|
Sex yet still just friends - possible? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DjGrl2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Fortunately, we don't get MTV here.
Oh, er... I mean unfortunately, of course... |
Actually, you're fortunate that you don't get it...MTV sucks pretty badly now. |
|
|
| Redeye |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjGrl2000
Actually, you're fortunate that you don't get it...MTV sucks pretty badly now. |
sucks now???? where have you been for the last 5 years of Carson Daly lol OMFGHI2U!!!!!!TRL Live!!!!!! :stongue: :eyes: :crazy: |
|
|
| DjGrl2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redeye
sucks now???? where have you been for the last 5 years of Carson Daly lol OMFGHI2U!!!!!!TRL Live!!!!!! :stongue: :eyes: :crazy: |
lol i havent watched MTV for so long....when they took off videos like nirvana and AIC, and put on such as britney spears and nsync...i turned that right off.....plus now, a video is a rare thing to see on MTV |
|
|
| Redeye |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjGrl2000
lol i havent watched MTV for so long....when they took off videos like nirvana and AIC, and put on such as britney spears and nsync...i turned that right off.....plus now, a video is a rare thing to see on MTV |
be thankful they turned off the videos or you would be stuck watching the sugababes and Robbie Williams 24/7 on TMF (dutch version of MTV) :haha: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
In a vain attempt to actually resolve something here, I'll post 3 different possible definitions of "friend" that could be used to describe what Sand Leaper had in mind, and the answers that would go with each:
1. A person with whom you share certain common interests and perform certain social activities, but have no particular interest in, sexual or otherwise (i.e. a casual acquaintance).
2. A person you trust with your thoughts and ideas; one whom you communicate with more frequently and hold as more valuable than casual acquaintances, but rates low in terms of sexual attraction.
3. A friend as in (2) but one whom you are at least somewhat sexually attracted to, but do not engage in sex because of unavailability (i.e. time, personal commitments).
I think these are all valid definitions according to the relationship dynamic we're describing, but all create different scenarios after sex is factored in. And I think that (2) and (3) are maybe closer to what Sand Leaper was thinking when he posted the thread.
For (1), the first point to make is that sex is highly improbable to occur if there is no attraction whatsoever. It is pushing the boundaries of this definition to say that this person is still just a friend after sex. Assuming it did occur, however, if there is no attraction, the sex itself is awkward, and I believe that awkward sex (as with any awkward social situation) is bound to create a negative dynamic between people.
For (2), the sex will be a little bit better, and in this case, yes, it would be possible for some people to keep this dynamic up after having sex. However, it bears mentioning that good sex with a person will often increase your sexual attraction to them (setting emotions aside - we're purely talking about sex drive), and bad sex will often decrease it. This is especially true when you were only "sort of" attracted to begin with. Thus, as you become more or less attracted to them, the definition may become invalid even though you still "like" each other.
The definition in (3) might make you think that a "friendship" is easy to maintain after the sex, but logically speaking, that definition is rendered invalid as soon as availability and sex occur.
So, which definition do you use? See how difficult it is to phrase the question in such a way that the answer is actually debatable? To everyone else in this thread, particularly Arbiter, if you can come up with a definition that's better than any of mine, please feel free, I know mine aren't great but like I said, the definition is rather subjective. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| 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. |
If you had read my statement correctly, then maybe you would notice that my comments are not "out of fear" as you so wonderfully put, since I had taken part in two attempted "friends with benefits" situations.
From the first attempt, it was an ex and we had tried to stay friends, but our sexual attraction to each other was overwhelming, so we decided to try it. Attachment formed, followed by arguments and such, but I suppose that was a predictable situation considering we had been together before.
From the second attempt, was with a friend of a few years, and we had decided one night after he had come by to visit, hey, why not? Needless to say, it had become extreemly awkward immediately following and we haven't really talked since, so I lost a friend.
I also have had friends, who had the "friends with benefits". My roommate, for example. She was sleeping with our neighbor, and they were "friends". Neighbor found new girl, cut off with my roommate, all hell broke loose, because even though they were "JUST FRIENDS" emotions had arised between them, and this sudden cut off for the new girl, not only broke the arrangement, but any chances they had ever had in staying friends.
I'm not saying this is the case in all situations, but I think that you claiming that people can have sex for a prolonged period of time and "stay friends" with no emotional attachment, is one of the most generalized and biased comments I have ever heard. I have yet to meet anyone who attempted one of these so called "experiences" and the friendship stayed the same. It is too dificult.
If you want to shag someone new, don't go after friends and ruin things. Find some new girl and shag her, where if things A) go sour, B) the person is horrible in bed or C) you just decide you don't want to anymore, there will be no problem in the cutoff.
And btw, Find one case that the other person wasn't cut off from the sex because they met a new person that wasn't because of that new person? I know IMHO, if I started dating some guy and he didn't quit shagging this "friend" of his, there would be no dating this guy. |
|
|
| Nalin |
its possible, because i've been doing it for 6+ months.
why is it working? i had known her for quite a while with nothing happening between us. i had thought she was hot and she had thought so too evidently since we're ing now, but none of us had said anything. anyhow eventually she started being a lot more flirty and friendly to me, giving off obvious signals.
so anyways eventually we were in her car making out, then at a later day in her bedroom, and i told her flat out, i think your hot and all but we're not on the same level when it comes to our character and our perceptions on key things, so if we're gonna do this, its gonna be sex/cuddling (as she so cutely puts it) only because i can't date someone that i cant envision a potential for essentially something very serious. and basically she was okay with that. so now we'll be just chill sometimes, sometimes go see a movie, sometimes just all without feeling any of the obligations of a boyfriend, and its ing GREAT :D
or hows this, the last time we ed in her car, she went out on a first time date with some other guy half an hour after we were done
| quote: | | I'll take what I can get for now, but I really think I can do better (i.e. hotter/richer/better in bed). Sorry, but that's the harsh reality. |
i will agree with diginut on this though
on a final note, the ladder theory for those of you who are familiar with it describes friends with benefits as the optimal position for a guy to be in. i can say i agree with this only towards the extent that this is infinately better then dating someone for the sake of dating and hoping to get some sex even though you do not feel something in your heart for them, HOWEVER the best situation is of course to be with someone in in which you honestly mutually feel that deep need to be together, which of course is hard to find, so untill you find someone like that, friends with benefits can be very enjoyable - my opinion. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
Like I already stated, the term "friend" is present due to a rather inaccurate formulation of my question. (I need sleep :/ ) What this thread's subject should have been was: "Sex yet no bf/gf-relationship - possible?"
I'll say it again, the question I had in mind was whether it is possible or not to have a regular sex life with another individual, yet without being in or proceeding to establish the kind of bf/gf-relationship that we usually associate with sex. In order to make this whole debate a lot easier and not continue to discuss logic (which wasn't what this thread was about in the first place), let's drop the "friend" term for now, since it obviously does nothing but complicate the debate around this ethical dilemma. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Like I already stated, the term "friend" is present due to a rather inaccurate formulation of my question. (I need sleep :/ ) What this thread's subject should have been was: "Sex yet no bf/gf-relationship - possible?"
I'll say it again, the question I had in mind was whether it is possible or not to have a regular sex life with another individual, yet without being in or proceeding to establish the kind of bf/gf-relationship that we usually associate with sex. In order to make this whole debate a lot easier and not continue to discuss logic (which wasn't what this thread was about in the first place), let's drop the "friend" term for now, since it obviously does nothing but complicate the debate around this ethical dilemma. |
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 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. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: |
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.
|
It’s accepted scientific dogma.
| quote: | | Male-female pair bonds occur in a small percentage of mammals. |
Ref: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~south/
| quote: |
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?
|
The issue of emotional vs. non-emotional causes was raised here:
| quote: |
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. |
The premise of the above stated argument is that a sexual relationship inevitably leads to emotional attachment, and that therefore the termination of that relationship will result in emotional suffering for at least one of the individuals involved.
In order to demonstrate the weakness of this assertion, I interjected the fact that innumerable examples exist of sexual relationships which do not lead to emotional attachment.
| quote: |
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?
|
In the context of this question, “friend” quite clearly denotes the set of friends (according to the dictionary definition “one attached to another by affection or esteem”), minus the set of girlfriends/wives (which are distinguished by varying degrees of commitment).
| quote: |
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? |
When responding to a query, the first step in formulating a coherent response is to understand as precisely as possible what is being asked. That is, the question as it exists in the mind of the inquirer, untainted by linguistic limitations. If the first definition of a term that comes to mind when you read the question is one that makes the question self-contradictory, then that definition probably isn’t one you want to use to the end of understanding the question. That’s just common sense.
That the lexicon “friend” carries some additional meaning to a particular interpreter of the question has no bearing on the true nature of the question itself.
| quote: |
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.
|
It is a straw man. Rather than interpreting Sand Leaper’s question as it quite obviously was intended, you imposed a distortion upon it by imposing your own definition of “friend”, then positing the claim that the question was incoherent or self-contradictory.
| quote: |
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.
|
The extent to which animal possess emotion is the subject of a large amount of scientific inquiry. Contemporary research indicates that many animals, especially higher-order mammals possess a much higher degree of emotional cognition than previously hypothesized. The leap from animals “having” emotions to sexual relationships necessarily invoking those emotions, however, is one that’s certainly not supported by any research that I’m aware of.
| quote: |
You don't think the term "the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse" leaves room for interpretation?
|
Allow me to clarify, then. The relevant question is whether or not either of the individuals experience this neurological phenomenon to such an extent as to preclude membership in each other’s set of “friends” defined above.
| quote: |
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.
|
Yes, I’m well aware of that. However, the argument that the question is invalid is so inane that it really doesn’t warrant any sort of response, as it amounts to little more than vociferous trolling.
| quote: |
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.
|
I’m not trying to prove anything with regards to this completely irrelevant side-issue of whether or not the cessation of the so-called “friends with benefits” relationship when one person starts a new relationship is caused by the new person being somehow “better” or by something else. It has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread.
| quote: |
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.
|
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you aren’t the center of the universe, and your definitions are no more valid than anyone else’s. If you’re interested in understanding and producing a coherent response to a question, then you try to understand the meaning of the terms as intended by the inquirer. If you aren’t interested in understanding and producing a coherent response to a question, the answer is simple: don’t respond.
| quote: |
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. |
I’m not here to baby-sit you. If you have such severe problems with reading comprehension that you can’t decipher the definitions of words like “friend” and “relationship” in the context of this discussion, I suggest you seek an education in the subject. Now if you want to offer the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that you might actually have something intelligent to contribute to the discussion then perhaps you’d be worth my while, but as it stands, I have neither the time nor the desire to re-invent the wheel to compensate for your personal ineptitude. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| 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
|
That is true. I admit that a proper definition is needed, and I should have thought of that before I posted, (like I said, I need sleep :p). Better late than never tho, so basically what I'm looking for (I'll use your list for now) is people who have 4 and no 5. The rest of it is really not up to me to set the boundaries for, since I can't know for sure how high or low 1-3 are in each instance, nor how much it matters to each of the individuals involved. The examples in this thread seem to give their definition of it by themselves though, so I guess I'll just have to interpret them accordingly and see if they fit the question I had in mind when I posted this thread. If anyone else has a better definition, post away. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I'm only going to address the last two paragraphs, because the rest have basically all been addressed in more recent posts.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you aren’t the center of the universe, and your definitions are no more valid than anyone else’s. If you’re interested in understanding and producing a coherent response to a question, then you try to understand the meaning of the terms as intended by the inquirer. If you aren’t interested in understanding and producing a coherent response to a question, the answer is simple: don’t respond. |
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.
| quote: | | I’m not here to baby-sit you. If you have such severe problems with reading comprehension that you can’t decipher the definitions of words like “friend” and “relationship” in the context of this discussion, I suggest you seek an education in the subject. |
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).
| quote: | | Now if you want to offer the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that you might actually have something intelligent to contribute to the discussion then perhaps you’d be worth my while, but as it stands, I have neither the time nor the desire to re-invent the wheel to compensate for your personal ineptitude. |
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?
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. You sound very smart, yes - but you also sound like a 16-year-old kid trying to prove your intellectual superiority. What is your purpose for starting this argument with me?
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.
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.
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? |
|
|
|
|
