I do not understand the difference between friends with benefits and gf/bf. People say it's just someone you are friends with that you also have sex with. But this is what gf/bf is. What is the additional component that makes it different? You could say love but you are not always in love with gf/bf, at least not at first. Ideally you fall in love over time but before that point I don't see the difference.
The difference seems to be a lacking rather than a having. The lacking being commitment. friends with benefits is just gf/bf without emotional and sexual commitment.
If that is all it is I don't see the appeal, for girls at least. Many girls say they are happy in this arrangement. If this is the case that is a good thing. I do not think it is morally wrong or anything. But I see girls ask questions in GaG about how they can get friends with benefits to commit. So it seems they are not happy and would prefer boyfriend to friends with benefits.
I have read on here some men stating you shouldn't expect anything in exchange for sex other than sex. It is a straight up mutual exchange. But I think this is disengenous or at least naive. This is hardly the case for heterosexual relationships. Even factoring in birth control and condoms women still risk more for less. Women can enjoy sex as much as men but it is typically speaking harder for them to do so and requires more of an effort on the man's part. No birth control is 100% effective and I believe women are more vulnerable to STDs and complications from them.
Typically speaking women struggle to separate emotional attachment and sexual attraction. At first you might think it is just fun but then after time you 'catch the feelings', as they say. Traditionally men swap commitment for sex and women sex for commitment. If you have offered sex without commitment you are unlikely to garner any later down the line. When I was younger people would explain this to you so you didn't end up used and heartbroken.
But perhaps I am missing something.