Not wanting to take relationships to the next level

Post Reply New Topic

I second this.

These are warning signs, and if they press on, they are not respecting your boundaries. Let alone the fact that you are smart for not wanting to jump into marriage/kids... You have to think real hard before you become common law/married/have kids, because there is no going back.

I second that. The parenting instinct is almost on a timer... It kicks in at certain ages and when you're in certain situations. You don't necessarily even know it's there until you blurt out about kids or marriage or something one day.




Intimate.... that means sex right... with no chance of commitment.

As far as I can tell, that's a F-buddy - as I suggested originally.
If it's no sex, then they're not one, otherwise F-buddy it is.

yeah, he objected to calling them f-buddies... but if there is not commitment then that's exactly what they are.

The goal of 'love' and 'love's chemicals' are to trigger reproduction desire , if you deny this then you are denying the Mother Nature. From evolutionary perspective, a "relationship" without any sexual attraction is something useless. From my personally perspective , I think that a 'relationship' without any sexual attraction is something dump.

What about something like friends with benefits? Something in which there is something other than sex in the relationship, but not the kind of closeness for which you'd live together, etc. It would be different from f-buddies in that in this case sex is the only thing in the relationship, with no affection or emotional bond. There could be affection (like you would feel for a friend) but no love. Again, it's not a common arrangement and is not something I would want to do myself, but it sometimes happens.

friends with benefits IS a f-buddy. sex. maybe an occasional dinner or a movie. but no real commitment or Love.

Friend = Buddy
Benefit = f.

If you're not friendly enough to ever want to consider committment, then that's exactly what it is. I've got buddies who I got out to dinner, movies with. They're males so I don't f. them. Also, I have no intention of going to live with them.

If the only difference between a NORMAL BUDDY and this special-benefit's friend is F. then why not call them by the most correct name.




can't figure this out - are you saying f. without being buddies... In that case it's called a freebie.

well, i'm sort of using the following definitions:

f-buddy: No emotional component, you may like her but she's just an acquaintance you have sex with. there's no expectation of exclusiveness. it's essentially a series of one-night stands. Minus the sex, there's nothing left.

friend with benefits: There's an emotional component, you care about the person, you'd be there for her, like you would for a close friend. There's an expectation of exclusiveness, but no desire to live together or start a family. Minus the sex, there's a good friendship.

I'm guessing the OP meant something along the lines of definition 2, and denies it's a f-buddy because of definition 1.

I've had f-buddies. F-buddies are just purely sexual encounters. You really do not have any strong feelings for the person, outside the physical.

I am not talking about that. I find it really sad in 2007 that this dated concept that you can't love and be with someone unless get married.

With divorce rates higher then it's ever been, and cases of people losing everything in divorce court should be incentive for anyone to put the breaks on.

I know people got married young, had kids, and given up on their goals. One guy I know was going to be a doctor, now he works as a manager at a gas station.

I wasn't saying married.

I was saying that you get with someone for sexual relations amongst other things and you have some intention to have a life together - ie: maybe one day - down the track - we might move in together...

ie: like just having a tiny bit of commitment, not much, just enough to get over the F. buddy stage.