|
Sex yet still just friends - possible? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
What I'm asking is if it is possible to have a sexual affair with someone, yet without actually being or getting involved in a proper relationship. Granted, I should probably have left the term "friend" out if it, since it is certainly debatable how much of a "friend" you are to that person after having sex with that person, and the fact that the term "friend" is very relative. |
Okay, so what does "proper" mean?
You see? There is no way to phrase this question without leaving part of the question itself open to interpretation.
Sex does form emotional attachments, though. If you want a reason why men so readily dismiss that emotion and women don't, it's probably because they've been desensitized through porn or just a lot of sex with multiple partners. Which makes sense, because women certainly *can* be desensitized too. |
|
|
| electric_soul |
you people think too much in sex.
give it a break, enjoy it while you can, and enjoy whatever you do when doing whatever you do. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Echo of Silence
In your opinion, if a girl (or a guy) says, "I just want to be friends" or "all I have to offer is friendship" you're saying that really means I'm not attracted to you, you're never going to score, and I'll take what I can get for now but I really think I can do better? |
No, please pay attention.
Friends: No sex.
Friends with benefits: Sex until I find someone better.
You're confusing the two. And if you're asking me personally, I have never used the term "friends with benefits". |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Sex does form emotional attachments, though.
|
Well of course sex forms emotional attachments, that's blatantly obvious. I don't get this tho:
| quote: | | If you want a reason why men so readily dismiss that emotion and women don't, it's probably because they've been desensitized through porn or just a lot of sex with multiple partners. |
And then you write this:
| quote: |
Which makes sense, because women certainly *can* be desensitized too. |
That looks like you just tore down your entire argument. If men can be desensitized thru lots of sex with multiple partners, how come girls can't?
As for a "proper" relationship, in this case it means when it goes so far that sex gets restricted(as in sex with someone else would be cheating) to the other party in the relationship. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
That looks like you just tore down your entire argument. If men can be desensitized thru lots of sex with multiple partners, how come girls can't? |
I don't see how I tore down my argument. I was pointing out that MANY guys go for this "friends with benefits" thing, but only SOME women do, and the most probable reason is that women watch less porn and have fewer partners (statistics don't lie!).
| quote: | | As for a "proper" relationship, in this case it means when it goes so far that sex gets restricted(as in sex with someone else would be cheating) to the other party in the relationship. |
There are so many flaws in that definition. For one, what do you call it if the two people are married and cheat on each other and don't really care? It happens. And yet, these two certainly have a commitment to each other.
But let's put that aside completely for a moment - of course it's possible, that's what a prostitute is. It's not what I'd call "friends", but it is what most people would call sex without a "proper" relationship.
So I suppose you are looking for a definition of a relationship that is below marriage but excludes one-night stands, prostitutes, boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, and platonic (non-sexual) relationships.
I think you're treading a thin line here - even if such a thing could exist, it would probably naturally progress either toward a girlfriend/boyfriend thing, or a non-sexual relationship. And I would be so bold as to say that such a thing can only exist when both parties are somewhat desperate for sex. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
(statistics don't lie!).
|
I thought it was "statistics always lie" :p
| quote: |
There are so many flaws in that definition. For one, what do you call it if the two people are married and cheat on each other and don't really care? It happens. And yet, these two certainly have a commitment to each other.
|
So what? They are still cheating. Whether they care or not is irrelvant.
| quote: |
But let's put that aside completely for a moment - of course it's possible, that's what a prostitute is. It's not what I'd call "friends", but it is what most people would call sex without a "proper" relationship.
|
You forget the fact that prostitutes do it for money. Here we are talking about people who do simply it cos they want to, which rules out the use of prostitutes as an example.
| quote: |
I think you're treading a thin line here - even if such a thing could exist, it would probably naturally progress either toward a girlfriend/boyfriend thing, or a non-sexual relationship. |
Yeah, it usually would, but I have heard of several cases where it didn't, so I was just curious of whether ppl on TA had heard of similar cases or had had experience with it themselves.
| quote: |
And I would be so bold as to say that such a thing can only exist when both parties are somewhat desperate for sex. |
What does "somewhat" desperate mean? |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
Theres no way that could work. If someone is having sex with a person for a prolonged period of time, emotion/feelings/attachment form big time. And when one of the two decides, hey, I want to stop this, the other will agree, because he/she has to because of the arrangment, but fact is, they will still be upset.
Whether thats from the emotional attachment or the cancellation of sex is different, but there is still some awkwardness. I don't believe its possible for someone to sleep with someone else for a longer period of time and have no feelings whatsoever.
Fact is, | quote: | | Friends with benefits: Sex until I find someone better |
is right. How else would you explain the sudden stop when someone meets and likes someone else? Because that someone can be labeled as new or better.
ing friends is a nasty business and only causes hurt/problems. Sure, its great and all while its happening, but the after effects are horrible. Friendships are ruined, feelings are hurt, nothings the same. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
Theres no way that could work. If someone is having sex with a person for a prolonged period of time, emotion/feelings/attachment form big time. And when one of the two decides, hey, I want to stop this, the other will agree, because he/she has to because of the arrangment, but fact is, they will still be upset.
Whether thats from the emotional attachment or the cancellation of sex is different, but there is still some awkwardness. I don't believe its possible for someone to sleep with someone else for a longer period of time and have no feelings whatsoever.
|
That's not necessarily true. Emotional attachment to a mate is a grotesquery rather unique in nature to the human species. Therefore, it's highly improbable that a biological reason exists for this phenomenon. Rather, we can induce that it most likely finds its origins in our social conditioning. Social conditioning, however, is hardly something which cannot be overcome by the disciplined mind.
For some, it may be an impossibility… perhaps even for most. But for all? The very suggestion might be comical if it weren’t so profoundly reflective of the fallacious reasoning behind so many of mankind’s problems.
| quote: |
Fact is,
quote:
Friends with benefits: Sex until I find someone better
is right. How else would you explain the sudden stop when someone meets and likes someone else? Because that someone can be labeled as new or better.
|
Where to begin?
Well, first of all, that’s quite a leap (and an unsupported one at that) to suggest that sex between friends would necessarily cease when one individual decided to start a new relationship. But even if it did, it would require yet another non-sequitur abandonment of reason to infer that the only possible cause would be that this new individual was somehow “better” (whatever that means).
But that’s not all. Even if your partner eventually breaks off the sexual aspect of your relationship because they found someone else, and even if they did it because that person better satisfied their criteria of what they look for in a partner, that in no way precludes you from continuing your friendship with that person.
| quote: |
ing friends is a nasty business and only causes hurt/problems. Sure, its great and all while its happening, but the after effects are horrible. Friendships are ruined, feelings are hurt, nothings the same.
|
Of course there is a risk you incur when you decide to enter into that kind of a relationship with a friend. Sometimes it’s difficult to gauge exactly how you’ll react until it’s too late. But everything worth doing in life involves taking chances. If you cower at every sign of danger, hide from every potential adversary, and retreat at the first sign of adversity, I doubt you’ll have much success in life.
It is precisely the act of taking chances, the conscious decision to step out of our comfort zone and journey into the unknown, which is what makes life worth living. At least, that’s the way I look at it. Otherwise, you’re just a prisoner of fear. I can think of nothing worse. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
... Emotional attachment to a mate is a grotesquery rather unique in nature to the human species... |
Is that so? Seems to me like many species "stay" with their mates until the children are born. Is this what you call social conditioning?
| quote: | | For some, it may be an impossibility… perhaps even for most. But for all? The very suggestion might be comical if it weren’t so profoundly reflective of the fallacious reasoning behind so many of mankind’s problems. |
Big words you use, but I don't see where the fallacy is. I wasn't making rash generalizations - rather, I was pointing out how little sense the question itself made. Seems to me like you're the one succumbing to fallacious reasoning, using entirely subjective terms like "emotional attachment" in your argument.
| quote: | | ...that’s quite a leap (and an unsupported one at that) to suggest that sex between friends would necessarily cease when one individual decided to start a new relationship. |
Please direct me to one case where that hasn't happened. Continuing the "friend" sex after a breakup or after a fight with the new partner does not count.
| quote: | | ...But even if it did, it would require yet another non-sequitur abandonment of reason to infer that the only possible cause would be that this new individual was somehow “better” (whatever that means). |
First of all, I can't understand your use of the term non-sequitur in this context, but more importantly, can you point out any other logical reason for this to occur? What, should I believe it was just complete and utter coincidence that the two "friends" decided to stop having sex when one of them met someone else?
| quote: | | But that’s not all. Even if your partner eventually breaks off the sexual aspect of your relationship because they found someone else, and even if they did it because that person better satisfied their criteria of what they look for in a partner, that in no way precludes you from continuing your friendship with that person. |
Again using the subjective term friendship... what does it mean, what does it mean? If you use the dictionary definition of "friend", then yes, your logic is sound - but then, if you use the dictionary definition, girlfriends and wives are also "friends."
| quote: | | It is precisely the act of taking chances, the conscious decision to step out of our comfort zone and journey into the unknown, which is what makes life worth living. At least, that’s the way I look at it. Otherwise, you’re just a prisoner of fear. I can think of nothing worse. |
See, to me it would seem like the total lack of commitment involved in a "friends with benefits" situation is precisely the "comfort zone" you are talking about. I suppose this is again, largely a subjective issue, but I do have to question the logic that goes into defining "friends with benefits" as a greater risk than a committed relationship.
That is all. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| monogamy exists in nature too:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Is that so? Seems to me like many species "stay" with their mates until the children are born. Is this what you call social conditioning? |
The vast majority of species do not, even if one restricts the analysis to the Animal Kingdom. Among those that do, I'd be happy to change my position if you could provide me with verifiable empirical evidence suggesting that the cause of this phenomenon is some sort of emotional bond. I'll save you the time of going to Google though because I'll tell you right now: It doesn't exist.
| quote: |
Big words you use, but I don't see where the fallacy is. I wasn't making rash generalizations - rather, I was pointing out how little sense the question itself made. Seems to me like you're the one succumbing to fallacious reasoning, using entirely subjective terms like "emotional attachment" in your argument.
|
Perhaps you'll find it a little less difficult to comprehend then, if I draw it out for you in crayon. The definition of “friend” in the context of the question posed by Sand Leaper shouldn’t require a monumental intellect to recognize. Now, naturally, the question isn’t going to make sense when you start pulling definitions out of your ass that contradict the premises of the question being posed, as you did here:
| quote: | | IMO, when people do the nasty, they aren't just friends anymore. |
I’m not sure what definition of “friend” you had in mind as you were typing that out, but I can only imagine it must have been at least mildly humorous. Then, when you inserted your imaginary definition of the term into his question, it contradicted itself. That is a Straw Man Fallacy because you aren’t really challenging the question he posed at all, but rather some bizarre interpretation of it.
Emotional attachment, on the other hand, is a purely objective neurological phenomenon. Admittedly, it is one science has yet to fully explain, however the assertion that it is somehow subjective has no sound basis in reason. Of course, it exists to varying degrees, but in the context of the topic of this discussion the only relevant question is whether or not either individuals experience this neurological phenomenon to such an extent as to interfere with their ability to maintain the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse. Either it does, or it does not. There’s no room for interpretation. For all your huffing and puffing, you haven’t so much as blown a speck of dust off the siding of the house because you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence as to why the act of sexual intercourse must necessarily produce this effect in one or more party.
| quote: |
Please direct me to one case where that hasn't happened. Continuing the "friend" sex after a breakup or after a fight with the new partner does not count.
|
I can’t direct you to one case of me dying. Therefore, I am immortal. :rolleyes:
| quote: |
First of all, I can't understand your use of the term non-sequitur in this context, but more importantly, can you point out any other logical reason for this to occur? What, should I believe it was just complete and utter coincidence that the two "friends" decided to stop having sex when one of them met someone else?
|
I don’t need to point out an alternative cause any more than I need to construct an alternative cosmology in order to dismiss the notion that God created the universe. It’s non sequitur because you aren’t providing any evidence of exclusive causality whatsoever, and are merely stating an appeal to ignorance that if no one can provide an alternate explanation, then your theory must be the only one.
| quote: |
Again using the subjective term friendship... what does it mean, what does it mean? If you use the dictionary definition of "friend", then yes, your logic is sound - but then, if you use the dictionary definition, girlfriends and wives are also "friends."
|
Yes, your girlfriend or wife is a “friend.” In the context of Sand Leaper’s question, however, they are implicitly excluded.
| quote: |
See, to me it would seem like the total lack of commitment involved in a "friends with benefits" situation is precisely the "comfort zone" you are talking about. I suppose this is again, largely a subjective issue, but I do have to question the logic that goes into defining "friends with benefits" as a greater risk than a committed relationship.
That is all. |
Commitment is a risk as well, and in many cases it can be a greater risk than so-called “friends with benefits.” I wouldn’t advise anyone against avoiding commitment altogether either. What’s “comfortable” for some might not be comfortable for others. Many people would probably feel more comfortable in the absence of commitment, while others might feel much more comfortable in a committed relationship. My claim is that we enrich ourselves, our lives, and our experiences when we step outsides those self-imposed boundaries, whatever they may be. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
*sigh*
You're starting to irritate me this. You want to talk logic? Fine.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The vast majority of species do not, even if one restricts the analysis to the Animal Kingdom. |
You have just made a gross generalization here, far more than any generalizations I've made. I would have to say that the burden of proof is on you to prove that the "vast majority" don't create monogamous relationships.
After you've just finished talking about how emotions are just based on biology/chemistry, you proceed to say that these aren't emotional phenomena? Okay, fine, they're not emotional, they're biological, what difference does that make?
Obviously we can't study whether or not it's "emotional", because we can't communicate with animals on an intellectual level. Honestly, what kind of claptrap is all this? Just because the animals (particularly mammals) don't have a language to describe it does not mean they don't "feel" the same things we do, since emotions, as you so succinctly put it, are a purely neurological phenomenon.
| quote: | | The definition of “friend” in the context of the question posed by Sand Leaper shouldn’t require a monumental intellect to recognize. |
Well that's interesting, because I asked for a concrete definition of "friend" and nobody was able to give me one. Would you like to try it?
My point is that this entire argument depends on how you define "friend." The definition from one person to the next is as unique as their fingerprint. I only "pulled the definition out of my ass" to the same extent that you and Sand Leaper did. Are you trying to prove that my definition is wrong and yours isn't? Or just that yours is perhaps closer to Sand Leaper's, thus making your opinion more valid than mine?
You don't have to link me to the fallacy page - I was the one that posted the link about fallacies earlier, remember? I hardly consider anything I said to be a straw man argument, because a straw man argument implies that I'm actually trying to prove one side of the argument! Besides which, there's a difference between distorting the original argument (as in the case of a straw man) and exposing the subjectivity of it.
| quote: | | Emotional attachment, on the other hand, is a purely objective neurological phenomenon. |
So here you say it. I'd very much like to see where the proof is that this "neurological phenomenon" is unique to humans. Do you think that just because animals can't express emotion through words, they therefore don't have any?
Perhaps I was incorrect in the phrasing - the feelings themselves are chemical/neurological. The categorization of them into linguistic terms is highly subjective. I think you may find that not all cultures use the same sort of language to describe their emotions - although it's hardly necessary to look at other cultures, since every single person defines their own emotions differently.
| quote: | | ...in the context of the topic of this discussion the only relevant question is whether or not either individuals experience this neurological phenomenon to such an extent as to interfere with their ability to maintain the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse. Either it does, or it does not. There’s no room for interpretation. |
You don't think the term "the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse" leaves room for interpretation?
Okay then. I choose to take your quote completely literally, and I will say no, it's absolutely impossible to maintain the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse, because the relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse included a relative ignorance of each other's sexuality. If nothing else has changed, their respective knowledge of each other's bodies has changed. So going by your logic, it isn't possible to maintain the "same" relationship. Things cannot possibly be exactly the same with that added knowledge.
| quote: | | ...you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence as to why the act of sexual intercourse must necessarily produce this effect in one or more party. |
In fact, I wasn't trying to - I was arguing toward the invalidity of the question itself, not a yes or no answer to it.
I haven't provided very much solid evidence, no - I'm not trying to prove a theory here, just the illogicality of the question - then again, I don't see your evidence either.
| quote: | | I don’t need to point out an alternative cause any more than I need to construct an alternative cosmology in order to dismiss the notion that God created the universe. It’s non sequitur because you aren’t providing any evidence of exclusive causality whatsoever, and are merely stating an appeal to ignorance that if no one can provide an alternate explanation, then your theory must be the only one. |
Once again, you seem to be drawing the inferrence that I'm trying to prove a "no" answer to the question at hand, whereas I'm only trying to disclaim the question as a valid one. I don't have any theory to prove. Even if I did, and even if your logic conclusively disproved my "theory", you still have not proven the contrary! This is no different from the religious nuts trying to prove creationism by disproving evolution.
| quote: | | Yes, your girlfriend or wife is a “friend.” In the context of Sand Leaper’s question, however, they are implicitly excluded. |
Well in the context of my definition, every girl you've had sex with is excluded.
Does that logic make sense? No, not really, but neither does yours.
It's really very intriguing how you manage to blow all this smoke toward me while still ignoring the obvious subjectivity of words like "friend" and "relationship." If you can define them in a conrete enough way so as to make the answer to the question meaningful, then by all means, be my guest. Right now, I think you've left a few loopholes in your descriptions. |
|
|
|
|
