Freinds With Benefits, I Think Not

Freinds With Benefits, I Think Not [+ favourites]

This is what I call a freind. A real freind. Not one of those fake freinds.

A freind is a companion. Someone who makes you feel not alone. Someone you enjoy being around. Someone you enjoy making feel better, and they enjoy making you feel better.

What I call a girl freind.

A girlfreind is a companion. Someone who makes you feel not alone. Someone you enjoy being around. Someone you enjoy making feel better, and they enjoy making you feel better. Someone you are sexually active with.

Now, you can have an associate with benefits, but the only difference between a freind, and a girlfreind, is the sex. So how can you be freinds, and sex partners, without being girlfreind and boyfreind?

"Wht cry for those that often cry? Instead, help them smile, and smile for those that smile."

From what I've seen with family members and friends, friends with benefits never works. This is because (or atleast from what I've seen) someone always gets attached.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

I don't know...but, there's that one Seinfeld on it. George says it's not possible and I agree I think that friends with benefits only lasts a short time. Anyway in the episode they decide to make these rules. First rule was no call backs the next day. Second rule is staying the night is optional. Third was the goodbye kiss was Elaine's call. But, honestly this just can't be done or at least for a long period. It just defies the laws of the man and woman relationship and believe me every man has been trying to do this since the beginning it's not original. But, all women want this, that and the other

"I love to see people struggling for their purpose in life..."

i would agree with awakened on this, a girlfriend/boyfriend/partner is a friend with which you interact sexually (on whatever level, doesnt have to be actual sex). i also agree that a friend with "benefits" is going to be a short lived thing.

i think that the reason it is short lived however is because there is more of an emotional link between a partners than just friends. you do need to love your partner. i would say you probably love your friends (in a certain way) but that there is more love between you and a partner and not just a sexual love, but a love that is needed for any sexual activity to be enjoyable for both people for any amount of time

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

My scientific understanding is that humans are programmed for monogamy. That sex releases chemicals in the brain such as oxitocin that promote an imprinting effect. So simply having sex is going to alter your brain chemistry with respect to your lover. In short you can't have a sexual non bonding relationship. You’re hard wired against it.

My spiritual understanding is that sex is both a physical and spiritual union and that after the physical connection ceases the spiritual one persists. I know people who claim they can have meaningless sex and not get affected and I've seen them get screwed up by it. They still get attached. Even if the party was not a friend if they’re still around the signs can usually be seen. Their behaviour after the fact attests to them having feelings beyond friendship.

I don't think it’s quite as simple as a girlfriend just being a friend you have sex with ether. From what I've seen people may or may not actually be friends with their SO. I've seen old married couples that, bluntly, don't act like friends with each other. They still have a bond. I think attachment comes in many different flavours and sexual coupling is just 1. There is family (which need not be biological, I have known friends who were closer to each other than brothers), There is friendship and that its self has many different flavours. I think it' conmen for them to overlap and conmen for people to confuse one for another.

I didn't say wife, I said girlfreind. And that isn't me nitpicking, its something completely different.

"Wht cry for those that often cry? Instead, help them smile, and smile for those that smile."

I've heard of people who are so in love with someone else that when they do have sex with another partner they aren't affected because it actually is meaningless. They don't have sex because they want to love the other person they have sex simply for the pleasure. Another scenario is someone who has sex with so many partners that it doesn't affect them anymore. It's a chemical and obviously as your body gets use to it your body will develop a tolerance towards it.

"I love to see people struggling for their purpose in life..."

Friends with benefits: two persons who have a sexual relationship without monogamy, commitment or emotional involvement. For example two good friends who have casual sex between more serious relationships.



Friendship is a relationship which involves mutual knowledge, esteem, and affection

An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship with a great deal of physical or emotional intimacy
~Wikipedia

there's a fine line but it definitely noticeable between these levels of relationships. whether or not one of the two gets attatched or not is a different story.

"I'm a human being, God Dammit!! My life has value!!!"

And, I believe, nearly impossible unless both parties make an honest attempt to NOT get attached. Like whats-his-face said, we are programed for monogamy.

"Wht cry for those that often cry? Instead, help them smile, and smile for those that smile."

quote:

---

It's a chemical and obviously as your body gets use to it your body will develop a tolerance towards it.

---

ok...a little off topic but you know it's ok to be wrong. A good example of someone who has tolerance towards adrenalin is an athlete. As an athlete trains he or she becomes able to calm down and feels the affects of the adrenalin less. Particularly boxers. When an amateur gets into a fight often he isn't controlled but the adrenalin is controlling him. A survival instinct. But, when you watch boxers you can see they’re thinking of their punch combos and looking for open spaces. Now testosterone obviously this was a mistake also. Ever heard of moody teenagers. They are moody because they are being first introduced to such hormones and the effects are stronger because there is no tolerance towards it.
Now finally the oxytocin. First of all you got things confused. Love has nothing to do with oxytocin. Proof of this is as the oxytocin wears off the mother will often still love the child (well hopefully). Now take a look at a mother who has had a lot of children. What you will find is that the effects of over protection and such are greatly reduced.

"I love to see people struggling for their purpose in life..."

quote:

---

ok...a little off topic but you know it's ok to be wrong. A good example of someone who has tolerance towards adrenalin is an athlete. As an athlete trains he or she becomes able to calm down and feels the affects of the adrenalin less. Particularly boxers. When an amateur gets into a fight often he isn't controlled but the adrenalin is controlling him. A survival instinct. But, when you watch boxers you can see they’re thinking of their punch combos and looking for open spaces.

---

quote:

---

Now testosterone obviously this was a mistake also. Ever heard of moody teenagers. They are moody because they are being first introduced to such hormones and the effects are stronger because there is no tolerance towards it.

---

quote:

---

Now finally the oxytocin. First of all you got things confused. Love has nothing to do with oxytocin. Proof of this is as the oxytocin wears off the mother will often still love the child (well hopefully). Now take a look at a mother who has had a lot of children. What you will find is that the effects of over protection and such are greatly reduced.

---

With me Friends with Benifits works! It always have! Unless i have a boyfriend then the "Friend with Benifits" Is back to Just a friend Love ya

"Skate Fast! Live Hard! Die Famous!"

I was invited into a freinds-with-benefits relationship with an ex of mine, and after chatting around and learning a bit about it, I can tell you that it's the most superficial of superficial relationships, a friendship with the added 'bonus' of free sex, something which I firmly belive should only take place between two emotionally attached people who are willing to accept the concequences and the requirements of thier actions. Friends with benefits allows sex without any commitment of any kind, what happens if things go wrong? (I'm sorry for sounding ranting-like on this, it's just something I'm a little annoyed at.)

It just shouldn't happen, it's just an excuse for carnal urges without having to maintain a relationship, to me, it's just a major cop-out.

""As I sit before the fire, I wonder how many before myself have been burned.'"

I fully agree Vortex. It's a lazy, slatternly way of doing things.

"I am Akba-Atatdia"