Can you handle no string attached relationships?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with the above that "platonic" means "nonsexual". So "platonic sex partner" is a contradiction in terms. That part of what you are correcting is not being "pedantic".

I guess that she meant that she "stayed non romantic friends with more than one sex partner". Dont know a word for that. "Friends with [one time] benifits" maybe?

As I have suspected, most of you don't want to have sex with someone you don't share a connection with. For me, I just find it kinda the same thing as running, the chemicals of both actions help me relieve stresses and make me feel good. I guess I consider my sexual partners as sex toys who have more complex maintenance needs than regular sex toys...I mean human touch feels better than vibrators etc.

However I do see the point of those people who seek a one and only connection, but I guess I am not at the age where I want to settle down yet. Life is currently too busy for me to develop and nurture such a connection, and I think this sentiment is shared by other people who seek out ONS and NSA relationships instead of a long-term love.

There is a word or words for that but it is slang - f**k buddy

if partner.times_of_sex == 0:
partner.term = "bad hook up"
else if partner.times_of_sex == 1:
partner.term = "one night stand"
else:
partner.term = "friend with benefits"

I think.

p.s. No indentation available??? Really??? There must be lots of IT geeks here!

That is a much less vulgar way of putting it although I'm vulgar so I prefer F-buddy although I could never be one as I get attached to everyone I sleep with

Fair enough, I just prefer to reserve the f word strictly for occasions during which the word is in action.

haha...
i appreciate the language-use correction, guys

i put "platonic" in quotations knowing that it was not the most appropriate word.

i was curious, though, and merriam-webster online dictionary says, "of, relating to, or being in a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex."

not that i think dictionary definitions are the absolute rule enforcers of language, but i do think it's interesting that this one says it is the absence of romance OR sex. according to this definition, my use of the word platonic is actually correct (although still perhaps not the best word choice).

I agree that platonic excludes sex and most definitions seem to concur. But there must be a term to use for this type of relationship. What about an apollonic relationship? This would make the dichotomy reason/emotion instead of conceptual/physical? Just an idea. You could then have sex with an apollonic friend and they would remain so as long as no emotional attachment was derived from the sex.

As to the question at hand, I do not enjoy the nsa profile. I need there to be an emotional romantic connection to overcome the sensory sensitivities.

"The absence of A or B" means "both A,and B, are absent", not "either A OR B can be absent, but you can still have the other". Or at least I am pretty sure thats what Merriam-Webster meant.

If you and I hung out together,but we were like Mutt and Jeff, or like Laverne and Shirley,(two heterosexuals of the opposite sex, but the whole boy-girl thing never came up-niether lust, nor romantic attraction) then that would be a "platonic" relationship (ie we might as well be two guys/girls).

If you have slept with friends of the opposite sex who are still "friends" (ie you're not married to them, nor identify as a "couple" but still socialize with them) then you might not call it "romantic", but "Platonic" is certainly not the term either. "Friends with benifits? Or something.But your relationship is not "Platonic".

The way to think of it is this: the term "Platonic" comes from the name "Plato" ( the philosopher). Plato talked about things on earth having existed previously in some ideal unsullied form on another celestial plane(this in contrast to Aristotle who took things as we see them in the everyday world). So the more "earthy" something (like a relationship) is, the less celestial and the less "Platonically ideal" it is (if you get my drift).I am sure others on WP understand Greek philosophy better than I do,but my point is that thats a way to keep it straight in your head what the term means.

oh! language is confusing. as is philosophy.

the way you describe A or B makes sense to me.




labels are often too unnecessary for me to care if i'm honest, but that sounds a lot closer to what i meant!

this might be strange, but in order for me to enjoy soft, sensual sex i need romance. with such FWBs i exclusively enjoy a rougher variety of sex.

not the type of sensory sensitivities you're talking about but maybe a similar opposite?

(I assume that you already knew the religious and political repercussions, or did not recognize me as a moral authority, on the issue.)

I can conceive of all different ways to arrange life's 'tinker toys', but find these situations rather insulting, for personal reasons, of my very own.

When you try to meet these people, very-general, physical standards, location, legality, hygiene, and safety are all "strings". The "strings" involve common, social graces.

I watch olden movies, from before my time, or read about this kind of subject matter, when it was still newish. They knew they were being risqué, but still tried to make it classy and engaging. Some people have considered things like tobacco and chocolate to be worthless vices, but there is this attitude that -- if it is shortening your life -- it had better be worth it. Like the fancy bars and theaters, vs, the pig sties. I don't get that people are making an effort to be fetching, whether in terms of their manners, decorum, or fitness.

I tried to convey what platonic used to mean but I also suspected that it could be inclusive of physical intimacy just not to the extend of romance. I wasn't disagreeing I was being...well me.




The old school dictionary is like the GOP Party Convention, by the time they embrace a term, it most likely has been in use for quite some time.

Perhaps, this will help.

A Queerplatonic relationship (or "QPR") is described as a relationship which is more intense and intimate than is considered common or normal for a "friendship", but doesn't fit the traditional sexual-romantic couple model. It is characterized by a strong bond, love, and emotional commitment, yet is not perceived by those involved as "romantic". The relationship may or may not have some elements or degree of sexuality/eroticism at various times, or none - it doesn't matter, because sexuality/sexual exclusivity is not what the relationship is organized around. It's defined by the intensity and significance of the emotional connection.

Source: Queerplatonic

I am a man, and I couldn't do a NSA relationship.

If I am intimate with someone, I need to like them on a personal level as well as a physical attraction level. Due to this I get attached to people, and if I was in an intimate relationship, I could not cope knowing they was intimate with others in a NSA relationship.

I was in a 6 year relationship until just before Christmas, and I am still very upset now. I am only 26, but I do not know if I ever want to get into another relationship, as when I was told we would be together forever, I took this literally and also said it myself and meant it literally. I don't think I can ever take being hurt in that way again so think being alone may be best for me.

I've found no strings attached and friends with benefits,doesn't work for me.

Up until 15mnths ago,i was single for 8years.
And single for 8yrs,because the emotional fallout of the last relationship,hurt like hell.
I can't handle the fallout nor rejection.

Anyhow,i decided to get back on my bike and find someone,that was similar to me.
After a few months looking,i came across this woman online,undiagnosed autistic,introvert,no friends etc and we had many things in common.

Anyhow,she was fresh from a breakup and had a fear of attachment.
She suggested friends with benefits,and though i don't do friends,let's call it female with benefits.
Not having tried this before,she talked me around and i thought i'd give it a try.

Anyhow,we met,had a great night,then there after,she done a runner,from a mere suggestion of attachment.
Problem was and is,i attach to someone i like.

Anyway,this set off a snow ball affect and i was in search for someone like her.

Met 6 woman over the course of the last 15mnths,female with benefits scenarios and though the intimacy was great,the connection with them on a personal level was lacking and they weren't people i could see myself hanging with.

I personally find it unmeaningful and selfish,without everything in between.

Each to there own.

Anyhow,i'm back to square one,on my quest to find someone like me,for life!

Live and learn.: )