# FWB- Men and Women viewpoints etc



## Sue4473

Ok- I like to hear stories or the plain truth why people have these type of relationships? When the men say I’m not relationship material or we can hang but if someone comes along or Mrs. Right then we need to d/c this. I like to hear from you men on if you’ve ever told a woman this and things turned around?


----------



## chillymorn69

If your ok being a side piece. Or just need to get that itch scratched then no problem. But if your hoping he will fall in love with you I think you have a good chance getting hurt.


----------



## Sue4473

I’m not ok with being a side piece however, this seems to be the “norm” in dating today. I can’t tell you countless online sites I’ve jouned paid and unpaid and they are all the same. I have gone years without being intimate and it’s tough. But if I could find companionship and a great sex connection with 1 person whom I trust then I would be ok with that. But that’s hard to find 
I’m just wondering what others have experienced etc. I know some have been hurt badly in the past, and don’t want to put up with drama


----------



## Thor

Hey, Sue, yeah the online dating thing is pretty crazy. What I've found is that it has become like shopping on Amazon, where another option is just a click away. Probably there are a lot of sociological reasons too, but it does seem that middle aged divorcees are more interested in test fitting all the options rather than looking for a long term partner. Or maybe a better way of putting it is they are happy to sample all the options until they find the right one. Maybe we're all being too picky when it comes to deciding on one to settle down with.

Idk, but I certainly hear about a lot of casual sex amongst the online dating crowd. I'm a pretty traditional person, and I would like to have a long term close relationship, but I'm not opposed to people just having some (safe) fun. 

My opinion is that for most men a FWB is not likely to change into being a deep long term relationship. First off, men do tend to categorize women as potential marriage material or not marriage material. If the relationship starts off as a FWB then the woman is probably not marriage material because of the perceived higher risk of infidelity. Also, if there isn't that spark early in the relationship then it probably isn't going to happen. I'm sure some FWB turn into genuine happy marriages, but it is probably not frequent.

Around here I see a ton of profiles where the woman states she is not looking for FWB or ONS. The way they word it makes me think they get a lot of approaches for those kinds of relationships. Maybe your profile needs to be rewritten to make it clear what you are looking for.


----------



## Thor

Also, studies show that divorced people over about age 50 do not plan on getting married again. Younger people are still in the mode of wanting to have kids etc, but once the nest is empty the goals and interests are different. Those burned by a first marriage are not anxious to jump back into the fire.

These days there is no social pressure at all to be married or to not have sex until married. There's no reason to avoid FWB or ONS if that is your interest whereas in decades past you at least had to be discreet about it.


----------



## Married but Happy

I've had a number of FWB arrangements, some exclusive (neither seeing anyone else), and some not. Do _not _expect a relationship to develop (rarely, it does happen). FWB is usually due to some circumstance of your own that makes a relationship undesirable or very difficult to find, or because there is a trait about the other person that precludes something serious. But, we have needs! So, we find the best compromise with someone who has similar limitations or constraints.

In my experience, these have all worked out well, we were on the same page for what we wanted, and we even stayed friends when the "benefits" arrangement no longer worked. Communicating needs, expectations, and limits avoids complications.


----------



## Sue4473

Thank ya’ll very good points and advice given. It’s true that I see a lot of men that has gotten burn by a divorce, and they want that freedom not to answer to anyone and the freedom to come and go as please.
That’s where the FWB part I guess comes in. I’m not opposed to it but would have to be someone I trust and exclusivity of Sex.
The thing I don’t like is the ending of the other finds a person they wanna pursue.
Is there any way it could be a long term arrangement?
I’m burned out by dating- and at 45 just want a companion here and there to meet my needs as needed. I’ve been single 7 years and haven’t found my prince not saying it won’t happen. But I like to find that 1 person for an extended FWB
Maybe I’m looking fir a Unicorn lol


----------



## coquille

I was in a couple of these relationships. It was during a time of my life where I was not able to pursue a relationship because I had too much on my hand on both personal and professional levels. I am in my 40's and I have a healthy lifestyle and exercise regularly, so I am fit. I was not actively looking for a partner, and in all the FWB instances, it was younger men (early 30's) asking me to be a FWB. they knew I had no expectations for anything long term, and because we met IRL, they knew that I was unavailable for a relationship. However, what I learned about myself from these relationships is that I would never orgasm with a FWB partner. They easily did. They were also thoughtful in the sense they worked on helping me orgasm. I came to realize that if I don't have a connection with my partner outside of sexual chemistry, I cannot orgasm. I had the last one two years ago, and I am not going to have any of these in the future.


----------



## Sue4473

Why do you think you couldn’t orgasm?


----------



## coquille

I think I have to be comfortable enough with my partner to let go and free myself to be able to orgasm. I didn't reach this comfort level with FWBs, even though they were good in bed. I was recently in a relationship that lasted six months, and I had no problem orgasming with my BF.


----------



## RandomDude

Sue4473 said:


> Ok- I like to hear stories or the plain truth why people have these type of relationships? When the men say I’m not relationship material or we can hang but if someone comes along or Mrs. Right then we need to d/c this. I like to hear from you men on if you’ve ever told a woman this and things turned around?


FWBs were my staple for most of my single life. In fact I prefer it to several other relationships, including my marriage.

However I found alot of people forget the "Friend" side of FWBs, and those that don't, have a habit of developing emotions which complicates the arrangement, and even those who can handle the arrangement and be honest/trustworthy tend to move on to greener pastures once the opportunity presents itself. All these makes it just as hard to find a good FWB as a good partner. It's always temporary, and as for exclusivity that's up to the two individuals.

It's a nice 'filler' until you find your Mr. right, but don't expect too much out of it.


----------



## Sue4473

A long time ago, I had a FWB arrangement now that I look back that’s what it was. We were BF/GF and broke up but we felt chemistry and connection that it just felt right.
Every time we got together it was “why aren’t you taken yet” or your a great woman/man your Mr. Right will come. But between both of us it never did so we just enjoyed the time we spent with one another.
He’s still single but lives half way around the world!
If he was back in my hometown again, I would hit that so often ha


----------



## uhtred

Some people *want* a FWB relationship. I think it is a mistake to get involved in one if you are hoping for something else. In a sense its dishonest to your partner because they are looking for casual sex in a relationship that they can end without pain if they have reason to do so. 

I think being honest about goals is important in dating. Its just as bad for someone to pretend that they are looking for a long term relationship if all they want is sex.


----------



## Bananapeel

The FWB thing only works if both people want it. Sue, you sound like it would be a compromise if you accepted that situation which means there is a high likelihood of you not being satisfied with that relationship. I've done the casual dating thing since I got divorced almost 3 years ago, which isn't much different than FWB. Some women were OK with it and others pretended they were hoping that I'd change my mind. The latter group got hurt when I didn't want to change the relationship into a commitment. I'm no longer willing to do a casual/FWB with a woman if I think she wants a relationship to develop because it's not worth the potential for drama. In general the best thing is to be honest with yourself and future partners regarding what you want and then be willing to fully accept the consequences of those choices, even if that means being single and horny. 

As for the why I have this type of relationship, well it's for a few reasons. The first is my divorce was a life altering and traumatizing event and I am not ready to be that vulnerable in a relationship again, yet I still like to socialize and have an active sex life. The second reason is my kids are my priority and dating takes a back seat to their needs and will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future. The third reason is the quality of women I've met just isn't at the standard I'd want for a LTR but is acceptable for a casual relationship. The women I date have all been really awesome people but the bar I've set to even consider as a potential for a commitment is exceedingly hard to meet. My ideal woman is educated (doctor, lawyer, PhD, etc.), six figure income with good financial management of their assets (i.e. I'm not looking to financially support someone), honest, attractive, physically fit, amazing in bed with no sexual hang ups, fun, confident, easy to be around with no drama, makes a positive impact on the community (e.g. volunteers), and likes me for who I am without trying to change me. Basically, I want the female version of me and those are about as rare as hens teeth. 

If men are telling you that you aren't relationship material and you are hearing this a lot you should try to figure out what it is that they specifically mean; if you are actually friends with them see if they will sit down and explain this to you in better detail. You might have some serious issues that you need to work through. I also think in general people want the best partner they can get but they aren't always realistic about what their options really are. I'm guessing that the guys you are talking with have much better options than you or they would have jumped at the opportunity to be with you, so maybe you have your sights set too high on the type of guy you can reasonably expect to attract?


----------



## SentHereForAReason

Late to this question and maybe it's a sidebar but guys are actually telling you that YOU aren't relationship material? Some may applaud them for being honest but maybe it's just me but I could never say this to a woman, then proceed to try and have sexual (only) relations with her. I wouldn't even respect myself but again, maybe that's just me. 

Then again, I guess it's better than them lying and saying they are interested in a relationship just to get in your pants and then JET!

But what do I know, I haven't dated anyone other than my STBXW in 18 years since I was 20 lol.


----------



## arbitrator

*If there's no emotional, loving attachment, then I don't want them for strictly biological release!

Enough said!*


----------



## Sue4473

No one told me that he’s not relationship material. They told me I’m a great woman. I figured the one that told me this, is because he wants to come and go as he pleases and doesn’t want the drama of a relationship. But he’s been single 7 years so In my mind it may never happen for him.
I’m sorry if the message was misleading- he’s not relationship material and he’s difficult he claims


----------



## SentHereForAReason

Sue4473 said:


> No one told me that he’s not relationship material. They told me I’m a great woman. I figured the one that told me this, is because he wants to come and go as he pleases and doesn’t want the drama of a relationship. But he’s been single 7 years so In my mind it may never happen for him.
> I’m sorry if the message was misleading- he’s not relationship material and he’s difficult he claims


Oh, gotcha. They were calling themselves not relationship material, ok, I can respect that then. I thought they were degrading you which was upsetting


----------



## Diana7

I just don't get what the Attraction is with FWB. If a man cant be bothered to have a proper relationship with me, then I am not bothered enough to have sex with him. I have far more self respect than that. Sex for me is far too important to waste on a man who think its ok to just sleep with anyone without or without a relationship. 

We are both people who were burned by previous long marriages, but we still wanted to marry again and we did, 13 years ago this year. We were in our late 40's when we met and married and BTW we met on an online dating site.


----------



## Bananapeel

Sue4473 said:


> No one told me that he’s not relationship material. They told me I’m a great woman. I figured the one that told me this, is because he wants to come and go as he pleases and doesn’t want the drama of a relationship. But he’s been single 7 years so In my mind it may never happen for him.
> I’m sorry if the message was misleading- he’s not relationship material and he’s difficult he claims


I also misinterpreted your post. When guys do this it's because it is easier to be a free agent than in a relationship, and they feel that they are getting their needs met without the relationship. You might notice that guys that have an easy time with women are less likely to want to commit than those guys that have a hard time finding partners. 



Diana7 said:


> I just don't get what the Attraction is with FWB. If a man cant be bothered to have a proper relationship with me, then I am not bothered enough to have sex with him. I have far more self respect than that. Sex for me is far too important to waste on a man who think its ok to just sleep with anyone without or without a relationship.


But, you don't represent the population as a whole. There are so many women that are OK with FWB that guys that don't want commitment will just bypass the ones like you and not even think a moment about it. Saving sex for exclusive LTR's is not commonplace anymore and that societal change has resulted in changes to the value of sex and relationships.


----------



## Sue4473

Yes that does make sense... so what do I say to a man that says that he’s not “relationship material”
Ok, well good luck with that lol!
And if I waited for Mr. Right I may be 70 yrs old at the rate I’m going.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

What you would say is your call.
I'm married so I can't really comment, but when I was single it was easy to get "on the circuit" of FWBs once you got a referral or so. 

The number one thing is to not do anything you might regret later but if good for your circumstances then just be sure you watch out for your own emotions and needs as things progress.


----------



## Thor

My opinion is it is better to be single than in the wrong relationship. If someone is not going to be Mr. Right for you, then why waste your time trying to mould him into that? A better strategy is to break off dating someone who isn't looking like he meets your requirements. The more men you meet and the faster you do it, the sooner you will meet someone you really click with.


----------



## Bananapeel

Sue4473 said:


> Yes that does make sense... so what do I say to a man that says that he’s not “relationship material”
> Ok, well good luck with that lol!
> And if I waited for Mr. Right I may be 70 yrs old at the rate I’m going.


If you don't want FWB then you say that you respect his relationship goals but they aren't something that you are interested in and if he changes his mind to let you know and you'll consider then whether you want to date him. And if you don't find someone then you learn to be happy alone and be proud that you didn't compromise your values.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Durn, that's pretty good! 😉


----------



## NextTimeAround

I'm not morally against FWBs but I do offer a couple of tips:

1. Choose one that is very outside of your social circles. You don't want it getting around that you have an FB, FWB and I've been around the block enough to know not to depend on other people being discrete.

2. Men claim not to like the idea of FWBs, so don't discuss it with anyone IRL. Try to end your FWB early on when a more promising relationship comes along so that you won't be accused of any kind of double dealing.

3. Do not think that you can convert an FWB into just a friend. (see point 1) Just remember the wisdom "a reason, a season and a lifetime." Your FB/ FWB was for a reason.


----------



## Diana7

Bananapeel said:


> I also misinterpreted your post. When guys do this it's because it is easier to be a free agent than in a relationship, and they feel that they are getting their needs met without the relationship. You might notice that guys that have an easy time with women are less likely to want to commit than those guys that have a hard time finding partners.
> 
> 
> 
> But, you don't represent the population as a whole. There are so many women that are OK with FWB that guys that don't want commitment will just bypass the ones like you and not even think a moment about it. Saving sex for exclusive LTR's is not commonplace anymore and that societal change has resulted in changes to the value of sex and relationships.


In my experience of the young people I know, its not common to have sex with a friend who they are not in some sort of relationship with.


----------



## Buddy400

NextTimeAround said:


> I'm not morally against FWBs but I do offer a couple of tips:
> 
> 2. Men claim not to like the idea of FWBs, so don't discuss it with anyone IRL. Try to end your FWB early on when a more promising relationship comes along so that you won't be accused of any kind of double dealing.


Men who do not have FWB relationships (usually, but not always, because FWB relationships aren't available to them) don't like the idea of women having sex with men who "don't mean anything" to the woman.


----------



## bandit.45

I've had a FWB for the last year. More than a casual lay, but less than a committed relationship. It has worked out for both of us so far. Neither of us is ready to commit to anyone yet, but we both require some occasional companionship and bed-rattling. Neither she or I like dating and all the hassles it entails. She is a professional who works 60+ hours a week, has grown kids and grandkids, and doesn't have time for a full-time man.

As long as the two partners communicate their expectations and boundaries, I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## coquille

OP, I think you need to sort out your priorities before you decide whether FWB is for you or not. In my case, in the years following my separation, my children were young, I had full-time custody, and my work consumed a lot of my time (I work in academia), so I did not want, and did not have the time or energy for, a relationship. Also, I am mostly happy to spend time with myself. 

Now that all my kids are adults (I started my family at a young age), I feel I have more time on my hand and I can allow myself to enjoy time with a significant other, weekend getaways here and there, BUT I still hesitate to pursue a committed LTR, because I am not sure I want to marry again. 

If you are looking for someone new to restart with, the ideal would be to find somebody living in a situation similar to yours. But if you would rather be focused on your child and wait until he is a bit older to have a LTR, and if you think you'd enjoy or get fulfillment from casual/FWB relationships, then why not try? I don't think you'll have anything to lose. For me it was a learning experience. Sure I won't repeat it, but I certainly don't regret it.


----------



## Sue4473

All very good responses and experiences!
Thank y’all


----------



## Bananapeel

Diana7 said:


> In my experience of the young people I know, its not common to have sex with a friend who they are not in some sort of relationship with.


You are out of touch with what the majority of people are doing these days. It's nice you live in such a sheltered world. It would probably be better for society as a whole to revert back to those standards, but it's not something that is likely to happen.


----------



## bandit.45

NextTimeAround said:


> I'm not morally against FWBs but I do offer a couple of tips:
> 
> 1. Choose one that is very outside of your social circles. You don't want it getting around that you have an FB, FWB and I've been around the block enough to know not to depend on other people being discrete.
> 
> 2. Men claim not to like the idea of FWBs, so don't discuss it with anyone IRL. Try to end your FWB early on when a more promising relationship comes along so that you won't be accused of any kind of double dealing.
> 
> 3. Do not think that you can convert an FWB into just a friend. (see point 1) Just remember the wisdom "a reason, a season and a lifetime." Your FB/ FWB was for a reason.


This is pretty much the agreement I have with my lady friend. She doesn't mess with my world and I don't stick my nose in hers. We have both agreed that neither of us wants to ever get married, and surely not to each other. She and I have fundamental differences in beliefs and world view that would make taking our relationship into a committed romance impossible. But we are attracted to each other on a physical level and the sex is very good. We call or text each other maybe once a week to touch base, and we don't always have sex when we get together. Sometimes we watch a DVD or go see a movie or go to a club to listen to music, etc. If sex happens it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. No pressure. It works for us. But I also understand it is an unusual arrangement.


----------



## Sue4473

That sounds like something I would like to have.... your world is yours and mine is mine, but we come together to enjoy one another in activities without the drama.
Not really unusual as everyone seems to have a different view on relationships and what works for them.
Do you see yourself with your lady friend long term? Or is this till you find someone suitable in your beliefs what nots to go forward in a full blown relationship?


----------



## Diana7

Bananapeel said:


> You are out of touch with what the majority of people are doing these days. It's nice you live in such a sheltered world. It would probably be better for society as a whole to revert back to those standards, but it's not something that is likely to happen.


In fact most of the young people I know aren't Christians. They are from all sorts of backgrounds and families. 
I live in a far from sheltered world, I have faced far more than most people in my life and mixed with many different types of people, so don't assume anything.


----------



## Bananapeel

You are still far out of touch...


----------



## Ynot

@Sue4473, as you can see from the responses there are two schools of thought concerning FWB. One side is adamantly opposed to them, usually on the basis of religious or moral grounds or they still believe in the fairy tale of the ONE. How those people are able to locate that ONE is beyond me, especially if they are unwilling to explore the world we all exist in.
The other side, the people who are not opposed to a FWB situation typically understand where they are in life and the world we live in. I am a 57 year old man, divorced after a 24 year marriage. My kids are all independent self sufficient adults. I have my own business. I own my own home (not the marital one either). I have many friends and many interests. I have no desire to give any of that up. I have no desire to have children. I do not need another person to "complete me". I have no desire to be changed or to change someone else. At this point in my life, and at this point in the lives of the women I meet, we have our own lives. But I like to be social, meet people, have fun and I enjoy sex. There is really no reason NOT to enjoy this aspect of my life now.


----------



## Ynot

bandit.45 said:


> This is pretty much the agreement I have with my lady friend. She doesn't mess with my world and I don't stick my nose in hers. We have both agreed that neither of us wants to ever get married, and surely not to each other. She and I have fundamental differences in beliefs and world view that would make taking our relationship into a committed romance impossible. But we are attracted to each other on a physical level and the sex is very good. We call or text each other maybe once a week to touch base, and we don't always have sex when we get together. Sometimes we watch a DVD or go see a movie or go to a club to listen to music, etc. If sex happens it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. No pressure. It works for us. But I also understand it is an unusual arrangement.


It is probably not as unusual as you think. I have an older friend who has been seeing another friend for years. I never really even knew they had this relationship, until after I got divorced. Then he told me about him and out other friend. Basically they hang out, have fun and do things together. He has his place, she has her place. He has his things, she has hers. Whenever one of them starts to get on the other one's nerves they take a break and he or she goes homes and gets away from the other. It has worked for them for over 15 years now.


----------



## bandit.45

Sue4473 said:


> That sounds like something I would like to have.... your world is yours and mine is mine, but we come together to enjoy one another in activities without the drama.
> Not really unusual as everyone seems to have a different view on relationships and what works for them.
> Do you see yourself with your lady friend long term? Or is this till you find someone suitable in your beliefs what nots to go forward in a full blown relationship?


I think we will have this as long as we both need it. She is currently going through that weird menopausal hormone storm and when she needs sex I'm there for her. She and I are physically compatible, we are STD free, we have similar kinks. So we have agreed to only have sex with each other and not other people right now. But we also agreed that if she or I meets someone who we want to pursue a romantic relationship with that we will end the physical relationship and just remain friends. 

This FWB arrangement started out as a work friendship, ended up in a one night stand, then an awkward talk the next morning about not wanting an LTR, then to more talking where we agreed we enjoyed sex with each other but that a romantic relationship would never, ever work. We have diametrically opposing views on many things. So we have established specific boundaries with each other that we do not cross and, within the parameters we have set, we enjoy the hell out of each other. 

It is very unusual. But so far it has worked out.


----------



## SunCMars

coquille said:


> I was in a couple of these relationships. It was during a time of my life where I was not able to pursue a relationship because I had too much on my hand on both personal and professional levels. I am in my 40's and I have a healthy lifestyle and exercise regularly, so I am fit. I was not actively looking for a partner, and in all the FWB instances, it was younger men (early 30's) asking me to be a FWB. they knew I had no expectations for anything long term, and because we met IRL, they knew that I was unavailable for a relationship. However, what I learned about myself from these relationships is that I would never orgasm with a FWB partner. They easily did. They were also thoughtful in the sense they worked on helping me orgasm. I came to realize that if I don't have a connection with my partner outside of sexual chemistry, I cannot orgasm. I had the last one two years ago, and I am not going to have any of these in the future.


This gives me hope.

Intimacy is more than rubbing and friction.

No penis can stimulate the 'Oh factor gland' found in the brain case.

The mind needs love friction.
Two lovers rubbing their wits and their tits together in unison.

Having their nether regions stimulated along with their other folded lesions. 
The region that controls the upper lips, the miles of smiles.


----------



## bandit.45

Deleted. Sun C obviously didn't like my poem.


----------



## Sue4473

Very interesting!
I like that y’all are honest with one another due to what’s out there in diseases in such. That would be the only way I could if there was honesty. How long have y’all been together in this and may I ask the ages?


----------



## bandit.45

Sue4473 said:


> Very interesting!
> I like that y’all are honest with one another due to what’s out there in diseases in such. That would be the only way I could if there was honesty. How long have y’all been together in this and may I ask the ages?


A year and a half. I'm 50 and she is 48.


----------



## coquille

SunCMars said:


> This gives me hope.
> 
> Intimacy is more than rubbing and friction.
> 
> No penis can stimulate the 'Oh factor gland' found in the brain case.
> 
> The mind needs love friction.
> Two lovers rubbing their wits and their tits together in unison.
> 
> Having their nether regions stimulated along with their other folded lesions.
> The region that controls the upper lips, the miles of smiles.




Don't mean to thread jack, but gotta say, I love the internal rhymes


----------



## Diana7

Bananapeel said:


> You are still far out of touch...


You clearly mix with the sort of people who do this. That doesn't mean the majority do it.


----------



## bandit.45

Funny thing is, I'm a backslidden born-again Christian who occasionally goes to church. My lady friend is an agnostic who has practiced Buddhism in the past. 

We get into arguments over religion all the time, piss each other off, then have hot pokey-poke.


----------



## Sue4473

😄😄


----------



## Ynot

Diana7 said:


> You clearly mix with the sort of people who do this. That doesn't mean the majority do it.


Who give a flying ******* what the "majority" thinks? If two people are willing, who are you to judge them?


----------



## Davidmidwest

Thor said:


> Hey, Sue, yeah the online dating thing is pretty crazy. What I've found is that it has become like shopping on Amazon, where another option is just a click away. Probably there are a lot of sociological reasons too, but it does seem that middle aged divorcees are more interested in test fitting all the options rather than looking for a long term partner. Or maybe a better way of putting it is they are happy to sample all the options until they find the right one. Maybe we're all being too picky when it comes to deciding on one to settle down with.
> 
> Idk, but I certainly hear about a lot of casual sex amongst the online dating crowd. I'm a pretty traditional person, and I would like to have a long term close relationship, but I'm not opposed to people just having some (safe) fun.
> 
> My opinion is that for most men a FWB is not likely to change into being a deep long term relationship. First off, men do tend to categorize women as potential marriage material or not marriage material. If the relationship starts off as a FWB then the woman is probably not marriage material because of the perceived higher risk of infidelity. Also, if there isn't that spark early in the relationship then it probably isn't going to happen. I'm sure some FWB turn into genuine happy marriages, but it is probably not frequent.
> 
> Around here I see a ton of profiles where the woman states she is not looking for FWB or ONS. The way they word it makes me think they get a lot of approaches for those kinds of relationships. Maybe your profile needs to be rewritten to make it clear what you are looking for.


HI,

When I meet a woman, I size her up as marriage material or not. I am a marriage material person. If I want some sexual fun I still size her up that way... If I did FWB, I could do that, but I would rather hold off for a friend and life partner. Sex will take care of itself. I don't have the personality to be a player It's not respectful to me for who I am. and I have too much respect and love for women. I just need to locate the right one for me.


----------



## Ynot

Davidmidwest said:


> HI,
> 
> When I meet a woman, I size her up as marriage material or not. I am a marriage material person. If I want some sexual fun I still size her up that way... If I did FWB, I could do that, but I would rather hold off for a friend and life partner. Sex will take care of itself. I don't have the personality to be a player It's not respectful to me for who I am. and I have too much respect and love for women. I just need to locate the right one for me.


Sadly "sex does not take care of itself" This is one of the most backasswards statements I have ever seen on TAM. Look at the multitudes of threads about the failure of that very thing in a relationship.


----------



## *Deidre*

It's all hot fun and games, until someone falls in love. And someone always does.


----------



## oldshirt

Sue4473 said:


> When the men say I’m not relationship material or we can hang but if someone comes along or Mrs. Right then we need to d/c this. I like to hear from you men on if you’ve ever told a woman this and things turned around?


First off I need a little clarification, were the men saying that THEY were not relationship material,,,, or were they saying that YOU were not relationship material??

I'm assuming that they were saying that they were not relationship material, but if anyone has said that about you, you need to get to the bottom of that ASAP because that is quite harsh. 

I have had a number of FWBs/FBs over the years and I would never say that to anyone. 

Now to address whether things ever turned around - no. 

If someone is already thinking or talking about Ms Right, that means you ain't her in his mind and I don't think there is anything that would change that. 

In fact I lost an FWB one time due to a similar misspoken statement like that. I said something like I would date and ".....hope one would rise to the top.." She got a weird look on her face and I knew I had just screwed the pooch. The next day she wrote me that it was obvious I didn't see a future with her (even though it was agreed we were just FWBs) and we never hooked up again. 

Some times the secret to having an FWB is to never treat them like an FWB. 

I'm over 50 and know the dating market would be rough for this age demographic, but I still think most men and women would be in the market for LTRs than hook-ups of the week. 

I think the key is to not look for a faithful workhorse at a dog show. Dance clubs, meat markets and OLD are going to largely be players, PUAs and basket cases. 

More traditional venues like church groups, mutual friends, mutual interest groups, adult Ed classes etc where people of similar interests meet face to face will likely yield more normal people with more traditional values and outlooks.


----------



## arbitrator

oldshirt said:


> *More traditional venues like church groups, mutual friends, mutual interest groups, adult Ed classes etc where people of similar interests meet face to face will likely yield more normal people with more traditional values and outlooks.*


*On this point and by the same token, I've met women in these very same venues who were absolutely crazier than "peach orchard sows!"

Let's just say that "Crazy" is virtually everywhere!*


----------



## Andy1001

arbitrator said:


> *On this point and by the same token, I've met women in these very same venues who were absolutely crazier than "peach orchard sows!"
> 
> Let's just say that "Crazy" is virtually everywhere!*


The best piece of advice (and probably the only piece) that my older brother ever gave me was “Don’t stick your **** in crazy”.
I should have listened lol.


----------



## Andy1001

Davidmidwest said:


> HI,
> 
> When I meet a woman, I size her up as marriage material or not. I am a marriage material person. If I want some sexual fun I still size her up that way... If I did FWB, I could do that, but I would rather hold off for a friend and life partner. Sex will take care of itself. I don't have the personality to be a player It's not respectful to me for who I am. and I have too much respect and love for women. I just need to locate the right one for me.


Buddy with the greatest of respect your attitude to sex is going to keep you single for a long time.There are a lot of divorced women who spent years in sexless marriages and now they want some fun.They may very well be marriage material but they aren’t going to make the same mistake again.
If you don’t get this then you are looking for a unicorn.🦄
They are very thin on the ground in Chicago.


----------



## MrsHolland

*Deidre* said:


> It's all hot fun and games, until someone falls in love. And someone always does.


No, not always and TBH if this is happening then you are doing it wrong. The idea of a FWB is that it is with someone you find attractive but they are not LTR for you, for whatever reason. I have had a couple of adorable FWBs in the past, very respectful, lots of fun but it was not ever going to be about love.


----------



## Sue4473

To clarify- they were the ones telling me that they weren’t relationship material.... I think some men and women too may be too picky and that leads to their your not Mrs. Right/Mr. Right if I could find someone that company enjoyed and the sex was compatible then I will go with that. And I he or she wanted to end it due to them finding their perfect partner I wish them luck!
In my experience I’ve had the repeat FWB come back cause the one they left me for was not the Mrs. Right they thought. 



If


----------



## Ynot

Sue4473 said:


> To clarify- they were the ones telling me that they weren’t relationship material.... I think some men and women too may be too picky and that leads to their your not Mrs. Right/Mr. Right if I could find someone that company enjoyed and the sex was compatible then I will go with that. And I he or she wanted to end it due to them finding their perfect partner I wish them luck!
> In my experience I’ve had the repeat FWB come back cause the one they left me for was not the Mrs. Right they thought.
> 
> 
> 
> If


Yep, sometimes they are just being honest in stating they are not LTR material. It could be they are too busy or have other priorities or it could be they just want to sleep with you without commitment. As long as they are being honest with you. 
Now there are people who say they aren't LTR material because the fact is they are already in LTR with someone else. One may accept being the side piece, but the other side must still be honest about it.
In the end, honesty is the only thing we owe another person and in return it should be the only thing we expect from others.


----------



## UndecidedinNY

If a man said those things to you and you still spoke to him again, I don't know what to say. Work on your self-respect? I wouldn't speak to someone again who basically said I could be a place holder until someone he liked better came along... it's not that these men don't want a girlfriend, they are saying YOU aren't the right material. It's not dating today, you've been pigeon-holed (which is clear because they admit they wouldn't do this to the right girl when she came along). 

I'd ask someone who you can trust as a true friend to ask why you come across as not girlfriend material, and see what you can do about it. And meet different types of men, because you've been coming across some pretty disrespectful losers.


----------



## changingmale

What about STD'S i have heard that are coming back and more people are getting them bc of things like FWB'S?


----------



## Diana7

changingmale said:


> What about STD'S i have heard that are coming back and more people are getting them bc of things like FWB'S?


My husband has worked in healthcare for 15 years and he says that STD's are rife. I have no idea why anyone would risk sleeping around. Some of them even make you infertile and others are incurable.


----------



## Ynot

changingmale said:


> What about STD'S i have heard that are coming back and more people are getting them bc of things like FWB'S?


One of the purposes of a FWB arrangement is to avoid this very issue. You have sex (the benefit) with someone you trust (the friend), That is not to say you can't or won't get an STD, but you minimize the chances that you will. And really unless all your friends are gay, intravenous drug users or very young, you have very little chance anyways.


----------



## Diana7

Ynot said:


> One of the purposes of a FWB arrangement is to avoid this very issue. You have sex (the benefit) with someone you trust (the friend), That is not to say you can't or won't get an STD, but you minimize the chances that you will. And really unless all your friends are gay, intravenous drug users or very young, you have very little chance anyways.


It definitely wont mean that you wont get an STD. Many people don't even know they have one. Also its a fallacy to think that only drug users or gays will pass on these diseases. They are rife and have got far worse since the use of tinder and grinder. Its like playing russian roulette.


----------



## Ynot

Diana7 said:


> It definitely wont mean that you wont get an STD. Many people don't even know they have one. Also its a fallacy to think that only drug users or gays will pass on these diseases. They are rife and have got far worse since the use of tinder and grinder. Its like playing russian roulette.


My poor, naïve and closed minded friend. No where has anyone said that you definitely will not get an STD. What was said is that when you have sex with someone you trust aka a friend, you lessen your chances considerably. Nor has anyone said that only drug users and gays pass on STDs. If you could be bothered to get look at actual data and not simply rely on your own bubble mentality, you would see that the overwhelming majority of new cases of STDs are found amongst intravenous drug users, homosexual men and the very young. I am sorry to pop your bubble, but a larger, more diverse and colorful world exists outside of your closed minded sect.
Also just in case you are interested. Russian Roulette involves the use of a revolver that has five empty chambers and one live round. So you basically have a 1 out of 6 chance of blowing your brains out. In the meantime the possibility of catching any STD is less than 1 out of a 100. So no it is not quite like playing Russian Roulette at all. But thanks for the hyperbole.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Extremely late to this. I was wondering something. Some posted that it is a benefit because the fwb is the only one they are having sex with and vice versa. How the hell would anyone know that? Even married partners don't know they've been cheated on and they live under the same roof? 

:scratchhead:


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> Extremely late to this. I was wondering something. Some posted that it is a benefit because the fwb is the only one they are having sex with and vice versa. How the hell would anyone know that? Even married partners don't know they've been cheated on and they live under the same roof?
> 
> :scratchhead:


I don't remember anyone saying the sex only happens between the two. So maybe this an assumption you made? Because as you said, even if you are only having sex with that one person (including your spouse) you have no idea whether they are having sex with someone else. So realistically any time you have sex with anyone you are taking a chance, even if it is just with your spouse.


----------



## Andy1001

2ntnuf said:


> Extremely late to this. I was wondering something. Some posted that it is a benefit because the fwb is the only one they are having sex with and vice versa. How the hell would anyone know that? Even married partners don't know they've been cheated on and they live under the same roof?
> 
> :scratchhead:


This isn’t true at all.
When I was single I had a few fwb’s going at the same time.
Not in the same cities though.
I traveled a lot and had neither the time or to be honest,the inclination to have a steady relationship so fwb’s suited me perfectly.
Sometimes it was just sex,sometimes we would do something together,hiking,movies,dinner etc, but it was always understood that it was a temporary situation with no obligation on either side.
In actual fact on a few occasions I met my fwb when she would be with a boyfriend and of course I never even hinted at anything more than a platonic friendship when we said hello.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> I don't remember anyone saying the sex only happens between the two. So maybe this an assumption you made? Because as you said, even if you are only having sex with that one person (including your spouse) you have no idea whether they are having sex with someone else. So realistically any time you have sex with anyone you are taking a chance, even if it is just with your spouse.





Andy1001 said:


> This isn’t true at all.
> When I was single I had a few fwb’s going at the same time.
> Not in the same cities though.
> I traveled a lot and had neither the time or to be honest,the inclination to have a steady relationship so fwb’s suited me perfectly.
> Sometimes it was just sex,sometimes we would do something together,hiking,movies,dinner etc, but it was always understood that it was a temporary situation with no obligation on either side.
> In actual fact on a few occasions I met my fwb when she would be with a boyfriend and of course I never even hinted at anything more than a platonic friendship when we said hello.


Yep, that's what I thought. Why is it a good thing this way and not in a marriage? Seems very similar. Though, it does seem like you are sleeping with a hooker, though there is no money exchanged. Could be some other term for male hookers who service women, I suppose.


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> Yep, that's what I thought. Why is it a good thing this way and not in a marriage? Seems very similar. Though, it does seem like you are sleeping with a hooker, though there is no money exchanged. Could be some other term for male hookers who service women, I suppose.


Why would you think having sex with a friend is anything like having sex with a hooker, money or no money? BTW, there is a term for men who service women for sex, it is Gigolo. But what does that have to do with a FWB situation?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> Why would you think having sex with a friend is anything like having sex with a hooker, money or no money? BTW, there is a term for men who service women for sex, it is Gigolo. But what does that have to do with a FWB situation?


I've read reports from female hookers who say that approximately half of their male clients simply want to talk about the things they cannot talk about at home. Maybe those were escorts, but I don't differentiate them very well. They say they do care about them. They are not interested in being more than an ear, and if they want, a sexual partner. 



Seems like the only difference is the money that is exchanged.

ps.: just noticed your signature. I like it. I'm not afraid to die in the least.


----------



## Andy1001

2ntnuf said:


> Yep, that's what I thought. Why is it a good thing this way and not in a marriage? Seems very similar. Though, it does seem like you are sleeping with a hooker, though there is no money exchanged. Could be some other term for male hookers who service women, I suppose.


Why do you make having a fwb seem like something sordid,it is anything but.
You have two people who find each other sexually attractive but for whatever reason they don’t want an ongoing relationship so they come to a mutually respectful arrangement.Money doesn’t enter the equation at all.
You have been on tam a long time and have a lot of posts to your name,I’m very surprised to see you spouting this bs.


----------



## Diana7

Ynot said:


> My poor, naïve and closed minded friend. No where has anyone said that you definitely will not get an STD. What was said is that when you have sex with someone you trust aka a friend, you lessen your chances considerably. Nor has anyone said that only drug users and gays pass on STDs. If you could be bothered to get look at actual data and not simply rely on your own bubble mentality, you would see that the overwhelming majority of new cases of STDs are found amongst intravenous drug users, homosexual men and the very young. I am sorry to pop your bubble, but a larger, more diverse and colorful world exists outside of your closed minded sect.
> Also just in case you are interested. Russian Roulette involves the use of a revolver that has five empty chambers and one live round. So you basically have a 1 out of 6 chance of blowing your brains out. In the meantime the possibility of catching any STD is less than 1 out of a 100. So no it is not quite like playing Russian Roulette at all. But thanks for the hyperbole.


My husband is a scientist who researches diseases and has worked in healthcare for 25 years, so I think he has far more idea than you of what is going on when it comes to things like STD's. So thanks but we are far from naïve, but we do value sex in marriage which you seem to hate us for. 
People who think its ok to just have sex with someone without being in a relationship with them are just the sort of people who may well have an STD. They may not even know they have it, and if they do they may not tell others even if they are supposedly a friend. 

Yes it is like Russian roulette, you are taking a massive risk if you have many partners, 'friends' or not. 

I read a report a few days ago about the massive rise in people going to get treatment for STD's.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Andy1001 said:


> *Why do you* make having a fwb seem like something sordid,it is anything but.
> You have two people who find each other sexually attractive but for whatever reason they don’t want an ongoing relationship so they come to a mutually respectful arrangement.Money doesn’t enter the equation at all.
> You have been on tam a long time and have a lot of posts to your name,I’m very surprised to see you spouting this bs.


Just interpreting what I read in as logical a manner as possible and asking questions. 

What bs? I don't get it. For me, it seems very similar. I cannot differentiate between them except for the exchange of money. I guess the only other way is to say that there is not advertisement on the internet? What are those OLD sites about? I've read plenty of posts that say they are mainly for hookups, though some do luck out and find a partner. 

Maybe ask yourself why you can't see the correlation? It's plain to me.


----------



## Ynot

Diana7 said:


> My husband is a scientist who researches diseases and has worked in healthcare for 25 years, so I think he has far more idea than you of what is going on when it comes to things like STD's. So thanks but we are far from naïve, but we do value sex in marriage which you seem to hate us for.
> People who think its ok to just have sex with someone without being in a relationship with them are just the sort of people who may well have an STD. They may not even know they have it, and if they do they may not tell others even if they are supposedly a friend.
> 
> Yes it is like Russian roulette, you are taking a massive risk if you have many partners, 'friends' or not.
> 
> I read a report a few days ago about the massive rise in people going to get treatment for STD's.


My son and daughter in law are both medical doctors, my daughter is a nurse. I have a FWB relationship with another nurse. I think they know far more than you or your "scientist" husband do. Besides that I can read. CDC statistics (the actual statistics, not the hyperbole one sees screaming on the headlines) indicate that the risk for any STD is less than one third of one percent or 0.66%.
There are lots of people (in fact many) who have had, do have and continue to have sex outside of marriage. Besides that you, as you a wont to do whenever you are actually confronted with reality, continue to move the goal posts. No one is talking about engaging in sex with anyone outside of a relationship. Whether you realize it or not, friendship is a relationship. So by definition a Friends with Benefits set up is also by definition a relationship.
I do not hate you for what you believe. In fact I do not hate you at all. I do not know even know you. But what I hate is the ignorant shortsighted, closed minded vitriol that you constantly spew towards anyone who does not share your beliefs.
You are not taking a "massive risk" by having sex with many partners, UNLESS your other partners happen to be IV drug users, engage in homosexual activities or are very young. The reality is that most adults have little risk in contracting an STD from normal heterosexual activity.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Ynot said:


> CDC statistics (the actual statistics, not the hyperbole one sees screaming on the headlines) indicate that the risk for any STD is less than one third of one percent or 0.66%.


Actually, that's _two_ thirds of one percent. You've been underestimating your risk by half:surprise:

Anal retentiveness about honest math mistakes aside, I am curious about the full context of the statistic. Is that 0.66% per encounter, per partner, or something else? Is that protected or unprotected or a combination of all? 
Certain lifestyles could certainly make that little statistic add up.


----------



## Ynot

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Actually, that's _two_ thirds of one percent. You've been underestimating your risk by half:surprise:
> 
> Anal retentiveness about honest math mistakes aside, I am curious about the full context of the statistic. Is that 0.66% per encounter, per partner, or something else? Is that protected or unprotected or a combination of all?
> Certain lifestyles could certainly make that little statistic add up.


You are correct it is two thirds of one percent. It is based on the number of reported cases relative to the entire population. So the number I reported is not an actual CDC stat. But if you had up the rates of the individual diseases you come in right around 670 cases per 100,000 or 0.67%
Here is more data directly from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats16/tables/1.htm


----------



## minimalME

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Actually, that's _two_ thirds of one percent. You've been underestimating your risk by half:surprise:
> 
> Anal retentiveness about honest math mistakes aside, I am curious about the full context of the statistic. Is that 0.66% per encounter, per partner, or something else? Is that protected or unprotected or a combination of all?
> Certain lifestyles could certainly make that little statistic add up.


I'm also curious - in a rhetorical kind of way. 

Of the people who live this lifestyle and think they have nothing to worry about...

- how many partners have you had?

- how many partners have you asked about their STD status?

- how many partners have you had unprotected sex with?

and

- have you ever been tested for a wide range of STDs?


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> Just interpreting what I read in as logical a manner as possible and asking questions.
> 
> What bs? I don't get it. For me, it seems very similar. I cannot differentiate between them except for the exchange of money. I guess the only other way is to say that there is not advertisement on the internet? What are those OLD sites about? I've read plenty of posts that say they are mainly for hookups, though some do luck out and find a partner.
> 
> Maybe ask yourself why you can't see the correlation? It's plain to me.


Whatever "correlation" you see is all in your head. The vast majority of prostitution does not involve "talking about issues" nor are the vast majority of OLD meetings about hook ups. Do you similarly imagine that talking to a counselor is similar to paying a hooker? Or that somehow meeting IRL is somehow different than OLD? You need to stop living in the virtual world and get out and experience life and reality.


----------



## Ynot

minimalME said:


> I'm also curious - in a rhetorical kind of way.
> 
> Of the people who live this lifestyle and think they have nothing to worry about...
> 
> - how many partners have you had?
> 
> - how many partners have you asked about their STD status?
> 
> - how many partners have you had unprotected sex with?
> 
> and
> 
> - have you ever been tested for a wide range of STDs?


And once gain I have to ask where has anyone said there is nothing to worry about? What has been said is that the perceived risk (as slight as it was already) is reduced when one has sex with someone they trust (aka a friend).
The reality is that whenever you have sex with anyone you are taking a risk. My point is just that the risk is not equal to hysterical scare mongering that the media uses to sell advertising and that many people unquestionably accept.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> Whatever "correlation" you see is all in your head. The vast majority of prostitution does not involve "talking about issues" nor are the vast majority of OLD meetings about hook ups. Do you similarly imagine that talking to a counselor is similar to paying a hooker? Or that somehow meeting IRL is somehow different than OLD? You need to stop living in the virtual world and get out and experience life and reality.


No, the correlation is there. I do not know any hookers, prostitutes, gigiloes. nor escorts, personally. Or, if I have, I did not know it. I don't think I said the vast majority wants to talk, but many do. Sure, there might be sex involved at some point. It is likely, in fact. 

Go read in any thread about dating where OLD is involved. Hell, read anywhere, but here. Talk with any woman who has been there and they will confirm most men just wanted to hook up. I don't know why you want to deny it? 

There was no sex with my counselor, and at the same time, you confirm my claims of men talking to the hooker. 

Meeting someone has nothing to do with hooking up. I can go on a date and not hook up. I can do any number of things and not have sex with the woman. Why do you twist it all around? You are making straw man arguments. 


Whether I need "live" as in date, is not the question. My viewpoint of fwbs is as I've stated. It is what it is. I don't, nor ever have had any desire to do that, for those reasons and many more.


----------



## minimalME

2ntnuf said:


> Go read in any thread about dating where OLD is involved. Hell, read anywhere, but here. Talk with any woman who has been there and they will confirm most men just wanted to hook up.


This has been my experience again, and again, and again.

On the first date, most behave, but then it becomes about sex, and if you're not willing to comply by the 3rd or 4th date, they're gone.


----------



## Married but Happy

minimalME said:


> This has been my experience again, and again, and again.
> 
> On the first date, most behave, but then it becomes about sex, and if you're not willing to comply by the 3rd or 4th date, they're gone.


It's not about "complying." If she's not into me within a handful or dates, or a couple of months, then we simply have different views of how a relationship should develop, determination of compatibility in all areas, and so we're incompatible. Most likely, there are other views, beliefs, and attitudes that don't align as well, so it's time to move on. There are MANY other women I could date who have a lot in common. IMO, if a relationship isn't relatively easy and free-flowing, it's too much work to maintain.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Ynot said:


> You are correct it is two thirds of one percent. It is based on the number of reported cases relative to the entire population. So the number I reported is not an actual CDC stat. But if you had up the rates of the individual diseases you come in right around 670 cases per 100,000 or 0.67%
> Here is more data directly from the CDC:
> https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats16/tables/1.htm


So each of those years, the cases reported are essentially a snapshot in time. It's not that any individual has a 0.67% chance over time, but in a given year. So over a lifetime of sexual activity, that percentage would go up presumably quite a bit. It'd be interesting to see what percentage of the population gets a STD at some time during their sexually active years. That, to me, would be a more meaningful metric. How many of those reported from year to year are new individuals and how many are returning customers would also be interesting to find out. Lots of variables here.

One thing the data did was confirm my anecdotal knowledge from my days in the AF. I learned, circa 2002, that the number one health issue in my squadron was Chlamydia. Silly, sheltered me, I had to ask the base doc what chlamydia was! As a teen in the 70s/80s, I recall learning about syphilis, gonorrhea, crabs, herpes, etc. Then came the AIDS epidemic, so there was plenty of coverage of that. But I had never heard of chlamydia. There's also no CDC data on that one before 1987, so it seems it wasn't a thing back then. But it has been growing steadily ever since. 

But this is all just for curiosity sake and not really central to the FWB discussion. I think it's pretty much self evident that a FWB has greater risk than a truly monogamous relationship, but less risk than indiscriminate sleeping around. How that affects people's personal risk calculations, if they think of it at all in those terms, will obviously vary from person to person. 

Personally, I couldn't be a FWB guy, regardless of the whole STD sideshow. I'm just not built to have sex outside a committed, monogamous, romantic relationship. For me personally, sex and deep focused love, are inseparable.


----------



## Diana7

Ynot said:


> My son and daughter in law are both medical doctors, my daughter is a nurse. I have a FWB relationship with another nurse. I think they know far more than you or your "scientist" husband do. Besides that I can read. CDC statistics (the actual statistics, not the hyperbole one sees screaming on the headlines) indicate that the risk for any STD is less than one third of one percent or 0.66%.
> There are lots of people (in fact many) who have had, do have and continue to have sex outside of marriage. Besides that you, as you a wont to do whenever you are actually confronted with reality, continue to move the goal posts. No one is talking about engaging in sex with anyone outside of a relationship. Whether you realize it or not, friendship is a relationship. So by definition a Friends with Benefits set up is also by definition a relationship.
> I do not hate you for what you believe. In fact I do not hate you at all. I do not know even know you. But what I hate is the ignorant shortsighted, closed minded vitriol that you constantly spew towards anyone who does not share your beliefs.
> You are not taking a "massive risk" by having sex with many partners, UNLESS your other partners happen to be IV drug users, engage in homosexual activities or are very young. The reality is that most adults have little risk in contracting an STD from normal heterosexual activity.


Exactly, you know nothing about me. 
Merely for pointing out what is actually going on, that Stds are rife, you attack and judge me. Anyone who has many sexual partners is at great risk, people need to be aware of that, its fact. The more people you have sex with the more chance you will have to catch one. I would have thought that was very obvious. 

CBS news
The United States is experiencing a "steep and sustained" spike in sexually transmitted diseases, a new government analysis shows.
Cases of gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia all increased in 2017, making it the fourth straight year in which STD infections continued to rise.
"The United States continues to have the highest STD rates in the industrialized world," said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. "We are in the midst of an absolute STD public health crisis in this country. It's a crisis that has been in the making for years."

Yep, a public health crisis, said by an STD expert. His words not mine, but its all kept quiet.


----------



## Diana7

Married but Happy said:


> It's not about "complying." If she's not into me within a handful or dates, or a couple of months, then we simply have different views of how a relationship should develop, determination of compatibility in all areas, and so we're incompatible. Most likely, there are other views, beliefs, and attitudes that don't align as well, so it's time to move on. There are MANY other women I could date who have a lot in common. IMO, if a relationship isn't relatively easy and free-flowing, it's too much work to maintain.


She may be into you, but not want to have sex after just a few dates. Some still thankfully want to be in a serious relationship before they have sex.


----------



## Diana7

minimalME said:


> This has been my experience again, and again, and again.
> 
> On the first date, most behave, but then it becomes about sex, and if you're not willing to comply by the 3rd or 4th date, they're gone.


Well at least then you find out who is worth having and who isn't.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> And once gain I have to ask where has anyone said there is nothing to worry about? What has been said is that the perceived risk (as slight as it was already) is reduced when one has sex with someone they trust (aka a friend).
> The reality is that whenever you have sex with anyone you are taking a risk. My point is just that the risk is not equal to hysterical scare mongering that the media uses to sell advertising and that many people unquestionably accept.


A wife or husband is much more than a friend, yet many cannot trust them. A friend, therefore, must be less trustworthy.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

2ntnuf said:


> A wife or husband is much more than a friend, yet many cannot trust them. A friend, therefore, must be less trustworthy.


I might word it a little differently but it is the same concept.

A marriage is (usually) defined as a fully committed, monogamous relationship. Yes sometimes, one or both spouses break that commitment. That said, a FWB lacks the commitment of a marriage, and therefore, should be more likely to have sex outside that FWB relationship, thus increasing risk of a negative outcome for one or both friends.


----------



## Ynot

Diana7 said:


> Exactly, you know nothing about me.
> Merely for pointing out what is actually going on, that Stds are rife, you attack and judge me. Anyone who has many sexual partners is at great risk, people need to be aware of that, its fact. The more people you have sex with the more chance you will have to catch one. I would have thought that was very obvious.
> 
> CBS news
> The United States is experiencing a "steep and sustained" spike in sexually transmitted diseases, a new government analysis shows.
> Cases of gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia all increased in 2017, making it the fourth straight year in which STD infections continued to rise.
> "The United States continues to have the highest STD rates in the industrialized world," said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. "We are in the midst of an absolute STD public health crisis in this country. It's a crisis that has been in the making for years."
> 
> Yep, a public health crisis, said by an STD expert. His words not mine, but its all kept quiet.


And once again, I have not attacked you or judged you. I have only stated fact, which is based upon the numerous posts you have made that have been proven to be blatantly false or based completely on hyperbole, your remaining post being a prime example.
Steep and sustained SPIKE? Do you know what a spike is? That is a sharp upward trend followed by an equally sharp down ward trend. But for the record, had you bothered to review the actual table your hyperbolic rant is based on. You would see for instance that the actual reported case of say Gonorrhea actually peaked aka spiked in the late 1970's at over a million cases a year, an average of over 450 cases per 100,000. It then fell for many years and has only begun to increase very lately at just under 500,000 case a year, which is an average of approximately 1/3 the number of cases with a much larger population. Heck you the ratio of the ratio of new cases now vs new cases then is much closer to your fictional Russian Roulette example that than the actual rate of new infection is (0.1485% in 2016).


----------



## Ynot

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Personally, I couldn't be a FWB guy, regardless of the whole STD sideshow. I'm just not built to have sex outside a committed, monogamous, romantic relationship. For me personally, sex and deep focused love, are inseparable.


I would have said the same thing five years ago. But then I thought I was in one of those committed, monogamous, romantic relationship. Then I wasn't and I realized that I really wasn't. Had she been committed, we would still be together. Had she been monogamous, she wouldn't have decided to leave. Romantic? Well that is really just a concept sold to us by Disney.
Believing that sex is somehow related to "deep focused love" is the fairy tale I had to overcome.
I never would have believed I would ever become a FWB guy. But here I am. I would rather develop a harem of different women, than resubmit myself to one. Once you factor in the risk of failure in a marriage, the odds of catching an STD begin to look very favorable.
Believe me, there is very much a part of me that would love to have the intact nuclear family with a happy committed monogamous relationship at the core of it. But I understand that that ship has sailed for me. I will never be in such a relationship with the mother of my child and step child. In fact I wasn't at all in the end when I was so desperately giving in and making so many accommodations for her that I ceased to be me.
If you end up making it thru to the end I guess I can say "congratulations!" but I would be lying. You have expressed a deep dissatisfaction with your own situation, but have made accommodations based on keeping your family intact. That is okay for some. but not for all. I wasn't happy and neither was she. So here I am.


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> A wife or husband is much more than a friend, yet many cannot trust them. A friend, therefore, must be less trustworthy.


WTH? Do you really believe this tripe?


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> No, the correlation is there. I do not know any hookers, prostitutes, gigiloes. nor escorts, personally. Or, if I have, I did not know it. I don't think I said the vast majority wants to talk, but many do. Sure, there might be sex involved at some point. It is likely, in fact.
> 
> Go read in any thread about dating where OLD is involved. Hell, read anywhere, but here. Talk with any woman who has been there and they will confirm most men just wanted to hook up. I don't know why you want to deny it?
> 
> There was no sex with my counselor, and at the same time, you confirm my claims of men talking to the hooker.
> 
> Meeting someone has nothing to do with hooking up. I can go on a date and not hook up. I can do any number of things and not have sex with the woman. Why do you twist it all around? You are making straw man arguments.
> 
> 
> Whether I need "live" as in date, is not the question. My viewpoint of fwbs is as I've stated. It is what it is. I don't, nor ever have had any desire to do that, for those reasons and many more.


Dude, YOU are the one that implied you could see the correlations when you responded to another poster by questioning why they could not see them. So don't if you want to start backpedaling, at least retract one statement before trying a different line of argument.
You are also the one who started making the non-sensical arguments you are now opposed to.


----------



## changingmale

I use to work with a young guy 19 or so and he has slept with many females from what he said. He even taped a few seconds of having sex. They break up and then become fwb till he dates someone else and sometimes still with both females. He will sleep with them asap. Crazy


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Ynot said:


> I would have said the same thing five years ago. But then I thought I was in one of those committed, monogamous, romantic relationship. Then I wasn't and I realized that I really wasn't. Had she been committed, we would still be together. Had she been monogamous, she wouldn't have decided to leave. Romantic? Well that is really just a concept sold to us by Disney.
> Believing that sex is somehow related to "deep focused love" is the fairy tale I had to overcome.
> I never would have believed I would ever become a FWB guy. But here I am. I would rather develop a harem of different women, than resubmit myself to one. Once you factor in the risk of failure in a marriage, the odds of catching an STD begin to look very favorable.
> Believe me, there is very much a part of me that would love to have the intact nuclear family with a happy committed monogamous relationship at the core of it. But I understand that that ship has sailed for me. I will never be in such a relationship with the mother of my child and step child. In fact I wasn't at all in the end when I was so desperately giving in and making so many accommodations for her that I ceased to be me.
> If you end up making it thru to the end I guess I can say "congratulations!" but I would be lying. You have expressed a deep dissatisfaction with your own situation, but have made accommodations based on keeping your family intact. That is okay for some. but not for all. I wasn't happy and neither was she. So here I am.


The thread asked for individual perspectives and I shared minen It was not intended to prescribe for others, you included. I was very clear in expressing that that was my personal view, nothing more.

Even if my marriage (which seems to be steadily improving) was to end, I'd still look for the whole package in the next one and not settle for sex without love. It's all or nothing for me and I'll take nothing before I'll take a partial.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> WTH? Do you really believe this tripe?


At one time, it was true. It may not be true today, because of societal changes. The cynic in me wants to say this is just another reason marriage is not worth it, if you believe a friend is more trustworthy than a spouse. The dreamer wants to say a spouse is a more trustworthy friend. Today, it is so easy to cheat, whether you are married or dating, it might be you can't trust anyone, but I cannot agree that a friend is more trustworthy than a spouse, unless we are comparing individuals.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> Dude, YOU are the one that implied you could see the correlations when you responded to another poster by questioning why they could not see them. So don't if you want to start backpedaling, at least retract one statement before trying a different line of argument.
> You are also the one who started making the non-sensical arguments you are now opposed to.


I'd have to see both to know what you are talking about. At the moment, I don't know where I was backpedaling.

Oh, the correlation between online dating and backpage(or choose your own example like backpage), which has hookers on it? Sure, someone picks out a profile and takes a look, just like OLD. They read the post written, just like OLD. They may look at another, just like OLD. Then, when they choose, they message them, just like OLD. They talk a little to see if there are any red flags, just like OLD. If they both think they are safe enough, they make a date, just like OLD. For backpage, they are paying for a service, which I said 50 percent of those folks sit and talk to the hooker about their lives, and some of those only talk, while others, probably most, have sex. With OLD, the goal for many is sex as soon and often as possible. They push for sex on the first date, and many times get it, just like with the hooker on backpage or choose your own example of a site. 

On the date, the two talk some to check each other out. Seems pretty similar to me. When sex is agreed upon, the laws today say you must get approval for what you want to do together, or it might be sexual assault. Seems like talking to a hooker to negotiate a price and service. She must be enthusiastic throughout. The hooker will be positive about what you discussed you wanted to do. If you try to do more, the hooker will not like it. You could be beaten and robbed, or worse, if you do not renegotiate and pay for extras. In dating, if you are charged with sexual assault because you tried something you did not discuss, you could pay the price of court, loss of job, banishment from friends and family, etc. It's a bit different with a date, but similar, as well.


----------



## Bananapeel

Diana7 said:


> CBS news
> The United States is experiencing a "steep and sustained" spike in sexually transmitted diseases, a new government analysis shows.
> Cases of gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia all increased in 2017, making it the fourth straight year in which STD infections continued to rise.
> "The United States continues to have the highest STD rates in the industrialized world," said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. "We are in the midst of an absolute STD public health crisis in this country. It's a crisis that has been in the making for years."
> 
> Yep, a public health crisis, said by an STD expert. His words not mine, but its all kept quiet.


If you ever read a grant application you'll see that everything is a crisis and needs to be handled with a huge influx of research dollars yesterday! My point is we can each decide for ourselves what the level of risk is that we are willing to take and live our life according to it. The risk of STD's can be minimized through protected sex with partners that have current STD tests and aren't engaged in high risk activities. The risk can be maximized through risky sexual behavior. 

The better question to ask is what is the risk of getting a STD in a monogamous relationship vs the risk of one with a FWB relationship. That would be far more meaningful than various personal interpretations of what is a crisis. Maybe I'll do a pubmed search later and update this thread if I find anything meaningful in a peer reviewed publication.


----------



## Bananapeel

Ynot said:


> You are correct it is two thirds of one percent. It is based on the number of reported cases relative to the entire population. So the number I reported is not an actual CDC stat. But if you had up the rates of the individual diseases you come in right around 670 cases per 100,000 or 0.67%
> Here is more data directly from the CDC:
> https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats16/tables/1.htm


In fairness they are only listing three different STD's in this study so the risk is going to be higher than what they report. My physician thinks the risk is low for contracting a STD in my geographical area and we've discussed it.


----------



## personofinterest

I am confused as to why STD's are such a controversial topic. We've known for ever and it's still mathematically and scientifically obvious that the more partners you have the higher your risk is for an STD. You don't have to like it, and it may not be PC, but that's the way it is. Sorry.


----------



## Married but Happy

Bananapeel said:


> The better question to ask is what is the risk of getting a STD in a monogamous relationship vs the risk of one with a FWB relationship. That would be far more meaningful than various personal interpretations of what is a crisis. Maybe I'll do a pubmed search later and update this thread if I find anything meaningful in a peer reviewed publication.


That would be good information to have. It seems that many people in supposedly monogamous relationships cheat, and may be exposed to STIs. They can have a false sense of invulnerability. FWBs are probably more honest and careful, _knowing_ that they may not be exclusive.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

It's interesting that the topic of the thread carries the subtitle "men and women viewpoints," but it appears that the varying viewpoints aren't really gender correlated. Both men and women advocate for FWBs and both men and women don't want FWBs. There are decision factors here which are stronger than male vs. female.


----------



## Ynot

personofinterest said:


> I am confused as to why STD's are such a controversial topic. We've known for ever and it's still mathematically and scientifically obvious that the more partners you have the higher your risk is for an STD. You don't have to like it, and it may not be PC, but that's the way it is. Sorry.


It isn't that STDs are a controversial subject as much as it is the rampant scare mongering that some people resort to, in order to try to shame others who do not feel the same way they do. Everyone knows that if you have sex you run the risk of getting an STD. It is just some people choose to use that fact to try to scare others into complying with their world view on the basis of hyperbolic headlines, which are used more to drive advertising sales than to inform the public.


----------



## personofinterest

Ynot said:


> It isn't that STDs are a controversial subject as much as it is the rampant scare mongering that some people resort to, in order to try to shame others who do not feel the same way they do. Everyone knows that if you have sex you run the risk of getting an STD. It is just some people choose to use that fact to try to scare others into complying with their world view on the basis of hyperbolic headlines, which are used more to drive advertising sales than to inform the public.


Unless two absolute virgins marry (in other words, zero body fluids have ever been exchanged with anyone else) sex will always carry the risk of STD's. I married for the second time at close to 50 with a hubby who was fifty. He had a wild phase. I didn't have a phase, but I had been married before and had dated after divorce before him. It was absolutely a risk for us. Any person on this forum who has had sex with more than one person, or who has had sex with one person who had had sex with more than one person. is at risk. However, there are a myriad of ways to mitigate those risks. Every time I get into my car to drive to work I take a risk. 

I understand that some people are very opposed to promiscuity. It isn't my favorite thing either. But you're right, acting as if people who sleep around are the ONLY people who have to worry about STD's is ridiculous. It's also part of that coercive, self-righteous kind of "faith signaling' that gets on my nerves. If you've (the collective you) divorced a cheating spouse - YOU are a risk if you slept with them while married and while they were cheating. So using it as a shaming tactic is...not really logical.


----------



## minimalME

Ynot said:


> It isn't that STDs are a controversial subject as much as it is the rampant scare mongering that some people resort to, in order to try to shame others who do not feel the same way they do. Everyone knows that if you have sex you run the risk of getting an STD. It is just some people choose to use that fact to try to scare others into complying with their world view on the basis of hyperbolic headlines, which are used more to drive advertising sales than to inform the public.


Either extreme is unwise. 

I must have missed the shaming and scare mongering (or it could be that you're just exaggerating), but to say it's totally not a concern is just as bad and untrue.


----------



## Andy1001

On tam as well as life in general there are people who think that sex has to be some sort of crowning achievement.It’s the final act in a play which includes many scenes,initial contact,meeting,dating and in some cases marriage.
There are posters on tam who consider every person they date to be possible husband or wife material and will not date casually and certainly will not have sex without a serious amount of commitment on both sides.
Now that’s fine as far as I’m concerned, but when the scaremongering about std’s and the frankly disingenuous comments about prostitution enter the discussion then it becomes tedious in the extreme.
I wonder about all these sainted people,keeping themselves pure from temptation.
What are they afraid of?


----------



## Bananapeel

I don't have much time to look today, but here's an old study that came up on pubmed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3394697 

Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Aug;128(2):298-308.
Factors related to genital Chlamydia trachomatis and its diagnosis by culture in a sexually transmitted disease clinic.
Magder LS1, Harrison HR, Ehret JM, Anderson TS, Judson FN.

From the abstract: Among consecutive female patients, 172 of 1,031 (17%) had positive cervical cultures, with rates significantly lower in those who were white (13%), married (7%), or using a diaphragm (0 of 77), and higher in those who were positive for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (38%). There was a marginally significant increased rate of chlamydial isolation among oral contraceptive users only for women aged 20 years or younger. Younger age was significantly associated with chlamydial isolation in both men and women after controlling for sexual activity and other factors.

So in this one study married women from their sample group who went to that particular STD clinic had a 7% incidence of gonorrhea vs 17% in non-married women. It might be erroneous to assume that there are equal birth control choices between married and non-married couples (I presume far more FWB's would be expected to use condoms vs married couples), so that would also play a role in the risk of infection. Wish I had more time today to research this.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

Bananapeel said:


> I don't have much time to look today, but here's an old study that came up on pubmed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3394697
> 
> Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Aug;128(2):298-308.
> Factors related to genital Chlamydia trachomatis and its diagnosis by culture in a sexually transmitted disease clinic.
> Magder LS1, Harrison HR, Ehret JM, Anderson TS, Judson FN.
> 
> From the abstract: Among consecutive female patients, 172 of 1,031 (17%) had positive cervical cultures, with rates significantly lower in those who were white (13%), married (7%), or using a diaphragm (0 of 77), and higher in those who were positive for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (38%). There was a marginally significant increased rate of chlamydial isolation among oral contraceptive users only for women aged 20 years or younger. Younger age was significantly associated with chlamydial isolation in both men and women after controlling for sexual activity and other factors.
> 
> So in this one study married women from their sample group who went to that particular STD clinic had a 7% incidence of gonorrhea vs 17% in non-married women. It might be erroneous to assume that there are equal birth control choices between married and non-married couples (I presume far more FWB's would be expected to use condoms vs married couples), so that would also play a role in the risk of infection. Wish I had more time today to research this.


I agree with you. Can't gain much from this particular study -- early 1980's (different culture), single-center, not randomized, all kinds of room for bias regarding who goes to these clinics in the first place, and why.

Age was a huge factor (of course). Wasn't controlled for. 

Zero cases of chlamydia among women using a diaphragm (which does nothing to protect against STDs). Lots of confounding.


----------



## Steelman

I've had chances at these relationships, but was never really of the belief that the girl didn't want more. If I did truly believe it, I might have continued. I believed it was a way to snag me, and I didn't want a relationship at the time from these particular women.

So I felt crappy about using them, ended the relationships, and stayed out of them altogether. Guess I'm just not wired that way. My guess is someone usually wants more.


----------



## Ynot

minimalME said:


> Either extreme is unwise.
> 
> I must have missed the shaming and scare mongering (or it could be that you're just exaggerating), but to say it's totally not a concern is just as bad and untrue.


I agree. But in this case there has only been one side speaking in absolutes, basically on the basis of their own imagination. No one has ever said there "is nothing to worry about" or "that you definitely will not get an STD" from a FWB relationship. NO ONE!


----------



## Bananapeel

Hope Shimmers said:


> I agree with you. Can't gain much from this particular study -- early 1980's (different culture), single-center, not randomized, all kinds of room for bias regarding who goes to these clinics in the first place, and why.
> 
> Age was a huge factor (of course). Wasn't controlled for.
> 
> Zero cases of chlamydia among women using a diaphragm (which does nothing to protect against STDs). Lots of confounding.


That's why I wish I had more time today and could actually pull the study and read the materials and methods. I assume this was a retrospective study which inherently has limitations regarding population selection criteria, randomization, and other bias. However, it does clearly demonstrate the point made earlier that STD's do still occur in married couples.


----------



## Andy1001

Steelman said:


> I've had chances at these relationships, but was never really of the belief that the girl didn't want more. If I did truly believe it, I might have continued. I believed it was a way to snag me, and I didn't want a relationship at the time from these particular women.
> 
> So I felt crappy about using them, ended the relationships, and stayed out of them altogether. Guess I'm just not wired that way. My guess is someone usually wants more.


In my opinion you missed out on a lot of fun.
Why put yourself in these situations if you weren’t prepared to follow through.It’s like going to Disneyworld but not going on any of the rides.
Are you one of these men who think women are frail,innocent creatures who fall in love with the first guy who gives them any attention?
They’re not,most women enjoy no strings attached sex as much as men and when the right man comes along they are able to be faithful and loyal.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

Bananapeel said:


> That's why I wish I had more time today and could actually pull the study and read the materials and methods. I assume this was a retrospective study which inherently has limitations regarding population selection criteria, randomization, and other bias. However, it does clearly demonstrate the point made earlier that STD's do still occur in married couples.


What do you do for a living?


----------



## Ynot

Andy1001 said:


> In my opinion you missed out on a lot of fun.
> Why put yourself in these situations if you weren’t prepared to follow through.It’s like going to Disneyworld but not going on any of the rides.
> Are you one of these men who think women are frail,innocent creatures who fall in love with the first guy who gives them any attention?
> They’re not,most women enjoy no strings attached sex as much as men and when the right man comes along they are able to be faithful and loyal.


I agree with most of your post. I do think you may have overstated when you said "most women enjoy no strings attached sex" A better word choice might have been "many". I am not trying to quibble over words, but you do know how some people like to exaggerate. Otherwise spot on.


----------



## Bananapeel

Hope Shimmers said:


> What do you do for a living?


I prefer not to share that online or I might not remain anonymous. If you're interested just send me a PM.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Andy1001 said:


> On tam as well as life in general there are people who think that sex has to be some sort of crowning achievement.It’s the final act in a play which includes many scenes,initial contact,meeting,dating and in some cases marriage.
> There are posters on tam who consider every person they date to be possible husband or wife material and will not date casually and certainly will not have sex without a serious amount of commitment on both sides.
> Now that’s fine as far as I’m concerned, but when the scaremongering about std’s and the frankly disingenuous comments about prostitution enter the discussion then it becomes tedious in the extreme.
> I wonder about all these sainted people,keeping themselves pure from temptation.
> What are they afraid of?


Honestly, I don't know what candor you think is missing. I'm telling you the little I have read about what some prostitute said in and article, and then I'm telling you what I think about FWB and how they relate in my mind. How is my personal opinion a lie? It's my opinion. You might disagree with it, but that's something different. 

I am not telling you or anyone else they are to believe my opinions and live them. I am not telling you that everyone is a hooker or gigolo. I'm simply saying this is how _I_ feel about it. When was it wrong for me to have my own opinions? I don't harm anyone with them. I'm just posting them, as was asked in the opening post. 

What are you guys afraid of? What is it about you, in your past or present, or maybe future that is disturbing you about my opinions and why are you owning my opinions? Who told you to do that? WTF?


Sainted? Hardly. No one claims that. I can see you feel like you are less than anyone with an opinion different than yours. 

Keeping pure from temptation? That's not my reasoning. It's your assumption. My reasons are as I posted above and more. They truly are none of your concern and the your rude comments aren't appreciated nor requested. Get a hold of yourself. You can do as you wish. It's up to you. NO one said you can't. 



Afraid? Sure, I'm afraid of being accused of something I didn't do, partly. I don't find most women my age attractive, and it takes a natural feeling of strong attraction of unknown origin or cause for me to even want to have sex with some random strange woman. I don't want to go through the trouble. 

Yeah, I know of one woman who does that to me and she is married. I'm not going to attract many women, since I'm not in the best of shape. At some point, it just isn't worth it, unless it's something truly special. At my age, I have no idea what that would be, but probably not marriage or going to some woman's grandchild's birthday party. I don't want to go through the feelings of not being wanted there, of being invisible, of patronization, of uncomfortable silence. I don't want to listen to the woman's family talk about her previous husband, their father. I don't want to hear any of it. I don't want to talk about some issues the woman is having with her family, adult children, or whomever. I don't want to be ignored when I offer suggestions. I don't want to be left out of conversations about family, since I would want to feel like family, if it is something long term. 

Guess what? I am not ready to date. Screw? Sure, but then I don't want a woman who just wants to screw. It would be so much easier not to have to deal with a jealous FWB or some other *******. 

That's right, I may never be ready because I just don't see the benefits, whatever those are, being worth the trouble. I can fart an burp. I can leave the seat up or down, as I please. I can someday, change my mind, if I want and have sex with some woman who wants me. Right now, nope. 

However, that is just me and does not mean I think everyone should be that way. The reason it bothers you is because there is something inside of you that doesn't feel right about what YOU are doing. I don't care what you do. I don't care what any woman or man does, unless we are talking about a woman I might considerr having sex with. Then, I am affected by my own issues or quirks or boundaries or whatever you want to call them all.

So find out what is inside of you that causes you to get hurt and angry, because it isn't me or anyone else. It's something in you.


----------



## Andy1001

2ntnuf said:


> Honestly, I don't know what candor you think is missing. I'm telling you the little I have read about what some prostitute said in and article, and then I'm telling you what I think about FWB and how they relate in my mind. How is my personal opinion a lie? It's my opinion. You might disagree with it, but that's something different.
> 
> I am not telling you or anyone else they are to believe my opinions and live them. I am not telling you that everyone is a hooker or gigolo. I'm simply saying this is how _I_ feel about it. When was it wrong for me to have my own opinions? I don't harm anyone with them. I'm just posting them, as was asked in the opening post.
> 
> What are you guys afraid of? What is it about you, in your past or present, or maybe future that is disturbing you about my opinions and why are you owning my opinions? Who told you to do that? WTF?
> 
> 
> Sainted? Hardly. No one claims that. I can see you feel like you are less than anyone with an opinion different than yours.
> 
> Keeping pure from temptation? That's not my reasoning. It's your assumption. My reasons are as I posted above and more. They truly are none of your concern and the your rude comments aren't appreciated nor requested. Get a hold of yourself. You can do as you wish. It's up to you. NO one said you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Afraid? Sure, I'm afraid of being accused of something I didn't do, partly. I don't find most women my age attractive, and it takes a natural feeling of strong attraction of unknown origin or cause for me to even want to have sex with some random strange woman. I don't want to go through the trouble.
> 
> Yeah, I know of one woman who does that to me and she is married. I'm not going to attract many women, since I'm not in the best of shape. At some point, it just isn't worth it, unless it's something truly special. At my age, I have no idea what that would be, but probably not marriage or going to some woman's grandchild's birthday party. I don't want to go through the feelings of not being wanted there, of being invisible, of patronization, of uncomfortable silence. I don't want to listen to the woman's family talk about her previous husband, their father. I don't want to hear any of it. I don't want to talk about some issues the woman is having with her family, adult children, or whomever. I don't want to be ignored when I offer suggestions. I don't want to be left out of conversations about family, since I would want to feel like family, if it is something long term.
> 
> Guess what? I am not ready to date. Screw? Sure, but then I don't want a woman who just wants to screw. It would be so much easier not to have to deal with a jealous FWB or some other *******.
> 
> That's right, I may never be ready because I just don't see the benefits, whatever those are, being worth the trouble. I can fart an burp. I can leave the seat up or down, as I please. I can someday, change my mind, if I want and have sex with some woman who wants me. Right now, nope.
> 
> However, that is just me and does not mean I think everyone should be that way. The reason it bothers you is because there is something inside of you that doesn't feel right about what YOU are doing. I don't care what you do. I don't care what any woman or man does, unless we are talking about a woman I might considerr having sex with. Then, I am affected by my own issues or quirks or boundaries or whatever you want to call them all.
> 
> So find out what is inside of you that causes you to get hurt and angry, because it isn't me or anyone else. It's something in you.


If your interested I’ve been in a long term exclusive relationship for over seven years and I’m getting married next month.
As to the rest of your post,frankly I haven’t a clue what you are talking about.You apparently don’t even want to have sex and from your self description you aren’t likely to be offered much either.
You are coming across as someone who is jealous of fit,attractive people who enjoy sex and actively seek it.
As far as me feeling hurt or angry,not happening dude.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Andy1001 said:


> If your interested I’ve been in a long term exclusive relationship for over seven years and I’m getting married next month.
> As to the rest of your post,frankly I haven’t a clue what you are talking about.You apparently don’t even want to have sex and from your self description you aren’t likely to be offered much either.
> You are coming across as someone who is jealous of fit,attractive people who enjoy sex and actively seek it.
> As far as me feeling hurt or angry,not happening dude.


I'm the furthest thing from jealous. I'm realistic about myself, and truthful about my thoughts and feelings. Please, get some counseling. You are assuming too much and it seems delusional in nature. You can't even read a post which answers your obvious attack on anyone who thinks differently from you without accusing them of something. This is twice you have done that. You think in black and white. That's not good.


----------



## Andy1001

2ntnuf said:


> I'm the furthest thing from jealous. I'm realistic about myself, and truthful about my thoughts and feelings. Please, get some counseling. You are assuming too much and it seems delusional in nature. You can't even read a post which answers your obvious attack on anyone who thinks differently from you without accusing them of something. This is twice you have done that. You think in black and white. That's not good.


You are posting on a thread which is discussing the pros and cons of a fwb relationship.
However you have admitted you are not interested in having sex.
And I’m the one who needs counseling?
Projecting much?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Andy1001 said:


> You are posting on a thread which is discussing the pros and cons of a fwb relationship.
> However you have admitted you are not interested in having sex.
> And I’m the one who needs counseling?
> Projecting much?





> A psychoanalytical theory, projection is the process whereby one subject believes they see attributes (both good and bad) in another. The theory views this tendency as a defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to another. In this way, the projector is able to avoid the unpleasantness in themselves. However, the theory goes on to explain that in severe cases of projection, the condition of projection may degenerate into paranoid delusions to the point that the projector believes others are responsible for the projector's problems and are secretly plotting against them. The projection basically allows a subject to ignore faults within themselves.
> 
> What is PROJECTION? definition of PROJECTION (Psychology Dictionary)


Andy, I haven't run anyone down. I haven't told anyone to do what I do. I haven't expressed it in a way that should make anyone think my way is more pleasurable than sex. I have stated how I feel about FWB. That's it. 

Since then, you have told me that I am jealous because I can't get a beautiful woman like others. You have told me, paraphrasing, that I don't want others to have fun. You are now telling me that because I have no interest in pursuing women for sex, that I think that's how everyone should be. 



The question in the op is about men and women's viewpoints on friends with benefits. I had one woman in my life who I thought would be, until she wanted more. I then realized after seeing how hurt she was, that one of the participants had hopes of something more. I don't want a part of that. 

Also, for the reasons I've stated earlier in this thread and others, I will not pursue a woman for a "friends" with benefits relationship. I have every right to post my opinion. You will not force me to stop posting opinions about myself. 



What you have alluded to is, I want to stop others from having sex in a "friends" with benefits relationship. What do you think my goal would be by doing that? How do you think I would go about changing the entire population of the world to be like me? My opinions will only influence those who are already "on the fence" about these things. Were you hoping you could change those folks minds? 

I wasn't. 



So far, you have guessed or accused me of:

I am jealous. 

I can't find a beautiful woman.

I don't want others to have fun. 


So far, you have been mistaken. I've said before, you won't find too many humans like me. I am far from perfect and do not attempt to be.


Why are you concerned about my opinions?


----------



## Steelman

Andy1001 said:


> In my opinion you missed out on a lot of fun.
> Why put yourself in these situations if you weren’t prepared to follow through.It’s like going to Disneyworld but not going on any of the rides.
> Are you one of these men who think women are frail,innocent creatures who fall in love with the first guy who gives them any attention?
> They’re not,most women enjoy no strings attached sex as much as men and when the right man comes along they are able to be faithful and loyal.


I said it was clear that these women didn't necessarily want that, although they said they were fine with it. I didn't buy it based on the signs moving forward with it I would have been fine with it if they were. 

So if you want to say I didn't come across the right women, that's fine.


----------

