"Friends with benefits"? Impossible  

Asimov22 57M
2 posts
4/4/2005 11:17 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

"Friends with benefits"? Impossible

Ahhhhh...the euphemism "friends with benefits" situation. Hmmm...how can I explain this as fitting my theory of separation that one cannot be a friend AND a lover? Such is emotionally impossible for either gender. Let's try it like this....

If one wants to sweat, they may go to the gym. Sex for pure physical pleasure cheapens it to a point where it becomes comparable to just that...going to the gym. (Taking it away from the "conquest" thing...which misogynists/misandrists are prone to have as a major incentive and are the exception to the rule).

To have "benefits", in the context which I believe one uses it today...there is that deeper attachment which raises the level of meaning. Emotion comes into play. It becomes something more than pure physical pleasure. Thus, a friend becomes a "lover".

"Lovers" and "friends with benefits" are not synonomous. "Friends with benefits", take away the descriptive phrase 'with benefits" and you have....a friend. That is not a lover. It is, plain and simply, a friend. Which means cheapened sex.

When I write "lover", I do not mean in love....which may or may not be the case...but I see it as something more than a friend. A deeper emotional attachment and enjoyment of sharing. A caring.

To put it in another fashion...I'll use an example of my bestest friend in the whole world. She's married..and we have discussed taking it into another arena, but both of us decided no. It would screw it up. We tell each other deepest darkest secrets and feelings...and know there is no danger of repercussion or tension. We are, in every sense of the word, friends. Now...with someone who is a "friend with benefits", would you not agree there is a level of tension created? That little extra excitement? Fights/spats may occur because someone was a "dumbass" ? They are held to a higher or more intense standard? Feelings get hurt easier because one thinks of themselves or the other as being a little more "special" and thus having a duty/responsibility/obligation/want separating from just a friend without benefits?

That's what I meant. I couldn't sleep with a "friend". It's not within me and, I believe, unless one is a mysogynist/misandrist, neither can any person who respects their friends. Like I said..if one wants to sweat, there's the gym. Maybe..if things go right, and the pheromones kick in, and everything else matches up...it's raised to another level. And that's where the "special ness" comes into play. The warm fuzzy feelings of going out and holding hands. The shiver that comes with a touch. The joy of seeing the other is calling. The little tickle one feels running the length of the body, the hiden personal chuckle and gladness in the heart knowing that the lust one glimpses in the eyes of the other is there because it's you.

That's what I mean. And that is why I believe when one says 'friends with benefits", they're either lying to the other, to themselves, or have no concept of what they're referring to.

rm_agoodin 55F

4/12/2005 4:41 pm

very well put

Tasteycake 64F
2 posts
7/9/2005 9:52 am

I'm very impressed with your articulation. You've obviously given this a lot of thought. I, too, feel that it's impossible to be "just friends" after sharing such intimacy. I could never "put my finger on" the reason. You've nailed it on the head. I find it VERY refreshing to "meet" a man who is so able to express his feelings. You are an eloquent man and I DO look forward to meeting... Tasteycake... aka... Sondra

Become a member to create a blog