# is having or had a FWB/FB a big no no



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

as the title is having or had a friends with benefits FWB/FB ****buddy a big no no 

does it automatic make a person a red flag holder 

this is quite a new thing but has been around for some here to have experience of 
some here married a partner that once had a FWB/ FB should you have seen it as a red flag ? 
SOME have been in a FWB/FB do you think it was good experience and did not have a bad effect on you as marriage material


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

Well, Duhhhhh.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

syhoybenden said:


> Well, Duhhhhh.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

If I had started dating someone and they were currently in a relationship like that, them hanging around their partner would always be suspicious. I'm middle age and I would date someone in middle age and being in a position of wanting to have sex without it being intended as a life long commitment at some point in their life is not surprising.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

In earlier times fwbs was just dating, which isn't an issue if one hasn't had an exclusivity talk with any one.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

I hear the term FWB tossed around for so long but let us not forget that a FWB situation is still considered a relationship perhaps lossly defined then other realtionships but still one in definition....the bases of which may be constructed differently than other "relationship" scope and boundaries, but if it works for two single people then why see it as anything else...i suspect it becomes an issue because of jealousy.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

So how are we defining FWB? I guess it's a sexual relationship between friends with (a) no luurrve, (b) no exclusivity, and (c) no intention to live together or spend much time together. For me, that IS a red flag, because if someone is capable of that, then they are probably not right for me. That ability not to bond. I'm the opposite.



Lostinthought61 said:


> if it works for two single people then why see it as anything else.


OK, that's fine, but then neither of those single people will be someone I want to be in a romantic relationship with in the future.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

In my opinion, a persons past sex life isn’t something I delve too deeply into. I pay attention to how they act now rather than digging around in their past too much. But then I also think all this nonsense about “she has to have nothing to compare you too or she’s always thinking about those men” is also kinda silly. But people feel how they feel and have every right to set standards for themselves.

After reading through the responses, I do want to add that adultery in the past would be a dealbreaker for me. I think that's different; the way someone behaves when they are single is going to be different than how they behave when they're not single.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

I can't take credit for the quote nor can I remember it correctly, but it goes something like "Sex is a sickening and depraved act, so you only do it with the person you truly love."


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

Not sure how a FWB would be any different than a one night stand or someone you dated for a short period of time and had sex with.

As long as it happened when a person was single, it shouldn't be an issue in a new relationship or marriage. Now if someone committed adultery previously, that's a HUGE red flag for me and I would not date them.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Massive red flag for me. Wouldn't be intetested in anyone who though it was ok.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

There are a lot of people here who get very squeamish in regards to anyone (especially women) who did not follow the paradigm of virginity until marriage and then lifelong strict monogamy forever.

anything deviating from that raises an eyebrow and the more things deviate from that, the more the alarm bells go off.

a good number of people also came here after experiencing infidelity and being cheated on so anything that hints of possibly being a risk factor of cheating sets off major alarm bells for them.

the thread that I believe was the inspiration for this thread I think is particularly notable. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised at how harsh the posters were in response to a 40-something year old woman having had sex with someone she did not marry 20 years prior and who had gotten with someone prior to her divorce being finalized.

I knew that the fact she got with someone else before the divorce would get people’s hackles up, But I was surprised at how harshly her casual relationship 20 years prior was judged.

to me, someone who is in their 40s and has lived a somewhat normal existence is going to have had a variety of life experiences along the and not all of those experiences are going to be blessed by the Vatican or eligible for sainthood.

It’s tough to be a saint. Most normal people get a few scuffs and scratches by the time we’re laid in the ground. 

Does that make us bad people??? Or just ineligible for sainthood ?


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

It’s only a problem if she 1. Wants to keep them around, or 2. Has had dozens of them.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

frenchpaddy said:


> as the title is having or had a friends with benefits FWB/FB ****buddy a big no no
> 
> does it automatic make a person a red flag holder


How long is a piece of string?

This is such a subjective question depending upon a persons opinion on such things. Some think it's perfectly dandy, while others think such behaviour is appalling and whatever in-between.

If some people don't want to be with people who have had such relationships, then they shouldn't be obliged to choose relationships with such people. Likewise if some people don't mind, then they don't mind.

If someone believes something is a problem, then that something is likely to be a problem for them. If someone doesn't think something is a problem, then that something is not likely to be a problem for them. 



> this is quite a new thing but has been around for some here to have experience of
> some here married a partner that once had a FWB/ FB should you have seen it as a red flag ?
> SOME have been in a FWB/FB do you think it was good experience and did not have a bad effect on you as marriage material


It isn't that new, not forgetting sexual mores have varied throughout history and location, including free love communes in the 1800s.

As for myself I have had a friends with benefits relationship, before I had ever heard of that term (with an ex-girlfreind at the time), it was fun while it was fun and it ended up leading to my first marriage after I got her pregnant.

So it led to one marriage, while it has had no impact on my second( 23 years so far) marriage, except for the fact I had been married previously and had a child from that relationship.

There have been others that didn't lead to marriage as well, sometimes friends share sex with each other.

One thing for sure it certainly doesn't bother me.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

FWB is for those who don't currently want a LTR, usually due to circumstances that makes an LTR a bad choice. Some may never want more than a FWB, and that's fine too, depending on what the other person wants, and if they're being honest with each other. So, _FWB is basically just dating_ for a while, for fun, without any real intention of making it serious. Most dating seems to be that way, from what I've seen and experienced.

I've had a few FWB, and never had commitment problems. One of my past FWB did, but it was always obvious that was how she was. Nothing but good experiences for us both.


----------



## hub49 (7 mo ago)

If I'm dating someone who had one of those in the past - and it truly was over - then I don't think there would be cause for me to feel upset about it. If I started to date someone and I learned they were still in a relationship like that, bye-bye.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

That's an interesting question: If you're dating someone and sleeping with them, but you know that it won't work out long term and are just dating them for fun, is that a FB/FWB situation? Is it the exclusivity that makes it a relationship? I had one FB, for about 6 weeks. We didn't date. It didn't last, I was freaking out over a breakup and I ended it because it made me feel really bad about myself. I dated two guys in college and never really thought I would marry either one of them, but I did love them. I guess it's a question of semantics.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

DudeInProgress said:


> It’s only a problem if she 1. Wants to keep them around, or 2. Has had dozens of them.


 now we come to the question how many is too many 
Is 5 too many


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

frenchpaddy said:


> now we come to the question how many is too many
> Is 5 too many


LOL 5 would be exhausting! Actually, it would depend on how often you see them. I had one I'd see weekly, and another I'd see every couple of months. They knew about each other and were fine with that.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> now we come to the question how many is too many
> Is 5 too many


At once or in your whole life?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I also find interesting in the evolution of the etymology and verbiage that we use over the years. 

50 years ago it was called premarital sex or harlotry etc and it was always something scandalous and verboten.

By the 80s, the terms used by previous generations were considered to judgmental and perjorative and so the term “casual sex” came into the lexicon. 

but by the late 90s that too became a bit too perjorative and implied lack of responsibility and prudence in the time of AIDS.

The verbiage was further softened to FWB so as to imply it was something taking place between people who had a friendly and mutually accepting relationship but without the auspices of an actual committed, long term relationship.

but alas we are arriving at a time where the term FWB is now taking on negative connotations in polite society as well and people who engage in such activities are now suspect as well.

I surmise that in a number of years the term FWB will also be a perjorative and an insult and will fall out of favor for some other further softened up term.

perhaps we should start an office pool and try to guess the term people will use in 2050.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

frenchpaddy said:


> now we come to the question how many is too many
> Is 5 too many


1. its subjective and different people have different standards of what is too many.
2. How many total, or how many concurrently?
I was thinking about the total number, but then others have brought up multiple concurrent FWB.

5 total, not a dealbreaker. 5 concurrently, would be. But that’s just me.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

DudeInProgress said:


> It’s only a problem if she 1. Wants to keep them around, or 2. Has had dozens of them.





TexasMom1216 said:


> At once or in your whole life?


WELL TexasMom I would redirect that question to DudeInProgress , as it was he that said dozens I just want to know how many is too many


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

DudeInProgress said:


> 1. its subjective and different people have different standards of what is too many.
> 2. How many total, or how many concurrently?
> I was thinking about the total number, but then others have brought up multiple concurrent FWB.
> 
> 5 total, not a dealbreaker. 5 concurrently, would be. But that’s just me.


 thank you we posted more or less at the same time


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> That's an interesting question: If you're dating someone and sleeping with them, but you know that it won't work out long term and are just dating them for fun, is that a FB/FWB situation? Is it the exclusivity that makes it a relationship? I had one FB, for about 6 weeks. We didn't date. It didn't last, I was freaking out over a breakup and I ended it because it made me feel really bad about myself. I dated two guys in college and never really thought I would marry either one of them, but I did love them. I guess it's a question of semantics.


I have a few FWBs because I have no interest in a LTR right now. Does this rule me out from having a LTR in the future? Absolutely not.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> There are a lot of people here who get very squeamish in regards to anyone (especially women) who did not follow the paradigm of virginity until marriage and then lifelong strict monogamy forever.


Just to be clear, that's *not* me.



> Does that make us bad people??? Or just ineligible for sainthood ?


To me, it's not a question of "bad people", it's a question of "unsuitable for me". I'm not looking for sainthood, I'm looking for someone whose idea of the right amount of emotional closeness in a relationship is similar to mine. FWB sounds a bit like "let's not get too close". 



Married but Happy said:


> So, _FWB is basically just dating_ for a while, for fun, without any real intention of making it serious.


Yeah, I would be nervous of anyone who thought that was "fun". It sounds heartbreaking to me. But like I say, I'm not making any moral point. I'm answering the original question: for me it would be a red flag.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

TexasMom1216 said:


> In my opinion, a persons past sex life isn’t something I delve too deeply into. I pay attention to how they act now rather than digging around in their past too much. But then I also think all this nonsense about “she has to have nothing to compare you too or she’s always thinking about those men” is also kinda silly. But people feel how they feel and have every right to set standards for themselves.
> 
> After reading through the responses, I do want to add that adultery in the past would be a dealbreaker for me. I think that's different; the way someone behaves when they are single is going to be different than how they behave when they're not single.


There is nothing but history to define a person. We can fake the moment, history is the preponderance of past behavior.

Someone who places such a low value on their own body as to have continued contact with a past sexual partner is not a prospect I would ever consider to have in my life.

There are a couple of instant no-goes for me in a prospective partner and most of them is about her past sexual conduct.

If more people were more discerning about the sexual history of the people they let into their inner circle, 90% of the disasters people talk about here would have never happened and I am guilty about ignoring the history as well and paying the price.

Sex is not candy to be enjoyed without moral consequence. Sex, easily obtained, outside of a serious relationship damages people. It's the candy that rots the soul and there's no Colgate to brush it away with.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I have a few FWBs because I have no interest in a LTR right now. Does this rule me out from having a LTR in the future? Absolutely not.


 judging by the responses here I think it might be important to some of your potential Ltr if you even feel ready , some would not want you others are ok with it if the FWB is no longer in your life and some don't mind as long as your happy ,


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

frenchpaddy said:


> judging by the responses here I think it might be important to some of your potential Ltr if you even feel ready , some would not want you others are ok with it if the FWB is no longer in your life and some don't mind as long as your happy ,


In my opinion, it wouldn't be a potential LTR's business if I did have FWB before her. What impact does it have on a LTR?


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

DudeInProgress said:


> 1. its subjective and different people have different standards of what is too many.
> 2. How many total, or how many concurrently?
> I was thinking about the total number, but then others have brought up multiple concurrent FWB.
> 
> 5 total, not a dealbreaker. 5 concurrently, would be. But that’s just me.


When single in the 80s it was three concurrently almost always, as was dating regularly with honesty, and no exclusive talks. 

It was common to sleep with 3 to 5 women concurrently dating from my little black book.

After M, I had thrown the lbb into a box for moving to be stored, later W and I found when going through old boxes, had a laugh because she was in there. We threw it out, never was anything more than a footnote to history. 

She knew all about girls with two stars and a check, those had female roommates that joined in time to time.

It was humorous to rediscover the book, but important she saw me throw it out. Never an issue.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> judging by the responses here I think it might be important to some of your potential Ltr if you even feel ready , some would not want you others are ok with it if the FWB is no longer in your life and some don't mind as long as your happy ,


Yep, everyone has their own standards. And that's ok, as long as people connect with those who have similar standards.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Yep, everyone has their own standards. And that's ok, as long as people connect with those who have similar standards.


 yes it shows why it is best to not hold back your past when getting to know a new potential ,
there is no wrong response to this one as long as no one tries to impost their view on others


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

frenchpaddy said:


> yes it shows why it is best to not hold back your past when getting to know a new potential ,
> there is no wrong response to this one as long as no one tries to impost their view on others


That I stand in agreement with.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> In my opinion, it wouldn't be a potential LTR's business if I did have FWB before her. What impact does it have on a LTR?


but if you hold that information back and you happen to fall in love with someone that it is a strong no your holding back important information ,
as I think like as hub49 posted 


hub49 said:


> If I'm dating someone who had one of those in the past - and it truly was over - then I don't think there would be cause for me to feel upset about it. If I started to date someone and I learned they were still in a relationship like that, bye-bye.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Laurentium said:


> Just to be clear, that's *not* me.
> 
> 
> To me, it's not a question of "bad people", it's a question of "unsuitable for me". I'm not looking for sainthood, I'm looking for someone whose idea of the right amount of emotional closeness in a relationship is similar to mine. FWB sounds a bit like "let's not get too close".
> ...


It sounds heartbreaking to me too. Certainly not 'fun'. 
For me sex is very much about emotional connection and love, so just having sex with someone you aren't even dating or in a romantic relationship with is pointless and meaningless. 

I wouldn't want to date anyone who wasn't on the same page as me sexually and it would be foolish of me to date a person who wasn't.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> It sounds heartbreaking to me too. Certainly not 'fun'.
> For me sex is very much about emotional connection and love, so just having sex with someone you aren't even dating or in a romantic relationship with is pointless and meaningless.
> 
> I wouldn't want to date anyone who wasn't on the same page as me sexually and it would be foolish of me to date a person who wasn't.


Except when one is 16 to mid 20s, the point is having pleasant times and sex as much as possible.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

frenchpaddy said:


> but if you hold that information back and you happen to fall in love with someone that it is a strong no your holding back important information ,
> as I think like as hub49 posted


It isn't about holding back information. I don't ask anyone about their past, don't ask me about mine.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

CountryMike said:


> Except when one is 16 to mid 20s, the point is having pleasant times and sex as much as possible.


We differ there, but the difference has many facets. Let's just say that people who do not have to work to get sex in the end walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

CountryMike said:


> Except when one is 16 to mid 20s, the point is having pleasant times and sex as much as possible.


For you maybe? For me sex is very much connected to a committed relationship and not separate from that.Part of expressing love and not just a physical release. 
Apparently that makes me 'squeamish'. 😂🥴🤷


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> We differ there, but the difference has many facets. Let's just say that people who do not have to work to get sex in the end walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex.


Or they don't. Just from personal experience. Being broken and disrespected not even a thought or near being fact. Just the opposite. 

By having plenty of choices and sex, that was nothing but a plus when found the W, I had very clear and firm belief I picked the right one. Because I had seen the world.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

I wouldn’t care as long as when she is with me then she’s with me 100%. Plain sex without a relationship, maybe not even bad. I guess it depends on the reasoning. I wouldn’t say it’s a red flag.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Yep, everyone has their own standards. And that's ok, as long as people connect with those who have similar standards.


On a conceptual level I would agree with this.

but I think the actual practical application gets more complicated.

min the other thread, a 40-something year old woman was getting blasted because she had a FWB TWENTY YEARS prior.

now much of the ire was due to her technically cheating because she got with someone prior to the divorce being finalized.

But her history of having a FWB in her 20s was absolutely being used against her and was being presented as evidence of bad character.

so at what point can some of our past experiences be expunged???

If someone has never had an FWB, does that mean that they can only be with others who have not as well and that when they’re in their 40s that they can’t be with someone who had an FWB their spring semester of their junior year in college??

Does someone who has had an FWB have to restrict themselves to seeking out only those who have also had an FWB at some point in their past?

each sticking to their own may sound good on paper but how do actual flesh and blood human beings put that into actual practice in the real world?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> each sticking to their own may sound good on paper but how do actual flesh and blood human beings put that into actual practice in the real world?


I would rather be with someone who had that experience them someone who didnt


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> On a conceptual level I would agree with this.
> 
> but I think the actual practical application gets more complicated.
> 
> ...


She was not getting blasted for having an FWB 20 years ago, she was getting blasted for keeping him (a guy she used to ****) around as a close friend through her marriage/relationships.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

CountryMike said:


> Or they don't. Just from personal experience. Being broken and disrespected not even a thought or near being fact. Just the opposite.
> 
> By having plenty of choices and sex, that was nothing but a plus when found the W, I had very clear and firm belief I picked the right one. Because I had seen the world.


In the biological facet, where you had to prove value to be able to have sex and not just show up and get it, your point of view is absolutely valid.

The key that unlocks most locks is a master-key. The lock that unlock to most keys on the other hand....


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> We differ there, but the difference has many facets. Let's just say that people who do not have to work to get sex in the end walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex.


In a serious question, why would one think, that one walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex? I really and truly don't understand that, but would like to learn why some folks think it. In my honest and open minded search to learn more about the human condition. Thanks in advance. If too deep for the forum to talk about, that's ok too.

Just saying I have no agenda and not asking just to be argumentative, I'm not. 
Thanks.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

frenchpaddy said:


> yes it shows why it is best to not hold back your past when getting to know a new potential ,
> there is no wrong response to this one as long as no one tries to impost their view on others


ok but your making it sound like people come from different moulds in different factories and carry different brand labels.

You’re making it sound like we are all static and unchanging in our interpersonal dynamics throughout our lives. 

I think that is short sighted as people do evolve and change over the course of their lives. 

just because someone has never had an FWB in the past, doesn’t mean that they won’t ever want one nor does it mean that they will forever be incompatible with someone who has had an FWB at some point.

And the fact that someone had a FWB in the past, absolutely does not mean that they won’t ever want a traditional relationship or marriage and nor that they will be incapable of having such.


----------



## Mr.Married (Feb 21, 2018)

Moral conjecture is an endless battle in a muddy river that never has clear water. Is that water dirty , murky, muddy, unclear, or …….

How long is a piece of string anyhow????

People get lonely….


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

CountryMike said:


> In a serious question, why would one think, that one walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex? I really and truly don't understand that, but would like to learn why some folks think it. In my honest and open minded search to learn more about the human condition. Thanks in advance. If too deep for the forum to talk about, that's ok too.
> 
> Just saying I have no agenda and not asking just to be argumentative, I'm not.
> Thanks.


I want to understand this also. I don't consider myself broken or disrespected.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Voted yes but there are some conditionals.

I would suspect that the FWB was chosen for sexual prowess or attractiveness, while I was chosen for stability, providing and companionship. I would not want to be a plan B lover, but a plan A husband again.

Is the FWB still in her life directly communicating, does the FWB still live in the area, does the FWB maintain common social connections, do the social connections know about the relationship.

Does she still consider the FWB to be a friend. Note the use of the word friend in FWB, I'm not saying she should hate the FWB, but it's difficult to conceive of someone even disliking someone they consider a FWB. If only because of the niceness of the words. The phrase itself would give me pause.

Was the relationship concealed and for how long. There was a Frenchman who corresponded with my W during the first 10 or 15 years of our marriage which my W assured me was never a sexual partner. I would have a real issue now if I found out that was not the case.

How did the sex and the OM himself compare with me.

Various other factors, ethnicity, addiction, wealth etc.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> In the biological facet, where you had to prove value to be able to have sex and not just show up and get it, your point of view is absolutely valid.
> 
> The key that unlocks most locks is a master-key. The lock that unlock to most keys on the other hand....


That's a great analogy.
My belief using same analogy was, is, yes, if one has found his generic key to easily unlock a lot of locks he's aware he's unlocking generic locks and that's ok. His key is only tried on quality locks, not any old keyhole. So that's one filter. 

At the same time he's absolutely aware he's using his experiences to craft his own specific key to in future fit a specific lock.

As his personal key is created over time and he's more aware of life as he gets older, he starts to use the one specific key when he wants.
When he finds where that works, a ltr is born.
My opinion is that he crafts a better specific key by using his previous experiences.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

CountryMike said:


> In a serious question, why would one think, that one walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex? I really and truly don't understand that, but would like to learn why some folks think it. In my honest and open minded search to learn more about the human condition. Thanks in advance. If too deep for the forum to talk about, that's ok too.
> 
> Just saying I have no agenda and not asking just to be argumentative, I'm not.
> Thanks.


I'd be happy to discuss this at length, but the topic is controversial. It normally takes less than 5 minutes of face to face time to get the point across, but it cuts through layers of modern "taboos". Most accept nature once they know it, some will never again wake up.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

DudeInProgress said:


> She was not getting blasted for having an FWB 20 years ago, she was getting blasted for keeping him (a guy she used to ****) around as a close friend through her marriage/relationships.


Ok then she committed TWO crimes in one. 

She’s a bad person because she had sex without a traditional relationship, but compounding that offense is that she’s a really bad person for not cutting him out of her life the moment they zipped up their pants after their last hook up - got it. 

That still proves my point.

she did not cheat with him or hook up with him during her marriage or other relationships.

but yet she is being lambasted for still being on friendly terms with him even though the last sexual encounter she had with him was in George Bush Jr’s first term in office.

The fact that she had noncommittal sex with him as George W Bush was taking the oath of office but did not kick him to the curb after last week’s trash afterwards is now being presented as evidence that she is of bad character.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> ok but your making it sound like people come from different moulds in different factories and carry different brand labels.
> 
> You’re making it sound like we are all static and unchanging in our interpersonal dynamics throughout our lives.
> 
> ...


A weighted dice doesn't always roll a 6, it's just much more likely to. There is no absolutes, just probabilities and we ignore what is probable at our own peril.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Is'nt it the basis of married like in France (or at least in Paris)?


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> Ok then she committed TWO crimes in one.
> 
> She’s a bad person because she had sex without a traditional relationship, but compounding that offense is that she’s a really bad person for not cutting him out of her life the moment they zipped up their pants after their last hook up - got it.
> 
> ...


I don’t understand where you’re getting this…

I never knocked her (nor did I see others) because she HAD a non-committal FWB relationship 20 years ago. The issue people raised is that he’s still significant in her life.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> min the other thread, a 40-something year old woman was getting blasted because she had a FWB TWENTY YEARS prior.


was why I started this topic to not have everyone forcing their view point down someones mouth 


DudeInProgress said:


> She was not getting blasted for having an FWB 20 years ago, she was getting blasted for keeping him (a guy she used to ****) around as a close friend through her marriage/relationships.


 I think if my wife had an old friend that she was having sex with as a sex friend 20 years before and they were still friends I would except that as over , and would not expect her to not be friends with him now 20 years later 


oldshirt said:


> I think that is short sighted as people do evolve and change over the course of their lives.


agree most of us change as today we would not fit in to todays world if we stayed the exact same as we were 50 years ago , very different world 


Numb26 said:


> I want to understand this also. I don't consider myself broken or disrespected.


 you are not broken , may be more grown up than some with other views more openminded , and what two consenting people do in their privet life behind closed doors is their affair, as long as they are not cheating some other person at the same time , 
even if that is a married person and their other partner knows they what is likely going on

but as oldshirt brought up if you go into a relationship with Mr xy and you have a friend that was once a FB /FWB and all xy is happy with your past been something in your past your history end off , but if 10 or 20 years later some nice person tells xy your had this guy as FWB AND HE GETS UP SET OVER IT then you have set yourself up for a fall in a way ,


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

DudeInProgress said:


> I don’t understand where you’re getting this…
> 
> I never knocked her (nor did I see others) because she HAD a non-committal FWB relationship 20 years ago. The issue people raised is that he’s still significant in her life.


I’m not saying you did bash her. 

what I am getting it is people are seeing the fact that she had sex with him 20 years ago, but did not kick him to the curb as testimony that she is of questionable repute.

it’s simply further evidence that people are uneasy and suspicious of and for some even overt disdain for those who have or have had FWBs.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> Ok then she committed TWO crimes in one.
> 
> She’s a bad person because she had sex without a traditional relationship, but compounding that offense is that she’s a really bad person for not cutting him out of her life the moment they zipped up their pants after their last hook up - got it.
> 
> ...


When you take the emotive spin off that statement and present it as pure logic with moral predictors as they should be. Yes.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

manfromlamancha said:


> Is'nt it the basis of married like in France (or at least in Paris)?


 Sorry can you explain what you are saying


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> I’m not saying you did bash her.
> 
> what I am getting it is people are seeing the fact that she had sex with him 20 years ago, but did not kick him to the curb as testimony that she is of questionable repute.
> 
> it’s simply further evidence that people are uneasy and suspicious of and for some even overt disdain for those who have or have had FWBs.


 I got the impression many people a lot more than I would have expected were ramming their mindset on the OP 
While it is fine to have a view point on any topic it is not good to force your point like it is gospel ,


----------



## theloveofmylife (Jan 5, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> In my opinion, it wouldn't be a potential LTR's business if I did have FWB before her. What impact does it have on a LTR?


I think it comes into play when/if the person wants to keep the FWB around during the LTR.

THAT would be a no-go for me.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Dictum Veritas said:


> When you take the emotive spin off that statement and present it as pure logic with moral predictors as they should be. Yes.


so a couple questions then -

- is being in a non traditionally committed relationship a moral predictor?

- is remaining on friendly terms with that person a moral predictor.

And do those two things then predict immoral character?

and if so, what could mitigate that immorality and make morally sound?

- would she be ok if she went into the relationship with initial intentions or at least hopes it would become a traditional relationship but it just never ripened on the vine?

- and/or would she be of sound moral standing if upon cessation of said relationship, she was scorned and kicked him to the curb, never to speak to him again.

at which step was her moral failure?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

theloveofmylife said:


> I think it comes into play when/if the person wants to keep the FWB around during the LTR.
> 
> THAT would be a no-go for me.


It would definitely come in to play then. But why would you keep a FWB around if you are getting into a LTR?


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> - is being in a non traditionally committed relationship a moral predictor?


If the substance of that relationship was pure animal sex and you were the party who got it without having had to put in the work to get it, yes.



oldshirt said:


> - is remaining on friendly terms with that person a moral predictor.


If you are in a new relationship, absolutely. It is also a sign of absolute disrespect not only to your new partner, but to the very concept of what a committed relationship should be.



oldshirt said:


> And do those two things then predict immoral character?


As a statistical probability, absolutely yes.



oldshirt said:


> and if so, what could mitigate that immorality and make morally sound?


A person who has a propensity for succumbing to easy sexual rendezvous should stick with likeminded people, thus not relationship material. Not everyone is cut out for family life. A person who thinks that a "former" fwb should be a part of their life inside of a new relationship in any role whatsoever has no business being in a relationship either. A sexual bond once forged by the act of intercourse is forged on the spiritual and sub-atomic level and is not to be waved in the face of a new partner, ever.



oldshirt said:


> - would she be ok if she went into the relationship with initial intentions or at least hopes it would become a traditional relationship but it just never ripened on the vine?


Better? Is it better to intentionally wreck a car or by accident? If it was a LTR that broke up, one can make allowances.



oldshirt said:


> - and/or would she be of sound moral standing if upon cessation of said relationship, she was scorned and kicked him to the curb, never to speak to him again.


At least she would not have been slapping her new man in the face everyday by the presence of the old lover.



oldshirt said:


> at which step was her moral failure?


By (1)giving away cheap sex and (2)expecting her new man to be okay to shake the hand of the man he is now double dipping with (be it at a chronologically divided point). But to those who made sex cheap, sex is cheap and none of this matters. To them she's just cruising along.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Dictum Veritas said:


> We differ there, but the difference has many facets. Let's just say that people who do not have to work to get sex in the end walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex.


That’s not correct at all.


----------



## BecauseSheWeeps (9 mo ago)

FWB is more a way of being able to sleep around with a particular person without having any ties. It leaves you free to date whoever, talk to whoever. Why are there red flags though? I think it's a little safer to be FWB with somebody that you know than it is to go out and date/sleep around with people that you don't know. Quicker way to catch STD's.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm still friends with all of my past FWB. People don't necessarily stop being friends when they no longer have sex! My wife knows them all. I know hers. We've stayed at their homes. They've stayed at ours. We've traveled with some of them. They are simply good friends, and the nature of our *past *relationship is no longer relevant.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

A major factor is did the SO lie about having this kind of relationship if it was asked. 

If the answer was "it's none of your business" or "yes" then the partner or future spouse can make an informed decision.

Another factor is how does the SO view the FWB now. 

It's clear that most of us would object to an AP being in their spouses life, but a FWB makes it a bit fuzzier.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> what I am getting it is people are seeing the fact that she had sex with him 20 years ago, but did not kick him to the curb as testimony that she is of questionable repute.





oldshirt said:


> it’s simply further evidence that people are uneasy and suspicious of and for some even overt disdain for those who have or have had FWBs.


I’m just not really seeing that from the majority of folks. I really don’t think most folks are judging her for having had a FWB type relationship 20 years ago. 

The point that most are making, is that it’s not appropriate to maintain close/significant friendships with exes or past lovers. 
And I don’t even blame her for that. That’s on her husband/boyfriend for not having appropriate boundaries.

Now, most men don’t want to marry a woman who was overly promiscuous. I know some don’t care, but the majority do. That’s just the way it is. 
But having a non-committed relationship or two does not = overly promiscuous (to most people). 
Having many FWB type relationships, different story.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

Married but Happy said:


> I'm still friends with all of my past FWB. People don't necessarily stop being friends when they no longer have sex! My wife knows them all. I know hers. We've stayed at their homes. They've stayed at ours. We've traveled with some of them. They are simply good friends, and the nature of our *past *relationship is no longer relevant.


Aren’t/weren’t you into swinging though? If I remember that correctly, then your marriage dynamics and boundaries are vastly different than 99% of the population. 
That doesn’t fly in most traditional marriages.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> It would definitely come in to play then. But why would you keep a FWB around if you are getting into a LTR?


has something to do with the first word Friend just because you no longer have sex does not say you can not be friends , same as if it was an ex husband or wife many stay friends after the big D


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

frenchpaddy said:


> has something to do with the first word Friend just because you no longer have sex does not say you can not be friends , same as if it was an ex husband or wife many stay friends after the big D


For me it's more of the B then the F. 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

theloveofmylife said:


> I think it comes into play when/if the person wants to keep the FWB around during the LTR.
> 
> THAT would be a no-go for me.





Numb26 said:


> It would definitely come in to play then. But why would you keep a FWB around if you are getting into a LTR?


I think as part of boundaries, one would need to define what “keep around” actually means. 

does that mean they come over for weekend barbecues and golf outings? Does it mean they have a seat at the Thanksgiving table? Does it mean they are on a friends list on Facebook? Does it mean you say hi and ask how the kids and the parents are if you happen to run into each other at Walmart?

there’s a pretty huge spectrum there between someone that’s on a Facebook friends list vs invitations to family reunions and vacations and such.

each individual would kind of have to determine and express what would and what would not be an acceptable level of interaction.


----------



## BecauseSheWeeps (9 mo ago)

I'm still friends with my ex husband. We didn't want to stop being friends. We were different people. We met when we were 12, dated in our late teens, decided to get married, stayed together for 10 years and grew in to different people. We are still good friends. The mother of his kid is one of my best friends. 


frenchpaddy said:


> has something to do with the first word Friend just because you no longer have sex does not say you can not be friends , same as if it was an ex husband or wife many stay friends after the big D


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

CountryMike said:


> In a serious question, why would one think, that one walks away totally broken and disrespected by all the easy sex? I really and truly don't understand that, but would like to learn why some folks think it. In my honest and open minded search to learn more about the human condition. Thanks in advance. If too deep for the forum to talk about, that's ok too.
> 
> Just saying I have no agenda and not asking just to be argumentative, I'm not.
> Thanks.


I think it's just about finding someone who shares your core values. So if a guy has had fwb's and lots of similar casual sex then he and I won't share the same values on what sex is and when we should have sex.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

BecauseSheWeeps said:


> FWB is more a way of being able to sleep around with a particular person without having any ties. It leaves you free to date whoever, talk to whoever. Why are there red flags though? I think it's a little safer to be FWB with somebody that you know than it is to go out and date/sleep around with people that you don't know. Quicker way to catch STD's.


There would be red flags to those who don't think fwb's is a good idea. Who think sex should be part of a loving and committed relationship.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DudeInProgress said:


> Aren’t/weren’t you into swinging though? If I remember that correctly, then your marriage dynamics and boundaries are vastly different than 99% of the population.
> That doesn’t fly in most traditional marriages.


My FWB were not swingers, are (all but one) in LTRs now, yet we're friends with them _and _their partners. While we may be a little less suspicious and paranoid about past lovers given our past swinger and poly relationships, we would still have issues if any of our past lovers crossed our clear boundaries. And our past FWB friends would be more like the average person here, but somehow they don't seem to worry about us/them crossing boundaries either - probably because we _always _follow a strict, fully informed and fully consensual policy before engaging in any intimate behavior with anyone else.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I think it's just about finding someone who shares your core values. So if a guy has had fwb's and lots of similar casual sex then he and I won't share the same values on what sex is and when we should have sex.


 yes but when you have the same values today, but before he or she had a time that they lived a very different lifestyle , some here can't get past someones past , like there is no forgiveness no turning the page 
for some that come here they run out the line once a cheater all ways a cheater , 


I have a friend that is a J witness as I don't know much about their church and what they stand for but his wife is a convert and was married before and cheated on the first husband did prison, prostitution, and was on the streets got kicked out of home as a wild child ,


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I think it's just about finding someone who shares your core values. So if a guy has had fwb's and lots of similar casual sex then he and I won't share the same values on what sex is and when we should have sex.


I understand differing povs, thanks for sharing. Like mine I guess, I'd never marry one I didn't already have sex with in order to complete that compatibility aspect.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Votes on this one is near 50 -50 each way


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

frenchpaddy said:


> yes but when you have the same values today, but before he or she had a time that they lived a very different lifestyle , some here can't get past someones past , like there is no forgiveness no turning the page
> for some that come here they run out the line once a cheater all ways a cheater ,
> 
> 
> I have a friend that is a J witness as I don't know much about their church and what they stand for but his wife is a convert and was married before and cheated on the first husband did prison, prostitution, and was on the streets got kicked out of home as a wild child ,


It does depend on how the person sees things now. If they still think that things like FWB's and casual sex is morally ok generally that is very different from someone who did things a long time ago but now regrets them and sees things differently, then thats different.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

CountryMike said:


> I understand differing povs, thanks for sharing. Like mine I guess, I'd never marry one I didn't already have sex with in order to complete that compatibility aspect.


There are ways of finding out if you are compatible sexually by good communication. Many people get married after having lots of sex and then things change and they get divorced. Having sex before marriage really isnt any guarantee of having a happy marriage with lots of sex.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> There are ways of finding out if you are compatible sexually by good communication. Many people get married after having lots of sex and then things change and they get divorced. Having sex before marriage really isnt any guarantee of having a happy marriage with lots of sex.


True but you wouldn't buy a car without test driving it. May not even run no matter what the salesman tries to tell you.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

true I think it is important to live together before you tie the knot ,


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> True but you wouldn't buy a car without test driving it. May not even run no matter what the salesman tries to tell you.


It's worth waiting for.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

frenchpaddy said:


> true I think it is important to live together before you tie the knot ,


You see that's what I mean about needing to find someone who shares your values.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> You see that's what I mean about needing to find someone who shares your values.


super idea if everyone is honest , but there are people that pretend to share your values ,


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> It's worth waiting for.


What if it doesn't drive? Then you are stuck with an expensive liability


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

well I have told my story here a few times , where I was the good church going boy , believed in no sex before marriage, met a girl that had been raped, before and we dated for 4 years but the early years sex was not super as I said before there was a point that you just did not know when she would have a flash back and hit out like a wild horse , 
SHE at one stage offered to give me a escort girl as a gift as sex was like she was never going to get over it , 
all I say now looking back if I had been like the guys now that expect sex by the 3th date and had lots of experience I think I would not have went the extra mile , 
thankfully I had not and we worked through it and today it is the other way around where my wife is the one with the high sex drive


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> What if it doesn't drive? Then you are stuck with an expensive liability


That's why you communicate.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> That's why you communicate.


To quote Dr. House: "People lie"


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> That's why you communicate.


Sexual chemistry is not something that you can determine compatibility by talking about it. 

if Jesus people determine that they will remain in the relationship despite the sexual component being bad, that is their choice and if that works for them, then great.

but it’s not something that you can just have a conversation over spaghetti and meatballs and determine that you will be sexually compatible.

you may have the similar core beliefs and values and such about sexuality. But you cannot determine your actual chemistry and satisfaction and compatibility by talking about it.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> super idea if everyone is honest , but there are people that pretend to share your values ,


Ask me how I know. 😉 There's no foolproof answer, there's risk in everything.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> That's why you communicate.


Intercourse is another word for communicate.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> To quote Dr. House: "People lie"


Yet many dont.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Sexual chemistry is not something that you can determine compatibility by talking about it.
> 
> if Jesus people determine that they will remain in the relationship despite the sexual component being bad, that is their choice and if that works for them, then great.
> 
> ...


You can definitely know that there is chemistry without having sex. Talking about it over many weeks and months gives a very good idea of where you each are when it comes to sex.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> now we come to the question how many is too many
> Is 5 too many


Nah. 500 maybe.


----------



## Luckylucky (Dec 11, 2020)

For me, a red flag would be none or a small number of partners. I didn’t want to marry someone who hadn’t sowed their wild oats. 

I think I was stained by my culture and upbringing. Too many men and women married young and didn’t experience multiple partners. Then once they snared a partner and had children, they later decided they’d missed out. 

Was a terrible upbringing because so many women and men waited to get married and to get away from their parents and then decided to scandalise themselves. Wasn’t a happy ending for many of the kids in those marriages and there were many suicides unfortunately, families having to move away after divorce, Uhh. 

So yeah, if a 25-year old man or woman decides one day they are tired of sleeping around and want to commit to one person, that would show maturity to me and I wouldn’t see it as a red flag. 

The other thing with FWB? It’s usually one person having feelings anyway and settling for being someone’s option B, and hoping they’ll love them one day. And the other person also gets a change to analyse why they’re not into that person they’re sleeping with, and acting cowardly (work on your self esteem and commitment issues and stop stringing people along). 

A good chance for growth for both types of people. Experience and growth is always attractive BEFORE marriage.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Luckylucky said:


> For me, a red flag would be none or a small number of partners. I didn’t want to marry someone who hadn’t sowed their wild oats.
> 
> I think I was stained by my culture and upbringing. Too many men and women married young and didn’t experience multiple partners. Then once they snared a partner and had children, they later decided they’d missed out.
> 
> ...


Sadly what you said about it often being one person settling for what they can get is true. But it's not always true.

We didn't have a word for it, but I had one what I would consider FWB. It was only occasional and covered years not months. He was crushing on me and was friends with my roommate when I wasn't available for several years. Then we went out and got together and gave it a try. We ran out of anything to talk about. We didn't live really close together so when we saw each other it would be at least for a few days running. We just ran out of anything to talk about. 

So we stopped dating and occasionally slept with each other if we would see each other out and about anyway and neither of us had anything better to do.

I stopped sleeping with him after he became such a bad alcoholic that his skin started to smell sour. But it was very long in between times.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> You can definitely know that there is chemistry without having sex. Talking about it over many weeks and months gives a very good idea of where you each are when it comes to sex.


You can know if there’s chemistry without necessarily having PIV. 

but talk only with no touching? No kissing? No making out??

Some People can get lucky and happen to be compatible. 

some can agree to live with it regardless of the sexual compatibility.

But to truly know? Uh uh.


----------



## Corgi Mum (10 mo ago)

Not a red flag for me provided the buddy is now in the rearview mirror.

I've had a few FWB relationships along the way. They were always a) time limited b) the most "relationship" I was capable of at the time (i.e. recovering from the breakup of a LTR) and c) with men who were not LTR material for me.

I could hardly judge someone else negatively for engaging in the same behaviour.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> Massive red flag for me. Wouldn't be intetested in anyone who though it was ok.


Jesus that's a bit judgmental isn't it?

A lot of people, someone who's widowed for example, have companions just like this. Someone to spend time with, perhaps travel occasionally and have a physical relationship with, with no intention of remarrying. I can see myself doing that if something happened to my husband.

I wouldn't remarry, Mr F is my husband and the only one I want, but it would still be nice to have a male companion to spend time with sometimes.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

frenchpaddy said:


> as the title is having or had a friends with benefits FWB/FB ****buddy a big no no
> 
> does it automatic make a person a red flag holder
> 
> ...


I believe that people mature and can emotionally grow. I also believe that people are capable of learning from their mistakes.

To me a FWB or FB relationship indicates more care than a random ONS in choosing safe sex partners. Therefore it is more positive than promisquity. However, the question is why FWB or FB, was it because of circumstances where they were not able to commit to a long term relationship?

Again, the sexual past of someone is the past. The question is have they changed? If it bothers you, then ask why they accepted/enjoyed that kind of relationship. The answer to that question may be a red flag, but I wouldn't assume that long past behavior would.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Luckylucky said:


> For me, a red flag would be none or a small number of partners. I didn’t want to marry someone who hadn’t sowed their wild oats.
> 
> I think I was stained by my culture and upbringing. Too many men and women married young and didn’t experience multiple partners. Then once they snared a partner and had children, they later decided they’d missed out.
> 
> ...


You do realise that having to 'sow your wild oats' isn't vital and that countless couples are extremely happy without having done that? The happiest and longest marriages I know are between people who didn't sleep around and many are each other's one and only having met in their late teens. 

Not everyone who hasn't has lots of partners misses that. Many are very glad they didn't go that route. Many others regret that they did.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

frusdil said:


> Jesus that's a bit judgmental isn't it?
> 
> A lot of people, someone who's widowed for example, have companions just like this. Someone to spend time with, perhaps travel occasionally and have a physical relationship with, with no intention of remarrying. I can see myself doing that if something happened to my husband.
> 
> I wouldn't remarry, Mr F is my husband and the only one I want, but it would still be nice to have a male companion to spend time with sometimes.


That's fine if it's what you want. It's not what I would want.
I have no intention of marrying again if Mr D died again. I will be fine being single and have no desire for a male companion/fwb type situation.
It's just not for me. Others are free to make their own choices. We all have very different ideas when it comes to relationships. 

So no it's not being judgemental, it's living by our own values and wanting those we may meet/date/marry to share them.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

harperlee said:


> I'll make an effort to speak in a way in which you understand. This ^^^^^ won't be up to YOU Numb26 to decide. If a woman you like does not appreciate that you have been a sex around, town bicycle; that is not something you will have any control over. YOU Numb26, will need to shack up with a woman who isn't bothered by that. Water will always find it's level.
> 
> For myself, never had a friend with benefits, aka casual sex situation.
> I do give side eye to men and women who seem oblivious to sexually transmitted diseases and the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.
> Never had the so called 'exploratory years' that people yammer on about. Yuck.


I have never seen the appeal in 'sowing your wild oats' but it's all about how we see sex, relationships and marriage isn't it. Casual sex seems meaningless to me.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> You do realise that having to 'sow your wild oats' isn't vital and that countless couples are extremely happy without having done that? The happiest and longest marriages I know are between people who didn't sleep around and many are each other's one and only having met in their late teens.
> 
> Not everyone who hasn't has lots of partners misses that. Many are very glad they didn't go that route. Many others regret that they did.


Many others are glad they did.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I have never seen the appeal in 'sowing your wild oats' but it's all about how we see sex, relationships and marriage isn't it. Casual sex seems meaningless to me.


I agree with what you said here D just you left out a very important point owning up to their responsibility if their Wild oats sprout and they end up with a crop , 

We have seen a poster not long ago post about her husband been confronted by his 20 year old daughter 20 years later and the impact it was having on his wife , 

Wild Oats and the guys that say it is a good thing never seem to say what they will do if it turns into a baby 

Then they are happy to let the girl holding the baby


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> For you maybe? For me sex is very much connected to a committed relationship and not separate from that.Part of expressing love and not just a physical release.
> Apparently that makes me 'squeamish'. 😂🥴🤷


People are different and it goes without saying that's ok, and expected. Yours, mine, all good.

I certainly respect your position and don't diminish anyones thoughts on the matter. The realities are folks approach things differently.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> I agree with what you said here D just you left out a very important point owning up to their responsibility if their Wild oats sprout and they end up with a crop ,
> 
> We have seen a poster not long ago post about her husband been confronted by his 20 year old daughter 20 years later and the impact it was having on his wife ,
> 
> ...


Let's say it then. You seem to paint all who have no problems being able to have sex almost at will with the same brush ie they're irresponsible. 

That's untrue.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

CountryMike said:


> Let's say it then. You seem to paint all who have no problems being able to have sex almost at will with the same brush ie they're irresponsible.
> 
> That's untrue.


not at all painting all with the same brush , but when one is engaging in something that has a chance of 1 in 99 in making a baby it is a slit chance , if you drive a car you have much the same chance of having an accident , but the law makes you use a seat belt and you must have assurance to cover any cost , but the laws do not demand you use protection and if the protection does not work there is a fund to help pay for the crop , 

we had a lot of talk a few years ago when a footballer was accused of rape it was after the "me too" and people started to talk about the need for having a contract made by the two people that wanted to have sex to make a contract saying what they are willing to do just where did they want it to go , did they want a new contract each time


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

CountryMike said:


> Many others are glad they did.


Maybe so but the point made always made is that if you don't sleep around when young you will regret it, which just isn't the case for many people.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Maybe so but the point made always made is that if you don't sleep around when young you will regret it, which just isn't the case for many people.


Both views are obviously equally ok is my point.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

CountryMike said:


> Both views are obviously equally ok is my point.


Each are ok for those who practice them.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> not at all painting all with the same brush , but when one is engaging in something that has a chance of 1 in 99 in making a baby it is a slit chance , if you drive a car you have much the same chance of having an accident , but the law makes you use a seat belt and you must have assurance to cover any cost , but the laws do not demand you use protection and if the protection does not work there is a fund to help pay for the crop ,
> 
> we had a lot of talk a few years ago when a footballer was accused of rape it was after the "me too" and people started to talk about the need for having a contract made by the two people that wanted to have sex to make a contract saying what they are willing to do just where did they want it to go , did they want a new contract each time


Contracts. That will never happen.

All aren't irresponsible. Just factual.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Each are ok for those who practice them.


Well, yes.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

CountryMike said:


> Contracts. That will never happen.
> 
> All aren't irresponsible. Just factual.


 so your saying some are ,


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> so your saying some are ,


Absolutely


----------



## Luckylucky (Dec 11, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> You do realise that having to 'sow your wild oats' isn't vital and that countless couples are extremely happy without having done that? The happiest and longest marriages I know are between people who didn't sleep around and many are each other's one and only having met in their late teens.
> 
> Not everyone who hasn't has lots of partners misses that. Many are very glad they didn't go that route. Many others regret that they did.


That’s a little mean and condescending. I respect your views but what is good for me is good only for me. It was important to me that my partner wasn’t a virgin, and I am happy I didn’t marry one. I was also not offended if someone didn’t want me based on other values I had. Fair’s fair, values need to align. 

I wouldn’t force my view down anyones throat.

I have close friends of decades who married virgins and I adore them, and I respect their views and don’t scoff at their choices. I don’t look down on them. They respect me too. 

I do realise that not everyone has to sow their wild oats and that it’s not vital, and I don’t think my view is superior to yours. It is simply something that is important to me, my way is not The Law. 

Do you realise you’re not superior because you and me are different? I’m happy you found someone with the same values. 

Because that makes for a happy marriage, and I’m always happy to see a marriage thrive. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with how you see things, just be respectful when you disagree. We’re equals. 

I simply would have preferred someone who’d sown their wild oats before getting married. I’m allowed to have my own preferences too and I outlined my own reasons why.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

For me I would be highly skeptical, but not dismissive of someone that freely engaged in sex with a friend and zero intention of a taking the relationship beyond that. It would be a HUGE red flag for me if they did that and both agreed it was okay to explore other relationships and did so. I'm not a prude that is against premarital sex or having multiple partners over time. However, I am a big believer in monogamy. One sexual partner at a time and for me sex in a relationship is about securing a bond that potentially takes things to the next level, as in love. A person that doesn't feel the same way would not be for me.

Also, if a FWB relationship did exist in the past with someone, I would have zero tolerance for that person still being in the life of my partner.


----------



## harperlee (May 1, 2018)

Diana7 said:


> *That's fine if it's what you want. It's not what I would want.*
> I have no intention of marrying again if Mr D died again. I will be fine being single and have no desire for a male companion/fwb type situation.
> *It's just not for me. Others are free to make their own choices. We all have very different ideas when it comes to relationships.
> 
> So no it's not being judgemental, it's living by our own values and wanting those we may meet/date/marry to share them.*





Diana7 said:


> *Each are ok for those who practice them.*


I'm not reading judgement. I'm reading a poster responding to a thread question and giving their honest opinion.
Having a differing opinion/values is not judgement and Diana is not responsible for each individual's feelings around her opinion, which for some is super defensive.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> Not everyone who hasn't has lots of partners misses that. Many are very glad they didn't go that route. Many others regret that they did.


Generally I think you need to try something to be sure you don’t like it but there are exceptions.

For example I don’t feel like I need to try threesomes or gay sex or something like that and I doubt I will ever feel like I missed out. “If only I had tried taking the D…”

So if you don’t feel you need premarital sex you’re right (for you).

For the bulk of people in the west, probably not right.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> So no it's not being judgemental, it's living by our own values and wanting those we may meet/date/marry to share them.


What you said was extremely judgement. You said it was a massive red flag. 

Im not talking about sleeping around, at least in my case, that’s not at all what I would do.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

frusdil said:


> What you said was extremely judgement. You said it was a massive red flag.
> 
> Im not talking about sleeping around, at least in my case, that’s not at all what I would do.


For me yes it is a massive red flag. As it is for a few others here who have commented. We each have our own standards and as long as I live by the same ones I expect from a guy I don't see how its judgmental at all. We are not talking on this thread about having an opposite sex friend to go out to places with but keeping it as merely friends, we are talking about people having sex with someone they aren't in a relationship with.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

I waited till marriage in part due to my religious convictions. I wanted to find a woman who was doing the same. I wanted my first sexual experience to be exclusive with my wife.

Sex outside wedlock = NO
Promiscuity = NO
FWB = NO

But I could accept a widow (even a divorced woman) provided that she have had one sexual partner in the form of her husband, and was a good wife to him. Being wifey material was the important consideration in the end.

I met my wife 2 years before tying the knot with her - sufficient time to get to know her and develop a bond with her. She waited till marriage just like me. 

WE explored intimacy together. I can tell from experience that even a virgin woman knows how to do it. The assumption that a woman must have sexual experience before marriage to be worthy of it is misplaced. Yes, she won't be like a porn star in bedroom but even an experienced woman might not want to be like a porn star in bedroom for her husband.

I am puritan by Western standards of-course. But I appreciate wifey material in any society.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

ccpowerslave said:


> Generally I think you need to try something to be sure you don’t like it but there are exceptions.
> 
> For example I don’t feel like I need to try threesomes or gay sex or something like that and I doubt I will ever feel like I missed out. “If only I had tried taking the D…”
> 
> ...


I agree for the most part although I would have liked to be part of a threesome with two women just to see what its like. Quite exciting from friends who were that lucky Too late now however as I am old. LOL

But yeah never see me regretting getting some D either! Yikes!


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

ccpowerslave said:


> Generally I think you need to try something to be sure you don’t like it but there are exceptions.
> 
> For example I don’t feel like I need to try threesomes or gay sex or something like that and I doubt I will ever feel like I missed out. “If only I had tried taking the D…”
> 
> ...


If you have had a long good marriage as many I know do, I don't think you would regret not having had lots of previous partners. Even if they did get married young.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> If you have had a long good marriage as many I know do, I don't think you would regret not having had lots of previous partners. Even if they did get married young.


In this case I was talking about try before you buy. I want to try before I buy.

If you’re in that camp, then it’s not unreasonable to expect that for a like minded individual they have tried some and thrown them back. Especially at my age.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

I just don't think people should do anything that they're ashamed of or that goes against their own principles, because that way they won't have any regrets. I don't think it needs to be about other people's principles but just your own. If you're happy with the choices you made at the time, there's no reason to be regretful. You just either have some good memories or you just chalk it up to experience and learn something about yourself or others. That's not a bad thing.

The only people I know with regrets, it's because someone turned out to be not as great as they thought they were when they got mixed up with them, but it wasn't because they slept with someone extra.

Just about everyone I knew by the time I was in my mid-20s had had one marriage and been divorced or had one long-term relationship and then ended it. People who get married too young more often than not grow apart. The brain develops and people become who they are supposed to be sometime in their twenties. That doesn't mean they regret their first partner. The ones I know said it was right for them at the time but it just wasn't right anymore, grown apart. People are supposed to grow you know.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

DownByTheRiver said:


> People are supposed to grow you know.


FWB I guess I don’t understand completely because a lady friend I want to have sex with I would probably be thinking “girlfriend”. Someone who wants to hang out and sometimes have sex but doesn’t want a relationship, what is that?

If I was in that situation I think I’d probably pass.

With that said if someone had that experience in their past but they were now ready to say, well that is in the past but not now; ok sure.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

ccpowerslave said:


> FWB I guess I don’t understand completely because a lady friend I want to have sex with I would probably be thinking “girlfriend”. Someone who wants to hang out and sometimes have sex but doesn’t want a relationship, what is that?
> 
> If I was in that situation I think I’d probably pass.
> 
> With that said if someone had that experience in their past but they were now ready to say, well that is in the past but not now; ok sure.


I think it is different for different people. A lot of the FWB mentions I had seen on line not so much lately but say a couple of years ago were women who were settling for an FWB relationship because they couldn't get the full relationship from the guy and didn't want to give them up. So I think that's one big component to it.

Others have talked about it being mostly just a friendship where you have sex. That wouldn't be for me at all. I'm not interested in having sex with someone I mainly think of as a friend.

Then like my FWB we tried to date and we were not mad at each other at the end of that and we are both okay with just occasional sex and I would not call it a friendship though. Just kind of a casual sex relationship because we weren't compatible for more.

Another type of that sort of type relationship I was open to is someone that I enjoyed having sex with and was attracted to but in no way wanted to get mixed up in a relationship with because they were too much trouble. But I wouldn't classify the one I'm thinking of as an FWB because it wasn't regular enough at all to be that. But I can see that being an intermittent things someone might call an FWB.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

Yeah I can understand where you’re not really “buddies” or friends but you occasionally have sex to blow off some steam or because it’s good. Dunno if that is friends with benefits or not.

It’s like advanced “go to the chiropractor” or something.

Anyway is that a red flag? I don’t think so. I think it’s a different mindset to be in a monogamous relationship and that having a casual sex thing going doesn’t mean that person can’t flip a switch and not do that.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Corgi Mum said:


> Not a red flag for me provided the buddy is now in the rearview mirror.
> 
> I've had a few FWB relationships along the way. They were always a) time limited b) the most "relationship" I was capable of at the time (i.e. recovering from the breakup of a LTR) and c) with men who were not LTR material for me.
> 
> I could hardly judge someone else negatively for engaging in the same behaviour.


Right or wrong I would interpret this as being mr wrong whom you enjoy sex better than you would with me as a LTR.

I also suspect most women are mostly honest about their failed LTRs, but would conceal the FWBs.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

TAMAT said:


> I also suspect most women are mostly honest about their failed LTRs, but would conceal the FWBs.


i think that is a whole topic in it's self , and would love to know the truth to that one


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

frenchpaddy said:


> i think that is a whole topic in it's self , and would love to know the truth to that one


I think it would depend


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

ccpowerslave said:


> In this case I was talking about try before you buy. I want to try before I buy.
> 
> If you’re in that camp, then it’s not unreasonable to expect that for a like minded individual they have tried some and thrown them back. Especially at my age.


Yes, if you have tried some then you can complain that others have as well.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

TAMAT said:


> I also suspect most women are mostly honest about their failed LTRs, but would conceal the FWBs.


Why do you suspect that?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Why do you suspect that?


I'll take a shot at that: because there is still a pervasive double standard, and women are often still perceived negatively if they have and enjoy sex outside of a committed LTR. It's stupid, IMO, but reality is what it is.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Married but Happy said:


> I'll take a shot at that: because there is still a pervasive double standard, and women are often still perceived negatively if they have and enjoy sex outside of a committed LTR. It's stupid, IMO, but reality is what it is.


agreed and men could boost about it or even make it up as they go along


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

frenchpaddy said:


> I also suspect most women are mostly honest about their failed LTRs, but would conceal the FWBs.
> 
> i think that is a whole topic in it's self , and would love to know the truth to that one


Perhaps they would mostly tell about the ones they hate, but keep the ones they still feel for or love secret.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Why do you suspect that?


Because the failed LTRs allow a woman to appear historically honest while preserving their cherished memories of magic moments to themselves. Perhaps many women intuit that they need to make a man feel superior to their past.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

TAMAT said:


> Because the failed LTRs allow a woman to appear historically honest while preserving their cherished memories of magic moments to themselves. Perhaps many women intuit that they need to make a man feel superior to their past.


Yes, so many men are terribly insecure about how the "measure up" to other men, whether it's size or performance. It's easier to not know and preserve the illusion that they're adequate, if not superior! LOL As for me, I _know _I'm superior! You don't have to believe me, but I believe me!!


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> As for me, I _know _I'm superior! You don't have to believe me, but I believe me!!


Never underestimate a man who overestimates himself.

The deeper truth what she might tell a close friend or a therapist we likely will never know unless we hide a microphone


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

TAMAT said:


> Never underestimate a man who overestimates himself.
> 
> The deeper truth what she might tell a close friend or a therapist we likely will never know unless we hide a microphone


I have references! LOL


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

TAMAT said:


> Never underestimate a man who overestimates himself.
> 
> The deeper truth what she might tell a close friend or a therapist we likely will never know unless we hide a microphone


She has plenty of girlfriends to talk all that over with. It's not and has never been a good subject to discuss with a straight man you might be having a relationship with.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

frenchpaddy said:


> as the title is having or had a friends with benefits FWB/FB ****buddy a big no no
> 
> does it automatic make a person a red flag holder
> 
> ...


It's an absolute red flag for this barbarian.

Sex is a little more serious than a handshake.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> It's an absolute red flag for this barbarian.
> 
> Sex is a little more serious than a handshake.


Depends on if the handshake is a business agreement. 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Numb26 said:


> Depends on if the handshake is a business agreement. 🤣🤣🤣🤣


You a man ho. I use to be so I know.😂


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> You a man ho. I use to be so I know.😂


Guilty!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Corgi Mum (10 mo ago)

TAMAT said:


> Perhaps they would mostly tell about the ones they hate, but keep the ones they still feel for or love secret.


What about the ones in the middle of that continuum that are just kind of in the "meh, it happened" category?

There is no guy from my past for whom I feel either love or hate at this point. Most are very hazy memories in fact.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

Depends on any number of factors. Reading this I just realized I've had a FB. I was also surprised when a shrink brought up the concept of recreational sex and I at first felt revolted and then realized that was what my FB was all about.

So now I'm in a dedicated monogamist relationship and will not be the one to ever change that, so I guess the couple of months with the FB didn't amount to much. Actually, it drove me to take myself off the market and marry.

I don't know all of my wife's sexual history, but I doubt she would have been interested in either situation.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Dictum Veritas said:


> There is nothing but history to define a person. We can fake the moment, history is the preponderance of past behavior.
> 
> Someone who places such a low value on their own body as to have continued contact with a past sexual partner is not a prospect I would ever consider to have in my life.
> 
> ...


As per usual.... smooth as silk. Hard to argue, but I see things a little differently these days. 


I question my rules I lived by these days. I wonder why I bothered. I had 3 separate chances in college to sleep with other women before my ex-wife and look where it got me.

Now I wonder what it would have been like to be with other women. Saving myself for my ex-wife was a joke. Clearly it was a waste of time, especially the way she treated me in the bedroom. 

I can't say if I will or will not do a FWB in the future. I haven't decided. I don't know what will happen the next time something falls in my lap. I have a bad feeling though that I won't have as much will power as what I used to. 

I can't argue with your points, DV. All I can say is my usual: I tend to learn things the hard way.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I'll take a shot at that: because there is still a pervasive double standard, and women are often still perceived negatively if they have and enjoy sex outside of a committed LTR. It's stupid, IMO, but reality is what it is.


Point is this: I will not pay for something that others can have for free. Sorry.

A woman is willing to share her body with another man without commitment but wants me to commit to her to have the same? Wants me to invest a great deal on her to have the same? I'll pass.

I have better sense of self-worth than that.


----------



## Dictum Veritas (Oct 22, 2020)

LATERILUS79 said:


> As per usual.... smooth as silk. Hard to argue, but I see things a little differently these days.
> 
> 
> I question my rules I lived by these days. I wonder why I bothered. I had 3 separate chances in college to sleep with other women before my ex-wife and look where it got me.
> ...


You had 3, count them, 3, chances throughout college. That's how many chances an average looking college aged woman has each week if she has normal social interactions. I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions from my statement.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Point is this: I will not pay for something that others can have for free. Sorry.
> 
> A woman is willing to share her body with another man without commitment but wants me to commit to her to have the same? Wants me to invest a great deal on her to have the same? I'll pass.
> 
> I have better sense of self-worth than that.


Well, that assumes you just want to use her while even when she is at a point in life where she is seeking a relationship. Perhaps your sense of self-worth is exaggerated.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LATERILUS79 said:


> As per usual.... smooth as silk. Hard to argue, but I see things a little differently these days.
> 
> 
> I question my rules I lived by these days. I wonder why I bothered. I had 3 separate chances in college to sleep with other women before my ex-wife and look where it got me.
> ...


in many things in life, we tend to regret the shots not taken, the opportunities we passed and dreams not pursued more than we regret the things we’ve actually done.

This can be applied to about everything in life whether it be educational opportunities, job prospects, sporting events, adventures, friendships, family events etc etc. 

You’ll always regret the shot not taken more than the shot taken and missed. 

And unless someone does something truly destructive or hurtful out of a fit of anger, rarely do we regret what we’ve actually done.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Well, that assumes you just want to use her while even when she is at a point in life where she is seeking a relationship. Perhaps your sense of self-worth is exaggerated.


No, I will not 'use' her either. I'll pass. She is not the right one for me.

You need to figure out the difference between 'self-worth' and 'a user', bud.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Point is this: I will not pay for something that others can have for free. Sorry.
> 
> A woman is willing to share her body with another man without commitment but wants me to commit to her to have the same? Wants me to invest a great deal on her to have the same? I'll pass.
> 
> I have better sense of self-worth than that.


But you’re assuming a transactional relationship with a woman that doesn’t have that much (or any) actual sexual desire for you and is making you commit to relationship/marriage/mowing the lawn/killing spiders etc etc before she’ll give you some num-nums in return. 

It’s ok to want to have a traditional relationship/marriage with a woman, But do it with a woman that has genuine burning desire for you and then it doesn’t have to be “work” and you are not then exchanging commitment for sex. 

If you want to have a committed relationship with someone that has genuine burning desire for you, then things click into place and each gets what they innately want without it as transactional. Each gets what they want seemingly for free because they are naturally compatible.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

I thought I had a lot of hangups: shy nerd that wouldn't touch women and couldn't handle the idea of sex outside of a committed relationship. I was actually traumatized when women began hitting on me for casual sex. I'd been living a Don Quixote life protecting women's virtue and that little world just fell apart, leaving me no reference so I functioned at about a 12 year old emotional level for a year or two.

But others here seem to outdo me. The reality is that people can and do have casual sex that might even be a non committed relationship and then move on to a committed relationship. 

Both my wife and I have had casual sex and, again, in my case a couple of months or so with what could be considered either a FWB or FB. Dunno. Our routine was pretty much I would walk in the door, drop my pants and slip it in. No real relationship. But all that plays no part in how my wife and I relate. We both trerasure who we are now as a result of those past experiences. It is past and gone and I would not want to go back.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> But you’re assuming a transactional relationship with a woman that doesn’t have that much (or any) actual sexual desire for you and is making you commit to relationship/marriage/mowing the lawn/killing spiders etc etc before she’ll give you some num-nums in return.
> 
> It’s ok to want to have a traditional relationship/marriage with a woman, But do it with a woman that has genuine burning desire for you and then it doesn’t have to be “work” and you are not then exchanging commitment for sex.
> 
> If you want to have a committed relationship with someone that has genuine burning desire for you, then things click into place and each gets what they innately want without it as transactional. Each gets what they want seemingly for free because they are naturally compatible.


I get your point.

I will take interest in a woman who likes me and is responsive to me. I will schedule meetings and/or dates with her to figure out if WE click (or not), and marriage is on the cards for both (or not). 

I do not want to end up with a woman who does not desire me but wanted material benefits.

I am also not willing to accept a woman having FWB history even if she likes me and is willing to commit to me. Another man had her for nothing but I should give her much more for the same. Nope.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

CountryMike said:


> Or they don't. Just from personal experience. Being broken and disrespected not even a thought or near being fact. Just the opposite.
> 
> By having plenty of choices and sex, that was nothing but a plus when found the W, I had very clear and firm belief I picked the right one. Because I had seen the world.


Hookups do not affect men.

Women are 'sensitive' on the other hand.

It kind of begins like this. A bad boy is very likely to approach a woman and use his charms to woo her when she is young but his real motive is to score with her and move on. If she gives into his charms but gets dumped afterwards then this experience will affect her deep down because she is taught to be a prize and settle for a relationship. But she might assume that this is how it is and she will find the right one for her at some point. But she may (or may not) find one for herself very soon. Many women cross the 30 years age mark and become increasingly desperate to a find a man to settle down with. They have had slept with dozens of men by now (the so-called carousel ride phase), but a BETA provider will do finally. Now there are men who have worked hard to build their lives when young and are hitting the dating market late; now these men are not willing to accept women who have been in the so-called carousel ride phase in their formative years. These men are in search for women having similar values instead. This phenomenon have sparked debates on social media and entire channels are dedicated to them. I have noticed many insightful contents and comments on YouTube in relation.

Some women decide to conceal their sexual past to woo a quality man. He discovers things after marriage and rightfully feels that he was deceived. Some of these cases are on TAM as well. Some people tell these men to "get over it." How convenient.

There are also video-confessions of young women admitting feeling numb and broke after sleeping with many men.

WE can say that to each his own (that there is the right one for everybody out there) and WE should not judge others for their sexual past. Sounds fine in theory.

But there are long-term consequences of decadence for a society. It continues to get worse over time until the society reaches its breaking point. Your generation might not see much but coming generations are dealing with a broader set of problems. Now LGBTQ+ revolution is in full swing and will affect many relationships and marriages by extension. There are threads on TAM already.

This is a very lengthy debate but I have condensed it to bear minimum.

Your insight is meaningful in its own right but what worked for you might not have worked for so many out there. These people are not necessarily posting on TAM and similar forums.

I believe that societal conditioning for how to build and carry relationships is important consideration. This is where a religion fits in because it teaches morality. But scholarly basis to this theme can also be established.

I think @Dictum Veritas has a point.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

What distinguishes a FB from a FWB? Is the former just a connection for sexual release between acquaintances and no friendship involved? AFAIK maybe that was a thing for a lot of my generation.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> I have references! LOL


Didn't Tina sing a song about it?😉


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Many women cross the 30 years age mark and become increasingly desperate to a find a man to settle down with. They have had slept with dozens of men by now (the so-called carousel ride phase), but a BETA provider will do finally. Now there are men who have worked hard to build their lives when young and are hitting the dating market late; now these men are not willing to accept women who have been in the so-called carousel ride phase in their formative years. These men are in search for women having similar values instead.


You're watching Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi too much. 

Richard Cooper is a scorned and embittered old man that is still pissed off that the divorce court wouldn't let him keep every single penny in piggy bank when his wife couldn't stand to be around him anymore and the court so unceremoniously decided she shouldn't be left pennyless under a bridge because he was chauvinistic A-hole. 

And Rollo Tomassi just likes to hear himself blow and carry on and write some books so he can make some money without having to get an actual job. 

Now do both of them make some good points at times and are they able to scrub the whitewash off of a lot of things society tells us and thus are able to state what really goes on in the world at times?? Yeah they do. And I've followed some of their stuff and there are some things that they've helped me understand and deal with. 

But here's the thing, They both ramble on and spout for hours a day so a lot of times there's just going to be crap coming out of their mouths. If you do a 2 and 1/2 hour podcast every day, you're gonna have to fill a lot of that time with crap and filler. 

But anyway, getting to what you said above, This is largely Red Pill propoganda and not necessarily factual when dealing with individuals. 

These "betas" that you speak of are not hesitant to get with women in the upper 20s and beyond due to differing values because they preserved their chastity and the women didn't. Oh no, these guys wanted to be having sex and partying it up with the pretty girls just like the bad boys when they were younger. They just weren't able to because they were not attractive to those women at the time due to their social awkwardness and ineptitude, lack of assertiveness, lack of good grooming, dress and physical fitness and a passive persona that allowed themselves to be pushed around. 

They weren't intentionally protecting their virtue and preserving their sexuality for the future mother of their children in their little house in the 'burbs with the white picket fence - they were beating off to porn in their mom's basement between battles in World of Warcraft and Dungeons and Dragons with their nerd buddies. 

The reason they are entering the market at 30 is not some higher calling of personal values and virtue - it's because it took them that long to develop themselves physically, socially, professionally and financially to become attractive to women. 

The reason they shy away from women who have had dating and sexual experiences is not due to some higher religious or personal calling, but rather because they are intimidated and fearful that they somehow won't measure up. 

Now sure, there are some religious guys that 'could' have dated and had sexual experiences but followed their religious teachings and personal values and opted for commitment and marriage instead of dating and having noncommittal sex. But the other 95% of 30 year old virgins and betas and simps wanting to but simply weren't able to because they had not yet developed the traits and characteristics that young women find attractive. 

And I'm not really buying the concept of women somehow scamming and scheming and exploiting the thirsty and naive 30 year old beta when she hits the wall and realizes she can't marry a "Chad" or an "Alpha." 

By the time a woman is getting into her upper 20s and beyond, she sincerely wants a man that is sane and sober and responsible and stable and professional developed and financial capable. Those traits and characteristics are desirable and important to her. 

If their sex life never develops or tanks soon after the NRE wears off, it's not because she's dreaming of Chad that banged her when she was drunk at the frat party her freshman year of college. It's because Beta Boy still hasn't pulled his big boy britches up yet and learned what turns her on and pleases her sexually yet. Probably because he's too busy worrying and fretting about how big Chad's johnson was in 2010. 

For 90% of guys talking about values and morality and virtue etc etc it's all bullcrap. They weren't sitting home playing Grand Theft Auto with their nerd buddies because of some scripture or religious doctrine or personal sense of accountability. They were home dateless on a Saturday night because they couldn't get a date with an actual girl. 

If some 25 year old virgin marries a nice church girl he met at his first year of seminary, I'll buy off on the assertion he was following his personal values and theological beliefs. 

But for 90% of the other guys out there? No. All the finger pointing and judgement and scorn at someone that had sex with someone else before they even met, that's insecurity and resentment and bitterness that it wasn't them.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I went off on one of my tangents again. Now that I've settled down, let me condense this a bit. 

I realise there are men that have religious and personal beliefs and values in regards to chastity and sexual temperance. If I see a nice young man that is fit and healthy and that is personable and socially adept and has a good education and good income and he is marrying a nice young church girl in mid 20s and they are each supporting each other's values and beliefs and are preserving their virginity or sexuality or whatever - I understand that and get that it is all congruent and makes sense. 

BUT, when I see full grown men pointing fingers with ire and scorn and basically calling women wh0re$ and $lut$ and being resentful that other men did not have to, and I quote,,, "work for it" and people who are coming right out and saying that people who had sex outside of traditional marriage are immoral and bad seed -

To me that screams insecurity and bitterness and resentment. 

Insecurity coming from their own concern of their own desirability and abilities, and bitterness and resentment that they weren't the ones getting with the pretty girl back then. 

I'll believe people when they talk of beliefs and values and religious convictions if they walk that walk and the rest of their daily lives are congruent with that belief system. And if they are marrying the pretty young church girl at a fairly young age by today's standards,,, again to me that seems congruent with that belief system.

But when I see adults that have spent their formative years spanking to porn in their mom's basement and playing video games with their nerd buddies and look like crap and spend their time pointing fingers and blaming Chad for getting all da' girlz and then blaming the women for going out with guys they find attractive instead of Melvin in his mom's basement spanking to porn and playing World of Warcraft - it's carries no credibility.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> I believe that societal conditioning for how to build and carry relationships is important consideration. This is where a religion fits in because it teaches morality. But scholarly basis to this theme can also be established.
> 
> I think @Dictum Veritas has a point.


I think you are talking in overly broad terms. It feels like viewpoint of men who are anxious to conform to the fictitious "norm". Unfortunately, many people do feel the need to conform and suffer for it.

The women's attitudes you describe do not fit my experience. Yes, women may regret letting a self centered, opportunistic male take advantage, but not all women are simplistic victims. Nor do my personal reasons for being virgin until nearly age 30 fit OldShirt's comments. 

No, we don't need "morality". Enough folks are screwed up trying to live up to some artificial standard set by others as it is. People are individuals and stifling independent thought and experience has no value.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> It kind of begins like this. A bad boy is very likely to approach a woman and use his charms to woo her when she is young but his real motive is to score with her and move on. If she gives into his charms but gets dumped afterwards then this experience will affect her deep down because she is taught to be a prize and settle for a relationship.


You are buying into the Con Man fallacy. You're assuming that if a woman has sex with man she does not marry, then she must have gotten duped and scorned. You are assuming that a guy must use deception and subterfuge to be with a woman and that if she had sex with him, she must have fallen for his deception. This is beta ideology since they feel they must pretend to be something they are not in order to get a woman into bed. 

There are lots of relationships that don't work out and we need to keep in mind that statistically it is women that break things off and do the dumping the vast vast majority of the time. The vast majority of the time, it is the woman that is doing the dumping and not the guy. 

Then let's also keep in mind the topic here is FWBs which presumes some kind of mutually consenting, ongoing relationship rather than a drunken ONS. 

So the mental hurdle a lot of men need to get over is women typically have sex because they want to and not because they have fallen victim to some kind of evil sexual mastermind. 

If a guy has the traits and characteristics and persona that women find attractive, it is natural for them to want to have sex with him. It's typically not because of some great act of deception and smoke and mirrors.

If a man wants to have a sex life with a woman, it is incumbent on him to develop the traits and characteristics in order to do that. 

Mother Nature does not want the men that cannot or are not willing to do that to breed.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Point is this: I will not pay for something that others can have for free. Sorry.
> 
> A woman is willing to share her body with another man without commitment but wants me to commit to her to have the same? Wants me to invest a great deal on her to have the same? I'll pass.





LeGenDary_Man said:


> .
> 
> I am also not willing to accept a woman having FWB history even if she likes me and is willing to commit to me. Another man had her for nothing but I should give her much more for the same. Nope.


This seems to be a point of contention for you. I'm sure you're not the only guy that feels that way, but I think that line of thinking is a little off kilter. You are still assuming that having a traditional relationship is your price of admission to have sex and that it is the "work" that you must do to have a GF and a sex life. 

IMHO that thinking is fundamentally self depreciating and transactional in nature (not that relationships don't have or even shouldn't have transactional components) 

If you are with someone that has genuine burning desire for you, then you should not feel like a plow horse or that you have to jump through hoops in order to achieve some duty sex. It should be organic and come naturally. 

Likewise if you are relationship oriented and like some gal and want to have a relationship with her and she wants to have a relationship with you, that should also come organically and naturally and she should not feel as if she needs to "put out" to snag you into a relationship nor should you feel like a relationship or commitment is "work." If things are clicking naturally and everyone is getting what they want and feel it is what they bargained for, nothing should feel like "work." 

So here is the thing about "work." If a guy works on developing himself and works on maximizing his fitness and appearance, social and interpersonal skills, education and professional development and financial success.... women will come to him and innately desire him. He does not need to "work" to have sex with women and relationships and commitment becomes a choice and not a price to pay for poontang. 

The Chads and Alphas and Bad Boys did not have to "work" in your estimation because you are seeing relationships and committment as a price to pay. 

This IMHO actually cheapens and detracts the value of relationship and commitment and basically turns a man into jon paying for sex....it just has prettier verbiage. 

A guy should only have relationship and commitment because he wants to. Not because that is his only vehicle into some gal's knickers. A woman should only have sex because she wants to. 

There for the "work" that a man should do is on himself to become the man that women will desire.


----------



## Luckylucky (Dec 11, 2020)

Some people are good at ‘working’ to attract a spouse that desires them… and then fall short at actually ‘keeping’ them thereafter.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> You're watching Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi too much.
> 
> Richard Cooper is a scorned and embittered old man that is still pissed off that the divorce court wouldn't let him keep every single penny in piggy bank when his wife couldn't stand to be around him anymore and the court so unceremoniously decided she shouldn't be left pennyless under a bridge because he was chauvinistic A-hole.
> 
> ...


I am not a regular consumer of the contents uploaded by these two men on YouTube but you have my thanks for these pointers. I have checked multiple channels dedicated to social issues including relationships nevertheless. Meaningful perspectives can also often found in the "comments" section below each uploaded content.

Yes, there are men who could not get laid in their 20s and earlier due to following reason: _"weren't able to because they had not yet developed the traits and characteristics that young women find attractive."_ But is it even possible to establish that these men collectively represent 90% of the men who did not had sex with a woman in their 20s and earlier in a society ??? This would necessitate an interview with each man in a society which is impractical.

It would be realistic to assume that men abstain from sex in their 20s and earlier due to *different* reasons. Many men seem to value their bodies for spiritual reasons (religious convictions) and/or medical reasons (do not want to catch STDs). These men will also have reservations about marrying a promiscuous woman - not his first choice to say the least.

Check this conversation.

And this article. (a woman's perspective)

There are numerous interesting conversations on Reddit in fact.



oldshirt said:


> I went off on one of my tangents again. Now that I've settled down, let me condense this a bit.
> 
> I realise there are men that have religious and personal beliefs and values in regards to chastity and sexual temperance. If I see a nice young man that is fit and healthy and that is personable and socially adept and has a good education and good income and he is marrying a nice young church girl in mid 20s and they are each supporting each other's values and beliefs and are preserving their virginity or sexuality or whatever - I understand that and get that it is all congruent and makes sense.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.



Julie's Husband said:


> I think you are talking in overly broad terms. It feels like viewpoint of men who are anxious to conform to the fictitious "norm". Unfortunately, many people do feel the need to conform and suffer for it.
> 
> The women's attitudes you describe do not fit my experience. Yes, women may regret letting a self centered, opportunistic male take advantage, but not all women are simplistic victims. Nor do my personal reasons for being virgin until nearly age 30 fit OldShirt's comments.
> 
> No, we don't need "morality". Enough folks are screwed up trying to live up to some artificial standard set by others as it is. People are individuals and stifling independent thought and experience has no value.


I definitely understand and accept that some women sleep around by choice. Every woman wasn't exploited by a bad boy when young.

But there are confessions like these. Men dumping women after having sex with them. These developments can take a toll on the mental well-being of a woman; she might feel used and discarded each time. This is what I was alluding to. This is one of the reasons why I insist that women should not have hookups with men.

Women in your society are under pressure to sleep with men while dating them. Many women will confess on the web that they felt used and discarded by multiple men while dating them. They have no choice but to come to terms with the "hookup culture" in your society and sleep around with men because they won't be able to find a man who might be willing to marry them if they avoid dating. Arranged marriages are not a thing. By the time some women are able to find the right one for themselves (or a man who is willing to commit), their body count can be very high and not necessarily by their choice. 

There are also monetary reasons for selling sex. Popularity of OnlyFans is self-explanatory.

If "morality" is undesirable then WHY people insist on having a monogamous relationship? WHY people complain about "cheating" in a relationship? WHY the state does not allow YOU to marry multiple men and/or women?

There are consequences of immortality. Sleep around with people and YOU [risk] catching STDs. Abolish monogamy and many men will not be able to pass their genes. Open your marriage and YOU [risk] loosing your partner to another person. There are also psychological implications for women in these matters.



oldshirt said:


> You are buying into the Con Man fallacy. You're assuming that if a woman has sex with man she does not marry, then she must have gotten duped and scorned. You are assuming that a guy must use deception and subterfuge to be with a woman and that if she had sex with him, she must have fallen for his deception. This is beta ideology since they feel they must pretend to be something they are not in order to get a woman into bed.
> 
> There are lots of relationships that don't work out and we need to keep in mind that statistically it is women that break things off and do the dumping the vast vast majority of the time. The vast majority of the time, it is the woman that is doing the dumping and not the guy.
> 
> ...


See purple highlight above.



oldshirt said:


> This seems to be a point of contention for you. I'm sure you're not the only guy that feels that way, but I think that line of thinking is a little off kilter. You are still assuming that having a traditional relationship is your price of admission to have sex and that it is the "work" that you must do to have a GF and a sex life.
> 
> IMHO that thinking is fundamentally self depreciating and transactional in nature (not that relationships don't have or even shouldn't have transactional components)
> 
> ...


No, I do not have to offer traditional relationship to [every] woman in order to woo her. I have managed to impress women with my academic credentials and personality. Even though I am married, I met 3 different women in different organizations at a different point in time who took interest in me. One was a Masters degree holder and had a job. The other was a PhD Scholar and had a job. Third was enrolled in a Masters degree program. I do not think these woman had monetary problems and/or wanted to bag me for this reason. Each simply wanted to be with a reliable goal-oriented man and I checked the box. But I respected my wife and marriage. I will not cheat on my wife. She is a wonderful woman and an asset to me.

If I were to actively date women who took interest in me, I would have brought up 'sexual history' in conversations with each at some point. I can be patient, and wait for a woman to be comfortable with me before I decide to probe her on a deeper level. I can accept a woman who had been with one man and it didn't work out. I have pointed out in a previous post that I can accept a widow or even a divorced woman provided that she had been a good wife in her marriage.

But I am not willing to accept a woman who had been with multiple men and/or with FWB history. A woman who does not seem to value her body, is not for me.

She must have a strong sense of morality to appeal to me. If she can resist advances of men (when single) then she can resist advances of men (when married). I want to feel secure in my marriage and do not want to experience "cheating" and potential breakup of my family unit and investments because she is lacking in mental strength.



oldshirt said:


> So here is the thing about "work." If a guy works on developing himself and works on maximizing his fitness and appearance, social and interpersonal skills, education and professional development and financial success.... women will come to him and innately desire him. He does not need to "work" to have sex with women and relationships and commitment becomes a choice and not a price to pay for poontang.


This I agree with 100%.

I have pointed out as much in one of the threads on TAM. I use the term "self-development."



oldshirt said:


> The Chads and Alphas and Bad Boys did not have to "work" in your estimation because you are seeing relationships and committment as a price to pay.


Well, I am not sure who are the Chads. Bodybuilders? 

ALPHA = Leadership capacity. Nothing to do with Bad Boys in my view.

Bad Boys are able to score because they are "confident players." They are very likely to approach women, strike conversations with them, and pretend to be BF material for obvious reasons. Many women find these men irresistible when young? Not very wise of them.



oldshirt said:


> This IMHO actually cheapens and detracts the value of relationship and commitment and basically turns a man into jon paying for sex....it just has prettier verbiage.
> 
> A guy should only have relationship and commitment because he wants to. Not because that is his only vehicle into some gal's knickers. A woman should only have sex because she wants to.
> 
> There for the "work" that a man should do is on himself to become the man that women will desire.


I think I get you.

Check my story.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Bad Boys are able to score because they are "confident players." They are very likely to approach women, strike conversations with them, and pretend to be BF material for obvious reasons. Many women find these men irresistible when young? Not very wise of them.



I consider most of your points simply a difference in perspective and opinion.

However on this above I disagree and believe to be mistaken.

Bad Boys do NOT pretend to be BF material…. At all. 

In fact I believe most rack up the numbers that they do, not by pretending to be BF material, but rather by quite up front that they are not and do not wish to be. 

I am not any kind of stud or player or lady’s man or anything, but from my own experience, the vast, vast majority of women I have been with were due to the fact I assured them that I would NOT try to be their BF and would not be interfering with their life or calling them all the time or trying to get with them all the time etc. 

A bad boy is this on steroids. 

In essence, chicks are getting down with them because they have the traits and characteristics they find sexually desirable, but don’t feel obligated to be in a relationship with them or any kind of consistent, ongoing association with them. 

Again, the sex is because they want to. Not because they were duped by someone pretending to be BF material that wasn’t.

And I think a lot of the chicks that get on Tik Toc and Reddit and YouTube etc and boo hoo about how the guy didn’t call the next day, is just they’re attempt to play the victim card and look scorned. They knew darn well what they were getting into and are now just trying to look victimized for attention and ego strokes from their fan base that dabs the tear from their eye and tells them how great they are and how pretty they are and that it’s “his loss” and how she deserves better etc etc.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> I consider most of your points simply a difference in perspective and opinion.
> 
> However on this above I disagree and believe to be mistaken.
> 
> ...


This is so true in how I approach dating


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

It just doesn't seem like a big deal. Be careful of STDs, have a lot of sex. Don't unkindly lead women on. Be clear. And have at it. Simple is better.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> I am not any kind of stud or player or lady’s man or anything, but from my own experience, the vast, vast majority of women I have been with were due to the fact I assured them that I would NOT try to be their BF and would not be interfering with their life or calling them all the time or trying to get with them all the time etc.


Yeah, a lot of truth in that. If you're upfront and honest about what you are and are not offering, you'll probably find takers.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> If "morality" is undesirable then WHY people insist on having a monogamous relationship? WHY people complain about "cheating" in a relationship? WHY the state does not allow YOU to marry multiple men and/or women?
> 
> There are consequences of immortality. Sleep around with people and YOU [risk] catching STDs. Abolish monogamy and many men will not be able to pass their genes. Open your marriage and YOU [risk] loosing your partner to another person. There are also psychological implications for women in these matters.


Morality is subjective and arbitrary. The only consequences are regret over being used and rejection by others who practice one or another morality. All factors are controllable. "Morality" is not needed to avoid STDs. Men will not be able to pass on their genes without monogamy? Tough toasties.

The objection to cheating in marriage is that two people have emotional investment in a relationship and one or the other violates the relationship. Other than the emotional desire for the partner, the relationship usually comes from practical matters of stability while procreating and raising children or, as in my case, the desire to not have to deal with multiple relationships.

Loss of a partner in open marriage is just something the two need to be aware of and be able to accept or decide not to have an open marriage. Their choice, not a moralist's.

Psychological damage women may suffer is in bad choices or maybe having to deal with judgemental moralists. I suffered psychological damage because I was trying to adhere to a "moralistic" ideal and found that was not the real world. 

The state has no business being involved in setting any moral system as a standard, rather they would be better off giving those who feel victimized recourse.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> I consider most of your points simply a difference in perspective and opinion.
> 
> However on this above I disagree and believe to be mistaken.
> 
> ...


Is _this_ a Bad Boy?

I have sufficient confidence to strike conversations with women but I have never chased them. I will not text them on a regular basis and I do not want to spend much time with them because I have my own activities and interests to pursue. They are welcome to talk to me and I will go with the flow. People around me have told me that women tend to see in me a decent guy. I smile and get back to work. I began to draw attention of women when I was enrolled in a Masters degree program and even more-so as a PhD Scholar. Some women did not ask me out because they respected my marriage.

When I was young, I did meet some guys who were into girls. These guys told me that they wanted to have sex with girls. These guys further told me that they were able to get them. I saw one hanging with two girls in the university where I studied. I never bothered to find out what tricks these guy had adopted but they worked on some women. I regarded these as the Bad Boys.

Therefore, I am not sure.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Hookups do not affect men.
> 
> Women are 'sensitive' on the other hand.


I think your talking for you 
I even today could not do the hookup idea , 
I know they say men can divide it into only sex and love making , they go so far and say a man is able put a woman over the desk at work have sex with her and drive home and wants to make what he calls make love with his wife , 
For me I would have have feelings for the woman , even if I was looking at a very sexy woman I need to know her and have feeling for her , 

ON the other hand with women now living in a new world there are women that do think like many men in that it is ok for them to have sex with one or even a few guys and still go home and make love to their husband ,

you get this a lot in the swing community where a wife can have sex with more than one man some of the men she does not even know and goes home and they have some type of name for it like reclaiming their wife , and sloppy seconds ,


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Bad Boys.


The girls would all so have regarded them as Bad boys , and many girl wanted to be with them because they are bad boys but they know it is not the type man to end up with a bit like sex in the city idea WHEN THEY WANT TO SETTLE down they want a guy like you WHICH WAS NOT ONE OF THE BAD BOYS 

But there are some girls that fall for the bad boy type and then end up married or in long time relationship when the bad boy is found playing with other girls and the wife is suprised he would do that, AS if she was the only one that could bring out his bad boy side , 

it comes back to what used to be said once 
HOW used to go "Aman wants a woman that is a street angle and a demon in bed " or something like that , 

I think the same can be said for many women they want a man that can help to be that demon in bed but treats them like a lady outside of it


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

No - it wasn't a red flag for me with my then boyfriend (who became my husband). 

And, he's my first and only. Sex and living together before married. I'm not religious. Never felt that I'd 'missed out' or 'settled'. Rather, feel blessed that we met young and have experienced so much of this life together so far.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

Julie's Husband said:


> Morality is subjective and arbitrary. The only consequences are regret over being used and rejection by others who practice one or another morality.


Declaring 'morality' as subjective and arbitrary is not helpful. If this is the case then every social construct is subjective and arbitrary.

Morality = Values and Principles
Immorality = Lack of Values and Principles

Definition of Morality: _"Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour." _- Oxford Languages

Now you understand how important 'morality' is? It is the gateway to creating a human civilization.

Some pointers:


*Deed**General Take**Religious Take**Acceptable*MurderCrimeSinNOAbuseCrime; Abuse of PowerSinNOMarriageCoupleShould be between a man and a woman*YES

*Why between a man and a woman?

1. Commitment
2. Security
3. Physical needs are met
4. Emotional needs are met
5. Men can pass their genes
6. Family unit can be created
7. Family unit is a building block of the society



Julie's Husband said:


> All factors are controllable.


By promoting Values and Principles.



Julie's Husband said:


> "Morality" is not needed to avoid STDs.


Use of condoms can reduce spread of STDs but people want to try the real thing from time-to-time.

Some religions insist on having your physical needs met in a marriage for good reason. Morality is one of the ways to reduce spread of STDs.



Julie's Husband said:


> Men will not be able to pass on their genes without monogamy? Tough toasties.


And how is this good for men in general?



Julie's Husband said:


> The objection to cheating in marriage is that two people have emotional investment in a relationship and one or the other violates the relationship. Other than the emotional desire for the partner, the relationship usually comes from practical matters of stability while procreating and raising children or, as in my case, the desire to not have to deal with multiple relationships.


CORRECT. And it is 'moralistic' to respect the sanctity of marriage.



Julie's Husband said:


> Loss of a partner in open marriage is just something the two need to be aware of and be able to accept or decide not to have an open marriage. Their choice, not a moralist's.


Sure. It is a choice but not without consequences. Moralistic people will avoid this practice for their own good.



Julie's Husband said:


> Psychological damage women may suffer is in bad choices or maybe having to deal with judgemental moralists. I suffered psychological damage because I was trying to adhere to a "moralistic" ideal and found that was not the real world.


Your environment will affect you. This is a given.

The state can create a better environment for YOU by promoting Values and Principles in a society.



Julie's Husband said:


> The state has no business being involved in setting any moral system as a standard, rather they would be better off giving those who feel victimized recourse.


The state = authority

The state is responsible for the well-being of the people in a society. The state is supposed to promote Values and Principles that are *beneficial* to the people in a society.

If the state has no business being involved in setting any moral system as a standard? Who will?

This is assuming that moralistic people are brought to power. Corrupt politicians and leaders are up to no good.

-----

Now you understand what morality is and how it is beneficial to people and the society at large?

If you are doing something GOOD and PRODUCTIVE in your life, you are sticking to *some* 'morals'.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Declaring 'morality' as subjective and arbitrary is not helpful. If this is the case then every social construct is subjective and arbitrary.
> 
> Morality = Values and Principles
> Immorality = Lack of Values and Principles
> ...


Morals are one person's or one group's desire to control others. Yes, social constructs are subjective and arbitrary.

Values and principles? Whose? 

Control of STDs is not a moral issue, it is a health issue. No one's business other than those involved.

What men experience is up to them, not a moral system. Men do not deserve any special treatment. Tough toasties.

Your entire argument is based on people being controlled by others. Not acceptable.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man (Sep 25, 2013)

Julie's Husband said:


> Morals are one person's or one group's desire to control others. Yes, social constructs are subjective and arbitrary.
> 
> Values and principles? Whose?
> 
> ...


Then what do you think works? Law of the Jungle?

Spread of STDs is both a moral issue and a health issue. The person you might be having sex with, might also be having sex with other individuals, and might not tell you that s/he have caught an STD. Many individuals have caught STDs from other individuals without prior knowledge.

Everybody appreciates "meaningful levels of Freedom" in life; I do as well. Being moralistic is the best way to live your life, however.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Then what do you think works? Law of the Jungle?
> 
> Spread of STDs is both a moral issue and a health issue. The person you might be having sex with, might also be having sex with other individuals, and might not tell you that s/he have caught an STD. Many individuals have caught STDs from other individuals without prior knowledge.
> 
> Everybody appreciates "meaningful levels of Freedom" in life; I do as well. Being moralistic is the best way to live your life, however.


We can have a society without some group deciding for us how we should behave. I don't believe people are inherently evil and believe they will find benefit in working to the benefit of all individuals.

STDs need ethical, but not moral consideration.

Again, morals are someone's way to have others conform to their own arbitrary likes and dislikes. Concern for others and cooperating to everyone's benefit does not require a moral framework enforced by others.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Julie's Husband said:


> I don't believe people are inherently evil and believe they will find benefit in working to the benefit of all individuals.


And this is the fallacy of your argument


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

Numb26 said:


> And this is the fallacy of your argument


Explain. People cooperate to the advantage of all without control by moralists. True not all people are altruistic, but in general are not inherently evil, either.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

a lot of talk here about STD and the spread of them , 
this is a link to what risk you could be at Against the odds: what is your risk of getting an STD through a one-off heterosexual encounter? - STD Center NY


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Julie's Husband said:


> Explain. People cooperate to the advantage of all without control by moralists. True not all people are altruistic, but in general are not inherently evil, either.


People are selfish, self-centered and evil at the basic level. An individual's personal set of morals and belief system that keeps themselves in check is the only reason why we can have a civilization. You rail against "moralists" but it's those morals that each person has keeps them from being the animals they really are.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> a lot of talk here about STD and the spread of them ,
> this is a link to what risk you could be at Against the odds: what is your risk of getting an STD through a one-off heterosexual encounter? - STD Center NY


The article lists the risk of transmission per encounter, for a spectrum of different diseases. It mentions the percentage of people carrying HSV-2 is 14.4 % The risk for a woman of contracting it is 8.9 in 10,000 enclounters. Or less than one in a thousand. These two numbers are difficult for me to fathom. It would seem that of every eight people a person has sex with, one will have HSV-2. It must be difficult to transmit.

So taken all together, for all of the diseases, what is probability of infection by at least one disease from just one encounter? 100 encounters? 1000 encounters?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> People are selfish, self-centered and evil at the basic level. An individual's personal set of morals and belief system that keeps themselves in check is the only reason why we can have a civilization. You rail against "moralists" but it's those morals that each person has keeps them from being the animals they really are.


If people were intrinsically good we wouldn’t need laws.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> If people were intrinsically good we wouldn’t need laws.


The "9 meals" rule


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Julie's Husband said:


> Explain. People cooperate to the advantage of all without control by moralists. True not all people are altruistic, but in general are not inherently evil, either.


People are inherently NOT good. It's their upbringing that teaches them how to get along with others or not.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> The "9 meals" rule


What's the 9 meals rule?

I must have missed that one.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

Numb26 said:


> People are selfish, self-centered and evil at the basic level. An individual's personal set of morals and belief system that keeps themselves in check is the only reason why we can have a civilization. You rail against "moralists" but it's those morals that each person has keeps them from being the animals they really are.


That is the view of people who desire to enforce their values on others.

Societies are built around common needs and the need to cooperate to meet those needs. One need is protection against those people moralists fear.


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

CountryMike said:


> People are inherently NOT good. It's their upbringing that teaches them how to get along with others or not.


True. That upbringing does not need to include being indoctrinated to one moral system or another, just the facts that being able to cooperate is the best option.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> People are selfish, self-centered and evil at the basic level. An individual's personal set of morals and belief system that keeps themselves in check is the only reason why we can have a civilization. You rail against "moralists" but it's those morals that each person has keeps them from being the animals they really are.


Yep. Otherwise it's medieval times all over again. 
Which, if society keeps crumbling moral wise as we're now seeing will come again.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Julie's Husband said:


> True. That upbringing does not need to include being indoctrinated to one moral system or another, just the facts that being able to cooperate is the best option.


Ahh, but cooperative actions approved in one tribe isn't necessarily the same for the next tribe living one hill over. As in one group may have no qualms at all about working together to totally wipe out group two to claim their resources and women.

That's cooperation in a society.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

CountryMike said:


> Ahh, but cooperative actions approved in one tribe isn't necessarily the same for the next tribe living one hill over. As in one group may have no qualms at all about working together to totally wipe out group two to claim their resources and women.
> 
> That's cooperation in a society.


Google the Auca ( means Savage )Tribe of Ecuador. They were so murderous very few people survived much past breeding age. Murder and mayhem was 100% of their lives. Or the Polynesians in Hawaii. War and murder and human sacrifice was the rule. 

Proof that man in his "natural" state is evil continually.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

CountryMike said:


> What's the 9 meals rule?
> 
> I must have missed that one.


C
Society crumbles and people will revert back to their true selves after 9 missed meals.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> C
> Society crumbles and people will revert back to their true selves after 9 missed meals.


Wow I’d never heard that. But it’s a safe bet I’d be pretty savage after that many missed meals. One or two no carb days and I’m pretty much that dragon from the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Wow I’d never heard that. But it’s a safe bet I’d be pretty savage after that many missed meals. One or two no carb days and I’m pretty much that dragon from the Lord of the Rings.


When people are starving you would be amazed at what they are capable of.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

Anyway, this is off of @frenchpaddy 's thread topic. My apologies. In answer to his original question, I don't believe that having one or more FBs or FWBs if single, or in a person's past if married is a "big no no". Of course it is easy for me to say because never had either, and neither did the wife.

I am sure if she had has a FWB or FB in her past who was still hanging around it would be have been a huge issue. And a "large number" of either would just indicate to me that she wasn't really looking for monogamy. Assume a female would feel the same way.

What a large number amounts to would depend on how long a person was single. If they were say 40 when they wanted to marry and had been sexually active single for 20 years, 100 different partners wouldn't be a stretch. And keeping say 20 of those "in the bullpen" against necessity wouldn't be that unusual. The key would be how to determine they had really abandoned the single life of multiple partners for the big change of monogamy. I think people can't really change that drastically. Creatures of habit we are.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Rus47 said:


> Anyway, this is off of @frenchpaddy 's thread topic. My apologies. In answer to his original question, I don't believe that having one or more FBs or FWBs if single, or in a person's past if married is a "big no no". Of course it is easy for me to say because never had either, and neither did the wife.
> 
> I am sure if she had has a FWB or FB in her past who was still hanging around it would be have been a huge issue. And a "large number" of either would just indicate to me that she wasn't really looking for monogamy. Assume a female would feel the same way.
> 
> What a large number amounts to would depend on how long a person was single. If they were say 40 when they wanted to marry and had been sexually active single for 20 years, 100 different partners wouldn't be a stretch. And keeping say 20 of those "in the bullpen" against necessity wouldn't be that unusual. The key would be how to determine they had really abandoned the single life of multiple partners for the big change of monogamy. I think people can't really change that drastically. Creatures of habit we are.


I THINK if ones wife had a FWB or FB before your got to know each other and you love was not only true but if you could feel that love you would feel no resentfulness against any OF HER past FB


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> I THINK if ones wife had a FWB or FB before your got to know each other and you love was not only true but if you could feel that love you would feel no resentfulness against any OF HER past FB


For sure a FWB IN HER PAST is irrelevant. We all have a past. It would bother me if the FWB was still a friend. I would ask her to choose.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

Rus47 said:


> For sure a FWB IN HER PAST is irrelevant. We all have a past. It would bother me if the FWB was still a friend. I would ask her to choose.


 depends on how safe you feel in your relationship , I can only say for me but I not only know some of my wifes ex but one I worked with and he would ask how was she , the strange thing is she had 3 ex none of them ever got married the last time we bumped into one of her ex my wife asked him did you never get married his response was when you would not have me I did not want anyone , the guy I worked with all so said the same thing , and the third guy said the same to his cousin who is my sister in law ,


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

frenchpaddy said:


> the strange thing is she had 3 ex none of them ever got married the last time we bumped into one of her ex my wife asked him did you never get married his response was when you would not have me I did not want anyone


So in that sense, you won.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> depends on how safe you feel in your relationship , I can only say for me but I not only know some of my wifes ex but one I worked with and he would ask how was she , the strange thing is she had 3 ex none of them ever got married the last time we bumped into one of her ex my wife asked him did you never get married his response was when you would not have me I did not want anyone , the guy I worked with all so said the same thing , and the third guy said the same to his cousin who is my sister in law ,


Those would be people I wouldn't want in mine or my wife's life. Those comments mean they are still in love with her and are not friends of your marriage. Far to much potential to be toxic to the marriage. Just my feelings on topic.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Those would be people I wouldn't want in mine or my wife's life. Those comments mean they are still in love with her and are not friends of your marriage. Far to much potential to be toxic to the marriage. Just my feelings on topic.


 first of all You would have to know the people , all 3 had a lot in common , and I know she never had sex with any of them , all single all well to do , two could be called mammies boys , the guy I worked with he suprised me as he was the type all the girls wanted to be with , BUT I just can't understand people that say they are in super relationships but don't trust their wife , if you have not trust you have not a true relationship


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> first of all You would have to know the people , all 3 had a lot in common , and I know she never had sex with any of them , all single all well to do , two could be called mammies boys , the guy I worked with he suprised me as he was the type all the girls wanted to be with , BUT I just can't understand people that say they are in super relationships but don't trust their wife , if you have not trust you have not a true relationship


Not having had sex with them changes things considerably. It also makes me believe they are feeding a line of BS when they say they never married because they couldn't have her.

I do trust my wife. I trust her with my life, but there is no reason to put yourself into situations that have more potential for harm than any possible good. Why would you to do that?

You should try not to make yourself and your marriage out to be superior to others because you have different boundaries. It makes you seem a bit arrogant.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Not having had sex with them changes things considerably. It also makes me believe they are feeding a line of BS when they say they never married because they couldn't have her.
> 
> I do trust my wife. I trust her with my life, but there is no reason to put yourself into situations that have more potential for harm than any possible good. Why would you to do that?
> 
> You should try not to make yourself and your marriage out to be superior to others because you have different boundaries. It makes you seem a bit arrogant.


I am confident it is what my woman looks for in a man , so if I seem arrogant to you what do I care , your not my woman , 
but you have to keep in mind ex are very rarely a problem as others have said here their ex for a reason , it is the guy that is has a meeting planed to sell something next week is the guy that will wipe your eye , he is your danger he is the guy you and she don't know his play


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> I am confident it is what my woman looks for in a man , so if I seem arrogant to you what do I care , your not my woman ,
> but you have to keep in mind ex are very rarely a problem as others have said here their ex for a reason , it is the guy that is has a meeting planed to sell something next week is the guy that will wipe your eye , he is your danger he is the guy you and she don't know his play


You may not care, but you like to put others and their relationships down for not having the same boundaries as you. If that is the kind of person you want to be, so be it, but it is an ugly trait IMO.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

CountryMike said:


> Ahh, but cooperative actions approved in one tribe isn't necessarily the same for the next tribe living one hill over. As in one group may have no qualms at all about working together to totally wipe out group two to claim their resources and women.
> 
> That's cooperation in a society.


Quite. 
Very different set of “cooperative ideas“ and societal “ethics“ between the way humans in China operate and the way humans in the west operate. 
Ethics are just as subjective as morality, probably more so.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

Rus47 said:


> For sure a FWB IN HER PAST is irrelevant. We all have a past. It would bother me if the FWB was still a friend. I would ask her to choose.


In my opinion it comes down to context and a little bit of nuance. It would not be a huge red flag if my wife had a FWB-type in the past. It would however be a big red flag for me if she had a long string of them.


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

BigDaddyNY said:


> You may not care, but you like to put others and their relationships down for not having the same boundaries as you. If that is the kind of person you want to be, so be it, but it is an ugly trait IMO.


no Daddy never put any other person down , I just said if one in a long relationship does not trust their wife, trust been the base of any relationship without trust you don't have a relationship , 
This IS what I posted and if you read into that something about boundaries you are mistaken and I don't know how you thought I was even talking about you when I don't know you 


frenchpaddy said:


> BUT I just can't understand people that say they are in super relationships but don't trust their wife , if you have not trust you have not a true relationship



if you read into that , that is your problem , I never pointed the finger at you ,
I never said any thing about boundaries , 
as A person that often say on here it is not our job to read into what posters post and then force our view down on them , and convince them because of what they post their other half who is not posting and not here to defend themselves are up to something , 

It is just a short post we have to go on , we get information and it is on that information we have to go on , it is why I say we should not push posters too far , 
We have a responsibility not to add to what is said ,


frenchpaddy said:


> BUT I just can't understand people that say they are in super relationships but don't trust their wife , if you have not trust you have not a true relationship


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> depends on how safe you feel in your relationship , I can only say for me but I not only know some of my wifes ex but one I worked with and he would ask how was she


You are just more confident than I am. There is no way I could tolerate what you described. Even as an OLD man, married decades to a now OLD woman, I could not tolerate a male "from her past" reappearing. Thankfully we met as teenagers so there are no lovers in her past. She had one "boy friend" when she was 13. He was 17 at the time. Decades ago when we had been married six years with two kids, he and his wife visited our home for lunch during their vacation near where we lived. He was son of long-time friends of my wife's family. Born in the same country, same history, same culture. I was still uncomfortable, and very happy when they left.

You are just more confident. Congratulations.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

frenchpaddy said:


> no Daddy never put any other person down , I just said if one in a long relationship does not trust their wife, trust been the base of any relationship without trust you don't have a relationship ,
> This IS what I posted and if you read into that something about boundaries you are mistaken and I don't know how you thought I was even talking about you when I don't know you


You cherry picked one sentence. If you look at the total of your posts on the subject it paints a pretty clear picture. Others have said they have a boundary, they don't want their spouse to be friends with an ex-BF/GF or an ex-FWB. Your comments show that you obviously took that to mean they don't trust their spouse. It couldn't really be taken any other way. You then go on to say people can't claim to have a superior relationship if they don't trust their spouse. I do actually agree with that last sentence, but you very clearly linked having boundaries to not trusting your spouse. 

Maybe I misunderstood you and did read into your statement. In your opinion, can a couple have boundaries, such as no interactions with ex's, and still have trust?


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

BecauseSheWeeps said:


> FWB is more a way of being able to sleep around with a particular person without having any ties. It leaves you free to date whoever, talk to whoever. Why are there red flags though? I think it's a little safer to be FWB with somebody that you know than it is to go out and date/sleep around with people that you don't know. Quicker way to catch STD's.


There are people who sex is just sex and can screw a person multiple times and not develope an emotional bond. For someone like myself, that sex has strong emotions involved, someone with a F-Buddy appears to be shallow person emotionally and able to turn off emotions on a whim. Kind of sociopathic to way I see things. Also seems like someone that could easily cheat and not give 2 ****s about it, because after all it is just sex and I can turn off emotion to gain physical gratification.

I was dating a girl, before FWB became a name. I really liked her, when she brought up a F-Buddy as she called it, I had immediate WTF! moment, how shallow could you be?!
Um nope, not gonna work...bye...


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> There are people who sex is just sex and can screw a person multiple times and not develope an emotional bond. For someone like myself, that sex has strong emotions involved, someone with a F-Buddy appears to be shallow person emotionally and able to turn off emotions on a whim. Kind of sociopathic to way I see things. Also seems like someone that could easily cheat and not give 2 ****s about it, because after all it is just sex and I can turn off emotion to gain physical gratification.
> 
> I was dating a girl, before FWB became a name. I really liked her, when she brought up a F-Buddy as she called it, I had immediate WTF! moment, how shallow could you be?!
> Um nope, not gonna work...bye...


Just to play Devils advocate, not all FWB situations are shallow. Some most definitely are but others are not.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

BigDaddyNY said:


> You cherry picked one sentence. If you look at the total of your posts on the subject it paints a pretty clear picture. Others have said they have a boundary, they don't want their spouse to be friends with an ex-BF/GF or an ex-FWB. Your comments show that you obviously took that to mean they don't trust their spouse. It couldn't really be taken any other way. You then go on to say people can't claim to have a superior relationship if they don't trust their spouse. I do actually agree with that last sentence, but you very clearly linked having boundaries to not trusting your spouse.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstood you and did read into your statement. In your opinion, can a couple have boundaries, such as no interactions with ex's, and still have trust?


To me, if they cross the boundary it proves they can not be trusted. I told my wife from early on, no friends with ex lovers and if I come into contact at party, etc. I better hear it from her 1st about her and his past relationship. Past sex partners will remain in the past if she wants to be in my future.


----------



## BecauseSheWeeps (9 mo ago)

Divinely Favored said:


> There are people who sex is just sex and can screw a person multiple times and not develope an emotional bond. For someone like myself, that sex has strong emotions involved, someone with a F-Buddy appears to be shallow person emotionally and able to turn off emotions on a whim. Kind of sociopathic to way I see things. Also seems like someone that could easily cheat and not give 2 ****s about it, because after all it is just sex and I can turn off emotion to gain physical gratification.
> 
> I was dating a girl, before FWB became a name. I really liked her, when she brought up a F-Buddy as she called it, I had immediate WTF! moment, how shallow could you be?!
> Um nope, not gonna work...bye...


At one point in time, I was in a FWB kind of situation with my best friend at the time. I was hurt from my divorce from my ex husband, didn't want to be with anybody, but didn't want to be alone either. It worked for us at that time.

I will never even consider cheating on my husband so your scenario of easily cheating with no remorse is incorrect.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> Just to play Devils advocate, not all FWB situations are shallow. Some most definitely are but others are not.


If not, then why was it FWB and not BF/GF, or more?


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

BecauseSheWeeps said:


> At one point in time, I was in a FWB kind of situation with my best friend at the time. I was hurt from my divorce from my ex husband, didn't want to be with anybody, but didn't want to be alone either. It worked for us at that time.
> 
> I will never even consider cheating on my husband so your scenario of easily cheating with no remorse is incorrect.


That is just my perception. Are you still besties? He come to the house for BBQ? Does your hubby know details of your past relationship with this FWB?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> If not, then why was it FWB and not BF/GF, or more?


Because not all relationships need to defined that way, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I have tried the BF/GF thing. It's just not for me right now.
For example, when I am back in Kyoto I occasionally see a woman there. It works for both of us because we both have other things in our lifes that come before a relationship but we still need the release that comes from sex. We have dinners, talk and have sex then at end of the night we our own way. It works.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

frenchpaddy said:


> well I have told my story here a few times , where I was the good church going boy , believed in no sex before marriage, met a girl that had been raped, before and we dated for 4 years but the early years sex was not super as I said before there was a point that you just did not know when she would have a flash back and hit out like a wild horse ,
> SHE at one stage offered to give me a escort girl as a gift as sex was like she was never going to get over it ,
> all I say now looking back if I had been like the guys now that expect sex by the 3th date and had lots of experience I think I would not have went the extra mile ,
> thankfully I had not and we worked through it and today it is the other way around where my wife is the one with the high sex drive


Yeah those flashbacks are difficult. There have been times I wished he was alive so I could take care of him, and others I want to go dig his ass up to piss on his corpse.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> Because not all relationships need to defined that way, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I have tried the BF/GF thing. It's just not for me right now.
> For example, when I am back in Kyoto I occasionally see a woman there. It works for both of us because we both have other things in our lifes that come before a relationship but we still need the release that comes from sex. We have dinners, talk and have sex then at end of the night we our own way. It works.


There in lies the difference, sex for me is not a "release" it is about the emotional bond. There are times I do not climax, wife has multiples like riding a roller coaster, but it is the closeness and intimacy that are important to me. I get more from giving her a massage with Avacado oil and putting her in condition of extreme extasy to the point of loosing her mind. But I am a person who gives in spades and that gives me pleasure. I could care less about a "release", it is just a bonus if it happens.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> There in lies the difference, sex for me is not a "release" it is about the emotional bond. There are times I do not climax, wife has multiples like riding a roller coaster, but it is the closeness and intimacy that are important to me. I get more from giving her a massage with Avacado oil and putting her in condition of extreme extasy to the point of loosing her mind. But I am a person who gives in spades and that gives me pleasure. I could care less about a "release", it is just a bonus if it happens.


What that is, is Love. And that connection is beautiful and I understand what thats like. Just not something I want right now (or ever again if I'm completely honest)


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> What that is, is Love. And that connection is beautiful and I understand what thats like. Just not something I want right now (or ever again if I'm completely honest)


Do you think love and that connection make the sex better?


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

frenchpaddy said:


> I agree with what you said here D just you left out a very important point owning up to their responsibility if their Wild oats sprout and they end up with a crop ,
> 
> We have seen a poster not long ago post about her husband been confronted by his 20 year old daughter 20 years later and the impact it was having on his wife ,
> 
> ...





Luckylucky said:


> That’s a little mean and condescending. I respect your views but what is good for me is good only for me. It was important to me that my partner wasn’t a virgin, and I am happy I didn’t marry one. I was also not offended if someone didn’t want me based on other values I had. Fair’s fair, values need to align.
> 
> I wouldn’t force my view down anyones throat.
> 
> ...


There was nothing mean or condescending about it. She was responding to another poster. It is a given in today's time, many men and women "sow their wild oats" she was making a rebuttal that not all relationships where that did not happen are in unhappy marriage and in fact some people are unhappy with prior choices. Sometimes truth hurts but it is not mean or condescending.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> Do you think love and that connection make the sex better?


Apples and oranges.
Sex with love is "comfortable"
Sex for sex is uninhibited


----------



## Zedd (Jul 27, 2021)

Divinely Favored said:


> If not, then why was it FWB and not BF/GF, or more?


For me, it was because we both went into it with the knowledge that there was no future. When we started our relationship, she already knew that within a year, she'd be moving 5 hours away to start an MBA program, so our arrangement had an end date. I wasn't interested in a LDR. When August came around she moved away and that was that.


or, it was supposed to be.


I dislocated my ankle and broke my leg in December, and she was there when I got out of surgery dispite not having talked to her since the day she'd left. At her Spring Break we were engaged. 5 days after that we were married. We weren't very good at the FWB thing, I guess. But, that was _supposed_ to be the plan.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Apples and oranges.
> Sex with love is "comfortable"
> Sex for sex is uninhibited


I would think sex with love is uninhibited...that's how I always felt. I couldn't be uninhibited with either of them until I felt securely loved and in love.
So it is different for you...you are more uninhibited without love...?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> I would think sex with love is uninhibited...that's how I always felt. I couldn't be uninhibited with either of them until I felt securely loved and in love.
> So it is different for you...you are more uninhibited without love...?


I've found its the women who are more uninhibited when they know it's just sex. On average it seems women tend to "pull in their borders" when they get into a relationship.

I'm wild either way! 😉


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> I've found its the women who are more uninhibited when they know it's just sex. On average it seems women tend to "pull in their borders" when they get into a relationship.


But you just said you don't get into any relationship with women for a long time...how many times did that actually happen?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> But you just said you don't get into any relationship with women for a long time...how many times did that actually happen?


Twice personally but I have heard enough stories from friends (both male and female) and have read enough to know that it does happen more then it doesn't. 
Jokes are always based in truth and there are two that sum it up. You know the jokes. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Twice personally but I have heard enough stories from friends (both male and female) and have read enough to know that it does happen more then it doesn't.
> Jokes are always based in truth and there are two that sum it up. You know the jokes. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


Well, maybe you are just boring!!!! Lol!!

I think I know the jokes...


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> Well, maybe you are just boring!!!! Lol!!
> 
> I think I know the jokes...


I might be boring! Never can tell. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> Maybe so but the point made always made is that if you don't sleep around when young you will regret it, which just isn't the case for many people.


It is society, just like women saying all men cheat or why not sleep around, the men do it....no not all men sleep around....and not all men cheat...

I refrained from sex until 23 trying to find "The One". Had plenty of opportunity. Girls after me, but I was looking for one w/o history, who had same value in sex as me. Had friend warn me off a GF I took to prom as she was known at the school she attended. I broke it off with her and a couple weeks later, she ran a train of 5 guy on HS baseball team. 

Another I took to JR prom, got knocked up by another guy. 

Another I found out she had a FWB or as she called him, a F-Buddy, back home. I ghosted her after that.

I finally gave up, got with a 34 yr old divorced redhead nympho that about killed me. Talk about out of frying pan, into fire. Odd a 23 yr old male being sick of sex. There was no intimacy, just sex. I'm like, can I just get a hug and some spooning occasionally?!

Finally found the one, she was 4 yrs my senior and divorcing her serial cheating hubby of 10 yrs. Who she married at 17, had been with him since 15, filed divorce 4 months prior to me and her meeting. 26 yrs ago.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> I finally gave up, got with a 34 yr old divorced redhead nympho that about killed me. Talk about out of frying pan, into fire. Odd a 23 yr old male being sick of sex. There was no intimacy, just sex.


Still have her number? Asking for a friend! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Still have her number? Asking for a friend! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


She would be what, 60+ at least by now? Experienced for sure...


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

frusdil said:


> What you said was extremely judgement. You said it was a massive red flag.
> 
> Im not talking about sleeping around, at least in my case, that’s not at all what I would do.


To both of us it is a red flag. I have broke off a relationship because of it. If that is not something you would do, it tends to be a big red flag.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> Still have her number? Asking for a friend! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


She would now be 61.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

Divinely Favored said:


> She would now be 61.


Could be just as hot as ever 😐


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Numb26 said:


> Just to play Devils advocate, not all FWB situations are shallow. Some most definitely are but others are not.


Absolutely, and in many instances it's only shallow for one partner, the other may enjoy the sex so much they never forget it, be in love with the person, see them as their soul mate or want to marry them. That they settle for a FWB relationship does not mean they want a FWB relationship. 

I have seen many work affairs some hidden for decades where the OM believes he is in a FWB, while the woman believes she is in real relationship and truly loved.

Certainly a FWB relationship changes a simple friendship or acquaintance into something much more.


----------



## Corgi Mum (10 mo ago)

Numb26 said:


> Apples and oranges.
> Sex with love is "comfortable"
> Sex for sex is uninhibited


From the female side of the FWB equation I do agree with this.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Interesting reading the different stances on this topic, from aligned values (not restricted to one view) and somewhat mentions of retroactive jealousy.

Although I briefly answered previously, some posts did have me reflecting way back. That is, dusting off the ole memory files  Ruh-roh! My husband and I met young. I didn't consciously consider whether I would be with someone who had sexual experience; casual or otherwise, or not. It was more just about digging the person and if it evolved into something, cool. I wasn't necessarily seeking out a relationship either. There were signals that I interpreted that Batman was popular with the ladiiieeeeez. I'd also deciphered that he was 'picky' too. Given I felt that he might be someone that I could likely fall for, and having already inferred his 'social standing', I shared on our first date that I wasn't down with casual sex.

Fast-forward and I have a vague memory that he'd offered enough about his past, of his own accord, that I had a rough idea of his styles of interactions; including casual sexual interactions with someone who then became his buddy's serious girlfriend. That is to say, her and I were becoming good friends as a result of being in the same friend group. She'd never mentioned it to me (nor me to her), and she was supportive of our blossoming relationship. I remember being glad that he'd told me when he did, simply so that I knew from him. At the same time, I recall mentally putting on my big-girl pants about it. Plus, I liked her. That's a snippet.

Aside from her, and few and far between occasion of bumping into someone from his past, the only time I went BSC  - which I cringe about now - was when we were preparing to move in together and I came across a box of love / sex notes from young women he'd interacted with or dated short-term before we met. I lost my mind for a day; and struggled with telling him that it bothered me and why. I felt silly being upset yet couldn't shake it at that time. Anyway, he essentially reassured that was his past and he was focused on me (present and future), and decided to demonstrate that by placing them into a fire-pit. I'd not heard of the term retroactive jealousy before TAM. My not-so-proud BSC moment.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I just don't think people should do anything that they're ashamed of or that goes against their own principles, because that way they won't have any regrets. I don't think it needs to be about other people's principles but just your own. If you're happy with the choices you made at the time, there's no reason to be regretful. You just either have some good memories or you just chalk it up to experience and learn something about yourself or others. That's not a bad thing.


I really like how you expressed this.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Corgi Mum said:


> From the female side of the FWB equation I do agree with this.


REALLY?? You mean this is how you felt with your sexual partners?


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

As time moves on and the world is becoming a smaller people are changing around sex,

Global variations in sexual attitudes and practices depend to a large degree on elements such as religion, industrialisation, urbanisation, population growth and changes in technology. Religious constructions of gender and sexuality were reinforced by science, politics and law, all representing women as mentally and physically inferior to men, and homosexual men as inferior to heterosexual men. This chapter examines sex and marriage during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe, European colonies, and East Asia, and talks about prostitution and homosexuality. From the eighteenth century onwards, prostitution was seen to be an ever-growing problem that needed regulating and containing. Reactions towards prostitution were mixed, with some authorities bringing out new laws to prevent it, while others decided on a path of increased tolerance. Many young women and men lost ties with family and communities with the move to the cities and became more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

We are living in a world that is all the time changing , we today look back 150 years and think we have come a long way on sex issues , when virginity was not only a must but there was the tests some more questionable than others ,

today many countries have banned this ,
but also peoples idea of the need to prove your a virgin has changed ,
but as we look back in time 

things that were in fashion one or two centuries are now looked on as simple or tame,
but if we go more in time we will find parts of the world that lived a more wild life style than we would imagine , like Pompeii Italy or accent India was worlds apart from the India of today


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Apples and oranges.
> Sex with love is "comfortable"
> Sex for sex is uninhibited


Agree with, I'd add:

Sex with love is comfortable, uninhibited, wild, grows better every time.


----------



## CountryMike (Jun 1, 2021)

From a male perspective, I've found it changes with experience and age.

A young male starting out sexually can tend to think sex should be tender, yet doesn't realize those early women may want wild and crazy sex but the guy thinks how can that be and doesn't deliver. 

After more experience the guy realizes many women want the crazy sex and does deliver. The guy finds that very successfull and knows to deliver when needed.

Subsequently the guy grows better and better on reading the signs on which type of rondevue is expected.


----------



## Zedd (Jul 27, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Apples and oranges.
> Sex with love is "comfortable"
> Sex for sex is uninhibited


Pretty big element of truth to this. 

Since my relationship with my now wife started as FWB, it was way different than if we both were always trying to put our best foot forward, right? I mean, for Christmas that year, my gift was a list of "things she'd like to do" before she went off to school in the fall. If we were in a real relationship and not just FWB (at the time), it's highly unlikely I'd have gotten to see that list, let alone work on it. It definitely changes things.

Plus side, after things changed, I still have the list and we're still working on it.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Zedd said:


> Pretty big element of truth to this.
> 
> Since my relationship with my now wife started as FWB, it was way different than if we both were always trying to put our best foot forward, right? I mean, for Christmas that year, my gift was a list of "things she'd like to do" before she went off to school in the fall. If we were in a real relationship and not just FWB (at the time), it's highly unlikely I'd have gotten to see that list, let alone work on it. It definitely changes things.
> 
> Plus side, after things changed, I still have the list and we're still working on it.


I agree that early in the relationship with my wife we were both probably trying to give a good impression, but we have long since moved passed that point. We have comfortable sex and we also uninhibited sex where we just let loose.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> C
> Society crumbles and people will revert back to their true selves after 9 missed meals.


Kind of like we say in the country, when it happens, those that live in cities and depend on govt. to take care of them are then going to venture out into the outlying areas to try and take from the country folk who have.🤨 Those people will at that time become fertalizer for the country folks gardens.😏


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

frenchpaddy said:


> I THINK if ones wife had a FWB or FB before your got to know each other and you love was not only true but if you could feel that love you would feel no resentfulness against any OF HER past FB


Likewise if her love was true, she would have no issue cutting the FWB completely out of her life if it bothered you.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

LisaDiane said:


> Do you think love and that connection make the sex better?


HELL YEAH IT DOES! What I experience with my wife, I have not with any other woman in the past. The intensity and satisfaction far exceeded the others. But again, I am one that has emotion associated with sexual intimacy.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

LisaDiane said:


> I would think sex with love is uninhibited...that's how I always felt. I couldn't be uninhibited with either of them until I felt securely loved and in love.
> So it is different for you...you are more uninhibited without love...?


Exactly, my wife has said, "I will do whatever you want, I trust you"


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Rus47 said:


> Could be just as hot as ever 😐


May be, she looked like Catherine? on CSI-LV. The RH whose dad owned the casino.


----------



## Corgi Mum (10 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> REALLY?? You mean this is how you felt with your sexual partners?


Yeah, although it was more like being more adventurous/experimental with a FWB because if it turned out to be a really bad idea I never had to see the guy again, or hear about it again.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Corgi Mum said:


> Yeah, although it was more like being more adventurous/experimental with a FWB because if it turned out to be a really bad idea I never had to see the guy again, or hear about it again.


Interesting!!! It makes sense though!
I guess maybe I just never felt the desire to do anything adventurous with a guy unless I had strong desire for him, and I've never felt that for a guy casually. I did feel it strongly with both of my partners, even after 15+ years of being with them, although they weren't adventurous at all...Lol!!


----------



## Corgi Mum (10 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> Interesting!!! It makes sense though!
> I guess maybe I just never felt the desire to do anything adventurous with a guy unless I had strong desire for him, and I've never felt that for a guy casually. I did feel it strongly with both of my partners, even after 15+ years of being with them, although they weren't adventurous at all...Lol!!


I should probably mention that I lean toward a more pragmatic and less sentimental view of sexual activity in general so I tend to view it through a different lens than most women probably do.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Corgi Mum said:


> Yeah, although it was more like being more adventurous/experimental with a FWB because if it turned out to be a really bad idea I never had to see the guy again, or hear about it again.


I would never be brave enough to actually do this, but it makes sense to me. I mean, if you do something and you really don't like it, what if your H does? Then you gotta deal with all the feelz. I get it, try it out and if you're not into it, no harm no foul.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Zedd said:


> Pretty big element of truth to this.
> 
> Since my relationship with my now wife started as FWB, it was way different than if we both were always trying to put our best foot forward, right? I mean, for Christmas that year, my gift was a list of "things she'd like to do" before she went off to school in the fall. If we were in a real relationship and not just FWB (at the time), it's highly unlikely I'd have gotten to see that list, let alone work on it. It definitely changes things.
> 
> Plus side, after things changed, I still have the list and we're still working on it.


My wife and I also started as basically FB/FWBs. She was in the process of splitting up with a long term BF and I was basically spinning plates when we first got together. Our relationship was initially sex based that over time took on a more personal and emotional components rather than a traditional dating relationship that became sexual later. There for there was never any pretence of purety or piousness or innocence. We were always free to be sexual and kinky and pervy  

I certainly never pretended to be any kind of choir boy with anyone that I have dated but there is a different "tone" to a relationship that starts out as physical and sexual vs one that begins as Skip and Buffy having their first dates at the malt shop on a Saturday night.


----------



## Rayr44 (6 mo ago)

I’m going to change my Facebook name to benefits. Now, when someone adds me on Facebook, it will say: you are now friends with Benefits.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Corgi Mum said:


> Yeah, although it was more like being more adventurous/experimental with a FWB because if it turned out to be a really bad idea I never had to see the guy again, or hear about it again.


Until the new BF wanted to and you say, No I have done that before and not going to again. So... notify him up front so he can go find a willing participant to check that off his list and then come back to you if he can live without that sex act.

To many guys that is saying to them, "you cared more about the other guy, because you will do something/give him something, you will not with me"

Kinda like many women with their APs, hot kinky sex with AP, hubby gets vanilla scraps if any.


----------



## Corgi Mum (10 mo ago)

Divinely Favored said:


> Until the new BF wanted to and you say, No I have done that before and not going to again. So... notify him up front so he can go find a willing participant to check that off his list and then come back to you if he can live without that sex act.
> 
> To many guys that is saying to them, "you cared more about the other guy, because you will do something/give him something, you will not with me"
> 
> Kinda like many women with their APs, hot kinky sex with AP, hubby gets vanilla scraps if any.


Well once I got older, that did happen. There were certainly things I wasn't going to repeat because they had been so unpleasant and a different partner wasn't going to alter the unpleasantness. These weren't discoveries arising from FWB relationships however, they were with LTR exes. So, yeah, it's probably inevitable with age..

But it can happen just as easily with things that haven't been done in practice. Like I can tell you right up front that I have no interest in various activities, without ever having done them. So if that's his jam, he can move right along, with my blessing.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

I understand there are things I will not do either. Not into pain...giving not taking. I don't share so that would be a hard no also. Wife has her own AR so she is also hard no on sharing. She says there would be bodies. I like that 😏, Baby girl don't share either😍 Tried back door 1x with previous GF at her request. Did nothing for me, but I would if wife wanted to. She did with 1st hubby trying to save her marriage to that cheating POS, otherwise she would not have then either. She said she would be scared to with me, as I am much larger than him.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

This is the perfect defence! 


Divinely Favored said:


> To many guys that is saying to them, "you cared more about the other guy, because you will do something/give him something, you will not with me"





Divinely Favored said:


> She said she would be scared to with me, as I am much larger than him.


Yeah, the woman has to say, _I let him do that, but you can't because you are so much bigger!_


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Laurentium said:


> This is the perfect defence!
> 
> 
> Yeah, the woman has to say, _I let him do that, but you can't because you are so much bigger!_


Agreed - it is the perfect defense, but I wouldn’t believe her.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Laurentium said:


> This is the perfect defence!
> 
> 
> Yeah, the woman has to say, _I let him do that, but you can't because you are so much bigger!_


My wife did not say she would not, just that she is concerned due to my size. She has already told me, she will do whatever I want her to, she trusts me. I just ain't interested in that.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Laurentium said:


> This is the perfect defence!
> 
> 
> Yeah, the woman has to say, _I let him do that, but you can't because you are so much bigger!_


That was the first thing that popped into my mind as well. 

Reminds me of a South Park episode where a bunch of Japanese corporate executives are pulling the wool over all the American's eyes and scamming them left and right because they keep flattering the Americans that they have such a "yarge American penis!"


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Numb26 said:


> Just to play Devils advocate, not all FWB situations are shallow. Some most definitely are but others are not.


I think that yours is the point not recognized enough in what I have read so far.

In high school and college, I had very serious friends who were girls/women. We liked to hang out together, we enjoyed each others company, we trusted each other, we ran in the same social circles. We were however not ready for a serious committed relationship or settling down. While I didn't have intercourse with them, we did enjoy touching and each others arousal. I can really understand how that could easily turn into a FWB relationship by accident or by mutual agreement.

People are social animals, they need company. We also need occasional emotional support from someone we trust and know. Men/Women pairs can more easily attend certain kinds of social functions (sit down dinner parties, banquets, costume parties, dances, concerts, etc.) that single people by themself can't and when with a friend of the opposite sex that they know and trust can be more relaxed and enjoy themselves more. Single people can do lots of things, but it is easier to have a FTGW or "friend to go with" as you won't have to worry about others hitting on you as much.

While I never had a true FWB or FB, I could see how it could happen, especially in college or the early part of a career, where both have career pressures and ambitions that prevent engagement or marriage. I have known a number of women who pursued high profile careers from lawyers to musicians who had to work incredible hours (little to zero time for dating) and travel extensively, which would not work out for a typical dating/marriage progression. People mature and get ready to settle down at different times.

If a woman was in such a career situation with a long term trusted friend and/or companion, it would not be a red flag in my book. Dozens of such relationships would indicate a red flag, but one or two, would not be a red flag. 

As I said earlier, a FWB or FB can be much different from a ONS. To me it depends on the seriousness of the relationship and the nature of what prevents two people from going the traditional dating/marriage route.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

LisaDiane said:


> Do you think love and that connection make the sex better?


Most definitely.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Rus47 said:


> She would be what, 60+ at least by now? Experienced for sure...


61 or 62


----------

