To think FWB is a load of old BX

[Llandings]

There's another thread on here - some poor woman is being regaled by a bunch of the usual headmistressy-so-called-feminists coming out, to berate her - you knew the rules, you broke the rules!!!

Er, what rules would them be?

In the old days, not even that bloody long ago, there were all kinds of relationships - marriage, living together, casual, flings, etc. People negotiated them.

But this completely made up Contract "FWB" that you can't "break" by having expectations, desires, feelings, etc - in fact be being a human being - its completely bizarre. Inhuman in fact.

I was also thinking "Benefits" always came with the worst job advertisements, I noticed, to make up for how essentially boring and rubbish they were. Finallky, a "friend" would never use you for sex as an add-on. And mutually using people for sex is no better.

Sorry, I had to get this "out there"! I'm so sick of hearing FWB. Totally imported from the US. Cynical and inhuman approach.

IMOhSoHO it must be said.

It's not about buying it. It's about respecting other women's choices and not assuming we're all just deluding ourselves.
I absolutely recognise that heterosexual relationships have a lot of problems and those are heavily carried by women, but this isn't unique to FWB situations. There are plenty of married women who have caught STDs from their husbands or been left holding the baby. That's down to shitty men, not women making their own choices about who to have sex with.

@Wreath21...whilst it is very unwise, i'm not sure how "having casual sex whilst wanting more," is unkind and unethical to the man involved ?!

Most men are not stupid, and know when a woman they are using for sex wants more with them. Surely using someone for sex when you know they desperately want a proper relationship is what's actually unkind and unethical ?!

Choices don't only occur at the level of the individual, they occur in a deeply culturally influenced context. People are both influenced by others, and influence others by their own actions, choices and behaviours.

When you get dressed in the morning, you theoretically have the full range of human dress codes, fashions and costumes that have existed across all cultures and time periods. I strongly bet you do not dress like a Maasai warrior, but more or less in alignment with the fashions of the British high street of the past 10 years or so. Why don't you choose to dress like a Maasai warrior? You could, but it's not part of your cultural contextual influence in any way, so you don't. Same goes for patterns in human sexual behaviour in your culture... you think you have total free choice, but you are very much influenced by the prevailing patterns that are the aggregate of the majority behaviour. I strongly believe that those patterns are (collectively, if not individually) bad for women. They are patriarchal fantasies, that there's now a huge pool of women available for the male ideal of the "zipless fuck" ie ultimate no strings sex. But there's always strings... emotional, sexual health-wise, practical when unplanned babies are born, and they unravel in different ways for men and women. Sex is intrinsically riven through with potential unintended consequences, which modern technology can only partially mitigate. There's no condom for a broken heart 💔 Shag, but with wisdom and mindfulness of the greater context.

[quote strawberrymilkshake123]@Wreath21...whilst it is very unwise, i'm not sure how "having casual sex whilst wanting more," is unkind and unethical to the man involved ?!

Most men are not stupid, and know when a woman they are using for sex wants more with them. Surely using someone for sex when you know they desperately want a proper relationship is what's actually unkind and unethical ?![/quote]
It's unethical if you then make a nuisance of yourself, badmouth the person to everyone else, etc when you initially said you were fine with a casual situation.

@BahHumbygge

Choices don't only occur at the level of the individual, they occur in a deeply culturally influenced context. People are both influenced by others, and influence others by their own actions, choices and behaviours.

When you get dressed in the morning, you theoretically have the full range of human dress codes, fashions and costumes that have existed across all cultures and time periods. I strongly bet you do not dress like a Maasai warrior, but more or less in alignment with the fashions of the British high street of the past 10 years or so. Why don't you choose to dress like a Maasai warrior? You could, but it's not part of your cultural contextual influence in any way, so you don't. Same goes for patterns in human sexual behaviour in your culture... you think you have total free choice, but you are very much influenced by the prevailing patterns that are the aggregate of the majority behaviour. I strongly believe that those patterns are (collectively, if not individually) bad for women. They are patriarchal fantasies, that there's now a huge pool of women available for the male ideal of the "zipless fuck" ie ultimate no strings sex. But there's always strings... emotional, sexual health-wise, practical when unplanned babies are born, and they unravel in different ways for men and women. Sex is intrinsically riven through with potential unintended consequences, which modern technology can only partially mitigate. There's no condom for a broken heart 💔 Shag, but with wisdom and mindfulness of the greater context.

Hmm. There's also the longstanding patriarchal fantasy that women exist to service men domestically as well as sexually. So it isn't just poor unfortunate women being led on and offered relationships so they will agree to sex - there's also the men who get arsy with women who believe that casual sex means they don't have to cook or clean for the man, or remind him of his mother's birthday. I have occasionally known men who stated they didn't want to get serious but were then unhappy that no domestic service was on offer...

Also (hit post too soon) Unwanted pregnancies can be avoided with the use of contraception (including abortion if necessary) - and not everyone is fertile, anyway. And avoiding casual sex is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever of avoiding a 'broken heart'. The partner who agreed to a committed relationship/marriage could be an abuser, or could dump you for a whole range of reasons - or indeed die.

@WaningMoon

Wreath21

Why are you so invested in detaching emotions from sex?

Because sex doesn't necessarily involve emotions for everyone, and it is a bad idea, leading to lots of unecessary distress, to insist that it does.

Choices don't only occur at the level of the individual, they occur in a deeply culturally influenced context. People are both influenced by others, and influence others by their own actions, choices and behaviours.

This is absolutely true. But it applies to marriage too. Picking a single man to commit to or stay celibate to isn't the solution to a patriarchal society.

I was married for 20 years before I got divorced. Now, I have a full time job, a child, hobbies, a good circle of friends and I absolutely love having my own space and independence. I do not want to go back to a serious relationship.

I get that there are massive inequalities. I do. That's one of the reasons I don't want to get married again and why I value being single.

I'm not going to give up my hard earned space and independence for a relationship that I do not even want because someone thinks me having mutually enjoyable sex with a friend is a 'patriarchal fantasy'.

It's completely backwards.

Casual sex with a friend doesn't have to be 'emotionless'. I have plenty of feelings for my fwb - I respect him and care about him as he does for me and as I do with all my friends. I love him the same way I love a girl friend. I just don't want a monogamous long term committed relationship with him or anyone else.

It's not clinical or abusive in any way.

But what kind of trainers you wear doesn't really matter, however sex is so intimate and crucial to the human psyche. It's why it can cause the most blissful of connections that builds and holds families together, and cause the most devastating PTSD at the other end of the spectrum. It's literally the process of creating life... of course it's going to come with profound psychological/cultural/sociological implications, both for individuals at the micro level, and the cultural collective at the macro level

Yes, I don't know about men, but women release oxytocin, the bonding hormone, on orgasm. We are programmed to want to bond with the people we have sex with. Especially if we like them to start with (the friend bit in FWB). yes, some women in very secure situations aren't troubled by this, but many women will enter into this not from that secure base.

it is also unkind and unethical to agree to casual sex when you are aware that you really want commitment and somehow believe that the other person will magically change their mind and fall for you... and, when this doesn't happen, to harass and blame that person for your distress

Oh FFS, look if you are having regular sex with someone you are being nice and friendly too and get on with, you can' then moan because they have fallen for you. They are not a fucking robot you can program with your words not to fall in love with you. That may be inconvenient for some men, but its an inconvenient truth.

I had a great FWB relationship. Two and a half years.

The problem came when our communication broke down.

@Lightstoobright

I had a 1 year romantic relationship with my current FWB before we realised that we didn't have a future together (he wants kids one day, I don't). However we get on like a house on fire and the sex is great so we now see each other once a month to hang out and have sex. We don't contact each other very much in between, we're not exclusive, and while we both have affectionate feelings for each other we know that there's no future for us. I'm really happy with the situation to be honest. I get my freedom while also getting to enjoy his company from time to time.

I like this.

All relationships can be problematic. Friendships, siblings, parent/child, marriages, polyamourous triads ... All break down if people have different expectations and don't communicate. These boards are full of those too.

@nothingmorethanthis

But what kind of trainers you wear doesn't really matter, however sex is so intimate and crucial to the human psyche. It's why it can cause the most blissful of connections that builds and holds families together, and cause the most devastating PTSD at the other end of the spectrum. It's literally the process of creating life... of course it's going to come with profound psychological/cultural/sociological implications, both for individuals at the micro level, and the cultural collective at the macro level

Yes, I don't know about men, but women release oxytocin, the bonding hormone, on orgasm. We are programmed to want to bond with the people we have sex with. Especially if we like them to start with (the friend bit in FWB). yes, some women in very secure situations aren't troubled by this, but many women will enter into this not from that secure base.

it is also unkind and unethical to agree to casual sex when you are aware that you really want commitment and somehow believe that the other person will magically change their mind and fall for you... and, when this doesn't happen, to harass and blame that person for your distress

Oh FFS, look if you are having regular sex with someone you are being nice and friendly too and get on with, you can' then moan because they have fallen for you. They are not a fucking robot you can program with your words not to fall in love with you. That may be inconvenient for some men, but its an inconvenient truth.

Oh FFS not all women are desperate drips who 'fall for' everyone they have good sex with. Lots of people have priorities and passions that have little to do with sexual/romantic relationships (one of the other issues with patriarchy and relationships is the way women are still somewhat discouraged from focussing on anything like jobs, artistic pursuits or hobbies over marriage/children) - they don't want to dedicate more time than necessary to dating or sex so something casual but amicable suits them fine.

And unrequited feelings of love are the responsibility of the person who feels them - they do not oblige the object of this desire to offer anything. People who demand reciprocation of their feelings when it is not on offer are not 'jilted lovers', they are stalkers.

Oh FFS not all women are desperate drips who 'fall for' everyone they have good sex with

If you actually read that post, you'll see I make that point myself. I also make it more extensively in a previous post on here.

And unrequited feelings of love are the responsibility of the person who feels them - they do not oblige the object of this desire to offer anything. People who demand reciprocation of their feelings when it is not on offer are not 'jilted lovers
On this I disagree. You can't build a relationship with someone in all but name but then call them names, like stalker, when they get hurt. That's just a failure to take responsibility for how you are behaving. If you want casual sex have that. But don't look for someone to have casual sex with, tack a pseudo relationship onto that, and then call them names when they fall for you. Cos you kinda brought that on yourself.

@Wreath21

What has the patriarchy got to do with women making their own choices? People are either free autonomous beings or not, or they're a victim. Some choose marriage, some make other life choices. FWB is very utilitarian and has nothing to do with 'The patriarchy', more like persons own individual choices. It's a lack of commitment.
I personally think it's driven by more than just sex, there are some deeper underlying reasons for choosing this relationship pattern.

I'm happily single but it would be nice to have a reliable man who I could ask round occasionally for a shag, without all the added complications of a relationship. I don't want to answer to a man, negotiate over what we're cooking, consult every time I want to make a decision about buying something. I find the occasions where I need a man because I'm not strong enough to move something or fix something is a couple of times a year at most.
It's lovely to feel loved, but I've found I value independence more.

I've never wanted sex outside a monogamous relationship, I'd rather just give myself an orgasm. I think though if others are happy in a FWB thing then that's up to them. I wouldn't want it but if they do it doesn't impact me.

I never intended to have FWBs but early on in my adult life I discovered that I was basically incapable of having feelings for people I was having sex with. I am monogamous now with someone I do have feelings for, but as long as you are on the same page no one can claim they are being lead on surely.
Adults should communicate. It's also the basis of great sex- communication!

Question.

Is FWB sex different to monogamous sex in a relationship whereby two people both confess to love, exclusivity and commitment with one another.

The actual act.

Clearly there are many different types of FWB, usually arising from either the male or the female having some sort of control over the direction or situation of the union, but does this affect the act?

I suppose sex is an urge, especially under a certain age and in my youth I had sexual expriences that did not involve love, I can say the sex wasn't as good, maybe energetic or releasing but nowhere as good as being in a relationship where both parties felt an emotional equalness.

Being in love in my experience took it to another level. I think those that disagree with FWB are looking at the biological aspect of men and how they can procriate without emotion, FWB gives them the social norm to get away with putting the effort in.

Women argue that FWB is convienient, if you wanted true convinience a different partner could be picked with each sexual session but no they want a friend, someone they trust, someone they feel will respect them or think they do.
You cannot, I feel take away emotion from sex, if it is unpaid, there is some sort of transaction going on emotionally.
Even if you feel someone is caring for you for a couple of hours each month, there has to be trust and some desire feeding the ego.

A woman needs someone to compliment her to get her into bed, it has always been the case and always will be.

The better the male specimen, the bigger the dopamine rush, I don't think women are trying to shame other women, more that it is a protective thing that if a male doesn't care emotionally then that is a warning to choose a partner more carefully.

Sex is sex, it's not a sport, it's a connection, with FWB it can be a moment in time, a pretence that someone cares or at least finds you attractive, whereby neither may be the case, it is sex to the male, it sounds a bit of a con to me.

Sex is used by governments to control men, as is football, drinking, gambling etc to keep them occupied and prevent uprisings and revolutions. Access to sex without prohibition is useful and I fully agree the pp poster who states FWB is a term which benefits men. The normalisation of free sex without consequence or obligation to me seems unfair in its advantages, those most likely to be disadvantaged I believe are women.

Men's mental health being advocated at the expense of women's mental health.
Women always lose out in society, sometimes it takes generations to see it.

Women argue that FWB is convienient, if you wanted true convinience a different partner could be picked with each sexual session but no they want a friend, someone they trust, someone they feel will respect them or think they do

of course a regular FWB is more convenient than a different partner for each ride. The latter isn’t ‘true convenience’, it’s the opposite. Where are these guys available- online? The hassle of identifying them, trying to establish they’re not a weirdo or dangerous, going to hurt/stalk/kill the woman, be compatible, be attractive and attracted to the woman, etc etc. Doing that search repeatedly is not really convenient for someone who just wants a good fuck with someone she can trust. It’s not rocket science to understand that a regular fwb partner is more convenient than trying to identify someone suitable each and every time.

You cannot, I feel take away emotion from sex

you may not be able to. But that doesn’t mean others can’t.

Look, no one is trying to stop those for whom love and commitment are fetishes from getting their needs met. (And yes, romantic love does meet the definition of a fetish - you really can't enjoy sex without it being present. That isn't to say it's wrong...) You have as much right as anyone else to seek out and have the sort of sex that works for you.
The issue is all these pro-commitment types insisting that anyone who isn't just like them is either unethical or deluded. People have/want sex of all kinds, in a wide range of circumstances (including not having or wanting it at all, ever).

And this business about people who state upfront that they do not want commitment but all the same treat their casual sex partners with basic courtesy and kindness being con artists or manipulators - that's no more a reasonable view than the idea that you owe someone sex if you danced with them or kissed them.

My frustration with the fwb threads on MN is that many of the OP’s, appear to agree to a fwb in the hopes that it will be their gateway to an exclusive relationship. Cue handwringing and gnashing of teeth when the object of their secret affection continues to see them as an option and not the priority that they want to be.

*that's no more a reasonable view than the idea that you owe someone sex if you danced with them or kissed them

That's an absolutely mad comparison.

And this business about people who state upfront that they do not want commitment but all the same treat their casual sex partners with basic courtesy and kindness being con artists or manipulators
That's a complete misrepresentation of what people have said. if you have a case you should not need to distort what others have said to make it.