Society, we need to talk
For questions and discussions relating to all aspects and kinds of relationships, from love and dating to friends, family and work. Threads about sexuality also belong here.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 21-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- TSR Idol
- Location: Solihull
- Posts: 9,155
Society, we need to talkSo glad you could make it - have a seat.
We need to talk about the expression "F*** buddy" because it makes me sad. I feel like we should have a more mature expression for arrangements that involve regular sex without a serious romantic relationship, or we end up linguistically tying ourselves to the idea that there's something crude about sex outside of relationships. Casual sex in its often dramatically less responsible form of a single sexual encounter where the partners know very little about each other gets the more respectable name of a "One night stand". For regular casual sex between people who know each other as friends, I feel that we should have something a bit less silly to denote an entirely responsible and adult arrangement.
So what are your thoughts? Do you like the term, or do you agree that it's pretty weak. What would you suggest in its place? And to ask maybe the deeper question associated with this, do you feel that casual sex between friends is immature or not? If so, why? -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,113
Re: Society, we need to talkThe name is crap I'll agree.(Original post by Chumbaniya)
So glad you could make it - have a seat.
We need to talk about the expression "F*** buddy" because it makes me sad. I feel like we should have a more mature expression for arrangements that involve regular sex without a serious romantic relationship, or we end up linguistically tying ourselves to the idea that there's something crude about sex outside of relationships. Casual sex in its often dramatically less responsible form of a single sexual encounter where the partners know very little about each other gets the more respectable name of a "One night stand". For regular casual sex between people who know each other as friends, I feel that we should have something a bit less silly to denote an entirely responsible and adult arrangement.
So what are your thoughts? Do you like the term, or do you agree that it's pretty weak. What would you suggest in its place? And to ask maybe the deeper question associated with this, do you feel that casual sex between friends is immature or not? If so, why?
The concept itself is sometimes the only way. This is a consequence of how much our generation struggles with relationships. -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 160
Re: Society, we need to talkMutually unwaged prostitution?
I don't know - 'f buddies' rather captures the essence of the arrangement in the most concise way possible. Do we want to go down the slightly euphemistic 'friends who have sex with friends' line? I don't see why the f word has to make it crude per se; it's more that it conveys the unromantic and emotionless nature. It is quite literally sex, pure and simple, without anything else in the mix.
Indeed, I don't think there's any particularly favourable way to sugarcoat things. F buddy is an entirely different arrangement to casual sex (at least in my own mind, casual sex implies the ONS approach, while f buddies have more of an agreement -> repeat business). It's exactly what is says on the tin and doesn't need to be sexed up (if you'll excuse the pun).
It's just two people sorting out their sexual needs without the complications of a relationship (which supposedly is a win-win if you aren't ready to settle down). It sounds great on paper.
In reality, one party often invests themselves too heavily emotionally, or can end up feeling used, and it can get quite messy on that level. Separating ideas like affection and love from sex can be very difficult.
If it's an existing friend, don't expect the relationship to continue. Friends with benefits is the misnomer if anything, because a friendship does not last something like this in most cases.
If two people want to have sex, then they can have sex. My own traditional views on relationships cannot perhaps reconcile the notion of such a thing in my own life ... but that does not mean I have any right to judge or prevent others. As long as it's consensual and everyone is on the right page, what's wrong with it?
I do feel that it has become fashionable in recent years. It seems like most people have at least been approached for an arrangement of this sort. It's as if relationships are old fashioned, reserved for the aged twenty-something who has finally decided to settle down, rather than being a meaningful commitment. That makes me despair somewhat. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: London
Re: Society, we need to talkWhat's crude about it though? It's a valid representation of the relationship.(Original post by Chumbaniya)
We need to talk about the expression "F*** buddy" because it makes me sad. I feel like we should have a more mature expression for arrangements that involve regular sex without a serious romantic relationship, or we end up linguistically tying ourselves to the idea that there's something crude about sex outside of relationships.
The name may be more respectable, the connotation is, however, similarly "cheap" or "crude".(Original post by Chumbaniya)
Casual sex in its often dramatically less responsible form of a single sexual encounter where the partners know very little about each other gets the more respectable name of a "One night stand".
FWB. It's rarely a responsible or adult arrangement though, let's be real..(Original post by Chumbaniya)
For regular casual sex between people who know each other as friends, I feel that we should have something a bit less silly to denote an entirely responsible and adult arrangement.
Don't care, don't know.(Original post by Chumbaniya)
Do you like the term, or do you agree that it's pretty weak. What would you suggest in its place?
Depends. The dynamics can be very different depending on the people. Massive generalisations ahoy:(Original post by Chumbaniya)
And to ask maybe the deeper question associated with this, do you feel that casual sex between friends is immature or not? If so, why?
<22: immature, doing it because it's "cool", largely unaware of the inevitable emotional impact, incredibly likely to have a massive power imbalance in favour of the male, likely to end badly.
>22, <28: not so immature, more aware of emotional ties/boundaries, more likely to be responsible, power imbalance still in male favour and nonetheless 80% likely to end badly.
>28: peeps got commitment issues. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- TSR Idol
- Location: Solihull
- Posts: 9,155
Re: Society, we need to talkHuge mental blank resulted in me overlooking this(Original post by RedDevilThing)
I believe 'friends with benefits' is the term you're looking for.
It's surprisingly rare that I see it used at the moment, though - particularly amongst people talking about thing they perceive other people to be doing but can't get in on themselves, which may or may not be significant.
EDIT: Forgot to mention on this point that it feels a bit soft and euphemistic.
What leads you to believe this? I'm not convinced that a relationship involving a lesser emotional commitment is likely to be less mature - in fact I think it's a pretty mature move for a person to be clear about wanting a physical relationship without the romantic baggage that goes with it, especially when the alternative is committing to a relationship you don't want for the sake of sex.(Original post by alawhisp)
FWB. It's rarely a responsible or adult arrangement though, let's be real..
I feel like there are some assumptions here which need questioning. On the under 22 case, I'm not convinced that young people in serious relationships are typically and more considerate, and there's actually more potential for having a negative emotional impact on people in a serious relationship. If you want to generalise people under a certain age as less mature I think that's probably fair, but I'm not aware of any reason why those in more casual sexual arrangements would be more prone to being inconsiderate than those in relationships - in fact, making it clear that a sexual relationship isn't serious or committed is possibly a very good safeguard against excessive emotional damage.Depends. The dynamics can be very different depending on the people. Massive generalisations ahoy:
<22: immature, doing it because it's "cool", largely unaware of the inevitable emotional impact, incredibly likely to have a massive power imbalance in favour of the male, likely to end badly.
>22, <28: not so immature, more aware of emotional ties/boundaries, more likely to be responsible, power imbalance still in male favour and nonetheless 80% likely to end badly.
>28: peeps got commitment issues.
Your over 28 case seems to work on the assumption that everyone should want to settle down. This of course isn't the case, and lives which do not involve a long-term, romantic, monogamous partnership (or the pursuit thereof) are no less valid than those which do.Last edited by Chumbaniya; 01-06-2012 at 03:08. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: Scotland
Re: Society, we need to talkPeople have to know what they're getting into when they get involved with someone sexually. They shouldn't expect anything more serious but people can easily fall into the trap of developing feelings for someone who won't reciprocate.
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: London
Re: Society, we need to talkIt's not necessarily to do with maturity. It's to do with setting boundaries, mutual expectations and emotional limits. That is not something that many "young" (in mind, not age) people are able to do. You only need to do a quick search of this forum to see how many people end up in these casual arrangements without being remotely responsible about it. I don't see, however, what is mature about wanting a physical relationship without romantic baggage. It's just sex. There is nothing mature about wanting that. It's natural.(Original post by Chumbaniya)
What leads you to believe this? I'm not convinced that a relationship involving a lesser emotional commitment is likely to be less mature - in fact I think it's a pretty mature move for a person to be clear about wanting a physical relationship without the romantic baggage that goes with it, especially when the alternative is committing to a relationship you don't want for the sake of sex.
You do know that I said "massive generalisations", right?(Original post by Chumbaniya)
I feel like there are some assumptions here which need questioning. On the under 22 case, I'm not convinced that young people in serious relationships are typically and more considerate, and there's actually more potential for having a negative emotional impact on people in a serious relationship. If you want to generalise people under a certain age as less mature I think that's probably fair, but I'm not aware of any reason why those in more casual sexual arrangements would be more prone to being inconsiderate than those in relationships - in fact, making it clear that a sexual relationship isn't serious or committed is possibly a very good safeguard against excessive emotional damage.
I'm not comparing **** buddy situations with romantic relationships, so I wouldn't question whether or not young people are more or less considerate when romantically involved. Of course serious relationships can have very negative repercussions. That wasn't really the point of the topic, though - it was about casual hook-ups.
Again, it's not about people in casual arrangements being more or less inconsiderate than those in relationships. It's about young people blindly waltzing into a situation they are not emotionally equipped to deal with.
Oh, come on.. As if stating it isn't committed will prevent an emotional attachment from happening..(Original post by Chumbaniya)
in fact, making it clear that a sexual relationship isn't serious or committed is possibly a very good safeguard against excessive emotional damage.
Regular sex for women with the same partner results in emotional attachment - that is biological and it's usually only "damaged" people that are the exceptions to the rule. As a general rule, men who expect young girls to repeatedly have sex with them, without them ending up attached, have willfully got the blinkers on.
Naturally, and I didn't denigrate people who don't want relationships. It's still a valid point as a generalisation though, as settling down is the norm.(Original post by Chumbaniya)
Your over 28 case seems to work on the assumption that everyone should want to settle down. This of course isn't the case, and lives which do not involve a long-term, romantic, monogamous partnership (or the pursuit thereof) are no less valid than those which do. -
- Reputation:
- Balanced Life Practitioner
Re: Society, we need to talkWell yeah it may not prevent an emotional attachment, but it's much better to get it out in the open in the beginning. Later on, the girl will end up saying that the guy only used her for sex, if he never stated that he didn't want a relationship.
Nothing wrong with casual sex/friends with benefits imo. I find it amazing that people think they're 'better' or more 'pure' than another because they only have sex within relationships and/or marriage. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: London
Re: Society, we need to talkOf course - a girl that walks into that arrangement and then expects sympathy later won't be getting any from me. I do believe in both parties taking responsibility, however, which they rarely want to do. A girl should not expect that her vagina is magical enough to change his mind, and a boy should not expect that she is going to be happy to just be there for sex long-term.(Original post by Spontogical)
Well yeah it may not prevent an emotional attachment, but it's much better to get it out in the open in the beginning. Later on, the girl will end up saying that the guy only used her for sex, if he never stated that he didn't want a relationship.
No, there is nothing wrong with these arrangements. I recognise I may come across as anti-casual, but I am not - I am merely anti-irresponsibility.(Original post by Spontogical)
Nothing wrong with casual sex/friends with benefits imo. I find it amazing that people think they're 'better' or more 'pure' than another because they only have sex within relationships and/or marriage.
It's surprisingly rare that I see it used at the moment, though - particularly amongst people talking about thing they perceive other people to be doing but can't get in on themselves, which may or may not be significant.
