I’m betting it depends more on the specific relationship.
I’ve been in “companionship” relationships - and if thats all that’s there for both people, that’s cool. For me, they don’t maintain over the long term because either the friendship falls off, or one person wants more, or both people want more. There have been times when its been the guy in the relationship that was wanting a lot more - and there are lots of clingy guys who are offended if you don’t establish a level of emotional intimacy.
Did you read the rest of my post? I’m perfectly happy to have a casual relationship with a man, and in fact it is my preference. However, I do insist that he pays at least as much attention to me as he would a pet cat. Jesus.
I had a relationship just like that, and it was one of the happiest of my life. In fact, even though I love my husband more than life itself, there are times when miss my previous footloose and fancy-free lifestyle.
I was in my late 30s-early 40s. I’ve never wanted children. I had done the soul-mate thing (7-year relationship from my mid-20s to early 30s), and I wasn’t sure that I could handle that kind of intense relationship anymore. I enjoyed being alone to do my own thing.
Gentleman Friend was fifty-ish, and he felt the same way.
The relationship didn’t lack emotional intimacy, as others have suggested that such a relationship must; we were friends. We just didn’t live in each other’s pockets.
It basically ended because of some of GF’s personal issues. (I think one of those issues might have been that he fell for me more than he intended, and it was too much for him.)
I still hear from him from time to time, via e-mail, and it always puts a smile on my face.
That kind of relationship is fine if both people feel the same way. However, if someone is the first person I want to share my good news with, the one I want more than anyone to comfort me when I’m down, the one I can’t wait to share a new joke with, the person who’s voice makes my heart beat faster when I hear it on the phone… I want a bit more from them than the occassional get together with sex.
If I find good sex and okay companionship and that’s all either of us feel, it’s okay. Nothing special, but okay. If I find someone I’m crazy about and he’s crazy about me? Well, that’s fucking awesome!
I’m not singling out your attitude or your take- I was using your estimation that the guy in the other thread was distant or inattentive as an indicator of where the gender line is drawn with regard to “distant/inattentive.”
If a fuckbuddy arrangement works for you, that’s fine- I am incapable of doing it for the reasons that Jodi mentioned. I expect my relationships to have a bit more “depth,” without assigning any positive/negative connotations to that word.
I was recently approached to be in a fuckbuddy relationship by a girl I see (“see” meaning “register visually” and that is ALL) a good amount, but never really talk to except to say hello or to banter with as part of a randomly-congregated group. Figuring I could swing it, I said sure (she was cute, what can you do?).
After the second time we slept together, phone calls started coming, IMs started coming (both means of contact she gleaned from mutual friends), invitations to dinners with groups of her friends, and a “can I cook you dinner on Valentine’s Day?”. It was at that point that I ended it. It had gone past “buddy,” and I never would have gotten involved with her had I known she wanted something like that.
When the inevitable opinion polls (law school IS high school, make no mistake about it) were released, a sizable number of women (still the minority both overall and among their own gender, but still a sizable number) thought me the bad guy in the situation, despite the fact that the stated understanding was that the only part of our relationship that would change was the sleeping arrangements.
I guess that’s the point I’m trying to make. A woman’s expectation of what goes on in a relationship is (and there are, of course, exceptions, such as you seem to be) socially conditioned, and her responses are as well. The cues that she looks for and the cues that men look for in a story when determining the “bad guy” are quite different. And, I think in this case, your analysis of the story is a bit more skewed toward the female conditioned approach. Because, in reading the other thread, I thought to myself, “Were you wrong? Not technically. But a little low-cost effort and you could have been above reproach.”
I have a pretty basic need to be somebody’s most important person, somebody’s first priority. I don’t know if this is a gender thing, or a artifact of being from a large family, or what, but those times in my life when I was no one’s number one were very dreary for me. I don’t mind being in a “support” role most of the time–as a teacher, I’m sort of doomed to a life of really worrying about proto-adults that will inevitably outgrow me. I’m really good at that as long as there is one person who I know would wake me up first if the house were on fire.
Hear, hear! It’s not a gender thing if I’m any indication.
I’d worry that a relationship like in the OP would block you from finding a deeper one. Maybe some people don’t care, but for me, orgasms are brief (even if there are a lot of them ) and the glow of love lasts for hours, months, years.
Yeah, it’s not passion all the time, but it is there frequently enough to be far better than friends with benefits.
When I was younger, I didn’t need a relationship, but I did need an outlet for my burgeoning sexual frustration. In that time, I was definitely a maneater, one who was more interested in a physical relationship with no emotional agreement, and it was satisfying for me. Out of that, a friends with benefits relationship developed. After a while, it got more serious, and, well, now I’m engaged to him. I don’t know if we would have become so close without having a very casual no-strings relationship first.
These days, I don’t know if I would be as needing of an emotional connection, but it is a great bonus. I really cannot produce the perspective of a single person anymore, as I’m not sure what I’d want should I find myself single by some random mishap. Would I need sex as a “fix” like I did when I was younger, or would I have evolved past that phase and need companionship first? Who knows? I’m pretty sure that I’d still place sexual satisfaction higher, though; I’ve never been known to stay in a relationship where I wasn’t satisfied in bed.
What y’all had was a failure to communicate. I know that school can be quite a fishbowl, and seems to me this girl mis-led you. Please don’t think that all women are like that; or that all men are like that. Communicate, people; tell each other what you expect and what you don’t expect. Gah.
This sums up my feelings on the matter exactly. I also think that was the OP’s girlfriend’s problem, as well. She wanted to be his number one priority. Unfortunatley, he was his number one priority.
I’ve been in casual dating relationships before and they were fun. However, I always wanted something more. Not with those particular people, per se, but with someone, eventually.
I don’t think it’s gender specific really, I think it depends on the individual. Some people are perfectly content by themselves and don’t need to lean on anyone for support. Other people like to feel that they have someone to depend on, who they can go through life with as a partner. If you’re in the former group, you’re okay with a casual relationship. If you’re in the latter, you’ll always want something more.
Its probably ok if your SO is his own #1 priority - when it comes to some things. I don’t expect Brainiac4 to always give me my own way or cater to my every whim (although I’ve met people - male and female - who think their partner should make them the number 1 priority at every moment). But there are some life events where, dammit, if I’m in a relationship, I expect a bestest friend level of support.
What astro seems to be describing is the long term friends with benefits, but casual friends sort of thing - the person you don’t bother to call when you go into the hospital. That’s a fine thing for some people, but once I start referring to someone as my “boyfriend,” “spouse” or “partner” I’m calling him when I go to the hospital.
Now, the relationship stages are hard to negotiate. There is some point at which the boyfriend becomes the first person you call - but early in the relationship or in a casual relationship you call someone else first - if you have them. Your mom, your best friend. Its that whole “at what point does boyfriend become someone you spend Christmas with his/your family with” question. Seems like in the other thread the OPs girlfriend was much further along that path than the OP was.
Well, I personally don’t see it as “second class,” but I do see it more as dating, or the beginnings of a relationship rather than a “full-blown” relationship.
In other words I don’t view people doing this as somehow having a lesser relationship, it’s just not the sort of relationship that is satisfactory to most people.
Why? Just plain ole’ human nature. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, real and manufactured, but most people want someone “in their court”.
To me, these three sentences are incongruous. GF obviously didn’t feel the “same way”. And to me, this is where the problem lies with these sorts of relationships. I’d wager that more often than not, someone gets hurt. In my book, this makes them not so “footloose and fancy free”. Or at least not any moreso than regular relationships since those can be pretty painful as well.
FWIW I have tried the “friends with benefits” thing a few times. Never was comfortable with it for a variety of reasons. If I cared for the man, it was much too painful to be so vulnerable with someone who was basically just scratching an itch with me. Oh yeah, the guy had affection for me, but people can feel affection for their pet cats. So what?
If I didn’t care for him, it was too uncomfortable and naked-feeling (in a vulnerable way, not a literally naked way) to be turned on enough, to BE that intimate and naked with someone I wasn’t emotionally into.
None of the situations were all that much fun. Whereas with full-on committed boyfriends, none of that sort of discomfort applied.
I guess I don’t really understand why they would be sustainable. Relationships take work, and why would I work to sustain a relationship that mattered so little?
You were not in the relationship. I was. You do not know GF, I do. The relationship lasted for three years, and I assure you he was not pining away from unrequited love through any of it. And though he may have begun to fall for me more than he intended,* toward the end,* he, not I, broke things off because he did not want them to go any further. He had no intentions of being anyone’s significant other or husband.
I look back on this particular relationship with incredible fondness. GF has written to me that he feels the same. I really don’t appreciate you implying that our feelings are not genuine just because this was not the sort of liaison you would choose for yourself.
I didn’t imply that your feelings weren’t genuine. I have no doubt that you both felt friendship and affection. Where did you get the idea that I thought you hadn’t?
What I flat out stated,was that he didn’t feel the same way you stated you did in the beginning. That is, that it was fine and “footloose and fancy free”. If he had, in my opinion, he wouldn’t have “fallen for you” it would have then been a sustainable relationship of the casual sort.
The OP was asking about a sustainable example. Three years with it waning due to exactly the reasons stated by other posters that these sorts of things don’t generally last (and I made no connotations good or bad on the ending of your relationship with GF), is not what I’d consider a “sustainable” example of the sort of relationship he’d posted about.
I’m not sure I have anything useful to add to this thread, but I’ll add my 5 cents (inflation) anyway. I have no moral objections to the scenario outlined in the OP, and I’m sure that a large number of people of both sexes are fine with that sort of relationship.
Personally, I have zero interest in sex without being in love with my partner - I’d rather be celibate.
What usually happens in these casual things is one of two things. First option: someone stops being casual. It’s hard not to get attached to someone you have sex with regularly, esp. if you do friendship things as well. It begins simulating a love relationship, so people start to feel (or think they feel) love. Then people get hurt.
Second option: One party never really WAS casual, just went along with the arrangement, hoping that the other person comes around. They think the other person will fall in love with them over time, ala Scenario 1. And it does happen sometimes, I just think it’s a little dishonest to agree to a casual relationship when you are secretly angling for more, not to mention that you’re asking for pain.
Well I’ve had twice a week relationships and it’s fine with me. I find that usually even low key relationships have some drama and heartache but it’s proportional to the emotional investment. One of us might get into a snit over feeling rejected but I don’t find it that hard to shake off.
I don’t disdain them but I guess I do think they are a second class type of affair. I guess the trick of it with me is that even though I think falling in love is better, I am not really seeking to fall in love. I don’t really seek to have any type of romance. At least when I fall into a low key one my whole world doesn’t have to turn upside down so it has that going for it.
) and the glow of love lasts for hours, months, years.