Help me clarify this

How do American relationships work? The difference between sex, friend, and partner seems to vague, and I've been here my entire life.
Let me get this straight:
>Friends can have sex without romantic feelings and still be considered friends(?)
>Sex is for friends or for people in a relationship(?)
>Sex with friends isn't allowed in a relationship because sex is romantic(?)
Surely there has to be some reason people make the promise not to have sex with other people while in a relationship. What could it be if sex itself doesn't have any value unless applied? Religious morality can't be it

Attached: 1521502367497.jpg (1080x1350, 197K)

I think you're pretty seriously confused on a number of grounds. First off, sex is *most often* part of a romantic thing. For some people, casual sex can be a thing, but for the vast majority is isn't, and they find the idea of casual sex to be undesirable. Sex is not itself a relationship.

Friends means platonic friendship. Someone with whom you talk and spend time without needing attraction (sexual or romantic), but it is possible for there to be unaddressed attraction. They're still friends. Sex generally does not occur in a "friends" relationship.
FWB means "friends with benefits"; it nominally means people who have sex with one another who have no desire to be in a romantic relationship with each other. In practice, one of the two wants a romantic relationship with the other and is just "bearing with it" in the hopes that the other falls in love eventually. This is why most FWB arrangements fail.
Dating is the process of moving from being acquaintances or loose friends towards forming a relationship. It is a process where two people who have attraction for one another get to know each other better in order to cultivate more romantic feelings and proceed towards a relationship. Sex may or may not occur during this phase.
A relationship is a committed arrangement where the parties agree not to hold romantic feelings for others, and not to pursue attraction towards others. Usually, a relationship is sought on the pathway towards marriage. Sex is very common during a relationship, but in some cases (young people, religious people, and people with psych problems) it might not.

>What could it be if sex itself doesn't have any value unless applied?
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
The reasons why we desire exclusive relationships are well-understood. Men want to know that their offspring are indeed theirs. Women want to know that their supporters will not abandon them for someone else.

the sex/romantic split isn't completely clean because sex often leads to the release of brain chemicals that are also present in romantic attraction.

>Religious morality can't be it
Religious morality is it, most americans are religious but those who don't worship other things (the family, the government, science they don't understand, liberalism) instead. Atheists have pretty much the same morals as christians, they just try to justify them differently. I think thats because morality is just a way of coping with economic structures rather than something thats justified rationally.

I'm not asking what sex is or isn't for the most part or sometimes. How can the people who view sex as a casual thing also expect someone to be faithful in a relationship? It doesn't matter how you view it, almost everyone gets into a relationship eventually and that same majority also usually find it to be a romantic act, so doesn't that just mean that sex is indeed a romantic act? Also meaning someone you have sex with can't be considered only a friend because you do romantic things with them?

>How can the people who view sex as a casual thing also expect someone to be faithful in a relationship?
Because even they don't fully view it as a casual thing, and the value they get out of a relationship is greater than the value they get out of casual sex with random people.

But yes, some of them will cheat. That's part of life.

The rest of your post is A-grade autism and makes no fucking sense. It sounds like you're trying to argue that just because a guy had sex with you, it means he sees you as more than a friend.

Not "more than", just differently. So much conflicting information and it's worse because the majority of the people under 30 in my area all view sex as the casual side.
If your boyfriend was still friends with a woman he regularly sleeps with while dating you, would you see her as "more than a friend" or not?

>If your boyfriend was still friends with a woman he regularly sleeps with while dating you, would you see her as "more than a friend" or not?
she's an FWB, what's the issue?

>If your boyfriend was still friends with a woman he regularly sleeps with while dating you, would you see her as "more than a friend" or not?
Yes, she's more than a friend, and your boyfriend is cheating on you. You should be outraged.

What makes it "cheating"? There's no "romance"
Also
Is it cheating if you haven't had sex yet? There are those couples that get together and yet never have sex. Is it fine for the one with prior partners to continue seeing them?

>What makes it "cheating"?
The fact that you're in a relationship with him and that he's having sexual intercourse with someone else. That is cheating.
>There's no "romance"
There is something like a 5% chance that there's no romance involved. People don't have sex like shaking hands. There is always attraction involved, and people are incredibly bad at preventing romantic feelings from developing from having sex. Honestly, if they didn't get romantic feelings for each other, the sex would probably not be that great. Sex without romance is boring shit, believe me.
So, yes, your boyfriend is cheating on you and this other girl wants him to be her boyfriend. That's all there is to it, and your navel gazing about the nature of American relationships is utterly irrelevant. A person in a relationship who has sex with someone else is cheating.
>Is it cheating if you haven't had sex yet?
Are you in a relationship? If you are, then it's cheating.
>Is it fine for the one with prior partners to continue seeing them?
Meaning to have sex with prior partners? No it is not fine.

Could you explain this to please? Or try to answer from his point of view, since the people who think in terms of "friends with benefits" can't seem to articulate why the sex in a relationship suddenly becomes protected

I think he missed the fact that you're currently in a relationship with the guy. Honestly I wanted to respond to that question by confirming that you were *currently* in a relationship with the guy and that he was *currently* having sex with someone else, because the almost blasé way you asked the question made me wonder if I was misreading it.

Any normal woman would be outraged, and the overwhelming majority would demand he stop, and if he refused, break up with him. A few would stay with him but would still want him to stop.

Do guys feel like it's fair to keep friends with benefits while they're in a relationship with a girl?

No normal man thinks this. If your bf told you it's normal or that he's normal for wanting it, he's trying to confuse you (and from the tenor of this thread, he's succeeding).

Sex can be casual because it is fun and makes people feel good. Some people do a better job at compartmentalizing this than others - some are so fucking afraid of opening themselves on an emotional level that they only pursue sex in casual or "FWB" situations.

Sex still brings two major things to the table - sexually transmitted diseases, and children. Purely logically, in a relationship, if someone gives you an STD for fucking someone else, or sidles themselves and you with a potential child, it is a huge issue.

In purely casual sex, you're pretty much responsible for yourself with what consequences may come.

Just let a few guys answer, love. I've also heard that everyone keeps some connections on the side, even if it's just texting, in case something goes wrong. Like backup women because "nothing is more attractive than a taken man" and if they don't maintain a sexual aura, they'll lose all of their market value

>Just let a few guys answer, love.
I'm a man, retard.
>I've also heard that everyone keeps some connections on the side, even if it's just texting, in case something goes wrong.
That's more common than out-and-out cheating, which is what your bf is doing, but it's still far from the norm. What is normal and perfectly acceptable, however, is for taken men to have *platonic friends* who are of the opposite sex.
>Like backup women because "nothing is more attractive than a taken man" and if they don't maintain a sexual aura, they'll lose all of their market value
No man thinks like this.

There are those who view sex as typically only between married persons. Typically these are religious nut cases or strange sects like Mormons or Amish. Occasionally others - but mostly religious types. These types also get quite worked up about prior relationships and partners and hold virgin noobs as high value. They don't seem to have problems with serial marriages but typically want to trade in old used spouses for younger more easily manipulated and controlled ones.
There are those who only want sex within a stable committed relationship - this is a majority. It is serial monogamy or serial dating. Number of prior relationships is not important except as it informs healthy and skilled bed partners. Within this group you may find polyamourous and Cuck couples- people who have one or several acceptable outside additions either within the relationship or accepted and on the side. This used to be called "swingers" who might have husband/ wife/ BF/ GF swap or have a 3rd person male or female in the relationship occasionally or on going or a series of different ones.
Playing the field: One or both partners pretend to be in committed relationship but are actually involved in dating one or more persons at the same time. Many consider this cheating.
Friends with Benefits: frequently broken up former relationships, where there is still attraction and no stable relationship with either or both. Sometimes this includes cheating members of stable relationships or marriages. It might or might become more serious and limited time offer is assumed. Sometimes there are hook ups that become on-going FWB.

if the gf is ok with it yeah. i usually cut my FWB stuff off but if the LTR isn't working, it's totally fair to start seeing other girls. keeping your options open is the standard for men who can do it.

>No man thinks like this.
nah, men who actually understand how to get the most of relationships DO think like that. it's not as black and white as you make it, but there's no reason to not have backups. after all if the relationship fails, who wants to wait for another? you can get back into having one or a few casual things and maybe promote one of them eventually. some guys even try to sleep with a bunch of girls at the same time but tbqh that's not too common because few men can actually manage it and plenty of guys just want one FWB.

not everyone is as naive as you. some people actually plan their lives around the likelihood that relationships own't work out, and value their own pleasure more than some idea of "faithfulness in spirit" or whatever you probably think.

>there's no reason to not have backups. after all if the relationship fails, who wants to wait for another?
Nothing wrong with having friends. There is something wrong with cultivating romantic prospects. That's all I'm saying.
>"faithfulness in spirit"
lolwut

part 2: Hook ups frequently are anonymous hook ups at parties, bars, Craigslist "no strings attached" or other "one night stands". No emotional attachment is sought or desired - just a physical one or perhaps shared kinks. Sometime friends may just follow a curiosity and one or the other, or both agree that that is that or it is hatefuck of an enemy. Sometimes there is sympathy sex for someone who is down or desperate or just annoying and will not go away.
also
and
and
"seeing someone" outside of a relationship without prior agreed upon terms and permissions is cheating.
Sometimes it is felt to be justified - sexless marriages or partners who have illness, military deployment, jail, etc.. Again, without permission and agreement, it is cheating.

>There is something wrong with cultivating romantic prospects.
No there's not.

>lolwut
that's exactly what you're implying - the idea that you have to only have eyes for your gf.

>No there's not.
Yes there absolutely is. It isn't the same as cheating by any stretch of the imagination, but it's still a terrible fucking idea and frankly immoral.

If your SO thinks it's okay for you to cultivate romantic prospects in case it doesn't work out, then it would be fine. If your SO would not be okay with it, would feel hurt or whatever, then it's not okay. How fucking hard is it to understand the basic concept that you should avoid doing things that cause emotional harm to people you care about?

>terrible fucking idea
it's the opposite - it's a great idea. when your relationship ends you'll have your options, and the gf herself will know through the whole time that you DO have options. otherwise she might resent you. not all women, but some are like that. in any case it can't hurt.

> immoral
WAH, cry some more

> If your SO would not be okay with it,
well, you should be open about it. not like, saying the details or anything but at least tell her how it is. i mean her knowing is part of the reason anyways, so ofc you tell. lying is weak and shitty. i've done this with 3 girls so far and the occasional teasing or annoyance I get from it is if anything, a shittest to see if i'm actually serious. yeah maybe there's some crazy religious girls who'd dump you for this but again, be open about it to a degree and you'll be fine.

>cause emotional harm
it doesn't.

>3 girls who didn't insta-dump a guy for being shady
>expert in dating
>any mention of morality is invalid
Oh look, it's a postmodernist. Please calm down and let the adults speak. You are supposed to be at least 18 to post here, son.

>for being shady
the fuck? I said quite clearly that they knew, just not the details.

>expert in dating
never said this.

>any mention of morality is invalid
nope, just your statement about this thing being immoral. can you even argue that it's immoral? who does it hurt?

Not him, OP here, but wouldn't you assume the woman in this situation would feel expendable? Why would they stay

This. You couldn't calculate a plan more devious to make a girl feel inadequate.

Notice that he's tried it on 3 girls. Means at least two of them eventually didn't work out. Now, he'll credit his ingenious planning in making sure he wasn't without a gf for too long (the idiocy of this way of thinking itself is something I'm not gonna get into), and now that he's being called on it, will claim that none of his breakups had anything to do with him being a shady prick and cultivating girls on the side.

Fact of the matter is women remember shit you said years ago and will let it eat a hole in their brains over time. It will change their behavior and, yes, lead to a delayed breakup ostensibly for other reasons. This guy is a chump and does not represent more than a tiny minority of guys. He's literally one step away from an incel. Don't listen to him.

>the woman in this situation would feel expendable?
I mean, I don't mind feeling "expendable" myself - if she doesn't like my company she's free to leave as well. There's plenty of reasons to stay with someone - you enjoy their company, or maybe you hope that they will commit eventually. That said the "thinking of relationships as ephemeral" thing is really my own internal philosophy. Obviously you don't say that to people aloud, our society has socialized us to value commitment and romantic narratives highly.

Some women would leave such a guy, but from my experience most don't. In the start, all of my relationships haven't been committed, but they transitioned into that, I put the FWB down for the moment, and both of us tried monogamy for a while. Eventually it works with someone. But in the meantime, nothing wrong with getting ready to play the field - but again, discretely and without making the other person feel uncomfortable.

>I mean, I don't mind feeling "expendable" myself - if she doesn't like my company she's free to leave as well.
Opinion immediately discarded

>I don't mind feeling expendable
Would you fight and die for your country?

>In the start, all of my relationships haven't been committed, but they transitioned into that, I put the FWB down for the moment, and both of us tried monogamy for a while.
Yeah, you're way outside the norm already there dude.

OP don't listen to this guy anymore. He's either trolling or he's one of those guys who thinks open relationships are great and everyone else should believe so as well.

>make a girl feel inadequate.
not really. threatened and maybe a little insecure? yeah, maybe. but i'd be insecure with an attractive girl who had her options too - and women have more options than men by default, keeping options open yourself just levels it a bit. and desu, a little threat and insecurity goes a long way to making people try harder in a relationship.

> none of his breakups had anything to do with him being a shady prick and cultivating girls on the side.
yeah, i'm going to claim that. because it's true. as I said before, SOME girls wouldn't even date a guy who did this, and yeah that's fine, but if your'e open about it then it's not like she can complain. also, it's not "shady". you think men are designed for monogamy anyways? i can appreciate commitment at a point, but to say that it's amoral you gotta prove it.

>one step away from an incel
not sure how you'd conclude this but whatever.

I got tired of talking to westerners

As soon as you get you're in a relationship you're held to unreasonable moral standards

I hate how everyone is so obsessed with monogamy once they get into a relationship but are somehow ok with fucking about before it

Everyone is "expendable" in a way when it comes to dating - statistically most relationships fail - understanding that is all I was saying, being expendable for a cause/group/country is a different thing altogether. But yes, I would if needed, because that's something I believe in. But I don't see how it's relevant here.

You think it's unreasonable for someone to leave a relationship they aren't satisfied with? If they are mature they'd try to make it work of course, but dating isn't marriage, the fuck are you on about.

it's probably slightly outside the norm, but so are people who have one relationship and get married from it. i'm just being practical here. and in any case, most guys would want to have a girl on the side if given the chance, your assertion that it's not normal is ridiculous.

>but i'd be insecure with an attractive girl who had her options too
Yeah, I got over that feeling once I grew up and realized that a girl who is in a relationship with you wants to be in a relationship with you.

Feeding off someone's insecurity in order to make yourself feel more secure is fucking stupid dude. I think you might have borderline personality disorder or are quite literally an incel.

>You think it's unreasonable for someone to leave a relationship they aren't satisfied with?
Not at all. If you're unhappy in a relationship, go ahead and leave. Being a cocksucker and telling your SO, "Go ahead and leave, I've got other options, ha ha ha!" is literally the trashiest thing I've heard of in awhile.

Only disturbed people and compulsive sex addicts can have sex without developing some emotional attachment. Sex workers and prostiutes are another thing, I guess.

Liberals believe you can have sex with virtually anyone who is legally able to provide consent, though you can still sue for adultery.

>a girl who is in a relationship with you wants to be in a relationship with you.
sure, but maybe she won't have that state of mind in 2 weeks or a few months. growing up is learning that people can change. i'm not blaming women or hating or something - guys do it too and it's just part of life. if anything the understanding that things are transitory allows you to enjoy the moment more.

I said i'd be insecure with an attractive girl who flirted around herself, is just because I know my human nature. Everyone gets insecure and jealous. That's why you don't act like an idiot and tell your gf the details of your coffee date or text other girls in front of her like an asshole. Give people respect, but also respect yourself by not being naive.

>Feeding off someone's insecurity
how exactly am I doing this?

> borderline personality disorder
well seeing as by definition I'm not an "incel", you're literally accusing me of having a personality disorder here. yeah I'm not a quick-to-trust person but that's a long jump from borderline.

I never understood why people describe sex as it were a secret handshake.
I mean, it takes a lot of time and effort to have sex with someone.
The reason that time and effort should be spent in a relationship and not with people outside it is so you can build trust in the relationship.
The idea is to build up trust to the point where you can trust each other to raise kids together. He must be trusted to stick around for >18 years so the kid gets a stable upbringing. She must be trusted to be exclusive so there is no question to who the father is. A friend who doesn't understand these boundaries isn't a friend. The only acceptable way to have a friend with benefits is to have a threesome with you and your partner.
That way, nothing is hidden and it is less likely to cause a split in your relationship.

>"Go ahead and leave, I've got other options, ha ha ha!" is literally the trashiest thing I've heard of in awhile.
I never said you should say this though. Rather, I meant that internally, you should be ready for your SO to jump ship in the future. That IS a feeling of being "expendable". Actually telling someone how you feel in this manner would make them feel terrible, ofc you shouldn't. As I've said many times already, the having other options stuff should just be understood and not discussed in detail or used to make someone feel bad. If anything, it could make them feel more attracted if done right.

>sex without developing some emotional attachment.
sure, but emotions don't last forever.

If you’re nonwhite just forget it. It’s just gonna be a long vacation for you (us).

What you don't seem to be getting from his implication is you never tell the person this right out, it stays in the mind, like racism or sexism. Shit, it even sounds like a malignant form of sexism that's so cleverly worded within the mind, he actually thinks he respects women.

>he actually thinks he respects women.
why would you assume that I don't respect women?

Because you don't dude. You've literally shown it repeatedly in this thread. You deliberately prey on a woman's insecurities to make her more "loyal." It's pretty sick. You should seek therapy.

He actually claims that he tells the girl that he's actively pursuing fallback women in case it doesn't work out, and touts it as putting the girl on notice that she's expendable.

This is literally the scummiest, most manipulative shit I've heard in awhile on Jow Forums.