JustMel]

So the solution is to keep women "pure" until marriage on the chance that they would cheat if allowed to sample sex before marriage?

I wonder how the numbers for suicide and alcholism have come down since the "stigma" of divorce isn't what it was in the 50's and before? When women were expected to be barefoot and pregnant a lot of those women also didn't have the right to tell their husband's no with regard to her "wifely duties". I wonder how many rapes went unreported because the man that committed them was her husband before divorce was more readily available. A lot of women were married off for familial financial gain as well and the woman had no choice in the matter so if she was unhappy with the choice she had to suck it up and deal with it and since she was expected to produce heirs as well she shouldn't say no but instead should "endure" her husband's attentions.

While I agree that relationships shouldn't be disposable I also don't believe that two people who hate each other should stay together for the "good of the children". Ask kids of those types of relationships and they'll tell you "I wish they'd just split up. One happy parent is better than two unhappy parents."

I do think that mandatory premarital counseling and mandatory predivorce filing would help. I agree that simply being bored with your partner is not a reason for divorce, it's a time to see how you can rekindle the interest hence the counseling. I also don't believe anyone should enter into a relationship with the idea that if it doesn't work we'll just get a divorce.

I don't believe that not having a father makes you more likely to commit a crime regardless of the statistics. There are just as many kids that were raised in single parent homes that don't commit crimes and do become productive members of society. I think that not having a proper upbringing leads to that path regardless of one parent or two. Poverty does affect the outcome to a degree. There are just as many kids damaged by two parents in the house as one. A lot of it stems from parents in general not taking an interest in what their kid is doing, who their friends are, where they're going and with whom, meeting the other parents, etc. We have a generation of parents that seem to think kids can raise themselves. We have parents that don't teach their kids that actions have consequences but that's another thread.

[BostonIan]

Sine, I call lawyering. By requiring that I carefully investigate these issues implies that you have some sort of specific knowledge about these issues. So, answer the following directly, without splitting words, without falling back on the vagueness of complexity for it's own sake. If it's complicated, please explain complicatedly.

Is marriage relatively popular and prevalent across cultures?
Is there a correlation between crime and fatherlessness?
Is there a correlation between poverty and single motherhood?

[Sinequanon]

Sine, I call lawyering. By requiring that I carefully investigate these issues implies that you have some sort of specific knowledge about these issues.
Actually I'm pointing out that the issues are far more complicated than you've simplified them to be. The simplicity supports your argument, because it derives everything down to a very tidy set of "if-then" statements. But if there is no real universal definition of "marriage," or "modern" or "single-motherhood," how can the issues be so easily distilled? They likely can't be, at that point.

I'm being a little deliberately provocative because I think you're smart enough to know that the issues are more complex than you've presented them, do you not?

Is marriage relatively popular and prevalent across cultures?
Is there a correlation between crime and fatherlessness?
Is there a correlation between poverty and single motherhood?
Before I can answer those we'd have to come to definitions of "marriage," "fatherlessness" and "single motherhood" (specifically, the conditions that cause single motherhood/fatherlessness are likely going to be different in Washington D.C. and the West Bank). And if we did define those terms, with attention to their regional/temporal shakiness, what exactly does it prove? My aim isn't to prove you wrong, it's to stop you from making grand moral statements about What Is, when you know that things aren't that simple.

[JustMel]

Myself, I had a brief FWB relationship with a married man. It was... educational.

I second the educational portion............

[Brittle]

FWB - I don't have a problem with it, so long as both parties are on the same page.


No, it is okay for neither, sexual promiscuity disrupts family structure, creates fatherless children and leads to instability on the family level. In the case of women, female anatomy is more prone to disease, and promiscuity lowers a woman's perceived value as wife and childbearer, the gut-level reaction being that she's less wifely and motherly, maybe more likely to stray. The perception doesn't have to be logical, I think it's on the DNA level.

For the record, I had a FWB long ago in my single days. It didn't make me a slut, I didn't produce any fatherless children, there's no evidence to suggest I disrupted any sort of family structure (we were both single and child-free), and I managed to avoid any STD's.

I don't want (and can't have) kids, so that's probably going to have a much greater impact on my perceived "wifely and motherly" aspects than the fact I had sex with one person I was not emotionally involved in. Does that bother me? Hell no!


Of course, you're entitled to your opinions. I'm just glad I'm in a very happy, long-term, monogamous relationship with someone who doesn't share them.

[nacht]

sexual promiscuity disrupts family structure, creates fatherless children and leads to instability on the family level.


[citation needed]



In the case of women, female anatomy is more prone to disease, and promiscuity lowers a woman's perceived value as wife and childbearer, the gut-level reaction being that she's less wifely and motherly, maybe more likely to stray. The perception doesn't have to be logical, I think it's on the DNA level.


It doesn't exist for me, or for many other people I know. So, if it exists "on the DNA level" (which I doubt) there are a least a nontrivial percentage of people who don't have that gene.


No. A physical need is an inherently selfish want, selfish on the deepest animal level. Engaging in those kinds of needs isn't laudable, apes and dogs do no different.


There's nothing wrong with being selfish or indulging in one's wants. That is rather the nature of human advancement.




Obviously. Overall, what's behind my reply that I didn't mention was the concept of "bidding" and value, what you put into the relationship. Sleeping with a woman at no cost of involvement or effort constitutes a very low bid, a long-term relationship constitutes a high bid, a permanent relationship would be the highest bid.


Why does everyone want to compare relationships to what's in their wallet? These are functionally different concepts.



If a handsome, wealthy, male were to marry, say, an elderly woman or a prostitute, people would wonder what has come over him and gawk that "you could do so much better".


In Thailand there are multiple ex-patriots who have married former prostitutes and aren't ever told "you could do so much better," or, if they are, it would refer to something outside of the fact that their wife is an ex-prostitute (e.g., my parents would be slightly boggled if I married someone who didn't have a college education and didn't speak english, knowing how important mental acumen and abstract discussion is to me). Clearly there is more in this question than trivial issues such as promiscuity.

[BostonIan]

So the solution is to keep women "pure" until marriage on the chance that they would cheat if allowed to sample sex before marriage?

Combining the chances that they will cheat, that they will divorce, that they will have children out of wedlock, that the will lower their marriage value, that they contract and continue the spread of disease, and on, and on. Yes, that is the clear solution.

I wonder how the numbers for suicide and alcholism have come down since the "stigma" of divorce isn't what it was in the 50's and before? When women were expected to be barefoot and pregnant a lot of those women also didn't have the right to tell their husband's no with regard to her "wifely duties". I wonder how many rapes went unreported because the man that committed them was her husband before divorce was more readily available. A lot of women were married off for familial financial gain as well and the woman had no choice in the matter so if she was unhappy with the choice she had to suck it up and deal with it and since she was expected to produce heirs as well she shouldn't say no but instead should "endure" her husband's attentions.

From the data I could find, the suicide rates have been relatively stable since 1940. The decline of alcoholism is dwarfed by the increase in the use of other drugs, and it seems likely that mental health has been on the rise lately. The majority of rapes still go unreported, I believe.

While I agree that relationships shouldn't be disposable I also don't believe that two people who hate each other should stay together for the "good of the children". Ask kids of those types of relationships and they'll tell you "I wish they'd just split up. One happy parent is better than two unhappy parents."

And what makes marriages happy? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And what makes people happy overall? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't believe that not having a father makes you more likely to commit a crime regardless of the statistics. There are just as many kids that were raised in single parent homes that don't commit crimes and do become productive members of society. I think that not having a proper upbringing leads to that path regardless of one parent or two. Poverty does affect the outcome to a degree. There are just as many kids damaged by two parents in the house as one. A lot of it stems from parents in general not taking an interest in what their kid is doing, who their friends are, where they're going and with whom, meeting the other parents, etc. We have a generation of parents that seem to think kids can raise themselves. We have parents that don't teach their kids that actions have consequences but that's another thread.

"Regardless of the statistics"?

If poverty effects the outcome, what affects poverty? I believe that fatherlessness also correlates with depression (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.{753C2E48-2B8B-45B6-9361-01FDBA64398B}). And, I wish I could find it, but I've seen that those raised in single-mother homes have higher levels of prolactin, which is a long-term stress hormone.

It's midnight here, I'll continue this in the morning, if you want.

[nacht]

Combining the chances that they will cheat, that they will divorce, that they
And what makes marriages happy? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And what makes people happy overall? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The words "confounding variable" don't mean much to you, do they?

Correlation is not causation, and I can think of quite a few models that would show this kind of result, e.g. for the latter one, people who are prone to depression are thus more likely to have multiple sex partners. Causality thus flowing firmly in the other direction.

[JustMel]

Combining the chances that they will cheat, that they will divorce, that they will have children out of wedlock, that the will lower their marriage value, that they contract and continue the spread of disease, and on, and on. Yes, that is the clear solution.

What about the men that are having premarital sex? Who are they having that sex with? Is prostitution legal in your fantasy world since women who have had sex are damaged goods? Wait, men aren't having sex either so you have people together that have no idea if they are truly compatiable on all levels. Sex can make or break a relationship. There is a correlation, to use your word, between bad or no sex and divorce.


From the data I could find, the suicide rates have been relatively stable since 1940. The decline of alcoholism is dwarfed by the increase in the use of other drugs, and it seems likely that mental health has been on the rise lately. The majority of rapes still go unreported, I believe.

Are the numbers equitable between the higher use of other drugs and lower ones for alcoholism?


And what makes marriages happy? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And what makes people happy overall? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Happiness is a variable that is different for everyone. Some people stay married for years that aren't happy in the marriage but are happy with themselves and vice versa. There isn't any one thing that makes every marriage or person happy. You'd have to have a universal definition for "happy" and that's not likely to happen as one person's happy is FWB sex and one's is unrealistic, puritanical ideals.


"Regardless of the statistics"?

Yes, everyone should agree that statistics can be skewed to either side. Unfortunately, numbers do not lie but statistics can.

[firebee]

No, it is okay for neither, sexual promiscuity disrupts family structure, creates fatherless children and leads to instability on the family level.


Not everybody shares your ideas of family structure, has a particular need to be a part of a nuclear family with a square-jawed man at the head, or has any particular desire to procreate. It is entirely cromulent for such people to conduct sexual relationships honestly and responsibly according to the goals they actually have. Not all relationships are intended to be reproductive and not all sex is procreative. If your fuckbuddy becomes your baby daddy, ur (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) doin (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) rong (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


In the case of women, female anatomy is more prone to disease, and promiscuity lowers a woman's perceived value as wife and childbearer, the gut-level reaction being that she's less wifely and motherly, maybe more likely to stray. The perception doesn't have to be logical, I think it's on the DNA level.


Why is this a bad thing? If someone can't figure out from the words that cross my lips that a quasi-heathen poly kinky butch technical professional is less wifely and/or motherly than the modest feminine Christian girl they want to marry and have lots of kids with, it's all to the good if their DNA-level reaction to who I've slept with straightens them out. It minimizes awkward explanations and psychological trauma.


No. A physical need is an inherently selfish want, selfish on the deepest animal level.


And the problem with this is what exactly?


If a handsome, wealthy, male were to marry, say, an elderly woman or a prostitute, people would wonder what has come over him and gawk that "you could do so much better".


Among the people I care to spend time with, the reaction is generally more along the lines of "oh, how cute that they love each other so". Making tactless and shallow comments about the market value of a woman is a good sign that their friendship value is exceedingly low. And why should the guy care that he can catch any supermodel that he doesn't love if he's got the old woman or the prostitute that he does love?

On the other had, if an obese, one-armed man were to marry the same woman, it would be understandable. His high bid of his worth was aligned to the perceived "value" of the woman.


This is me emulating a goldfish. D'ye entirely lack a concept of the idea of caring for a person and wanting to spend time with them? Life is not about keeping your product unsullied so that you can sell it at best advantage in the open market -- it's about forming mutually-supportive relationships with people you care about. And this is the cynical poly butch et cetera speaking to the family values advocate.


Hence the mention of self-respect.


Self-respect? How about a tiny bit of respect for others, maybe?


Woman who say they have no intention to marry, they'd marry Prince William tomorrow.


I have no intention to marry. I especially have no intention to marry Prince William. Why in the world would I marry a man that I don't even know, who has mediocre looks and comes with a huge screaming pile of family role baggage? To have my sex life be all over the front page of skeezy checkstand newspapers? No thank you.

[ToC]

So this week I got my first INTJ nympho fuckbuddy.


There IS a god.

Don't have to kiss, hold hands, pretend to like each other, talk about our "feelings", or hang out unnecessarily.

[Nikita]

What other people do with their own sex lives is their deal, but I couldn't do it. I need everything from a relationship and would only have sex in that one relationship.

[intjdude]

I do think that mandatory premarital counseling and mandatory predivorce filing would help. I agree that simply being bored with your partner is not a reason for divorce, it's a time to see how you can rekindle the interest hence the counseling. I also don't believe anyone should enter into a relationship with the idea that if it doesn't work we'll just get a divorce.


I don't think this is a good idea... in fact, I'd go the opposite and make it even easier to enter AND exit rather than to restrict. Marriage is different to different people... in fact, I think we should just rename it to 'civil alliance'... anyone who is of legal age could enter any civil alliance with anyone else (includinig same sex) for ANY legal or no reason (romance, companionship, friendship,power of attorney, etc)... traditionally, marriage is based on a culture's religion but they need not be tied... for those who wish, they can still tie the two with a religious wedding and such...

If you require premarital counseling, you will have to base it on some values unless if you are just discussing financial legalities (laws).. how would we settle on these? We can't even agree on toilet paper in this forum if we had to.

[JustMel]

A marriage of convenience is not the same as a marriage of love other than the fact you're married. Being married is a state of mind as much as anything else. I don't think a commitment should be something you make a snap decision on. Too many things can come of the "union" or "alliance" that will bind your for a time after the separation. Money, houses, kids, etc. That's why I say the premarital counseling. In a lot of cases people gloss over the things that they can't agree on but they aren't settled and they come up to disrupt the relationship later. Example: he doesn't ever want kids and she thinks he will change his mind. This is a big deal and needs to be looked at and a compromise in place BEFORE you make the decision to advance the relationship. Chances they'll divorce because of this issue or some other issue that stemmed from this issue not being resolved is greater than for those that don't bail at the first sign of trouble.

It's not as complicated sounding in my brain as when I try to explain it to someone else. I need sleep and I'll probably edit.

[intjdude]

I agree that a marriage of convenience is not the same as one of love... but essentially, you want the government to reward (offer privilages) to only those who marry out of love and includes a man, a woman, sex, possibly kids, and possibly a compatible religion. It's a bit oppressive to those who do not want any kind of this combination.

You could have 2 best friend males (hypothetically) who do not want sex (not a physical relationship) but they are like family and want the same privileges as if they were biological brothers.

[JustMel]

I agree that a marriage of convenience is not the same as one of love... but essentially, you want the government to reward (offer privilages) to only those who marry out of love and includes a man, a woman, sex, possibly kids, and possibly a compatible religion. It's a bit oppressive to those who do not want any kind of this combination.

You could have 2 best friend males (hypothetically) who do not want sex (not a physical relationship) but they are like family and want the same privileges as if they were biological brothers.

I don't want the government to reward anything most especially anything based on religion compatible or otherwise.

I think there should be a flat percentage when it comes to taxes. EIC is not something that needs to be there. It's nice if you can get it but not a have to.

What possible priviledges could brothers have that couldn't be accomplished through Power of Attorney, executor, etc? That's a completely different thing from marriage and spousal priviledge. I think that anyone who lives with someone in a "domestic partnership" and co-mingles assets should be entitled to the same things afforded those that have a piece of paper saying they're married. I've said all along that partners in romantic relationships could change their names legally, establish POAs, guardianships for their children without being married. That doesn't mean those relationships should be easier to get into and out of based on someone's whim. If you take the time to co-mingle lives then you should have to work on it before you walk away from the commitments you have made.

[intjdude]

I don't want the government to reward anything most especially anything based on religion compatible or otherwise.

I think there should be a flat percentage when it comes to taxes. EIC is not something that needs to be there. It's nice if you can get it but not a have to.

What possible priviledges could brothers have that couldn't be accomplished through Power of Attorney, executor, etc? That's a completely different thing from marriage and spousal priviledge. I think that anyone who lives with someone in a "domestic partnership" and co-mingles assets should be entitled to the same things afforded those that have a piece of paper saying they're married. I've said all along that partners in romantic relationships could change their names legally, establish POAs, guardianships for their children without being married. That doesn't mean those relationships should be easier to get into and out of based on someone's whim. If you take the time to co-mingle lives then you should have to work on it before you walk away from the commitments you have made.

you are correct that brothers isn't a good comparison (i was going to edit to put something like 'more than brothers' but laziness set in)... what I'm actually talking about doesn't actually exist currently... but there's no reason not to

Entry into a marriage/domestic partnership should be more flexible (less restrictive) for starters

- why does it have to be 'romantic'?
- why does it have to be a physical relationship?
- why do we need to differentiate a 'domestic partnership' vs marriage from a government standpoint?

Also, these 'personal partnerships' should be as easy to enter and exit like business partnerships. For $50, you can start a business partnership down at your secretary of state. You don't need counseling and you don't need a reason other than you feel like starting one. With few exceptions, there's no restriction on what type of business you are other than it's legal (compared to romantic, physical relationship, straight, gay, companionship, more than friendship, etc). I can start it with the idea that I can exit when it stops working. I can stop simply because I'm bored with it.

The restrictions you'd like are actually specific personal 'values'/ethics and not suitable for government regulation. Why should the government tell a couple that they can't/shouldn't exit if they get bored? Why would I want to be told that I shouldn't enter into a marriage with the idea that I shouldn't exit if it doesn't work out? Personally, I'm more willing to try it if I can undo it actually.

I guess I see this as government dictating how a relationship should be as opposed to just issuing a set of privileges... Ex: government doesn't tell you how to run your business, or when to start or stop, or for what reasons... these are best left up to the 2 individuals... it's part of the pursuit of happiness

[JustMel]

It's easier to divest yourself of a business arrangement, finances, etc than it is to divest yourself of a family. It should be. Regardless of whether they're in a marriage or domestic partnership they should be treated the same way BUT it should be harder to get out of when there are children involved. We already have parents that come and go from the kids' lives like a revolving door and it needs to stop. I'm not saying stay together for the kids but I have seen relationships break up over things that could have been settled had they actually talked to one another or a counselor. They wanted to compromise but didn't know how. I've seen couples that had such major issues they should never have entered into the "agreement" because they weren't really in love, they were in lust and neither was willing to give on what they did/didn't want. It lead to disaster years later and the kids were ripped apart and devastated because dad told them he'd never wanted them but the mom had thought she could change him. Premarital/predomestic partnership counseling could have prevented that or at least not made it so devastating in the end.

the government doesn't tell you how to run your business? Bet. They tell me how I can pay my employees, what I can have or can not have brought into the country, they charge me taxes on the money I bring in and different streams of revenue are charged differently in some states. They tell you what hours you can work certain employees, etc. There are restrictions and government interference in business as well.

[WyohKnott]

What other people do with their own sex lives is their deal, but I couldn't do it. I need everything from a relationship and would only have sex in that one relationship.

I feel the same way. It doesn't bother me that other people do it, but I could never see it working out for me.

[intjdude]

It's easier to divest yourself of a business arrangement, finances, etc than it is to divest yourself of a family. It should be. Regardless of whether they're in a marriage or domestic partnership they should be treated the same way BUT it should be harder to get out of when there are children involved. We already have parents that come and go from the kids' lives like a revolving door and it needs to stop. I'm not saying stay together for the kids but I have seen relationships break up over things that could have been settled had they actually talked to one another or a counselor. They wanted to compromise but didn't know how. I've seen couples that had such major issues they should never have entered into the "agreement" because they weren't really in love, they were in lust and neither was willing to give on what they did/didn't want. It lead to disaster years later and the kids were ripped apart and devastated because dad told them he'd never wanted them but the mom had thought she could change him. Premarital/predomestic partnership counseling could have prevented that or at least not made it so devastating in the end.



Well, I guess I don't see why penalize married folks. Why should non-married parents be more free to separate compared to married folks? Being pushed to stay only leads to resentment anyway.



the government doesn't tell you how to run your business? Bet. They tell me how I can pay my employees, what I can have or can not have brought into the country, they charge me taxes on the money I bring in and different streams of revenue are charged differently in some states. They tell you what hours you can work certain employees, etc. There are restrictions and government interference in business as well.

Employees are more like children... (labor:child laws as business:marriage laws) the equivelant of a spouse in business would be your business partner, not your employee. I'm not saying that you can do whatever in business, but you certainly have a lot more freedom in types of biz than you do in types of marriages. Currently in most states it is man/woman combination only and implicitly a sexual relationship. Regardless, a government agency isn't suitable to be playing counselor.


--------------------
Anyway, what the flexibility that I spoke of earlier allows us to do is actually sever responsibility from pleasure in a relationship.

For instance, lets say there's two old ladies who are old time friends living across from each other and have no family. By allowing them to form a 'civil alliance' they can consolidate their finances and essentially build a family of 2 as if they were biologically related. They can cross from lower class to middle class in one step plus gain all the other personal advantages of being related. For pleasure, they could have FWB. Anotherwords, someone who you like for a physical relationship isn't necessarily the same as who you'd like to handle things of responsibility. Probability wise you might have better results delegating responsibility and pleasure to two different people than on one. This increases stability too as a failure in your relationship of pleasure doesn't affect the one of responsibility. It is a bit radical in todays terms but theoretically it should be more stable.

[JustMel]

Regardless, a government agency isn't suitable to be playing counselor.

This is the only thing I agree with out of all that. I'm saying that if they want to enter into a "marriage" be it man/woman or same sex they should have to have premarital counseling. Otherwise they can live together and take steps like POAs, living wills, etc to arrange for the partner to deal with their life should they die. The counseling doesn't have to be religion based in fact it shouldn't be religion based.

You have to jump through hoops to get a business license with insurance, workers' comp, lines of credit, paperwork, paperwork, paperwork---I do all the paperwork for new businesses. In some cases you have to have a background check. Why not have to jump through a few hoops like counseling for a marriage license as well? I'd like to see the divorce statistics for Vegas marriages vs. other states that have a waiting period or pre marital counseling.

I'm not saying the government should regulate WHO we can marry. I also don't agree with giving married people tax breaks. You have thousands of people who live together for years and qualify as "common law" married in some states that the government won't recognize because they don't have the piece of paper from the STATE saying they are married. Better yet---do away with the piece of paper. I do think that having the pc of paper made a "civil union" vs. a "marriage" license wouldn't be bad because if they wanted a "marriage" paper they could do that through the church.

[qwerty123]

no circle is perfectly round
no line is perfectly straight

acceptable depends on your particular set of "morals" FWB ends badly

Definitions aren't the only thing that's loose all over the place on this one