FWB???

[quiet bear]

Ok, this was sprung on me today at work. We just hired about 1/2 dozen people, and I was training this guy on driving a fork truck. So, his cell phone rings (which annoyed me no end to begin with), and he went to answer it, and I told him they weren't permitted in the warehouse. So, he looks at it and says "Oh, it's just my fwib, anyway"

So, of course, I ask him, what's a fwib?

He says it's his 'Friend with benefits".

So, of course, my first thought is, it's some sort of insurance person or something, so I ask him what kind of benefits he's getting. He just starts laughing. Then he explains:

A friend with benefits is a person of the opposite sex, (or the same sex, if that's your preference), that you don't have a romantic relationship with, but you know is safe and you have sex with when you aren't in a relationship with anyone.

Has anyone else ever had one of these relationships, or even heard of them? I mean, I'm not knocking it, but I guess I really don't know what to make of it. The fact that it has an actual name is kind of weird, I guess.

I mean, personally, I've never had a friend with benefits. I guess it has it's merits, i.e., the safeness of being with someone you know.

Any thoughts on this? Good or bad points?

[Joe]

I've heard of it. I guess it's a fall back plan when you want some ass but aren't in a relationship. People are going to have sex...so I guess this doesn't surprise me.

[Sweetie]

My one friend calls them "bed buddies."

The problem is, she had a bed buddy, and it was a few years in duration, they just got together to sleep with each other when they had no one else. She claims it's completely platonic, just a pleasure thing.

Problem is, last time I saw her, her bed buddy found someone.

This......girl who claimed it was so simple, easy, said things that made it sound like that was just fine, yet behaved the complete opposite. She was depressed by it, sounded like she was a bit shell shocked. I feel bad for her, but find it amusing at the very least, that she wants to claim ease when in reality, there is none, she's deeply affected. She can pretend all she wants, I'm not buying.

People are different, I just think that it's not so easy to stay unattached to the other person after it goes on for a longer time, and especially for the women, if it's enjoyable.

I had one relationship, non-sexual, but which followed an interesting pattern. At first we were more personal, less intimate as far as just the idea of intimacy/closeness. As it progressed and became more involved, we were less personal, more intimate, because we were trying to supress the emergence of feelings we hadn't wanted to have, and weren't supposed to be there, while not having to lose each other in the process.

What happened was that we lost everything, and that's unfortunate. Sex can complicate things with friends, and often does. Someone can try to make me believe that it doesn't, this is the new age, things are different. Nah, psychology and biology are still the same. :shrug: There may be a few oddballs out there, however.

[beyelzu]

sometimes people tell stories to illustrate a point, you know like fucking aesop or some shit. only aesop well he made his characters animals and whatnot so you would know its a fucking parable. i think some people who use this literary device are either fucking liars or should mention that they use such a literary device.

and the term that was popular was fuckbuddy.

[Tanda]

:wow:

[pescifish]

Here's a thread with a similar question: Is there any such thing as NSA sex? (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=245574#post245574)

[Joe]

I guess it's different strokes for different folks once again.

But, as was said, sex does complicate everything. I really don't believe that I buy into the whole "sex with no strings attached" line.

I do not think one can seperate the biology of sex from the psychology of sex.

Just my opinion.

[Ensign Steve]

Here's a thread with a similar question: Is there any such thing as NSA sex? (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=245574#post245574)
Similar, yeah, but different. I mentioned a long-term NSA sex partner in that thread, but when I think of FWB or fuckbuddies, an entirely different person (okay, couple of people) come to mind. :giggle:

[D. Scarlatti]

I thought NSA sex had something to do with removing the tampon.

[Joe]

I thought NSA sex had something to do with removing the tampon.

:rofl:

[chick]

A friend with benefits is a person of the opposite sex, (or the same sex, if that's your preference), that you don't have a romantic relationship with, but you know is safe and you have sex with when you aren't in a relationship with anyone.

Has anyone else ever had one of these relationships, or even heard of them? I mean, I'm not knocking it, but I guess I really don't know what to make of it. The fact that it has an actual name is kind of weird, I guess.

I mean, personally, I've never had a friend with benefits. I guess it has it's merits, i.e., the safeness of being with someone you know.

Any thoughts on this? Good or bad points?
I've never heard a person pronounce "fwib" before, but I've used the term "body buddy" to describe my own such past relationships. (That was in the 1990s, isn't it lovely how language evolves).

It was always fun to have an ex on the side, or a friend from town, someone to just fuck with no strings attached. It's not that big a deal.

[Ensign Steve]

Oh yeah, ex sex is awesome. :yup:

[Joe]

Hmmmm...I wonder what the odds are of me getting a little ex sex? :blowme:

Hey Tan, you can join in...I mean...that would only be fair and all! lol

[Tanda]

Hmmmm...I wonder what the odds are of me getting a little ex sex? :blowme:

Hey Tan, you can join in...I mean...that would only be fair and all! lol

:whup: Hey, Mister...

[Joe]

Hmmmm...I wonder what the odds are of me getting a little ex sex? :blowme:

Hey Tan, you can join in...I mean...that would only be fair and all! lol

:whup: Hey, Mister...

Oh yeah! Use the paddle baby!

[Nightson]

Had one for almost ten months till she got a boyfriend.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/Night_son/Picture074.jpg

If this relationship goes the way of her past ones, I've got about three more months before I get benefits again. :D

[IRON MAN]

I am straight down the line monogamous. I only want one woman - end of story, and I am not interested in fucking around with the rest of the population, before, during or after.

That means in my mind, every other woman in the world, (except the one I am interested in), is a potential friend at best.

I like having female friends, and I really mean it when I say that's all they are.

The most trouble I have with that is getting it through their thick heads that I'm 100% serious about what I say.

I've had to ditch a few for stepping over the line, and I've had some that just gave me a uneasy feeling about the whole thing, but on the upside I've had and have some real top notch chicks in my life and wouldn't fuck that up for anything.

What's better, is that it didn't take my wife long to figure out what kind of man I was, so we knew we could all hang out and have a good time without her wondering if I was playing footsies under the table with one of my "friends".

That's one of those good things in life you just can't buy.

[pescifish]

Similar, yeah, but different. I mentioned a long-term NSA sex partner in that thread, but when I think of FWB or fuckbuddies, an entirely different person (okay, couple of people) come to mind. Oh yeah! I should have made that clear -- they are different, as far as I think of them.

I just figured quiet bear might like to add another acronym to his sexual alphabet soup repertoire.

[pescifish]

I thought NSA sex had something to do with removing the tampon.It's really much harder to remove them when they are NSA. :stalling:

[livius drusus]

:gooduse:

[yguy]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/Night_son/Picture074.jpg

Is it just me, or does she look hungry? :)

[Artemis Entreri]

I like having female friends, and I really mean it when I say that's all they are.

The most trouble I have with that is getting it through their thick heads that I'm 100% serious about what I say.

Sometimes the harder it is for them to get you the more they want you. Some women must really like a challenge. My best friend seems to have this pattern with women, he just want's to be friends and they are soon throwing themselves at him. He actually told a couple of girls that he was gay... it doesn't work... or maybe it does :chin: , since he eventually ends up with them.

[IRON MAN]

Sometimes the harder it is for them to get you the more they want you. Some women must really like a challenge. My best friend seems to have this pattern with women, he just want's to be friends and they are soon throwing themselves at him. He actually told a couple of girls that he was gay... it doesn't work... or maybe it does :chin: , since he eventually ends up with them.

I think part of the problem is they also get to know for a fact that I am 100% loyal, which is just the kind of man some of them are after, (or the opposite of the kind of man they are sick of), which in turn makes me more attractive to them.

The irony of course is that if they could have me that would disprove my loyalty in the first place. But I don't think that immediately matters on some emotional level.

[IRON MAN]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/Night_son/Picture074.jpg

Is it just me, or does she look hungry? :)

:chuckle:

I'm hoping that as her friend, you also have leave to talk to her seriously about her fashion sense. Or is that different with a FWB?

[BDS]

[QUOTE=yguy]

I'm hoping that as her friend, you also have leave to talk to her seriously about her fashion sense. Or is that different with a FWB?

Based on his advice about topics of conversation, we can assume that IRON MAN is gay.

I always had my suspicions about billionaire industrialist Tony Stark.

[RevDahlia]

I like the idea of a FWB, but I know I'm too chemically monogamous to ever pull it off. Different strokes, again.

[IRON MAN]

[QUOTE=yguy]

I'm hoping that as her friend, you also have leave to talk to her seriously about her fashion sense. Or is that different with a FWB?

Based on his advice about topics of conversation, we can assume that IRON MAN is gay.

I always had my suspicions about billionaire industrialist Tony Stark.

Well if that's the kind of reaction I get here, I'm sure as hell not going to post the comment I was writing in Ensign Steve's thread about that broadway show. :hahano:

[Ensign Steve]

:darn:

[IRON MAN]

Don't worry Steve you aren't missing anything, I was just going to drivel on about how the The Man Of La Mancha is my favourite musical, and I was going to open by saying that I must be the only heterosexual man who actually likes musicals.

But Watser made an unfavourable connection to Don Quixote just a short time ago in another thread, and so much for the heterosexual line.

Either way, you can't win with these people. If you don't like stuff that gays like you're a homophobe, (or gay in denial), and if you do you're gay. :rolleyes:


Golden helmet of Mambrino There can be no helm like thee Thou and I now Ere I die now Will make golden history
:singing:

[Ensign Steve]

Wow, that really is gay. I think you made the right choice not to post it.


Oh, wait.

[Joe]

I like the idea of a FWB, but I know I'm too chemically monogamous to ever pull it off. Different strokes, again.

You like the idea of a FWB, but won't try it. That's pretty interesting. Is it because you're afraid you'll get caught? Or afraid you'll have guilt? Or none of the above? Just wondering.

[sentinel00]

I have trouble making friends in the first place. Getting one with benefits would just be... way too expensive.

[IRON MAN]

You like the idea of a FWB, but won't try it. That's pretty interesting. Is it because you're afraid you'll get caught? Or afraid you'll have guilt? Or none of the above? Just wondering.

I think Nietzsche was right, Christianity really has infected the entire concept of morality.

People always seem to think this kind of thing must be a moral choice, (or moral judgement against those who don't feel the same), rather than a simple personal preference.

I'm can't speak for RevD, but I'm not sitting at home resisting any urges, hard as that is for anyone who feels differently to believe.

It's yet another false dichotomy that says all humans are 'this' or all humans are 'that', (thus any deviation by an individual must be 'abnormal' behaviour).


And Steve, you go to hell! You go to hell and you die! :shakefist:

[quiet bear]

I never thought about the moral aspect of it. I just learned of FWBs a few days ago. LOL.

I don't know. Is it immoral? I mean, people have sex all the time, don't they? Is that immoral? Whether you're in a monogamous relationship or not, is the act of sex with someone you're not 'married' to immoral?

I'm just thinking out loud.

[RevDahlia]

I like the idea of a FWB, but I know I'm too chemically monogamous to ever pull it off. Different strokes, again.

You like the idea of a FWB, but won't try it. That's pretty interesting. Is it because you're afraid you'll get caught? Or afraid you'll have guilt? Or none of the above? Just wondering.
I can't believe I'm about to quote IRON MAN here... :P
People always seem to think this kind of thing must be a moral choice, (or moral judgement against those who don't feel the same), rather than a simple personal preference.
Exactamundo. It's a preference thing. I am rigged, for lack of a better term, for monogamy. I'm happiest in a one-on-one relationship. That's just the way I am. I fully accept that other people may have an easier, more fulfilling time in an open relationship, or a relationship with malleable, transparent edges, or no relationship at all except for fucking, but I've tried it and it is not for me.

No disrespect to those who have such relationships and are happy, of course. I just want my lover's complete attention -- and, if they're willing to throw in with me, they will enjoy the same and much more. I am a badass, awesome romantic partner -- the Lara Croft of girlfriends. But if it ain't all about me and you, I'm not going there. I don't have the time to deal with more than one person's drama.

[quiet bear]

I don't really know how I feel about it, I guess. I'm fairly certain the person I'd have that sort of relationship with would have to be on the same spiritual plane with me, or at the very least, in the vicinity. A spiritual person.

[viscousmemories]

Either way, you can't win with these people. If you don't like stuff that gays like you're a homophobe, (or gay in denial), and if you do you're gay. :rolleyes:
Who people? BDS is the one who called you gay, and either he was demonstrating his characteristically sardonic wit or doesn't realize that his near constant quoting of Jane Austen makes it impossible for his judgement on the matter to be taken seriously.

Besides, I love musicals and I'm all about the ladies. :pimpin:

[Joe]

I think Nietzsche was right, Christianity really has infected the entire concept of morality.

People always seem to think this kind of thing must be a moral choice, (or moral judgement against those who don't feel the same), rather than a simple personal preference.

I'm can't speak for RevD, but I'm not sitting at home resisting any urges, hard as that is for anyone who feels differently to believe.

It's yet another false dichotomy that says all humans are 'this' or all humans are 'that', (thus any deviation by an individual must be 'abnormal' behaviour).


I'm no fan of Nietzsche's...so I won't comment on his opinions (and thus derail the thread). But, overall, I totally agree with your post.

I,too, think it is all about personal choice. I cringe when I hear people talk about "doing what's moral." Whenever I hear that I can not help but to wonder (if I may be permitted to bastardize Pilate) "What is morality?". It seems to me that morality is an ever changing concept. It's fluid and not a fixed law. Dare I say that it's really nothing more than society's situtational (or situated) ethics?

What's right for one may not be right for another and vice-versa. But, that does not mean one of is is right and the other is wrong. Just my opinion.

[Joe]

Exactamundo. It's a preference thing. I am rigged, for lack of a better term, for monogamy. I'm happiest in a one-on-one relationship. That's just the way I am. I fully accept that other people may have an easier, more fulfilling time in an open relationship, or a relationship with malleable, transparent edges, or no relationship at all except for fucking, but I've tried it and it is not for me.

Very good post; and I agree with it. But, may I play the Devil's Advocate for a second?

You say you like the idea of FWB, but yet are into monogamy (and I dare say that most people fit into that boat with you. I know I do). My question is this, what does this internal conflict have to say, if anything, about the concept of monogamy? Is it natural? Or a forced suppression of our basic and natural urges?

I am a badass, awesome romantic partner -- the Lara Croft of girlfriends.

Does that mean you'll wear the Lara Croft suit? 'Cause that could be hot! :giggle:

[Nightson]

Is it just me, or does she look hungry? :)

Well, i too he picture right before we had dinner ^.^ Lovely little seafood place overlooking the ocean. I won't comment on what I ate after that.

I'm hoping that as her friend, you also have leave to talk to her seriously about her fashion sense. Or is that different with a FWB?

Yeah we talk about fashion a lot as she's a model. Most of the time we hang out and watch movies or anime at my place.The difference between a normal friend and a friend with benefits is that with the former we just sit and watch te movie, with the latter we take half an hour or so and not watch the movie.

[sentinel00]

Exactamundo. It's a preference thing. I am rigged, for lack of a better term, for monogamy. I'm happiest in a one-on-one relationship. That's just the way I am. I fully accept that other people may have an easier, more fulfilling time in an open relationship, or a relationship with malleable, transparent edges, or no relationship at all except for fucking, but I've tried it and it is not for me.


Not to try to convince you of anything, but my experience with FWB relationships (i've never had one myself, but I'm talking about friends) is that either or both of the participants just don't have time/inclination for a serious relationship. Work, travel, just not in that place right now... whatever the reason, they are still monogamous but not in a romantic relationship.

So, the two aren't mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean that it's now for you, but I didn't see anybody address this about FWB's in this thread, so I thought I'd bring it up. Then blame you for it. :P

[Goldie]

Fuckbuddies (what I call them) and FWB...
I know people who have them. It works for some...not-so-well for others.
Personally, I could never have a fuckbuddy. I have to be in love, first. I've only ever had sex for the sake of sex once... and, it wasn't good because I felt emotionally bankrupt...
Of course, I haven't been around much...I've been married since I was 17... We celebrated our 25th in June! :holdhand:
But, I have friends who do such things, and after talking with them... I KNOW it's not for me. Still, if it works for them...it's all good, IMO. :)

[yguy]

People always seem to think this kind of thing must be a moral choice, (or moral judgement against those who don't feel the same), rather than a simple personal preference.

It is true that where there is no temptation, there is no morality...but what does "this kind of thing" include? For example, is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

[Artemis Entreri]

It is true that where there is no temptation, there is no morality...but what does "this kind of thing" include? For example, is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yguy, the title of this thread is "FWB???", not "WTF???"

[Tanda]

:laughcry:

[Adam]

It is true that where there is no temptation, there is no morality...but what does "this kind of thing" include? For example, is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yguy, the title of this thread is "FWB???", not "WTF???"

:roflcopt:

[yguy]

It is true that where there is no temptation, there is no morality...but what does "this kind of thing" include? For example, is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yguy, the title of this thread is "FWB???", not "WTF???"

So is that a yes or a no? :)

[Artemis Entreri]

Does having sex with you mother qualify as beasiality?

but seriously yguy... are you actually trying to morally equate casual sex and beastiallity?

[yguy]

Does having sex with you mother qualify as beasiality?

but seriously yguy... are you actually trying to morally equate casual sex and beastiallity?

No and no. Now are you going to answer the question or not?

[Watser?]

I like the idea of a FWB, but I know I'm too chemically monogamous to ever pull it off. Different strokes, again.

You like the idea of a FWB, but won't try it. That's pretty interesting. Is it because you're afraid you'll get caught? Or afraid you'll have guilt? Or none of the above? Just wondering.
I can't believe I'm about to quote IRON MAN here... :P
People always seem to think this kind of thing must be a moral choice, (or moral judgement against those who don't feel the same), rather than a simple personal preference.
Hehehe, yeah...
But I totally agree, it is not a moral choice, if anything it is a matter of taste. People don't base their choice from the menu in the restaurant on morality either.

[yguy]

Does having sex with you mother qualify as beasiality?

but seriously yguy... are you actually trying to morally equate casual sex and beastiallity?

No and no. Now are you going to answer the question or not?

Guess not. :)

[BDS]

I take it back. IRON MAN is not gay. If "Man of La Mancha" is his favorite musical, he must not have seen many.

[Sweetie]

I think Nietzsche was right, Christianity really has infected the entire concept of morality.

Nup, it's secular morality that has infected the ability to understand Christian thought.

The idea is that the things that the Christian morality teaches are generally things that are good in their own right, and come with natural benefits, via natural law, in the same way that Plato could say that virtue is it's own reward, and vice it's own punishment. The moral law is not so much a command then, as it is a statement of reality.

Reference the Ten Commandments, for example. In at least eight out of ten of the laws, the average person agrees these are good things and will make for a better society, which might mean that a man or woman has to give up an immediate pleasure, for the sake of long term pleasure, in the sense of what is good for the community which they are a member of.

In the other two, we can just replace "though shall have no gods before me" with another virtue, which works almost as well, etc.

People always seem to think this kind of thing must be a moral choice, (or moral judgement against those who don't feel the same), rather than a simple personal preference.

The ultimate thing about casual sex is it's potential for harm to the community. Aids did not spread through people who only slept with their spouse. Babies are not created and generally discarded by people in a strong relationship, who value each other and put the other's needs above their own, and so on and so forth.

I'm just agreeing with you, but in a slightly different way. I want all of my children who will potentially be created, to have the solidity of a two-parent biological family unit to fall back on, and I want any man who gets me pregnant, to be a good father and to at least not dismiss me and the baby, therefore it's a preference to risk potential pregnancies, only in certain cases, therefore monogamy can be a preference, for that reason and that reason alone, a higher value to appeal to, so to speak.

I'm can't speak for RevD, but I'm not sitting at home resisting any urges, hard as that is for anyone who feels differently to believe.

I get the urge occasionally, but I'm like you in that I ultimately value what I have instead of a more immediate and momentary gratification. I think it generally happens to people when they grow up and mature and find something worth having.

I think some people only would have NSA sex with friends, when they can't find anyone else that really interests them, or when they are temporarily in a place where they need emotional distance, yet still want sex.

To me, a man who sleeps with me and doesn't want more is a man who says I'm not good enough for more, I don't attract them enough, and I'm merely something to pass the time with in between women who are good enough, and attractive enough.

I could never accept that. :shrug:

[Artemis Entreri]

Does having sex with you mother qualify as beasiality?

but seriously yguy... are you actually trying to morally equate casual sex and beastiallity?

No and no. Now are you going to answer the question or not?

Guess not. :)

Well I didn't initially say that there was no morallity in it and that it was just a personal choice. That was posted by someone else.
But I think that in the case of casual sex between friends it's mostly a personal choice. Morality is both a personal and a social thing. Morality is extremely varied from person to person but on a social level I think that something like "friends with benifits" is not a moral issue. It's something that one can choose to do or choose not to do. I would be more inclined to say it is a moral issue for someone when not only do they think that it is wrong for themselves but also it is wrong for anyone.
Things like beastiality are more moral issues because most people think that it is wrong under any circumstances. Now as for as per individual it could be a personal choice. But I tend to think not, because for someone to want to have sex with animals seems to be a more psychological compulsion than a choice. I think most sexuality is compulsive. I didn't choose to be attracted to women, I just am. Also there are certain types of women that appeal to me more than others, there are certain things I like to do during sex, and there are certain things I don't want to do during sex. I didn't really choose to have these preferences I just have them. They may be biologically ingrained or maybe psychological. It doesn't really matter, I'm happy with them so I'm not going to try to change them.
To make sure that what I just said isn't used against what I previously stated; I still believe that, for most people, casual sex is a choice. However, there are those who, either because of morals or because of compulsion, will never have a FWB or will always want casual sex.

[Artemis Entreri]

The ultimate thing about casual sex is it's potential for harm to the community. Aids did not spread through people who only slept with their spouse. Babies are not created and generally discarded by people in a strong relationship, who value each other and put the other's needs above their own, and so on and so forth.


Well casual sex does spread VD but when talking about FWB, I think most people in that type of relationship are faithful to it until they find someone else. It's really a way for highly-sexed people to have sexual pleasure without having sex with numerous people. Yeah you could say that that is a weakness and they should keep it in thier pants. Speaking from experience I can say that I can do both. If I have the chance to have a FWB I will most likely take it but if not then I'll hold my own :D rather than start looking for one-night-stands.

On the baby issue. If you're not bright enough to use proper protection then you're just as likely to get knocked up when in a real relationship that isn't ever going to last. Actually that situation seems to happen far too often.

[yguy]

Does having sex with you mother qualify as beasiality?

but seriously yguy... are you actually trying to morally equate casual sex and beastiallity?

No and no. Now are you going to answer the question or not?

Guess not. :)

Well ...

I see you still don't want to answer it. Too scary, huh?

[Artemis Entreri]

Well I guess I'm missing the question.
as the magic 8-ball says "Please Ask Again"

[Artemis Entreri]

People always seem to think this kind of thing must be a moral choice, (or moral judgement against those who don't feel the same), rather than a simple personal preference.

It is true that where there is no temptation, there is no morality...but what does "this kind of thing" include? For example, is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

If you are refering to this question then you'll see that you were asking Iron Man and not me. But I answered anyway. If you would read my post.

[yguy]

Well I guess I'm missing the question.
as the magic 8-ball says "Please Ask Again"

...is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yes or no, if you please. And then why.

[Artemis Entreri]

Well I guess I'm missing the question.
as the magic 8-ball says "Please Ask Again"

...is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yes or no, if you please. And then why.

No. You should read posts. dang
Here I'll pull out the related part of the post


Things like beastiality are more moral issues because most people think that it is wrong under any circumstances. Now as for as per individual it could be a personal choice. But I tend to think not, because for someone to want to have sex with animals seems to be a more psychological compulsion than a choice.

[yguy]

[QUOTE=Artemis Entreri]Well I guess I'm missing the question.
as the magic 8-ball says "Please Ask Again"

...is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yes or no, if you please. And then why.

No. You should read posts. dang
Here I'll pull out the related part of the post


...Now as for as per individual it could be a personal choice.

So when you said "No" above, you didn't really believe it.

But I tend to think not, because for someone to want to have sex with animals seems to be a more psychological compulsion than a choice.

The question, then, is how one recognizes the difference.

[Watser?]

Well I guess I'm missing the question.
as the magic 8-ball says "Please Ask Again"

...is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yes or no, if you please. And then why.

What is this obsession you have with sex?

[Artemis Entreri]

...Now as for as per individual it could be a personal choice.

So when you said "No" above, you didn't really believe it.
[/quote]
You assume too much. I said that it could be a choice, emphasis on could. But I don't believe that anyone would simply choose to, as I state in the next sentence.


But I tend to think not, because for someone to want to have sex with animals seems to be a more psychological compulsion than a choice.

The question, then, is how one recognizes the difference.

As I stated I really don't think that anyone would have sex with an animal out of choice, but I guess it could happen. I guess a person compelled to do it would do it over and over again.

[Artemis Entreri]

Well I guess I'm missing the question.
as the magic 8-ball says "Please Ask Again"

...is bestiality a "simple personal preference" in your view?

Yes or no, if you please. And then why.

What is this obsession you have with sex?

The better question is "What is this obsession he has with animal sex?"

[yguy]

So when you said "No" above, you didn't really believe it.

You assume too much. I said that it could be a choice, emphasis on could.

Yes, I'm aware that you equivocated. That's the point.

As I stated I really don't think that anyone would have sex with an animal out of choice, but I guess it could happen.

So in your opinion, are the choice to go skiing, for instance, and the choice to copulate with an animal qualitatively equivalent?

[Artemis Entreri]

No

[Tanda]

:slalom:

:giggle: This thread is getting more and more interesting.

[Joe]

:slalom:

:giggle: This thread is getting more and more interesting.

Or more and more disturbing. :eek:

[Sweetie]

Well casual sex does spread VD but when talking about FWB, I think most people in that type of relationship are faithful to it until they find someone else.

Why would you say that, on what would you declare that, "most people are faithful to it until they find someone else." I think the very nature of the relationship and the very natures of those involved is that that's unlikely.

I also question the.....mental health of those involved, but that's another subject.

It's really a way for highly-sexed people to have sexual pleasure without having sex with numerous people.

I don't understand why "highly sexed" has to have anything to do with it either. :shrug: Perhaps you could tell me.

Yeah you could say that that is a weakness and they should keep it in thier pants.

Never said it was a weakness. :shrug:

Speaking from experience I can say that I can do both. If I have the chance to have a FWB I will most likely take it but if not then I'll hold my own :D rather than start looking for one-night-stands.

:shrug:

On the baby issue. If you're not bright enough to use proper protection then you're just as likely to get knocked up when in a real relationship that isn't ever going to last. Actually that situation seems to happen far too often.

I know of way too many pregnancies which occurred while women were on birth control so I'm not sure what planet you're on in reference to this. Condoms are not 100% effective, birth control is not 100% effective, especially when neither are used 100% effectively, which many times, they are not, so there are enough babies either slipping through the cracks or being aborted because of this, pregnancy is always a consideration, IMHO.

I call the potential for pregnancy one kick ass string, but then I guess I just don't understand the mentality of women who have abortion as an escape route, so to speak.

One person I know, her birth control pills simply weren't strong enough or something, for her specifically. When do you find that out? After you get pregnant. :shrug:

[yguy]

So in your opinion, are the choice to go skiing, for instance, and the choice to copulate with an animal qualitatively equivalent?
No

Why not?

[Artemis Entreri]

Why would you say that, on what would you declare that, "most people are faithful to it until they find someone else." I think the very nature of the relationship and the very natures of those involved is that that's unlikely.


Sure one of the two might sleep around without telling the other person but that can happen in a "normal relationship" as well. For me when I had a FWB we didn't sleep around, we didn't have to because we each had someone that we could have sex with when we desired. However we were not tied down to the relationship, If either of us met someone we wanted to start seeing then we put an end to the "benefits" part of our relationship. And that’s exactly what happened.

I don't understand why "highly sexed" has to have anything to do with it either. :shrug: Perhaps you could tell me.

I'm just thinking that the higher a persons sex drive the more likely they are to want to have sex frequently... actually i think that’s a pretty accurate statement. So I figure that that type of person would be more inclined to have a FWB. Just a thought, I could be wrong. :shrug:

Never said it was a weakness. :shrug:
I never said you, personally, did. :shrug: I was using the universal/indirect "you."

:shrug:
:shrug:

I know of way too many pregnancies which occurred while women were on birth control so I'm not sure what planet you're on in reference to this. Condoms are not 100% effective, birth control is not 100% effective, especially when neither are used 100% effectively, which many times, they are not, so there are enough babies either slipping through the cracks or being aborted because of this, pregnancy is always a consideration, IMHO.

I call the potential for pregnancy one kick ass string, but then I guess I just don't understand the mentality of women who have abortion as an escape route, so to speak.

One person I know, her birth control pills simply weren't strong enough or something, for her specifically. When do you find that out? After you get pregnant. :shrug:

I never said that birth control is 100% effective. That's a whole other topic. :shrug:
I was just stating that the chances of woman getting pregnant by her FWB is just as likely as getting pregnant in a serious relationship that won't work out. Actually, I'd give the FWB's that have a baby about the same odds for staying together and raising the child as a unmarried(at conception)but "in love" couple.
Of course the only real way to prevent unwanted pregnancy is abstinence.

[Artemis Entreri]

So in your opinion, are the choice to go skiing, for instance, and the choice to copulate with an animal qualitatively equivalent?
No

Why not?

You're kidding me.
Yguy, just get to your point, if you have one.

[Sweetie]

Sure one of the two might sleep around without telling the other person but that can happen in a "normal relationship" as well. For me when I had a FWB we didn't sleep around, we didn't have to because we each had someone that we could have sex with when we desired. However we were not tied down to the relationship, If either of us met someone we wanted to start seeing then we put an end to the "benefits" part of our relationship. And that’s exactlwhat happened.





I'm just thinking that the higher a persons sex drive the more likely they are to want to have sex frequently... actually i think that’s a pretty accurate statement. So I figure that that type of person would be more inclined to have a FWB. Just a thought, I could be wrong. :shrug:

Well, I just think during dry spells that whether you are highly sexed or not, has nothing to do with it, some people when they don't have any other options at the moment, just want some sex sometimes as opposed to needing to be highly sexed in order to try and seek out some of these relationships.

I think it's a pretty general thing.


I never said you, personally, did. :shrug: I was using the universal/indirect "you."

I just question whether or not it is a healthy activity, not whether it is a weakness.

It all depends what it stems from, for a male maybe fear of commitment, unattractiveness in that they don't have much other options, whether there remains respect, whether the friendships last afterwards, whether they were really friendships before, whether they are difficult to satisfy and why that may be, whether this, or that........:shrug:

I knew a guy who would sleep with his friends sometimes, and his ex occasionally and find it fantastic, because the passion came back again when he did that, but when he stayed with her, the passion wasn't always there so in my estimation what he did was jump from relationship to relationship for the sake of an emotional high, and stayed with none of them, because he was a sort of adrenaline junkie and this had a very specific and very bad root cause. He had no wish to work on any relationship, once it took any sort of work, he wanted to leave.

I just, wonder how many are like him.

I was just stating that the chances of woman getting pregnant by her FWB is just as likely as getting pregnant in a serious relationship that won't work out.

The intent and the desire is there, however and I think that makes enough of a difference, and certaintly, a lot of relationships fail, but they were relationships, as opposed to this pseudo-relationship which is just more about passing the time, then about anything else.

At least in a real relationship, there are other variables, and other potentialities and at least they are there for each other, as opposed to being there just for sex while they look for someone better or more attractive, or no one else because they suck at real relationships, or whatever other cause there could be.

My thought was, people in arrangements which involve love and the acknowledged intended commitment, even if temporary, who are acting out of love for each other in their intentions, whether romantically or sexually, are less likely to be....well whatever if the problem of pregnancy happened to crop up. They are not intentionally momentarily using each other in that way.

Actually, I'd give the FWB's that have a baby about the same odds for staying together and raising the child as a unmarried(at conception)but "in love" couple.
Of course the only real way to prevent unwanted pregnancy is abstinence.

And the only real way to ensure that any child you create will have at least a chance at stability is via monogamy, in marital or near marital relationships.

In other words, all the other behaviors are irresponsible, and in that sense, the reason why I brought it up in reference to Iron Man's assertion that some people simply prefer it, some people simply prefer responsible behavior which happens to generally be, monogamy.

[BDS]

And the only real way to ensure that any child you create will have at least a chance at stability is via monogamy, in marital or near marital relationships.

In other words, all the other behaviors are irresponsible, and in that sense, the reason why I brought it up in reference to Iron Man's assertion that some people simply prefer it, some people simply prefer responsible behavior which happens to generally be, monogamy.

This is not only incorrect, but highly prejudiced in favor of modern, Western cultural norms. Surely, for example, children can have “stability” in polygamous marriages, which, in fact, have been an accepted norm in most human societies since the beginning of time.

In addition, why can’t a single parent offer “stability”? Or two single parents? Whatever one thinks of the advantages or disadvantages of marriage when it comes to child rearing, there is no reason that a single parent (or two single parents co-parenting) cannot offer just as much “stability”.

I suppose ALL behaviors are irresponsible – inasmuch as all of them fall short of perfection. So what? All parents are less than perfect parents, and thus “irresponsible” in some way or another. Still, most of us muddle through as best we can, and the humans species, imperfect though it is, continues to thrive.

[Sweetie]

This is not only incorrect, but highly prejudiced in favor of modern, Western cultural norms. Surely, for example, children can have “stability” in polygamous marriages, which, in fact, have been an accepted norm in most human societies since the beginning of time.

Well geepers, I wasn't really looking in all directions to make a simple statement which merely implied that committed people, who engage in sexual activity less for recreation, and more as an activity that people do out of love, or out of loving pleasure of each other, or what have you.

Polygamy wasn't really in my range, sorry.

In addition, why can’t a single parent offer “stability”? Or two single parents? Whatever one thinks of the advantages or disadvantages of marriage when it comes to child rearing, there is no reason that a single parent (or two single parents co-parenting) cannot offer just as much “stability”.

Whatever BDS. I really don't want to disassemble the idea of stability at the moment, or my intended meaning and usage, and my intended thought.

I suppose ALL behaviors are irresponsible – inasmuch as all of them fall short of perfection. So what? All parents are less than perfect parents, and thus “irresponsible” in some way or another. Still, most of us muddle through as best we can, and the humans species, imperfect though it is, continues to thrive.

There is a question of intent. Do you wake up in the morning and say, "oh, I want to have children, and I want them to have a mother who is never around, and I want them to just have me, and I think that will be great for them?"

No, accidents do happen between people who had intended good things and we make do. The problem is, in FWB relationships, it is irresponsible in that it doesn't even allow for the potential of intended good things when bringing the idea of children or the potential for pregnancy to mind, it's an arrangement for sex, and nothing else. No strings, especially no babies, I would think, and no relationship, and no admitted love, love intentions, or what have you. Very much like one or two night stands.

Do you intentionally risk pregancy with a woman who is addicted to drugs? If you do, that's irresponsible behavior. It may be behavior we deal with once things occur, it may be behavior that has consequences that we try to fix and sometimes good things can happen, but it is most definately irresponsible behavior.

[BDS]

I cannot agree that all behaviors that MIGHT have outcomes we don’t desire are “irresponsible”. If we drive a car, we might kill somebody. Is driving “irresponsible”?

Your position is very close to the notion that we should ONLY have sex for the purpose of procreation. If a married couple wants to wait 5 years to have kids, because they don’t think they are in the financial position to properly support them now, are they “irresponsible” if they have protected sex? Is it “irresponsible” for impoverished Third Worlders to have sex at all, because their children may not be perfectly cared for?

There are risks to many behaviors. But we cannot infer that all behavior entailing risk is “irresponsible”. Nor can we assume that having sex with someone to whom one is not married is “irresponsible”. What is “irresponsible” is failing to give proper care to your child, once he is born.

[yguy]

So in your opinion, are the choice to go skiing, for instance, and the choice to copulate with an animal qualitatively equivalent?
No

Why not?

You're kidding me.

It's an unreasonable question?

Yguy, just get to your point, if you have one.

I don't, yet. I'm just gathering information.

[Artemis Entreri]

So in your opinion, are the choice to go skiing, for instance, and the choice to copulate with an animal qualitatively equivalent?

On what level? These two things have no common ground other than them being two actions that could be attempted by a person. It's like asking if choosing to play cards is equivalent to choosing to take a shit on your neighbors lawn. I am simply going to state that they are not equivalent. If you can show any equivalence between them, then we can argue that.

Yguy, just get to your point, if you have one.
I don't, yet. I'm just gathering information.

I'm tired of answering pointless questions.

[yguy]

If you can show any equivalence between them, then we can argue that.

I don't think they're equivalent. I want to know why you think they're not.

[Artemis Entreri]

Because
These two things have no common ground other than them being two actions that could be attempted by a person.
I do not see them as being equal in any way other than that. Therefore I don't think they are equivalent. I don't see all choices as equal simply because they are choices. Are apples equal to oranges simply because they are both fruit?

Don't bother me with any more questions unless you have a point.
It's getting annoying

[yguy]

Are apples equal to oranges simply because they are both fruit?

I would say that your average apple and orange do not differ in any way that matters to the average person. OTOH, two oranges of the same size and variety differ in a way that matters if one of them is laced with strychnine.

The question, then, is: how do skiing and copulating with an animal differ in a way that matters?

Don't bother me with any more questions unless you have a point.
It's getting annoying

Is somebody making you answer them?

[Sweetie]

I cannot agree that all behaviors that MIGHT have outcomes we don’t desire are “irresponsible”. If we drive a car, we might kill somebody. Is driving “irresponsible”?

I don't agree with the comparison.

This is a question of babies, ok, people, you and me. We can only create them once in the best possible situations, that we would wish for ourselves, and that I should hope, we should take responsibility for in wishing for the next generation. It's our responsibility, and it will follow them all their lives, our choices in this regard. Once you get pregnant, you can't take it back. You can discard the baby, but you can't take it back that you got pregnant. Then we just have a whole nother set of laws that we need to bend and push to justify the terminations of these lives, as well. All the work we have to do to fix irresponsible behaviors, and all the ideas we have to bend to allow for the existence of these behaviors as acceptable behaviors. :(

No, driving too fast in certain areas, past the speed limit in some cases, is not necessarily an irresponsible behavior, but risking the creation children you in no ways want, nor have any interest in, in a situation that is not even remotely conducive to children, family cohesion, etc., is irresponsible behavior. Too many people whine, Oh, I got pregnant, how did this happen? How could I have conceived when I just had a one night stand? She said she was using birth control. I was drunk and didn't pay much attention to the condom. I hate condoms, thought I could get away with a few times without, or whatever. She tried to snag me by getting pregnant, etc.

Why are there so many abortions? Do you think all these people who have abortions planned on getting pregnant, took no precautions, etc? Those most certainly are unplanned pregnancies. Now, there's many more in the general population that ended in miscarriage, the rate of miscarriage in my understanding, is fairly high, and then there are simply the babies that were created by people who took responsiblity for their actions, unplanned or no, it happens, and it happens a lot, and it happens to two people, and it happens to a person, so I just think this ignorance and this belief that people can just copulate at will and aren't really risking any consequences is a naive outlook.

Gawd, my one friend just while ending a relationship had last time sex, and left. He created a daughter on his way out the door. :doh:

Your position is very close to the notion that we should ONLY have sex for the purpose of procreation.

No, it's more or less, we should only have sex if we are willing to deal with the potential consequences, and in the most responsible way. Two people only interested in sex without the potential consequences are not likely to accept those consequences in the best way.

What is “irresponsible” is failing to give proper care to your child, once he is born.

The problem is, the chances are, in a NSA arrangement, it's more than highly likely that the male friend at least, has no interest in being a father, and especially being beholden via a child to a woman he was merely friends with and was using for the sole purpose of sex.

But hey, dead beat dads really aren't on the rise, and those engaged in such behaviors I'm sure, probably are the best examples of what a responsible person is. Responsible people use their friends for sex when they have nothing else. Responsible people avoid serious relationships. Responsible people have one-night stands sometimes, and FWB other times.

I mean, what exactly do you think motivates this behavior?

[BDS]

Why conflate the irresponsibility of dead-beat dads with that of people who have casual sex? Whatever the STATISTICAL correlation may be (I have no idea), that does not imply a MORAL or ETHICAL correlation.

In addition, isn’t it likely that just as genetic diversity is healthy for a species, cultural and social diversity may be healthy for society? We may think that certain child-rearing situations are “ideal”, and in some ways they may be, but there may be an advantage to having variety. Isn’t it likely (just as an example) that some driven geniuses had strange childhoods, that were less than ideal? Was Mozart’s father abusive? Probably. But if he hadn’t been, would we have the Jupiter Symphony? Would Alexander Hamilton have been better off if he had been reared in a stable family? Would the U.S. be better off he had been? Stability is all well and good, but are geniuses stable and secure, or unstable and driven?

Although it may be true that our child-rearing choices will affect the child his entire life, who knows what the effect may be? The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but time and chance happeneth to it all. Responsibility consists not in refusing to take risks, but in refusing to shirk duties.

[Sweetie]

Why conflate the irresponsibility of dead-beat dads with that of people who have casual sex?

I don't know that I'm necessarily conflating the two, I'm just questioning the likelihood of the existence of the one in one particular situation. Hmm...how would I word that?

I'm just saying, do you or do you not think it's more likely for a guy to want to take less responsibility for a child he created with a woman where it was noted, and only intended that they have no strings attached sex? Isn't that setting the stage for that exact thing?

This is not, "I loved her, she loved me, we didn't work," this is, "I want to fuck you, and I want no responsibility or strings," isn't it?

Whatever the STATISTICAL correlation may be (I have no idea), that does not imply a MORAL or ETHICAL correlation.

But you don't think there is a higher liklihood in the one situation as opposed to the other? Those are the terms of the relationship. :shrug:

Any man who was with me who said to me, you don't own me, I'll only give you as much as I feel like giving you, that includes attention, and I'm bored and lonely and horny, so I'll give ya a call and come over and you can satisfy me.........isn't he saying, look babe, don't want any attachments. If you get pregnant by such a man, what does a guy like that say to that?

In addition, isn’t it likely that just as genetic diversity is healthy for a species, cultural and social diversity may be healthy for society?

Right, that's like saying radiation poisoning inflicted a community, but one man decided to give up drinking because he lost his arms. That's what you're saying to me, the comparison.

We may think that certain child-rearing situations are “ideal”, and in some ways they may be, but there may be an advantage to having variety. Isn’t it likely (just as an example) that some driven geniuses had strange childhoods, that were less than ideal? Was Mozart’s father abusive? Probably. But if he hadn’t been, would we have the Jupiter Symphony? Would Alexander Hamilton have been better off if he had been reared in a stable family? Would the U.S. be better off he had been? Stability is all well and good, but are geniuses stable and secure, or unstable and driven?

Although it may be true that our child-rearing choices will affect the child his entire life, who knows what the effect may be? The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but time and chance happeneth to it all. Responsibility consists not in refusing to take risks, but in refusing to shirk duties.

I don't know man, I just know many, many people who have good and stable two biological parent homes who are very, very healthy people, and I know others in difference situations who are not. It just seems clear to me that one is most definately in the best interests of a child.

You know, it's like saying to me, I was irresponsible and I drove drunk or recklessly but the person I hit had a near death experience and decided to change his life for the better, so it's all good.

[Sweetie]

Actually, Christian morality addresses such a thing in depth, bad actions do not necessarily always cause overall bad outcomes, but what is important is the intent according to what we know. It's a difficult idea, at least, to work with.

For instance, the people say to St. Paul, "We killed Jesus [or what have you], yet Jesus' death caused the salvation of all of us, [it was ultimately a good thing], therefore, wasn't our murder, and our sin ultimately a good act?"

According to Christian principles, the greatest crime in all of human history, the murder of an innocent man, who was in fact God, yet it was the act that turned around and caused the greatest thing in all of human history to happen.

Or as the Church would say, "Oh happy fault of Adam, which brought for us so great a Redeemer."

[BDS]

Of course there’s a higher statistical likelihood of a one night stand pregnancy resulting in a dead-beat dad than in a marriage pregnancy so resulting. But why should that have any effect on an INDIVIDUAL’S choice to have FWBs? The individual is not a statistic. He may know full well that he will accept parental responsibilities, or he may know that he will not accept them, whether married or not.

In addition, there are risks involved in a great many parenting decisions. Who is more irresponsible: the unmarried 17-year-old who gets pregnant, or the married 40-year-old who waited until she was financially prepared for a child, but has a greater risk of bearing an unhealthy baby? Personally, I don’t think the question can be answered with any degree of certainty, nor would I call either one “irresponsible”.

[California Tanker]

Sortof had an FWB or two in the past. In one case, anything up to, but not including sex, and in the other, I ended up in a relationship before the benefits phase went beyond more than a couple of sessions, so that put an end to that.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept, but there is always the issue that you might end up falling for the friend and then being heartbroken if the friend finds someone.

NTM