not-quite-poly: lovers & friends w/ benefits

I didn't read the whole thread-

and I tend (at this time in life) to prefer the "full on, full time, live together, everything shared" relationships.

HOWEVER-that doesn't mean that other types of relationships are 'legitimate'.

My boyfriend and I were FWB for over 10 years!!! We had no intention during that time of taking it further. We loved each other as friends, we had great sex on rare occasion.

Circumstances unexpectedly changed and now we're living together with my husband and co-parenting the kids.

Don't sell yourself short with unnecessary limitations.
Just because SOMEONE thinks FWB is "casual" or "too casual" for them-doesn't mean it has to be for YOU.
;)

Just be sure that instead of discussing labels with potentials-you clearly state what you want (and don't want) from a relationship with them RIGHT NOW (no one can predict the future-it could change tomorow, ten years from now or never).

:)
 
Love this!

Hi all,

I'm not much of a poster, but I read frequently. I love this whole topic, because I see myself as poly in more casual ways. Sometimes it's hard to find personally relevant topics on here as so many people seem to have a number of serious relationships, or are involved in triads or the like.

I love the spontaneous, noncommittal "hook ups". Some might call this casual sex, but for me there is meaning in it. It's having a connection and being able to act on it.

Someone questioned the possibility of "friends in public, affection in private". Honestly, I do have that. For me it's because I have a "primary" I've been with for 2 and half years, and 2 "boyfriends". When I go out with the primary (I'll call him Sax), I don't want to be seen as part of a "unit", or have people assume things about us because of our relation to each other. So, generally, we don't engage in PDA - which is not a rule, but a preference (we're just not "couply" types of people).

If, on the very odd occasion, more than one of my "boyfriends" will be in the same place at the same time, the understanding is that I'm not with one of them more than the other(s) - so this means no real PDA with any of them, ie, we're all out as friends.

On a side note, and I hope someone can identify with me on this... I also like to see myself as solo, unattached, independent... my ideal would be ultimately uncommitted relationships. However, after so much time being with Sax, I inevitably am in a "relationship". I don't want to not be with Sax, nor impose artificial restrictions... Is anyone else in a similar situation? How do you deal with the unintended seriousness that simply comes with time?
 
Hi all,

On a side note, and I hope someone can identify with me on this... I also like to see myself as solo, unattached, independent... my ideal would be ultimately uncommitted relationships. However, after so much time being with Sax, I inevitably am in a "relationship". I don't want to not be with Sax, nor impose artificial restrictions... Is anyone else in a similar situation? How do you deal with the unintended seriousness that simply comes with time?

Hi Zusammen, nice to meet you and glad you posted on this!

My approach is similar to yours, i.e., I consider myself solo, unattached, not looking for a primary partner/life partner. And I'm kind of in a similar situation to yours, in that I've got a "lover-friend" that I've been seeing for a while now, so that it begins to feel more like a relationship.

In my case, however, my lover-friend is actively seeking a primary partner of his own, plus he generally has a lot more sex/dating activity than I do, so that keeps things from getting more serious, and is something I am happy with. In a month or two, when I am done with my thesis (fingers crossed!), I will have time to seek out more dating partners myself, which I think will also help keep us from falling into an "accidental" relationship (or a serious relationship by default).
 
...after so much time being with Sax, I inevitably am in a "relationship". I don't want to not be with Sax, nor impose artificial restrictions... Is anyone else in a similar situation? How do you deal with the unintended seriousness that simply comes with time?
I think a good place to start is to look at certain words and what they mean to you, and whether they really apply to your relationship of not. What does "serious" mean? "Relationship?" "Primary?" "Love?" Get clear on separating the fantasies we were taught about relationships while growing up and what relationships really mean to you TODAY, as an adult. What do you want your relationships to be, and to bring you?

Many emotions pop up simply in response to thoughts we have, and we human beings think the same thoughts over and over again, so it is easy to manufacture feelings. Oh, believe me, I have daydreams about lovers, but I know where they're coming from, so I don't pay them credence and waste time wrestling with fantasies taught to me at an early age. The key is awareness - get to know yourself and how you think, and you can shed light on lots of things and handle them better by simply seeing what choices you have available NOW, in the present. I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
I've cared for my friends-with-benefits/lovers....did I love them? No, because most never allowed me to get to really know them, to hang out with them and do other things. A few I would talk with, watch movies with, have drinks..I considered them btw the lover and BF, which was ok. Either way, if we both were going back for more, it meant there had to be some kind of connection, which sometimes is just fine. I'm not sure I could tell another man easily "I love you" and I definitely wouldn't if all I could base things on was the quality of the sex. Most of the men though that I met confused FWB with FB (fuck buddy)..to them, it's the same thing. Being friends actually means you have to like the other person, enjoy being around then. Plenty will have a FB that they may not like as a person but are happy to use for sex.
 
Last edited:
I really relate

I relate to alot of things here. I will be following and am very interested in reading more on the subject. I'm looking forward to telling a bit more a about myself soon. Things I do, prefer to do and what I'm looking/ not looking for ( or at least not "looking" for) are similar to what others are talking about. Thank you for being so honest.
 
It would be nice to hear how things are today for you people. Do you still think the same, what has changed, why?

I'm looking forward to developing several lover-friend relationships. There are at least three people I'm interested in in this way. What I worry is that I'll be swept by emotions and end up wanting more than I can have.

All these people are married and have children, so they definitely have a life of their own and I would be a small part of that life, hopefully a part anyway. But how do I keep my emotions in check? I have done this before, but then I was mostly closed off to other people about everything. Now I try to be open and honest, especially to myself, so I'm not sure if I could do this anymore. I don't want to risk losing the friendships, but I'd like to explore the possibilities these people are open to. And two of these people have clearly expressed they are pretty open ;)
 
My lover-friend and I celebrated our 2-year "unniversary" earlier this year. He is still not my "boyfriend." We are still very happy and very much ethically non-monogamous.

I don't stress as much about definitions and terminology as I did two years ago, but I still find that caring friendships with a sexual component are what work best for me. Serious Romantic Relationships aren't something I seek.
 
I posted in this thread just over two years ago...and my thinking has not changed. I have a husband, boyfriend, a (new) girlfriend and a couple of FWBs as well as a few intimate-but-not-sexual friends. I am "open" to new relationships, of whatever sort, but not "looking" for anything.

I tend to use labels "after the fact" to describe what IS...not to define what "should" be. The relationship determines the labels and NOT vice versa.
 
Good to hear from you, MeeraReed. :D I've missed your voice on this board.

After much thought, consideration, research, talking to friends and reading of people's stories on this board I eventually came to realise that for now at least, I would consider non-monogamy only if I was not in a serious romantic relationship.

My feeling is that too often non-monogamy isn't terribly ethical when it's being practised by couples. People knowing about what is going on and agreeing isn't sufficient to make something ethical, IMO. (I know that there are lovely examples where it all goes well and everybody is treated well but I think those are not all that common).

Behaving ethically and kindly toward people in my life is important to me which means that I'd rather limit the number of romantic relationships I have than risk getting into some of the situations that I read about here, hear about from friends and read about in other books.

I don't see the same sorts of issues with single people being non-monogamous and it is something that would interest me if my circumstances were to change.

Anyway - long winded way of saying. Good to see ya again.
 
Good to hear from you, MeeraReed. :D I've missed your voice on this board.

After much thought, consideration, research, talking to friends and reading of people's stories on this board I eventually came to realise that for now at least, I would consider non-monogamy only if I was not in a serious romantic relationship.

My feeling is that too often non-monogamy isn't terribly ethical when it's being practised by couples. People knowing about what is going on and agreeing isn't sufficient to make something ethical, IMO. (I know that there are lovely examples where it all goes well and everybody is treated well but I think those are not all that common).

Behaving ethically and kindly toward people in my life is important to me which means that I'd rather limit the number of romantic relationships I have than risk getting into some of the situations that I read about here, hear about from friends and read about in other books.

I don't see the same sorts of issues with single people being non-monogamous and it is something that would interest me if my circumstances were to change.

Anyway - long winded way of saying. Good to see ya again.

Thanks for the kind words, IP. I'm still "around" in the sense that I still read here frequently, especially the blogs. I just don't have time to post much.
 
Suggested list of titles for people you have sex and/or romance with, starting with the least emotional/life involvement and proceeding down to the most emotional/life involvement:

  • one night stands,
  • fuck buddies,
  • friends with benefits,
  • lovers,
  • lover friends,
  • boyfriends and girlfriends,
  • steady boyfriends and girlfriends,
  • partners,
  • fiancés and fiancées,
  • spouses and heart spouses.
Yes?

Presumably, anything above boyfriend/girlfriend (on the list) is *not* a relationship, while anything below lover friends (on the list) *is* a relationship.

Would the "relationship titles" potentially be poly (versus monogamous) titles, while all the "non-relationship titles" would necessarily stop short of being poly (though they could still be non-monogamous titles)?

And perhaps, if you're not in a relationship, you're not in love, whereas if you are in a relationship, you are in love?

---

Re: Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart ... is the woman generally credited with coining the word polyamory. In 1999, the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary was contemplating adding polyamory to that dictionary. S/he asked Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart to provide a definition for the term.

Morning Glory and her husband Oberon published their response on their website ...

... as follows:
"The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

The clause "full knowledge and consent" suffices to disclude hidden affairs (cheating). However the Zell-Ravenhearts added some comments to their definition ...

... including the following note:
"This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, 'cheating,' serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as 'mate-swapping' parties."

You may say, "Screw the so-called coiner of the word. If I want to include cheating and prostitution when I talk about polyamory, then that's what I'll do." And you may do exactly that. The Zell-Ravenhearts have no special authority to punish you (and I doubt they'd use it if they had it). But you should be aware of their definition, since the mother of all English dictionaries deferred to them (before adding polyamory to the Oxford Dictionary in 2006).

(Source: Wikipedia)

I happen to know (from various past threads on this topic, on a couple of poly forums) that more than a few polyamorists do indeed think cheating belongs under the polyamorous heading. I think the majority discludes cheating, but, especially since the "other team" appears to be of considerable size, I will readily discuss polyamory with cheating (and prostitution) included if the person I'm talking to lets me know that they prefer the more inclusive definition. My standard procedure, though, as long as I don't know any different, is to assume that the consensus of the conversing group is to disclude cheating (from the scope and definition of poly).

It is what it is. I can't control how other people define this or that word, regardless of my own preferences, and if I'm going to engage in a conversation with someone, I'd like it to be a coherent conversation. That can't happen if people can't agree on some basic definitions. So, I do whatever I think will add the most clarity to whatever's being discussed.

If you want my official vote: it is to require "full knowledge and consent" to qualify for polyamory. I'll just add that I'm not passionate about that opinion, and I'll even say that "a cheater may be poly at heart."

---

Re: labels ... let's do away with them? I vote no. I believe that every word in every language is a label. Do people misuse labels? Certainly. But sweeping them out of our lives won't solve the problem. As much as I hate nitpicking debates about poly semantics, I think we're going to see more of those debates until we get it right. Getting it right means coming to a consensus about reasonable, workable words and definitions. We can table any discussion that gets too heated, but the issues aren't going to evaporate. Someday, they'll have to be discussed in a way that leads us to some kind of agreement, about definitions that everyone (or darn near everyone) can stand. That may mean we're all gonna have to be willing to compromise on some things. I don't know. We'll have to see. In the meantime, a functional system of poly terminology remains very much a work in progress.

Re (from MeeraReed):
"I'm definitely in the latter category! Still looking! Still confused about labels!"

Meera, I think I'm exactly where I want to be as far as (my poly) relationships are concerned, and yet I'm sure I'm as confused about labels as you are (or were at that point in the thread). Some people feel that all the important questions about poly terminology have been answered. But that's not how I feel.

Sorry if this post wandered around a lot. I wanted to respond to a lot of different things in this thread. I don't mean to write Scripture anywhere here, just kind of thinking out loud throughout this post.
 
Presumably, anything above boyfriend/girlfriend (on the list) is *not* a relationship, while anything below lover friends (on the list) *is* a relationship.
Oh, I disagree! If people want to use the word "relationship" only to mean a totally entwined and committed, heading for a lifetime kind of partnership, then I understand why they wouldn't view FWBs as relationships - but they would be so wrong to make such a blanket statement like that! If you have a friend, that's a relationship, and if you have sex with that friend, there's still a relationship!

Also, regarding your list, Kevin, I see FWBs, lovers, and lover-friends all at about the same level.
 
I agree with NYCindie! Punk is my FWB/lover/lover-friend (I tend to use those interchangeably), but that more describes the level of life-sharing than the amount of love involved. I would never say I don't have a relationship with Punk, it's just different than my relationship with Moonlight.

Just because that relationship is less intertwined does not mean that it is at all casual.

The way I use those terms, one-night-stands and fuck buddies would not be considered relationships for me because the contact is typically too brief for me to build a relationship, but I wouldn't presume to know how other people feel or use those labels. Maybe they love their fuck buddy! :)

I guess I don't understand the difference between boyfriend/girlfriend and "steady" boyfriend/girlfriend. Going steady makes me think of high school in the 50's, or getting pinned. :)
 
What's a lover-friend? I've only been friends with my lovers, and occasionally a friend becomes a lover. And former lovers usually remain friends. I guess I don't get the meaning of the term.

And I consider all of those categories - except the true one night stand - to be relationships. Not committed relationships generally but still relationships.
 
If people want to use the word "relationship" only to mean a totally entwined and committed, heading for a lifetime kind of partnership, then I understand why they wouldn't view FWBs as relationships - but they would be so wrong to make such a blanket statement like that! If you have a friend, that's a relationship, and if you have sex with that friend, there's still a relationship!

Also, regarding your list, Kevin, I see FWBs, lovers, and lover-friends all at about the same level.
I agree. The thing with me is emotional involvement doesn't have to be associated with practical involvement at all, and only emotional involvement is the defining factor for my (significant) relationships. I have zero practical life sharing with A and L (nor do we intend to merge our lives), but emotionally they're as significant as G, whom I've been living with for almost 3 years.

Another quirk of mine is I tend to have grey-area relationships between "just friendship" and "romance/partnership," so we don't feel comfortable calling each other bf/gf in such relationships (especially if the feelings are entirely nonromantic). If I had to pick between bf/gf and FWB, I'd rather use FWB, although in our case the "benefits" aren't sex, but emotional and physical intimacy. I'd imagine my grey-area relationships are pretty similar to some other people's "lover-friends" relationships (I just don't like to use the word "lover" because of its sexual connotation): They may look "casual" on the surface, but the emotional connection can be as strong as in a primary relationship.
 
Last edited:
What's a lover-friend? I've only been friends with my lovers, and occasionally a friend becomes a lover. And former lovers usually remain friends. I guess I don't get the meaning of the term.
"Lover-friend" is a term that SourGirl suggested a couple of years ago here, after I had complained that I didn't like the term "friends with benefits." I started using it, others followed suit, and it stuck - at least in the context of this forum/community. I also use the term on my OKC profile, and I am sure the term is used in other circles where relationships are discussed. But it is basically a FWB.
 
Last edited:
I know I shouldn't but I can't help feeling after having read Kevins list that "I'm doing it wrong". It's really stupid I know. It's just that I feel I have real relationships. Real romantic relationships, but I wouldn't dare call either of then bf/gf-level of relationship. And one of these doesn't even include sex, but the emotions is just so strong and out in the open for anyone to see that it's hard to not feel like it is a relationship. I think the list needs a lot of work still. It's sort of one-dimensional (relationship=sex) and I do think the line Kevin drew is very arbitrary and propably just based on his own values/opinion.

Oh and for terminology… I use love-friend and lover-friend. One is a lover and one is love.

FWB makes me feel like sex is a common hobby, some sort of sport, like bouldering or playing tennis together. Recreational fun. I just don't feel like that about sex. It's fun, but it's not a sport for me.
 
Oookay ... the list is just a list, it's not a yardstick for judging whether ur doin it rong. I didn't even put much thought into it, I just looked at what I saw in the thread and organized what I observed.

Good grief people. Just ignore the list if it seems inaccurate or doesn't fit your situation. It's just there as a conversation-starter, not as a Statement of Law. :rolleyes:

In the end I'm sure there's no exact line where relationships begin/end. In fact the cashier at the grocery store could be considered someone you have a very brief, cordial relationship with (depending on how you define relationship).
 
Oookay ... the list is just a list, it's not a yardstick for judging whether ur doin it rong. I didn't even put much thought into it, I just looked at what I saw in the thread and organized what I observed.

Good grief people. Just ignore the list if it seems inaccurate or doesn't fit your situation. It's just there as a conversation-starter, not as a Statement of Law. :rolleyes:

In the end I'm sure there's no exact line where relationships begin/end. In fact the cashier at the grocery store could be considered someone you have a very brief, cordial relationship with (depending on how you define relationship).

Yes, and it did start a conversation. The above responses are the conversation.
 
Back
Top