Lovers and Friends?

by xenosimiana Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:05 am

This post is just on a whim and my thoughts aren't structured and put in my notes for future posting like I usually do. I don't if this would belong here or in The Main Area.

I always found the whole "friends with benefits" thing to be asinine and when you think of about it, insulting because of the obvious "benefits" part which minimizes normal friendship. In my experience, I've heard many times about how "sexual-friendships" don't last long because there's at least one person that wants a commitment. Some people's criticisms toward those that are against "sexual-friendships" say you're putting sex on a pedestal (so to speak) making sex only legit and stable when it's in sexual-"romantic" relationship. For me, it seems that sex isn't working out for either one especially for so-called "sexual-friendships".

Another thing, pro-sexuals talk about getting to know each other, and becoming friends making their bond stronger so their "sexual-romantic" relationships can last longer once the limerence has worn off, or no limerence at all but creating stronger bonds with each other, but why include sex into the equation? It kinda of seems like arranged marriages where two people have to try and like each other and produce children or people who can't have sex with someone without some kind of emotional connection. I mean there seems to be an understanding that sex by itself can't stand on it's own obviously, but I guess people have trouble trying to avoid that "dark passenger". Or they try to give the act some meaning which I somewhat understand because it requires two people to be extremely close in addition to conceiving a child. I'll add more thoughts as it comes later.

by SCH0206 Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:54 pm

Yeah, I've seen those sexual-friendships ads on Craigslist where people offer low or free rent in exchange for intercourse. How degrading and sad because it implies that friendship isn't beneficial already. Why corrupt a platonic relationship with something so crass?

True, it is weird that many people condemn sex on its own, but see it as a sacred cow exempt from criticism in romantic relationships. Very odd and arbitrary.

by Biscotti Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:08 pm

I actually heard arranged (not-forced) marriages have a higher success rate. Likely due to that you can't really regret your choice of partner when you had no choice to begin with.

I'll be honest I don't think about how sexuality and relationships interplay a whole lot. Because there's not much to say. Sexuality is a cancer in a relationship. What does it gain? "infatuation", and ungrounded drugs? Inecurity? Reduction of a partner into a sexual being?

Ok I'll play devils advocate.
um
hm
uhn
lala
nope cant really think of anything. I mean it's pretty just a cultural expectancy, a meme. I had sex with them, that makes our connection, our 'relationship', official.

As for the "friends with benefits" I just put that in the same category as "booty calls", "prostities", "hookers", "sex before commitment", "porn" etc. People who view it as a sport/activity rather than a meaningful thing. Which is stupid and harmful in other ways.

by xenosimiana Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:31 pm

SCH0206 wrote:Yeah, I've seen those sexual-friendships ads on Craigslist where people offer low or free rent in exchange for intercourse. How degrading and sad because it implies that friendship isn't beneficial already. Why corrupt a platonic relationship with something so crass?

True, it is weird that many people condemn sex on its own, but see it as a sacred cow exempt from criticism in romantic relationships. Very odd and arbitrary.

Wow those ads...like you said it's degrading, and it shows desperation and how pathetic those people are. If your gonna do that and use someone could it be towards a more productive skill like someone being able to get you half off on clothing or food? People are so disrespectful towards friendships.

by xenosimiana Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:37 pm

Biscotti wrote:I actually heard arranged (not-forced) marriages have a higher success rate. Likely due to that you can't really regret your choice of partner when you had no choice to begin with.
Really? It kinda sounds like Stockholm Syndrome...

I'll be honest I don't think about how sexuality and relationships interplay a whole lot. Because there's not much to say. Sexuality is a cancer in a relationship. What does it gain? "infatuation", and ungrounded drugs? Inecurity? Reduction of a partner into a sexual being?

Ok I'll play devils advocate.
um
hm
uhn
lala
nope cant really think of anything. I mean it's pretty just a cultural expectancy, a meme. I had sex with them, that makes our connection, our 'relationship', official.

As for the "friends with benefits" I just put that in the same category as "booty calls", "prostities", "hookers", "sex before commitment", "porn" etc. People who view it as a sport/activity rather than a meaningful thing. Which is stupid and harmful in other ways.
Yeah that's a excellent way of seeing it.

by xenosimiana Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:25 am

I forgot to mention the whole "friend zone" thing, which really gets on my nerves. To me it it's either the person always wanted to have sex with you but in order to achieve that, they give the other person the impression that they want to be your friend, basically an ulterior motive. Or, they start to develop annoying sexual feelings towards the person, and they eventually reveal in some way their feelings and get shot down or "friend zoned".
It's seen as a negative and I guess it's understandable initially, but get over it, and stop seeing it as a blow to one's self esteem and enjoy the friendship you have with this person. This is one of many memes that I can't stand.

by Biscotti Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:22 pm

What do you mean "just" a friend? Isn't the friend the one you actually like while the lover is the one you objectify for emotional or physical relief and then later hate when they don't deliver?

You know I like romance. Not the relationship romance, but I like stories that create a dreamy idealized world. It's okay for entertainment and can be enjoyable as entertainment.
But look at the definition of "romantacized"

deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is.

Good for entertainment, not so much for relationships. Though I think a lot of people today want their relationships to entertain them.

(My parents, grandparents and great grandparents all get along well still, however I suspect it's because they learned how to be friends with their partner.)

Edit: You could say I'm romantacizing friendship here, and I agree that it's more complicated than how I painted it. And there are toxic friendships too. Friendships is a broad label, it's more about the attitudes.

by SCH0206 Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:35 pm

Biscotti wrote:What do you mean "just" a friend? Isn't the friend the one you actually like while the lover is the one you objectify for emotional or physical relief and then later hate when they don't deliver?

Great way to differentiate romance and friendship. In other words, true friendship is absolute while romance is conditional.

by xenosimiana Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:40 am

Yeah the attitudes do matter. It would be better if people valued friendship more (especially with the opposite sex) and spend more time discerning the various views on what friendship is than having segments on a tv show about how to find the "perfect" husband or wife, or being a better "lover". I'm with SCH0206 on your romance and friendship comment as well.

"The worst position to be in"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The%20Friend%20Zone

by xenosimiana Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:24 pm

Ok, so I had a conversation with my sociology professor (great teacher and person btw) about sex and my negative/averse attitude towards it, especially about how it affects cognition (we’ve had another conversation about my views towards sex and he was very open and agreed with me on some of the things I said). He shared with me a story about a woman he knew since 1967; how when he drives pass a certain exit on his way to work it reminds him of her, because she was stranded with her nieces and nephews and he came and picked her up and dropped her off at home, which lead to what he describes as a “wonderful” sexual encounter with her, and every time he passes that area it reminds him of that.

He mentions how they were still friends and that he spoke at her funeral. I asked him if during that time, did he considered her as what people call a “girlfriend” and he said he considered her a friend and that he loved her. I asked him what made him want to have sex with her, and he replied that it was desire, her personality, and her accomplishments which he went into further detail about all that she accomplished throughout her lifetime. Also about a human experience, and that if you’re willing and someone is willing to give it up or open themselves to it/to you, then he doesn’t see it as a problem but exploitation is something he abhors and that he tries not to exploit anyone. I can’t remember all the details but he mentioned how the sexual part of their relationship was brief for whatever reason, I think one of which was because of them living in two different areas.

I asked why he didn’t marry her, and he said that if he married every person he fell in love with that it would (paraphrasing as best I can) be a problem and a bit crazy. Which followed with two other anecdotes about a woman he met in a cafeteria (I think) and they began to be familiar with each other, when he found out about how she ended up marrying another guy he knew, he was upset; causing him to feel some jealousy and animosity towards him.

The other was started by first giving a disclaimer, saying that most people don’t really know what love is, and that love is independent from sex. Which follows to a man he’s known since college, and that they’re friends to this day: hanging out, and sharing knowledge that they’ve attained within their fields. Adding that he loves him in the same way he loved the other two women including his current wife, but it’s not sexual.

by Biscotti Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:19 pm

I wouldn't call any of this surprising. However the following paragraphs tie into something I've been reviewing lately.

Also sorry, I don't know the guy and I take your word that he's legit. But here's my stupid secondhand armchair psycho-analysis.

and he replied that it was desire, her personality, and her accomplishments which he went into further detail about all that she accomplished throughout her lifetime

That's a bit rude. Her accomplishments and personality should be treated with more respect. Also the way this is worded strange, what is he "desiring". Does he want to be like her? Sounds like an innaproprate word for this situation, could be faulty narrative. Based on my knowledge it sounds to me like "desire" is just desire for sex, and that he has a fetish for (either "smart" women or women he's friends with. Demisexuality (I can relate to the concept, as after I get to know people irl I see them more positively then people I don't know. That is unless they rub me the wrong way.)).
However I've had to listen to drivel from some hard-to-escape mouth and I think I see where the illusion comes from. If I were to isolate this logic. Sex (Even if it may not be, is seen as) special, because you do something that you don't do normally (that is get naked and partake in drugs with your guard down) with someone else you supposedly trust, letting them use your body (Both ways).
...suuure. That makes sense in a warped narrow-minded mentality.

Also about a human experience, and that if you’re willing and someone is willing to give it up or open themselves to it/to you, then he doesn’t see it as a problem but exploitation is something he abhors and that he tries not to exploit anyone.

Yes a specificaly "human" experience. Love how sexuals like to point that out, insecure? ("N-no, it's human! I-it's natural!"). But I don't doubt that a certain percentage of sexual don't see sex as exploiting another person. How can I be exploiting someone else if I'm being equally exploited?

Sorry for sarcasm, it's nothing personal, but seriously sexual rhetoric brings it out in me.

by Biscotti Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:34 pm

However I get what he means by loving people. There are different types of love, and the kind of love I'm more familiar with is letting a relationship define the relationship. (I called it once upon a time "organic relationships" as opposed to predefined "inorganic relationships". However this is just my own developing thoughts and not really founded.)
Another definition of love I'm fond of is "love is a promise".

by xenosimiana Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:25 am

Yeah it does sound a bit like he has a sexual attraction towards intelligent, determined women and could be demisexuality. No need to apologize, it is rhetoric, to us anyway to them it's truth (I guess you can say). What stood out to me was that he said he feels the same way towards the male friend as the female friends but didn't have the desire to have sex with him. To me, it's exploitation and impulsiveness of his "natural" inclinations without understanding (at least at the time for him) that he can love people without engaging in some sexual act to show and sustain it. I just found it strange that he abhors exploitation, but it seems that's exactly what he did decades ago, while not seeing the problem with that when he's telling me the story. It's like he's contradicting himself and he doesn't see it.

Of course there's different types of love but, obviously he made an exception for those women as you've said, probably demisexuality; but why let that get in the way? Kinda reminds me of the song by a group named Shai with the song "If I Ever Fall In Love", with the chorus:

And if I ever (ever fall) in love again (again)
I will be sure that the lady is a friend
And if I ever (ever fall) in love so true (true)
I will be sure that the lady's just like you
Oh, yeah, the very next time she'll be my friend

It just seems like people tend to give in to sexual attraction towards a friend thinking it would enhance the relationship or something...

"Organic relationships" (I kinda like that label) and "love is a promise" isn't bad way of defining it, just depends on what kind of pledge, oath or whatever it's based on (if I understand correctly) and limits, otherwise someone could see the "lovers and friends" thing as "letting a relationship define the relationship", going along with whatever feelings they have.

by Biscotti Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:28 pm

I hear your critiques and agree. It isn't something I've thought out completely. Funnily enough my two conceps are sort of in opposition to each other, since a promise is a definition. But I don't think they're in conflict, they're just different concepts in relationships.

Love as a promise is a bit more complicated then one line I agree.
Maybe looking at it through a "duty of care" lens or commitment vows (Though isn't limited to just a marriage. You could commit to yourself, your family, etc). It is of course good to think any promise out before making it. What it means, not all promises are wise.

The organic thing mainly came out when I was writing a story and liked writing interactions between characters w/o particularly defining them, it was just sort of a vague understanding that the interactions would guide.
Granted through very complicated reasonings sex didn't exist in this storys world so I wasn't thinking through that lens.

Like I said, not something I thought out completely.

by Sponsored content

Lovers and Friends?

Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?

Re: Lovers and Friends?