Originally Posted by nycindie
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.
Heteroromantic asexual female, sex-positive, childfree, relationship anarchist.
Married to G, and in a partially non-romantic, completely non-sexual and long-distance triad with A and L.
Last edited by Eponine; 05-20-2014 at 06:44 AM.