Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

FWB relationships - your opinion?

Page 3 of 20 [ 312 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 20  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

13 May 2013, 4:16 pm

FWB, a great way to get another 3 letter acronym, STD. Or STI, if you want to be nitpicky.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

13 May 2013, 4:18 pm

PsychoSarah wrote:
FWB, a great way to get another 3 letter acronym, STD. Or STI, if you want to be nitpicky.


Because nobody ever uses condoms.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

13 May 2013, 4:19 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
FWB, a great way to get another 3 letter acronym, STD. Or STI, if you want to be nitpicky.


Because nobody ever uses condoms.


Condoms can break. And are not a guarantee when it comes to STDs even when they work fine (Genital warts can easily be transmitted, even with condoms).



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

13 May 2013, 4:21 pm

PsychoSarah wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
FWB, a great way to get another 3 letter acronym, STD. Or STI, if you want to be nitpicky.


Because nobody ever uses condoms.


Condoms can break. And are not a guarantee when it comes to STDs even when they work fine (Genital warts can easily be transmitted, even with condoms).


Not vetting a sexual partner for STI's or STD's is equally as irresponsible as them not using protection.
And if we're going to veto sex on the idea even protection isn't safe might as well not have sex period.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

13 May 2013, 4:22 pm

PsychoSarah wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
FWB, a great way to get another 3 letter acronym, STD. Or STI, if you want to be nitpicky.


Because nobody ever uses condoms.


Condoms can break. And are not a guarantee when it comes to STDs even when they work fine (Genital warts can easily be transmitted, even with condoms).


I'm aware that they aren't 100% effective. How would a FWB relationship put you at any higher risk for something than a regular relationship? The lack of commitment to each other doesn't cause STD's. Also, many times when someone is in a FWB they aren't getting any anywhere else. That's why they have the FWB at the time.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

13 May 2013, 4:24 pm

If neither person has an STD, and none of the people they sleep with other than each other do, they would be fine. Or, at the very least, people actually told people that they couldn't have sex because they had one. People spread their suffering because they are too selfish or embarrassed to inform their sexual partners.



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

13 May 2013, 4:26 pm

PsychoSarah wrote:
If neither person has an STD, and none of the people they sleep with other than each other do, they would be fine. Or, at the very least, people actually told people that they couldn't have sex because they had one. People spread their suffering because they are too selfish or embarrassed to inform their sexual partners.
Pain, suffering, and itchy scratchies! :x lol

So FWB? Hmm yeah..I approve of it. I'd imagine I wouldn't be the one getting attached, though, but it's really hard to tell with them sort of setups. One is always bound to grow attached to one of the others.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

13 May 2013, 4:28 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
I feel it demeaning because the only purpose would be sex. FWB is just something I'd rather not be a part of. Like I said, I would feel I was stealing from the other party, it wouldn't feel morally right. I have little chance at it so it might as well be through marriage, those are just my thoughts.


1) But whats wrong with the purpose just being sex? You said it wouldn't feel morally right, do you feel that way for religious reasons or for some other reason?

In my opinion there are two types of FWB relationships. There is the "booty call" type, where the two people don't ever really see each other except for sex. They don't talk on the phone or FB or hang out or anything, it's just for sex and only sex. The other type is two actual friends who like each other and enjoy each others company but while they don't have any romantic feelings for each other, they are physically attracted to each other and act on it.


Sex is a sacred bond, when man & woman become one in flesh and blood. I don't think it is only religious, I'd be feeling extremely guilty. In my view, sexual misdeeds on another are greater a crime than murder.


Lol, that sounds pretty extreme. I know you're religious, but the Bible/Torah nowhere supports the idea that 2)consensual sex is more serious than murder. The Koran is even more permissive. Rape is punishable by death according to the Bible and the Koran, but that's a different matter than FWB.

Spoiling a girl's virginity consensually in the Bible was punished by a fine of one ox or 150 shekels -- and that's only because it was a marketable commodity. It was basically a form of restitution to the father. That's it.

FWB could always lead to something more. It doesn't have to be meaningless. But if not, then so be it. Seems like too many aspies don't get out enough so are way too traditional for their own good. lol


1) Sex is pleasure not love, simple as that.
2) I meant rape by that not consenual sex, why would I mean that. hen I say sexual misdeed, I mean sexual crime.


_________________
comedic burp


MoonriseGirl
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 68
Location: Florida, USA

13 May 2013, 4:29 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
I feel it demeaning because the only purpose would be sex. FWB is just something I'd rather not be a part of. Like I said, I would feel I was stealing from the other party, it wouldn't feel morally right. I have little chance at it so it might as well be through marriage, those are just my thoughts.


But whats wrong with the purpose just being sex? You said it wouldn't feel morally right, do you feel that way for religious reasons or for some other reason?

In my opinion there are two types of FWB relationships. There is the "booty call" type, where the two people don't ever really see each other except for sex. They don't talk on the phone or FB or hang out or anything, it's just for sex and only sex. The other type is two actual friends who like each other and enjoy each others company but while they don't have any romantic feelings for each other, they are physically attracted to each other and act on it.


Sex is a sacred bond, when man & woman become one in flesh and blood. I don't think it is only religious, I'd be feeling extremely guilty. In my view, sexual misdeeds on another are greater a crime than murder.


I've never felt that I became one with anybody by having sex. I also don't see it as a sacred bond. To me it's really just physical. I can have sex without any sort of emotional involvement and I can get emotionally involved with someone without sex. I guess we can agree to disagree about this, some people feel one way about sex and some feel another way I suppose.


I like how you put things. I like that both of you know how you feel, know what you want and are comfortable in it.

Weighing in on FWB... It isn't for me. I want the whole shebang. (no pun intended! ahaha)

I don't judge people's morality if they do it, but I have noticed that lots of people get involved in these kinds of relationships & miss out on something that would ultimately be more fulfilling in the long run. I have friends who have done this & there is an emptiness and joylessness surrounding it typically.... like something is off & missing in their lives. There are happy on a superficial level but lonely on a deeper one. Part of them is happy, but another part is miserable. I've also seen some people very happy with FWB, but it's in the context of an open relationship, so they are getting actual love & companionship from elsewhere!

The only problem I see with it usually, is people aren't restless enough to find love. Enough of their needs are being met to make them complacent.



PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

13 May 2013, 4:29 pm

The reason why a FWB relationship would increase the chances of STDs is that, since it is a noncommittal relationship, both parties are more likely to have other sexual partners.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

13 May 2013, 4:34 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
FWB, a great way to get another 3 letter acronym, STD. Or STI, if you want to be nitpicky.


Because nobody ever uses condoms.


Condoms can break. And are not a guarantee when it comes to STDs even when they work fine (Genital warts can easily be transmitted, even with condoms).


I'm aware that they aren't 100% effective. How would a FWB relationship put you at any higher risk for something than a regular relationship? The lack of commitment to each other doesn't cause STD's. Also, many times when someone is in a FWB they aren't getting any anywhere else. That's why they have the FWB at the time.



What happens if you get pregnant, oops!! ! No more babies after that.


_________________
comedic burp


PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

13 May 2013, 4:37 pm

^ I guess that would be the end of the FWB relationship :lol:



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

13 May 2013, 4:38 pm

I don't know..some people are into that sort of thing! :hmph:



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

13 May 2013, 4:45 pm

JanuaryMan wrote:
I don't know..some people are into that sort of thing! :hmph:


:twisted: :lol: :twisted:
The One and Only time I would, ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ if it turned into a serious relationship...


_________________
comedic burp


MoonriseGirl
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 68
Location: Florida, USA

13 May 2013, 4:45 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
MXH wrote:
I think that with all my personality defects and things like commitment issues and what not a solid fab would be my best if only chance


Commitment issues eh? Is being stuck with a lady who wants to jump in the shower with you, take you to her nerd conventions, show you off to all her friends, cuddle around you Every Night, help you through your burnouts, cheer you up, and you the same for her really that bad? I would love to come home to a smiling face, and be that smiling face for someone else so very much. Wouldn't you?


Yes, men can have commitment issues (really?). No, many men are not wired to be romantic or to fall in love. In fact, many women are similar; society just puts more pressure on them, so they feel worse about themselves than we do for the exact same behavior.

I think Evolution created two types of men. First, there are the men whose primary evolutionary asset is to be a nurturer and raise children and goats; this trait popped into the evolutionary tree around the time of human settlement. Second, there are men whose primary assets lie in other areas, the killer or conqueror -- this is an older and more archetypal type of man, but one who has been successful in all eras, including the present one. A killer/conqueror man who has a FWB with one or more killer/conqueror women is a completely valid form of lifestyle (I'm not saying that we need killers and conquerors in modern society, but that the type is valid and the skills can be put to other uses, such as politics or business).

Historically, most men and about a third of women have admired the killer/conqueror type while about 2/3 of women have primarily admired the nurturer type. The women attacking the PUA crowd on the other thread is primarily comprised of women who admire the nurturer type. They are trying to impose their values on other men and women, which is what you're doing here.

No one is superior or inferior. There are just differences.


I never said people had to love anybody or be all romantic or want marriage. But, I'm not going to pretend like I haven't seen PUA's really hurt people. I said I have no problem with casual, consensual sex. The problem I have is deliberate deception & tricking people into behaviors that go against their nature. Unless you've written something new, you didn't address these. Maybe I am trying to impose a value system of honesty & perhaps compassion on others. But how does anyone have any other values if they don't have those? When people fought slavery, they were trying to impose their beliefs on other people, too. ;)

You didn't seem too happy with AppleTheClown's views & told him he needed to get out more. How are you not imposing your value system on him? You seem to think he's in the wrong for not seeing the world the way you do when he isn't even hurting anybody.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

13 May 2013, 4:48 pm

MoonriseGirl wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
MXH wrote:
I think that with all my personality defects and things like commitment issues and what not a solid fab would be my best if only chance


Commitment issues eh? Is being stuck with a lady who wants to jump in the shower with you, take you to her nerd conventions, show you off to all her friends, cuddle around you Every Night, help you through your burnouts, cheer you up, and you the same for her really that bad? I would love to come home to a smiling face, and be that smiling face for someone else so very much. Wouldn't you?


Yes, men can have commitment issues (really?). No, many men are not wired to be romantic or to fall in love. In fact, many women are similar; society just puts more pressure on them, so they feel worse about themselves than we do for the exact same behavior.

I think Evolution created two types of men. First, there are the men whose primary evolutionary asset is to be a nurturer and raise children and goats; this trait popped into the evolutionary tree around the time of human settlement. Second, there are men whose primary assets lie in other areas, the killer or conqueror -- this is an older and more archetypal type of man, but one who has been successful in all eras, including the present one. A killer/conqueror man who has a FWB with one or more killer/conqueror women is a completely valid form of lifestyle (I'm not saying that we need killers and conquerors in modern society, but that the type is valid and the skills can be put to other uses, such as politics or business).

Historically, most men and about a third of women have admired the killer/conqueror type while about 2/3 of women have primarily admired the nurturer type. The women attacking the PUA crowd on the other thread is primarily comprised of women who admire the nurturer type. They are trying to impose their values on other men and women, which is what you're doing here.

No one is superior or inferior. There are just differences.


I never said people had to love anybody or be all romantic or want marriage. But, I'm not going to pretend like I haven't seen PUA's really hurt people. I said I have no problem with casual, consensual sex. The problem I have is deliberate deception & tricking people into behaviors that go against their nature. Unless you've written something new, you didn't address these. Maybe I am trying to impose a value system of honesty & perhaps compassion on others. But how does anyone have any other values if they don't have those? When people fought slavery, they were trying to impose their beliefs on other people, too. ;)

You didn't seem too happy with AppleTheClown's views & told him he needed to get out more. How are you not imposing your value system on him? You seem to think he's in the wrong for not seeing the world the way you do when he isn't even hurting anybody.


Thank you, it isn't like I'm reaching through the screen and punching him, I was just saying what I thought about it.


_________________
comedic burp