Just been dumped by FWB 30 seconds after sex!

[Sleepingbaggage]

I honestly don't know whether to laugh at the sheer cheek of this, or cry, or neither because I possibly always had it coming.

I have been seeing a man casually for a year. We are both divorced and we were friendly acquaintances before. We began texting after our DCs were in the same show. The texts got flirtier and eventually sexual. We met for sex, it was great, and we have continued to meet every few weeks for a year.

This morning was one such meeting. It was great as usual but then immediately afterwards, like 30 seconds afterwards, he said that it would probably be the last time as he thinks it's run its course. That was the phrase he used.

I didn't know we were on a course! If we were, I certainly would have expected him to have ended it before shagging me not immediately afterwards. The CFery of that bit.

I didn't really know what to say. He has gone now and I feel a bit shellshocked. I will see him later at pick up and I don't quite know what to say! Oh dear.

Yes, this is sensible and correct.

I had this once, and it is really fucking humiliating to be dumped as you are still naked in bed, the guy pulling his trousers on, regardless of whether or not you are invested emotionally in that person as a romantic partner. It is not just rude or insensitive, it is deliberately humiliating — I used to give men the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise what they were doing when engaging in these massive acts of disrespect because, I dunno we are social conditioned to make excuses for terrible men — but they do know full well, and it is usually to some extent calculated. There is literally no reason not to wait until later. In my case, it was that he had met someone new, but didn't want to tell me that because he wanted one last fu*k before committing to her. Weird, and also, again, showing his selfishness. I would honestly cut this pathetic man out of your life completely and think of this as him showing his true colours. Not someone to think of as a friend in any way.

Not a misogynist just not deluded.

Clearly OPs man didn't feel like that.

And he was under no obligation to. That wasn't the agreement that was signed up to.

So he ended things in a way that reflected the nature of the arrangement when it was entered into..

The only way your argument could make sense in OP's arrangement is if you are making a case that he SHOULD have developed friendly feelings and so SHOULD have behaved as if it were friendship. But that case makes not sense. Because he had no obligation to develop those feelings and clearly didn't.

He should have dumped you before the sex or in the evening. Its poor form to come and dump. He could have at least let you have a shower and get dressed first.

To he honest, this is exactly the relationship I would have. I like sex but I have no interest in an actual relationship. I don't want to look after or care for anyone else.

Jesus how rude. Style it out, bright and breezy with him, act unaffected. Personally I would not text or mention it. When he comes back for more when his new flame peters out, that is when you get to say ‘no thanks, it had run its course’. FWB is one thing but disrespect is a permanent strike out. But I would not hide the manner in which he did it if the subject comes up with others - let him get judged for his behaviour.

You obviously hadn't had many fuck buddies, or maybe your bar with men is just very low so you see this unkind behaviour on his part as "a normal thing to be expected", as someone in her 50's whose had her share fair of them being in a no strings sexual relationship with someone is not a free pass to being a dick (specially when the other person has always been kind to you). The same principle applies when being on the queue at Waitrose or engaging with a waiter at a restaurant.

Not many.
Not unless it starts from the point that both partners start from the place where their interest/uninterest in each other is exactly the same.
This is rarely the case.
Even if it does turn into a relationship for some reason (sometimes accidental pregnancy or the man/woman needing somewhere to live) someone will shout - usually the woman-"you never wanted a relationship with me anyway!" during arguments and there is underlying resentment because of it (though to be fair it can sometimes be the man who was more interested initially before the' m' word gets raised again.)

Let's be honest here, if two people meet and have a strong feeling of romantic/sexual attraction towards each other they just become a couple bypassing the fwb stage altogether.

You make it sound like a woman not having many fuck buddies is somehow a failure.
Lol.
It's very, very, very easy for a woman to get a fuck buddy should she want one.
Tell me you've had 100 guys propose marriage to you. I'd be impressed by that.

I put it to you that your bar with men is very low for being a fuck buddy in the first place.

FWB is one of the worst terms as no one agrees what it means! I would take it to mean someone who is actually a friend whose company you enjoy, who you message and chat with and meet up with just like you would with another friend. But you also have sex with them.

It’s not a relationship for one reason or another; at least one party doesn’t want commitment or realises that this isn’t the right person for a serious relationship. And, most importantly, even if the sex ends, you still have a friendship.

But it’s used for anything between exclusive relationships with no future (people with children etc) to fuck buddies, people that you would never want to talk to again once the fucking finished.

In this case, I would say he was a fuck buddy. But even fuck buddies can have manners. As someone upthread said, it is like you have had a great competitive game of tennis with a tennis buddy and, as you are coming down from the high of a great game, still covered in sweat, your opponent says ‘I don’t want to play you again’. And, regardless of the lack of commitment, sex is more intimate than tennis!

I never said normal. He did take it to the limits. But those limits were within the parameters of what the relationship is. They weren't outwith that limit.

I used to think these arrangements were a good thing, or free choice or whatever. But this thread has consolidated my change of mind.

If you tell someone they are just a body for your pleasure, that you are a body for their pleasure, then its not surprising that dehumanising behaviour results.

The comments on these and many other threads show these relationships are fraught and people end up being hurt, because actually, they don't like being just bodies to someone. And when someone is blunt enough about that, it hurts.

She explained in her OP how they met and started sleeping together

What a prick! It was obviously planned that he wanted one last shag and he knew you’d have said no if he’d mentioned it beforehand, so to me, I’d feel really used.
It’s one thing to have a mutual agreement of no strings but he knew you would have said no. Filthy rat!

This.

There are a lot of feminists coming on these boards advocating that women should behave like men and sex shouldn't be 'contractual' just for mutual enjoyment.

However, most women can't deal with no-strings-sex, much as they like to be seen as "cool". Because we aren't men.
Men like sex, they also like egg & chips, they like playing (and building) train sets, they like a pint and going to football matches and there isn't much difference to them in these activities
Some aren't very discriminating and, as a previous post said on another thread, 'they would shag a bollard if you put a dress on it'.

If a woman has casual sex with a man it doesn't entitle her to anything.

Wow 😀

It's so funny that feminists are supposedly the ones who hate men.

And then you read something like this. 😂

Nice attempt at slut shaming, the underlying misoginy is doing a number on you by the way. Not all of us want to be in a relationship with every guy that crosses our paths, sometimes we have more important stuff going on like a family, a career, aging parents or we just got out of a divorce and simply not in the mood. Not every Pater and Paul are good to build a life with so being proposed marriage by a man is not our highest aspiration in life, sometimes we just want to have sex with that good looking guy without the 'enmeshment', and yes, we will still hold high standards regarding the way we want to be treated. If you still hold that old belief that a woman looses her dignity when she chooses to have sex thus deserving to be treated in a unrespectful way or that marriage is the pinnacle of our lives I have news for you: It's 2026 and you are still drinking from the patriarchy Kool aid.

And no-one would be posting: " I can't believe he told me there would be no more scrabble AFTER we had JUST played! Had he only said beforehand, I should NEVER have deployed my word "quetzals." Wasn't he rude!! "

Before or after would make little difference. You'd just have the last game anyway, despite any disappointment.

She already explained it, something along the lines of exchanging numbers regarding children activities, starting normal chit chat, chats turning sexy after a month then one thing leading to the other after a while, pretty mundane and nothing really out of the ordinary between two divorced parents TBH.

There are plenty of women who can have sex for the sake of having sex and plenty of men who are discriminating when it comes to who they want to have sex with

It's never a good idea to have any kind of relationship with a school gate dad (or Mum) unless you can each be terribly grown up about any future break up.

In this case I'd be tempted to take the high moral ground and make out I wasn't at all bothered. Maybe a short text of 'No problem, nice while it lasted.'

Are you planning to text him to let him know that it was unacceptable? I think you’d feel better getting it off your chest

I honestly don’t understand — in an arrangement that’s purely about no-strings sex — why Val wouldn’t want a last shag with Bob if she knew Bob wanted it to be the last time. Genuinely — why not? Why would Val not say ‘let’s have one for the road’?

If I had a really good cleaner who texted me to say she wasn’t going to clean for me any more after next week, I wouldn’t say ‘well you needn’t think I’m letting you into the house next Thursday.’ I’d be saying ‘can you do double the hours, clean the carpets and give the skirting boards a good once-over.’

Surely the only explanation is that Val sees her consent to sex as part of a matrix in which she is assured of Bob’s ongoing desire and care. So it really isn’t only about sex, is it? Especially if the arrangement has gone on for a year. It’s about commitment, emotions, validation, expectations for the future. That’s a relationship. It’s just a relationship in which everyone is being dishonest, and then someone gets hurt. (So, like most sexual relationships…)

I think what’s bugging me and some other posters about this scenario is the insistence that there’s some magical difference between FWB and a perfectly ordinary (if low key) relationship. The OP is hurting (a bit) because she was in a relationship and she got dumped, in a fairly nasty way! It sucks! All this dancing around about ‘oh he should have told her first’ - well yes, I think he should. Because he was in a relationship with her. But both of them have kidded themselves into a position where nobody has the right to ask for better behaviour. She can’t even text him to say ‘you utter fuckhead’, as is traditional, because… well, it was just no-strings. Wasn’t it?

I totally agree - and this a far better analogy than the coffee shop buddies etc. You would be wanting your "skirting boards to get a final once-over," as it were, if it were really an arrangement of convenience and sex only.