Okay so to clarify -> what is the difference between a Fuckbuddy and a Friend-with-Benefits again ??

And I said, "Hm, I don't really have any naked friends." And I don't expect I ever will.

also: as i just said in an im -> aren't many relationships just glorified fuckbuddyships disguised as something more anyway ?

I have other people in my life who are friends-with-benefits. These are people that I like to spend time with, that I care about, that I have some sort of emotional involvement with, and that are 'friends' whom I occasionally have sex with. (Er, again, this is all in the past for me now. Sheesh. I should have never settled down.) Personally, when I end-up becoming emotionally intimate with someone I end-up becoming sexually attracted to them; in that case, the sex is a way of achieving another form of intimate friendship.

to a certain degree i am the same way, but i'd say this is a curse! or if u have the luck i do it is

Vic, I tend to not like many people and become emotionally intimate with very few. (The people that I consider to be emotional intimates that are not family members amounts to ... four people right now.) Therefore, it is not a problem with me.

this is why becoming emotionally intimate is overrated

Because I cannot even conceive of having a relationship that isn't totally involving on all levels. Sex without emotion? Nope.

you can't blame yourself for this or anything, because it's just the way (most) Scorpios are made. It really is different for different people; others can easily separate and disengage the emotional from the sexual, with few consequences.

And see I'm glad you're posting this here, since it kinda shatters the gender stereotype that men are always capabale of having the no-string-fun - this should at least prove that behavior such as this is NOT gender-based or gender-determined - and the same goes for all those rationalizations that some use, ie w/ biology: the male must spread his seed, etc. i know ya'll think my own beliefs are crap but to me, what determines one's emotional and sexual fluidity in relationships is the condition of the moon and venus in the horoscope

maybe its funny kenan that you're tearing down one gender generalization on one thread, and erecting a different sort on another

getting back to fuckbuddies: are they preferable since there's no emotions invested in the thing, as opposed to f-w-bs, since thats more of a "multi-dimensional" relationship

First, my apologies if anything I typed upthread (and will type here and downthread, too) implied that I judged anyone negatively for not viewing relationships the way that I do. That is most certainly not what I was trying to say. In fact, the opposite is true: I wish that we lived in a world where each of us could seek out and publically profess their chosen lifestyle/lovestyle. If you only want to be involved with submissive women, then I'm thrilled - so long as the woman wants to be involved with a dominant man. And if you only want to be involved with someone who desires equal input and decision making rights in all aspects of your relationship, then that is wonderful! And if you want to go home every night with your soccer buddies and roll around in a bathtub full of creamed corn while being surrounded by shelves of plush animals, then the more power to you. Seriously. I want everyone to feel free to seek out and be proud of their relationships, so long as no-one is harmed by those relationships (and the 'harmed' part is a whole 'nother kettle of worms).

there's nothing old about being old-fashioned My one objection to this idea is that in the past (and still true today in almost all parts of the world) most people followed the prescribed patterns of male dominant/female submissive; males expected to be more sexually promiscuous whereas females were expected to be without sexual desire; women were to be virgins, men were to be experienced, etc. and were not free to pursue any other means of living (there were exceptions, of course, as there always are, with cross-dressing and 'spinsters' and the like). Other than that, I think that the male/female monogamous relationship is a good thing. So long as it is what you and your partner choose and it is not something that you move into because it's easier to go with what society says to do than to express yourself through exploring (valid and healthy) alternatives.

Kenan, please do not let anything that I say make you worry about yourself or your views or your beliefs (er, except in the case if your views are that you need to proscribe how everyone else will live, though I don't think that that is anywhere close to what you think). We are all different with different needs and desires and backgrounds and experiences. I did not choose to be born with these needs/desires/beliefs. They're just a part of who I am. In fact, my life would be easier, in many ways, if I were more inclined toward being monogamous. There's space here for all of us, in all of our various incarnations.

For example, I've been through times in my life where I was highly promiscuous and sexually predatory. Now I'm not. And I cannot recall what it was like to want to sleep with someone that I was not otherwise involved with. But I know that that is what I desired at that time and I was fortunate in that I was able to pursue that desire and to work through some of the options and problems associated with being promiscuous. I've also been through periods in my life where the idea of having sex with anyone actually repelled me, as I sunk into a fairly puritanical view and feel ashamed of being sexual and having desires and interests in such matters. And I've moved through that as well. I've no idea where I will be going from here. But I want to be free to go with it as I desire. And I want all of us to feel free to do the same.

And now to the question of fuckbuddies are they preferable since there's no emotions invested in the thing, as opposed to f-w-bs, since thats more of a "multi-dimensional" relationship?

You can probably predict my answer here: I don't think that either is preferable to the other, except in specific indivual situations. You might want a fuckbuddy if you're going through a period of introspection and want to be emotionally isolated at the time. Or if you're someone who needs to have sexual release with another person in order to have a clearer mind to process some information. And you might want a f-w-bs if you're happily between relationships and so is the other person and you like each other and know that you can have sexual intimacy without it harming your friendship. Really, it's up to you and the other person.

The only time a problem has arisen for me is when a f-w-bs ended-up with the idea that we were dating/were a couple and started acting like a boyfriend. But that was because I'd assumed that the he was seeking the same thing as I was, at the time, and he wasn't up-front with me as his feelings changed (and he assumed that I was falling for him as well). So yes, like all interactions between people, you need to talk things through and be sure to know where the other person stands.

i dont mean for every thread i start to morph into astrologese garbage, but hey u know what, i'm sick and unemployed right now, and this practice would be good for me, so why dont i take this opportunity to catch up. kate masonicboom is first, but then i want to do both of yours (as both of you claim to be lost): mslaura and kenan, if you could mail me your exact birth times (to the minute if you know it, confer w/ birth certificate) and place of birth (or latitude/longitude), i would appreciate it. and promise get back to you soon.

however, i hold FWBs in great esteem. these are usually guys that i've known for a long time and occasionally we make out (or more). i had a long-standing FWB through high school and college, and it finally petered out when he became too much of a drunk frat boy for me to enjoy (and then entered fuckbuddy status, i suppose), so i just stopped calling him. but i've had this work really well, and like the whole getting cuddly with someone you like as a friend but it doesn't prevent you from dating other people thing.

also similarly, i don't do either of these anymore, because of my relationship status. just in case he's reading this :)

And see I'm glad you're posting this here, since it kinda shatters the gender stereotype that men are always capabale of having the no-string-fun - this should at least prove that behavior such as this is NOT gender-based or gender-determined - and the same goes for all those rationalizations that some use, ie w/ biology: the male must spread his seed, etc. i know ya'll think my own beliefs are crap but to me, what determines one's emotional and sexual fluidity in relationships is the condition of the moon and venus in the horoscope

Vic, I don't mean to be a jerk or anything, but... did you notice that in your second paragraph here you take an exception to the rule and use it to rally against the generalization, but in your first paragraph you take something that follows the rule (while admitting there are exceptions) and use it to strengthen the generalization?

If the existence of a man who doesn't want to fuck around shatters (by which I assume you mean, renders useless?) the generalization that men aren't interested in monogamy, then surely the admission that not all Scorpios (or whatever) can't disengage the sexual and the emotional also "shatters" that generalization.

Thank you for these words, Laura. They speak to me as well, even though I'm naturally a nearly puritanical, monogamy-minded heterosexual with no sexual experience whatsoever. I suppose the thing I have a problem with is the whole heterosexuality bit. Because I'm terribly inexperienced with dealing with the opposite sex, it's also in my nature to automatically see the worst possible conclusions to mysteries in my social life, and the only people IRL who've shown themselves to be lovely and wonderful to me are females, I sometimes feel that it would be far easier for me to be a lesbian and endure the whispers of certain members of my family (who are probably gossiping about me right now anyway) than to remain a heterosexual and endure a dried-up, no-relationship-ever life. But alas, one cannot change sexual orientations in the same manner as one would change wardrobes, and so I suppose we have to deal with what we're born with, come to terms with it, and try to make the best of it. The last one will remain My Big Mystery for a long time, I feel.

*ahem* So, anyway -- be free to be who you are inside? Makes sense to me.

Dee, try not to see things like that. I know it's hard, but there is nowt wrong in living your life (as you want to) until you come across someone that makes you feel special. Who says that lesbians have an easier time? There are as many disreputable people in our own sex, as in men.

I shouldnt have started this thread since i dont have either of the two right now anyway!

FWB = what you have in common with them is primarily not sex. See under: friend you've woken up with a few times & realized that nobody's brain has exploded as a result.

Both of these assume that you don't want to, like, date each other, i.e. you can't make the assumption that you'll be getting together next Friday night.

The Dude, perhaps?

Actually, there's an odd thing which has happened with myself and two different (former) FB's. In both cases, they ended-up getting involved with someone else and yet continued to see me, seemingly going on the theory that because it was 'just sex' then it wasn't cheating, especially in early stages of the relationship.

I wonder if some people feel more comfortable being free about their sexual desires and interests with FBs, because there is not a shame factor that might arise with with a FWB?

absolutely positively OTM (and for FWB also read Partner)

Perhaps worthwhile, but difficult.

Also, all relationships are complex and difficult at times ... don't think that somehow lesbians have either easier relationships (compared to heterosexual relationships) or that lesbians or women are in any sense better or easier to get along with. It's a matter of the individuals involved, not the labels. Here's one for you: I have spent most of my life identifying as being pansexual (in that I am attracted to the person, not their gender, or that I am attracted to people along the gender line, from masculine to feminine to androgynous to gender bending and cross dressing and transgendered people). However, even as a pansexual, most of my sexual and emotional attraction/desires/fantasies have been directed toward females, or transgenders female to male or male to female. And yet I have somehow ended-up not only in a relationship with two males, but a third person that I am falling for is also male. Just don't pigeon-hole yourself by the labels, as you're human are are therefore constantly evolving, and you don't need to be restricted by the stringent guidelines of the labels. (And my apologies if this comes across as being preachy.)

Chris ... why depressing?

Chris, I think I understand what you're saying. I wish that I had some comforting words, but they all sound kinda trite in my mind right now.

17 July 2009: LONDON: - www.My-Fbuddy.co.uk, the web site for individuals looking for ‘no strings fun’, has today applied to register ‘National FB Day’ on 31 July with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

A formal request was lodged today and was the brainchild of My-Fbuddy.co.uk founder Andy Hammonds. Andy comments, “In the current environment of doom and gloom many people are looking for no strings fun to perk themselves up. The recession means people are going out less. National FB day and My-Fbuddy.co.uk will make staying in that much more enjoyable.”

Hammonds continues, “Thousands of men and women use My-Fbuddy.co.uk each week for no strings fun. Demand has been so overwhelming that a National Day, like St George’s Day but with a little more fun (and a little less clothing) seemed the next logical step.”

Andy is quite insistent that FB doesn’t stand for FaceBook. Nor does it stand for Frivolities Barred, Fries and Burgers or Frank Bruno. While he won’t reveal what FB stands for, he assures the public that it is really quite exciting.

My-Fbuddy.co.uk has contacted the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and has applied to formally register National FB Day on 31 July. The last day in July was chosen by Andy Hammonds as, “The sun - a natural aphrodisiac - is shining, skirts get shorter and Summer lunch time drinking becomes commonplace.”
- ends -

Good work boasting about using up government time and resources to have them process your hilarious PR stunt application, I for one am endeared to My-Fbuddy.co.uk founder Andy Hammonds as a result

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/15/friends.benefits.stds/index.html?hpt=T2

this is a pretty harsh opening line

When Jennifer Nicholas sees television shows or movies, she cringes, because that's how she got herpes.

That's a fuckin weird way to get herpes

bwahahaha

note to self: never cringe again

or is it watch tv shows or movies? hmm

wow i never realised you can't use protection with yr fuckbuddy. there's a lesson in there for all of us.

I'm at the doctor's office and it was, 'Surprise! You've got herpes.' "

Cilla's a doctor?

just roared out by the nurse in the waiting room ftw

Ok, it's obvious to me now: Watching CNN causes herpes.

Cilla's a doctor?

Surprise, surprise!
The herpes hits you,
right between the eyes!

We are actually taught in med school that it makes the diagnosis of an STD more fun for the patient if you come in with a big smile on your face and then go "Surprise! Your genitals are infected!" Some of the more modern offices will also have a button you can press that drops balloons and confetti.

Most people go the opposite way with HIV diagnoses, though, you know, just to be safe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2XEJOFgBUk&feature=related

When Jennifer Nicholas sees television shows or movies, she cringes, because that's how she got herpes.

That's a fuckin weird way to get herpes

― Mr. Que, Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:19 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eats shoots and herpes

comments thread hall of fame

Flabious Freinds with Benifits? How about Fiends with Diseases
Really just Selfish indulgent individuals with Consequences.
a non romanitc Relationship used to be called a plutonic relationship.
15 minutes ago | Like | Report abuse

Plutonic relationships? Is that a relationship in outer space? Is it a relationship with cartoon dogs?

u r wonderful for that

relationship with plutonium, obvs.

well don't be surprised when your nethers come up all umpy then

'lumpy'

'grumpy'

lumpy, grumpy and flabious

nothing worse than umpy balls!

Umpy balls? Is that what you get when you have an umpire as a fuckbuddy?

Umpy Balls the opposite of blue balls - it's when by all rights you ought to strike out but the strike zone seems to have widened

Oh, it's a real term then.

erm, as real as you want it to be...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=umpy

*stares up in the air as she realizes that yet another reference has soared over her head*

^^^ outta the strike zone, ball 1