Are friend-with-benefits relationships dishonest and disrespectful?

[Anonymous]

have you ever seen the movie friends with benefits, starring Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake? do you think that FWBs are dishonest and disrespectful? basically, it says you good enough to fcuk but you are not good enough to be with and be a part of my family (inner circle). do not come within 1000 miles near my home =) those of you that are in it, what are your thoughts?

[ElijahCynicism]

I think that's a terrible approach to it. I've always been involved in what the profane call 'Friends with benefits' relationships, and for me, they're FRIENDSHIPS, first and foremost, before and above all things. Friendships. Good friendships harbour honesty and respect, for a start, so if your friends with benefits relationship is based on dishonesty and disrespect, you're not fulfilling half of the idiom.

And to me, friends are my 'inner circle', good friends, as much as family. If we're on a level of intimacy, the chances are we're close or we're getting close, and in that case, they are in my inner circle, and a part of my household.

Some people go for NO STRINGS ATTACHED sex, which is different. They meet up and f***, don't talk to each other much, don't think about each other, nothing. That's not common where I'm from, but I hear about it a lot on here. That can be dishonest and disrespectful, but only if you're pretending it's a friendship, which it isn't. The essential fallacy most people have is they become obsessed with the idea that there MUST be no strings attached for a friends with benefits to work, which means they become AFRAID of friendship. These people are emotionally imbalanced and don't really understand how socialising, friendship and even sex works.

I revert to 19th century expressions; Friendship, two people with camaraderie, affection and some level of trust; Intimate (Sexual) Friendship, all the above with sexual intimacy of some kind, Romantic Friendship, all the above, not necessarily with sexual intimacy, with romantic intimacy; Paramour, a secret lover, and Odalisque, originally a sex slave, translated into modern as, essentially, No Strings Attatched/F*** Buddy. Then, I came up with 'Friend Amur', which I use to describe, uh... Amorous friendships, not quite romantic, but deeper than camaraderie, and filled with sexual wantonness. And then Lover, two people who are in total romantic love, usually with sexual intimacy, often monogamous.

Which is much more clear cut, to me, doesn't inlay any expectations, grows organically and treats the people you're involved with with much more respect. And the best thing is, until you get to lover, all you have to say is 'My friend', you don't have to bog yourself down with social specifications.

[ElijahCynicism]

No, it has worked for me in reality. Very well, I might add. For a course of many years, it has worked very well. And it is a concept, albeit under different names, that has worked for many, many centuries. Who are YOU to say it's mere idealism? Some people don't know how to do it, as I said, but that's not the fault of the type of friendship, that's the fault of the people involved.

[Blobb]

Not unless you make them dishonest and disrespectful.

I don't agree with your viewpoint of "it says you're good enough to f*** but not good enough to be part of my family".

I mean if I'm having sex with that person, she's good enough to have sex with, so that means I like her enough to have sex with her(a lot). So that being established, FWB doesn't mean she's not good enough to be my friend because she essentially already is.

All it means is this: I'm not looking for marriage, I'm not looking for a deep meaningful relationship, not looking for a girlfriend, I just want to have some fun, we have chemistry, I like being with her physically and if she feels the same way ---> Boom:

FWB relationship.

Nothing decietful, nothing dishonest, nothingdisrespectful. We're all on the same page so nothing is hidden. And I don't f*** people I don't like, people I like also have my respect, so no disrespect.

In short: NO.

[pr3ttybr0wn]

"basically, it says you good enough to fcuk but you are not good enough to be with and be a part of my family (inner circle). "

thats how I would feel about it. I couldn't enter a FWB relationship because I'd feel the same way. "im good enough to f*** but not be your gf?" why would I give you my body and open myself up to be vulnerable to you and you don't even wanna be my bf? no find somebody else for that!

[msreneelove]

I've never seen the movie but I know from experience that it does not have to be disrespectful and dishonest. Has long as both parties understand ad agree to the terms of nothing past sex then its perfectly fine.