Dating Don’ts: How NOT To Be A Friend With Benefits
Posted by: Judy McGuire
Filed in:
relationships
8:00AM, Thursday October 9th 2008
There are times in every woman’s life where her body wants either what her heart can’t handle or her brain knows better. You know the drill — you want a man, but not a relationship. Or, more to the point, you want some loving, but don’t want any complications. All the booty; none of the baggage.
Maybe you’re wildly attracted to a dude physically, but find him mentally or morally lacking—like a tanning technician or a bounty hunter. There’s no way you’d ever date him, but why should you deny yourself the pleasure assets might provide? Answer: Not a reason in the world.
Negotiating a long-term, friends-with-benefits type situation can be tricky for us ladies. Dudes are seemingly born knowing how to detract emotions from physical activity. In fact, with most of them, I think it’s their default setting. They can spend the night with a woman and then meander off into the sunset without giving the assignation a second thought.
But women can have a harder time of it. We worry that we’re being “used” (hello? Pot meet Kettle!) or feel like we’re being promiscuous—talk about a double standard! The trick is to accept what you’ve got with this person and avoid trying to make it something it’ll never be. I’ve certainly been guilty of trying to turn a completely fine FWB into a BF, and the results were predictably disastrous.
So here are some pitfalls to avoid:
Language: Yes, it helps if he speaks a foreign language you don’t understand, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Pronouns like us or we are to be avoided like an open sore and all talk of plans farther into the future than an hour or two away is verboten.
Meals: Acceptable FWB dining situations include shared bowls of cocktail peanuts, late-night grilled cheese sandwiches, and fancy desserts. Meals to be avoided are breakfast, brunch, dinner, with a special get-out-of-jail free card for lunch (so long as there’s a quickie involved).
Conversation: Questions any more probing than “what are you wearing?” and “where are the condoms?” can get a little sticky. Your FWB doesn’t want to hear about your crazy mom and you really don’t want him to start yapping about his Ayn Rand fixation. Keep it light, keep it moving.
Socializing: He doesn’t meet your friends, you don’t meet his. That goes double for family members. The best thing about having a FWB is that he’s your dirty little secret. I remember being out with a girlfriend and running into the French-Canadian model I was spending my nights with at the time. He kissed me hello as my friend’s jaw dropped down three flights of stairs. Blushing, I introduced him to my buddy who was still having trouble recovering her powers of speech. As he walked away, she punched me. Hard. “Shut up!” she yelled. I just smiled. On second thought, if he’s that hot you might want to bring him around just for a drive-by.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Lawrence
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 10:10 am: [report]
No such thing as a free lunch - no such thing as a free sex, either
holla holla
Drew
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 10:45 am: [report]
Um… this is just a bad idea. I’m a male and I always respond on forums when men objectify women as nothing more than sex objects, and so please allow me to voice my opinion here. While I understand that one-night-stands happen and supposedly they can be wildly enjoyable, I don’t think the human mind is built to withstand the rigors of on-again-off-again relationships or uncommitted sex. It’s degrading and desensitizing to the heart! I find many women to be attractive, but I’m married and wouldn’t consider ever pursuing any of them, for obvious reasons. But what isn’t so obvious for singles is that following your fancies in this way, in an uncommitted relationship, is much like cheating on yourself. It’s like bad dieting. You know what’s good for you, but you eat way too much junk-food anyway, and then wonder why you have gotten fat. A simple matter of cause and effect. Sex with no strings attached is an imaginary one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater that will just destroy you emotionally in the end. I suggest an epiphany for both men and women who espouse this shallow philosophy about sex and love. I’m no prude, I’m quite liberal, but I don’t consider this particular form of liberation to be progressive. While, ladies, you are entitled to the same mistakes that men have been encouraged to make for decades, you gotta calla spade a spade, and this is a step backward. Since women are the traditional “gatekeepers” in relationships, I’m sure it feels very empowering to give in to your physical drives. Nevertheless I’d suggest you find more permanent solace through a relationship that seeks to satisfy your inner need for true love. Sex without commitment will never do that IMO.
M-shel
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 11:01 am: [report]
What you’re describing isn’t friends with benefits (FWB), it’s a f*ck buddy (FB. There’s a really big difference between the two.
FWBs aren’t easy to have and to hold, they get messy, emotions get involved, a relationship (even if not a romantic one)is on the line. One must tread very, very lightly and have absolute knowledge that they will not get romantically entangled with that person or have the smarts to cut it off if they do see themselves going down that road. These rules don’t apply to such a situation.
FBs are a means to an end…the end being getting sexual satisfaction with another person, that’s all, that’s it. Period. Thus your rules would apply.
Mel
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 11:02 am: [report]
Drew…lighten up. Long term relationships aren’t always for everyone and they definitely aren’t the only way to go.
Sensible
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 12:13 pm: [report]
The title to this article as seen on CNN.com, The “proper” way to have FWB, is an oxymoron because this type of relationship just isn’t proper at all!
The title could have been, “How to be a whore” and you not change a thing in your writing.
You exemplify the problem with society and relationships today. Every woman, it seems, thinks they are entitled to have the best man out there; best clothes, best looks, best peronality. God forbid that they lack something to be desired, thus allowing them only to become a FB, as M-shel so eloquently put.
If I have an interest in a woman, and I find that her opinions a parallel to yours when it comes to friends with benefits, then I am 100% out.
You are advocating that it is ok to be promiscuous just to get what you want and not have to deal with all of the baggage that comes with it. This is called being a whore. When you accept a man for what he has, faults and all, and stay with him not just for the benefits but for better or worse, then you have yourself a relationship.
In any case, who’s to say that the woman has the upper hand in this situation, or the power to make such a choice? Myself, and the friends that I hang out with can spot such a gold-digger, whore, or whatever name you want to label her, and be disgusted by a person who thinks they are entitled to have such a relationship because they posses the qualities of being a superior person. How self-centered can you get!?
Wait til you get to that age where you are ready to settle down and you’ve been a whore for so long that your damaged intellect will not allow you to attract a man you think you are entitled to have. Or you are so used to just the sex part of a ‘relationship’ that you won’t know how to even carry yourself in a relationship. You will be damaged goods; an old single woman who’s been used her whole life just as she has used men.
Wrenn
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 12:24 pm: [report]
Ah.. wrong.
All of it.
FWB tje words: FRIENDS with benefits. What you’ve described here is a one night (or couple of nights) stand with a complete, or close to complete stranger. One that will go back to being a stranger and ignored after that. FWB are NOT ‘no strings attached’.
If the person is a friend, of course there are ‘strings’ of course there are emotional ties, and there will be friends in common. (So, again, strike out the ‘don’t meet your friends’ ??? Soooooo… you make independent ‘friends’ in a vacuum, do you? )
The key words here are - either not looking for a serious relationship, or have accepted that, though you can be friends, you wouldn’t make it as a serious relationship. That both parties understand this. Then, it’s possible that FWB can work.
What you’ve wasted your time writing here, and I’ve wasted my time reading, is simply, being single, but ‘effin around with strangers.
I’m sorry but… why would you want to sleep with someone who 1) isn’t a friend 2) won’t be a friend and/or 3) you won’t allow to be a friend anyway?? And why try to call it ‘friends with benefits’ when you’ve categorically denied any real possibility of friendship with the person?
graysweater
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 02:50 pm: [report]
I agree with what a lot of the comments here already. At first I was excited to read the article and see what rules had been divined for simplifying the FWB relationship, but as others have said, it can’t be Friends With Benefits without the FRIENDS part.
Whostolemyhamslice?
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 04:36 pm: [report]
Read in on CNN. Sounds a bit hedonistic to me. I don’t know where Miss McGuire has been spending her nights but she needs to get checked for STD’s and sent to a nunnery right quick. Thats no way for a lady to act.
Beautyeyez973
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 05:58 pm: [report]
I want to thank Drew for his comments. As a woman, I completely and totally agree with them.
As a woman currently in a FWB (whatever that means) situation, I do not find them to be ideal. I am now in a place where I have developed, in my opinion, a stronger like for my friend. As a result, I can’t sleep with him anymore (although I would LOVE to…he’s yummy, hehehe) because I want something more. I was not brought up in the manner where I saw a lot of adult singles doing their thing. I grew up in a two-family home and in my extended family adults are either married or single and sensible.
I, on the other hand, decided to try and be modern. That sh*t don’t work…just doesn’t.
Obviously there is no point in me to reiterate what everyone said which is true—this article although using the term “FWB” is not describing that situation at all.
Peace and happiness to all
unhealthy article
wrote on October 9 2008 @ 10:56 pm: [report]
This article is a travesty and whats worse, is that it appears in cnn.com under the living section. What is this world coming to? We all know that friends with benefits or F buddies or whatever you’d like to call it never ends up in a good situation. Someone eventually and inevitable gets hurt and thus the sad state that the article is promoting. That it is ok to justify hurting someone or yourself as long as you know you consciously doing it.
THere are no benefits to this type of relationship. Only delayed pain and suffering. Nothing good has ever come from instant gratification, and this sex with no strings is no different. Shame on whoever wrote this article.
We should be promoting healthy happy relationships, where sex is a meaningful expression of love, not as an object to be used to gain instant gratification.
lilo
wrote on October 10 2008 @ 06:41 am: [report]
It fails to amaze me how people don’t realize that Judy’s column is a HUMOR column, with some nuggets of relationship advice woven in. Lighten up, people.
d
wrote on October 10 2008 @ 09:33 am: [report]
I am liberal myself but your article made me want to be a nun and crawl in a hole. If you think a guy is too stupid and ogre-like to actually date and you can’t even get through a meal with him (just snacks!) why would you let him touch you and share the most intimate act? Unless of course you have no self respect. It makes me sad that this appeared on a mainstream place like CNN. I meanwhile am trying to teach teenagers to become interested in world affairs and politics and tell them to read the news—and then they encounter this garbage? Females have enough self-esteem problems without you encouraging them to disrespect themselves further. And they shouldn’t even expect to get breakfast out of the guy? Ugh. I am so disgusted right now. This wasn’t “funny” at all. Do us a favor and stop writing.
d
wrote on October 10 2008 @ 10:04 am: [report]
You seem to have written this article to brag that a French Canadian model once kissed you. Yeah—suck his dick, take the risk of pregnancy/stds with someone you barely know, and then the next day he MIGHT kiss you and then pass you by to go on a real date with someone else. I’m sure you remember how crappy that must have felt. At least you got the kiss for validation. Wake up and realize that casual sex is NOT good and Sex & the City was not something to emulate but instead a hollow show about insecure people. It would be cool if you instead encouraged people to respect themselves.
Ken
wrote on October 15 2008 @ 06:50 am: [report]
Hmmm… as a man and with a woman as my best friend we share much together including on one occasion sex. There are no rules other than value the friendship and don’t do anything that spoils this friendship - we have fun together, our views on politics and many other issues are similar. I don’t agree with the writer’s do this but don’t do that - the real issue is respect, fondness, equality, emotional openness, intellectual openness. She is dating a man I have not met and I have a fiance (she knows my female friend but not that we have slept with one another - this knowledge would hurt her). Relationships, both friendship and romance, are complex - there are no fixed rules, one must navigate these waters carefully and with your eyes open. I actually love both these ladies and am not willing to give either up. Sexually, I am more erotically attracted to my best friend - which does make for a complicated dynamic, my friend is not so attracted to me sexually, but in all other regards considers me her number one. My fiance is attracted to me sexually, but we do not have quite the same connection on all other issues - though we are not polar opposites. For example, my friend and I both support Barrack Obama for President, but my fiance was a vigorous supporter of Hilary Clinton and does not like Obama and will not support or vote for him but neither will she support the Republicans (if she did our relationship would be strained to the tearing point). I am complicated and these wonderful women are complicated. I relish the complications because it make them who they are.
Lisa
wrote on November 5 2008 @ 01:38 am: [report]
Ken is a liar. No decent woman would want such a relationship. Only worthless whores with no self esteem would do this to themselvees.