quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It appears I have still not gotten my point across... the term "bf/gf-relationship" is no less subjective than the term "friends". Unless the term is strictly defined, you run the risk of people who answer this question using a different definition of "relationship" for the "before" and the "after" circumstances. I can think of 5 factors that determine the dynamic of a relationship: 1. Socializing 2. Trust 3. Attraction 4. Sex itself 5. Commitment level Some of you might like to say that "feelings" or "love" is another factor, but I contend that it's essentially the same thing as attraction. If you're in love with someone, you're attracted to them, and vice versa. So can you formulate a definition out of these 5 things to describe a relationship that includes sex but precludes marriage and steady couples? You can't just throw "except marriage and couples" into the definition. Perhaps a moderate level of 1-4 with a low 5, the commitment level would describe what you are talking about? Well OK, you can say that if you want, but I consider *good* friends to have a high level of importance in my life (i.e. strong commitment). If people don't feel any sense of commitment toward their "non-sex" relationships, then it's not so much of a leap to be uncommitted to a "sex" relationship. I wouldn't want to be one of those people, though - the word asshole comes to mind. Or perhaps all of 1-5, but only a moderate level of 3-4 (attraction and sex). It is certainly possible to have a little sex with someone you know and trust but are not that attracted to. And you might be able to break off the sex later on. But the problem is, the definition itself fails as soon as you eliminate the sex. Or maybe what you're asking is if it's possible to attain a moderate amount of all those things except for (4), then add (4), and be able to take (4) away later on without changing any of the other factors? Well, okay, but I'd say that once you throw in 4, your definition is getting dangerously close to boyfriend/girlfriend status. How do you differentiate? Please don't try to ignore the obvious difficulty inherent in understanding the question itself. You may get answers from people on the forum, Sand Leaper - but you have to question whether those people are answering the same question you asked, or just their own distorted version of it. Whoever mentioned the ladder theory link - as much as I hate to use that, it's a good point. The page points out "friends with benefits" as typically being a disparity of status - i.e. a blazing hot babe casually screwing a total loser, or a rich talented stud doing an ugly midget (ok I'm exaggerating here, but you get the point). It basically describes the dynamic as being that the person of higher status is not satisfied with the other person as a sexual partner (they're too low on the "ladder"), and would gladly give up sex with them to go "higher". If you can come up with a better explanation, I'd like to hear it.

wow ur totally overanalysing everything. just go out and have fun. you're never going to get laid stuck in front of the PC!

___________________
FOGET ABAUD EEEEEEEEEDD!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm only going to address the last two paragraphs, because the rest have basically all been addressed in more recent posts.

Quite poorly, I might add.

quote:

Note the bold. Nowhere did I claim that my definition was more valid. I claimed that the question itself was invalid, because its answer is completely subject to one's interpretation of the question itself. If you want a concrete answer, you have to ask a concrete question. Just because you think you understand better than I do what his question meant and what things like "friends with benefits" means, does not mean that you do. Sorry, but you are not the center of the universe either.

You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter how you or I interpret the question. It matters how it was intended. If your interpretation of the question makes the question invalid, then you are interpreting the question wrong. It's not very hard to understand.

quote:

They are words based on emotions which aren't clearly defined (don't start the neurological nonsense, unless you can show me some specific chemical state which represents "friendship"). I neither asked you to baby-sit me, nor do I have any comprehension problems. I am simply pointing out that the way people interpret this question is simply a result of social conditioning (which you seem to want to refuse to admit you are prone to).

That doesn't make the question any less valid or more difficult for the average person to comprehend. I suppose next you're going to try debating what the definition of the word "is" is.

quote:

Worth your while? Oh, I am soooo upset that you've decided I'm not worth your time. Did I ask for your approval? Did you start this thread? No and no. I'm not here to argue with you, and again, simply because you call it "ineptitude" does not make it so. Re-invent the wheel? My, you're taking things a wee bit out of context don't you think?

No, I don't. For whatever reason, you seem to adamantly refuse to try to understand the question that Sand Leaper posed. Rather, you've chosen to attempt to obfuscate the issue with vague challenges that everything is "subjective." Well, no shit. Language itself is subjective. That doesn't mean that words aren't a valid medium for the exchange of ideas. The "ideas" you've attempted to contribute to this topic are a waste of everyone's time.

quote:

Honestly, for someone so seemingly intellectual and well-versed in the ways of logic, one would think you'd go a little easier on the abrasive ad hominem attacks.

If you'd care to qualify your claim that I've committed an argumentum ad hominem I'd be happy to refute it. Here's a tip, though: calling your argument "inane" and telling you that an inability to comprehend Sand Leaper's question is indicative of a problem with reading comprehension are not examples of ad hominem.

quote:

You sound very smart, yes - but you also sound like a 16-year-old kid trying to prove your intellectual superiority.

Irony is always fun.

quote:

What is your purpose for starting this argument with me?

You may wish to reread this thread and edit your post. You might notice that it was you who started this argument with me. I had just been ignoring you, since you hadn't really said anything of relevance anyway.

quote:

I have been trying to contribute something meaningful by showing that the literal difference between "friends with benefits" and "girlfriend/boyfriend" is not as marked as some people are making it out to be.

While there may be an element of truth to those claims, you've done little to support your argument other than quibble over the meanings of words.

quote:

You seem content just to insult me over and over again by telling me I have no reading comprehension, etc. etc. Should I care what your opinion of me is? Please, if the only reason you're posting is to disparage me, send me a PM, I have no intention of making this into a verbal bashing contest.

I'm sorry that you feel so insecure that you can't handle someone attacking your arguments without feeling that they are somehow attacking you. If it makes you feel any better, you're probably in the majority on that one.

quote:

Forgot to mention: I was unable to find the text you quoted in the link you posted. Perhaps this means I am illiterate? I just type the word "pair bond" into the search box and found nothing. Then I typed "female" and found about 5 instances, none with that text. What did I do wrong?

It's in the section about tree shrews, here:
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~south/treeshrews.html

it's ok guys! some ppls lives just revolve around the internet. anyway sex between friends isn't possible till you're 30. no one can handle it on either end until then.

___________________
FOGET ABAUD EEEEEEEEEDD!

i would advise against it, some1 will get hurt or fall out and not be as good friends, if ur having sex with some1 and ur in a sober state of mind there has to be some sort of feeling there!!!!

i've tried this sort of relationship a few times but it seems that i'm just too good in bed for women not to become attached. maybe i'm cursed. lol. however, it did work for a while before the attachment started and i believe it could have continued to workm if the girl had the correct mentality (good luck finding her) if the situation came up again, i would give it a shot. why not? i love sex. especially no strings.

___________________
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die