Experiences with FB or FWB only

Also, monogamous people are allowed to experiment with casual sex when they don't feel ready for a serious relationship (i.e., in college, in your 20s, when you're getting over a breakup, etc). Why can't a poly couple experiment with keeping other partners casual?

I'm also not aware of all these "other resources" for non-poly forms of non-monogamy. I've looked, and all I found were swinger sites.

I'm very bothered by the closing of that thread.
 
In that thread, the OP wrote:
I wanted to ask couples about their experiences with keeping outside involvements limited only to "sex (f**k) buddies" or "friends with benefits" status only, and not allowing these interactions to progress to relationships (bf/gf, romantic, etc).

Are there any couples out there that maintain these boundaries? What have your experiences been and how did you go about setting up your own set of rules/guidelines?
The above gave me the impression that the OP was negotiating with a partner and this option was one of the things being discussed. So, I assumed the OP was coming here for research and support, to see if such an arrangement was workable or considered reasonable, and to be informed before resuming the negotiations. Of course, we won't know what motivated creating that thread unless the OP comes here and explains, but I did not see it as outside the purview of this site.
 
I'm another that would like an explanation of why the thread was closed. As one of people that replied, I thought we were having a fruitful discussion. I could see moving it to the "fireplace" sub-forum (I don't generally check which sub-forum a post is in since I do my daily reading from the "New Posts" link).

I considered myself poly even when all of my relationships where of the FWB variety (and have one platonic friend that considers herself one of my "poly peeps" even though we have a non-sexual relationship due to the depth of our friendship) - because I was open to these relationships developing in whatever form they needed to. One of these, with MrS, culminated in a marriage 16-years strong and going.

This, I think, ties into the many conversations about "love" that we have here and how poly-type thinking can blur the lines between romantic love, companionate love, etc. Some folks here have "Non-sexual bf/gf" relationships. Lots of us have "more-than" friends, lover-friends, FWBs. The point is that we have loving-"relationships" with these people and are practicing "ethical non-monogamy."

Jane("Your-poly-is-not-my-poly")Q
 
I am suggesting that "I'm confused" and this thread and the FWB thread all be merged together and allowed to proceed ...

I second the motion (...and if the mods still disagree, I wouldn't be opposed to the combined thread being relocated to the "Fireplace" sub-forum.)

JaneQ
 
In the text, the OP specifically said that it was about "keeping outside involvements limited only to "sex (f**k) buddies" or "friends with benefits" status only, and not allowing these interactions to progress to relationships (bf/gf, romantic, etc)."

I took that "not allowing" to mean that it was about restricting any involvement to purely sex and that all romantic interactions, let alone relationships were verboten. So this isn't about people choosing a specific relationship to be suited to a FWB relationship, but that there were restrictions in place than the only thing allowed outside the primary couple was sex.

So based on my (possibly flawed) interpretation of it, I don't think that it is relevant to a poly forum at all

Your interpretation may be correct, but even if it is, isn't this a great place then to hear from a LOT of people how trying to keep a boundary or limitation like that will most likely be impossible? Over and over people here say, for myriad reasons, that you feel what you feel. Emotions can't be controlled. Perhaps the conversation would be a wake-up call, especially if the OP was looking for more "how-to" help. I don't know, but I agree that since there were legitimate responses posted from multiple poly people (I mean geez, how many of us came to poly from FWB or FB situations?? I know I did!) who felt the question worth answering, locking the thread was unwarranted.
 
I don't know, but I agree that since there were legitimate responses posted from multiple poly people (I mean geez, how many of us came to poly from FWB or FB situations?? I know I did!) who felt the question worth answering, locking the thread was unwarranted.

And squelching a discussion along those lines is counter-productive. The thread could just as easily have been moved to the Fireplace.
 
This thread is an outgrowth of the thread that I would agree, was wrongly shut down. mmfox wanted to discuss friends with benefit arrangements, seems like a totally appropriate discussion for this forum. So, try again?

Nope. If it was off-topic then, it's off-topic now.

I think where Autumnal Tone got it wrong was in lumping FWB relationships with swinging.

I did no such thing.

Folks, trolling mods by reposting off-topic threads and bitching about mod decisions on the boards is not a good thing. Please refrain from such.
 
Mod note

[/B]In the text, the OP specifically said that it was about "keeping outside involvements limited only to "sex (f**k) buddies" or "friends with benefits" status only, and not allowing these interactions to progress to relationships (bf/gf, romantic, etc)."

...

So based on my (possibly flawed) interpretation of it, I don't think that it is relevant to a poly forum at all, and tried to steer the poster to a place that they may get better answers about how to restrict a relationship to be sex only.

CdM got it right the first time. The OP's setup of the thread had no relation back to a poly context and was closed as off-topic. We have blended the threads together and placed them in the fireplace which is where off-topic threads go.

Now, if there's people wanting to discuss FWB's which are somehow related to the poly context, (I too started out in such a relationship and still see them frequently in the community) then by all means, those threads are perfectly valid for the General Discussions area, alongside the previous iterations.

A reminder that if a thread get's locked, it's perfectly fine to PM the mods and ask the question as to why, or even use the report post feature to do so (although not really it's intended purpose). However, reposting the same content over again is just liable to run you afoul of whatever had the original thread locked to begin with. Usually when threads are locked, it's to give things time to cool while the Mods are discussion what actions to take on a particular thread.

Thread is now unlocked.
 
And squelching a discussion along those lines is counter-productive. The thread could just as easily have been moved to the Fireplace.

Agreed.

..and so it happened. Thanks mods. A lot of mods would of stuck to their guns.

I think it's important to note, that the mods need to do what feels right to them, but in that same context, even with the 'threat' about consequences regarding 'a new thread up about the closed topic',...it's still important for the regular people to be able to openly comment. As long as it is in a productive way, as this was clearly the case.

Things were resolved,..openly. Woot.

That's even better then a PM.
 
Well, I hope the OP comes back to read the responses and clarify what it is they are looking for so we can get back onto the topic and answer questions for them.
Totally agree. I was guessing, and others too, each using our own filters and backgrounds. Would have been good to get some clarification, as I asked for in my initial answer. Various people come to poly with a lack of adequate vocabulary to express how they feel, or believe that there is only one way to do things. We shouldn't be too harsh on that, in my opinion.
 
This isn't what the OP was asking, but I was wondering if the label "play partner" has more positive connotations than "fuck buddy." (It sounds more sex-positive, anyway).

Poly people who are also kinky often talk about having kinky play partners as part of their relationship networks. (Not all poly kinky people, obviously, but some!) A high level of trust and intimacy is required with a kinky play partner, even if you never fall "in love" or never do anything together that isn't sexual.

For me personally (I'm not quite vanilla, but I'm not really kinky either), I had such a wonderful experience having a "fuck buddy"-type relationship in my mid-20s that I can't imagine denying anyone the freedom to seek out that sort of thing. I suppose we were more friends-with-benefits because we did very much like each other as friends, but in truth we didn't have much in common as friends. We didn't have any reason or desire to hang out as friends. I went to his plays, he read my writing, we occasionally got together for sex. We never developed romantic feelings for one another, even though we were involved for almost 4 years.

He's the only past partner of mine (sexual or romantic) whom I keep in touch with and think of fondly. He was a much more positive force in my life than other men who had "loving" relationships with me.

So that experience has certainly shaped my approach to relationships.
 
This isn't what the OP was asking, but I was wondering if the label "play partner" has more positive connotations than "fuck buddy." (It sounds more sex-positive, anyway).

I wouldn't mind if the term "play partner" took on a broader definition, but my impression is that it is generally used in terms of kink (and does not always involved sex per se)

For me personally (I'm not quite vanilla, but I'm not really kinky either), I had such a wonderful experience having a "fuck buddy"-type relationship in my mid-20s that I can't imagine denying anyone the freedom to seek out that sort of thing. I suppose we were more friends-with-benefits because we did very much like each other as friends, but in truth we didn't have much in common as friends. We didn't have any reason or desire to hang out as friends. I went to his plays, he read my writing, we occasionally got together for sex. We never developed romantic feelings for one another, even though we were involved for almost 4 years.

He's the only past partner of mine (sexual or romantic) whom I keep in touch with and think of fondly. ...

That mirrors pretty well my relationship with the guy I chose as my first kiss and later my first sexual experience at ("PianoBoy" in my "Journey" blog). We were friends in a limited context - involving piano and theater - and got together occasionally for, initially kissing and petting, and later sex - but otherwise moved in separate circles. Our "pseudo"-relationship lasted for 5-6 years.

He's the closest thing to an "ex" that I have, even though we were never "together" or "in love"...I still think of him fondly, and am grateful for him "playing gently" with me for all those years as I was establishing my own sexual identity and relationship style - I think my positive experiences with him were very influential in my own development as a sexually-liberated confident strong sexy-girl.

Every few years I look him up and see what he's up to. Just last week I took MrS and Dude to a show he was hosting at a bar in a city not too far from where we live (MrS knows all about him and has met him a few times before, thinks he is a cool guy; Dude knows all about him as my "first" and has seen some of his performances on the internet)and we chatted and got re-acquainted between sets.

PS. PianoBoy is now "Married-With-Children" (who'd have ever thunk?)yet still the free-spirited freak I knew in high school...I am happy for him and glad to have seen him again.
 
For me it's really important to differentiate between a relationship that is naturally a FWB-type of thing and one where there is an imposed rule (usually set by a different relationship) that it's not allowed to progress beyond it.
 
For me it's really important to differentiate between a relationship that is naturally a FWB-type of thing and one where there is an imposed rule (usually set by a different relationship) that it's not allowed to progress beyond it.

I'm not very good at rules (although I am very particular - in general, I like to know exactly what the rules are and the ramifications for breaking them before I make my decision)...and I don't respond well to other people telling me what to do.

I'm much better at "negotiated boundaries" (which allow for re-negotiation) or "current agreements" (which implies some degree of temporary-ness - even if "temporary" = 19 years, as with our original OPP). But feelings cannot be ruled for/against - only actions - so a "rule" of FWB-only doesn't really seem work-able. I can agree not to have sex with/spend time with/talk to someone, I can't agree not to have feelings for them.

I make "rules" for myself (i.e. personal boundaires) which involve how I relate to others. I tend to break those as well..:rolleyes: (which generally leads to some nice periods of introspection, and, at least in one case, a relationship 2 decades strong).

Semantics is fun, eh?

JaneQ
 
Unlike some of the other debates and discussion on here which are most definitely about semantics, I think that this goes well beyond word-choice or meanings of words - I firmly believe that trying to put agreements in place which try to limit or somehow control how someone feels in their heart are counter-productive, repressive, and unrealistic.
 
I firmly believe that trying to put agreements in place which try to limit or somehow control how someone feels in their heart are counter-productive, repressive, and unrealistic.

Yes, definitely. I can't find a positive way of viewing a situation where someone would say, "You can sleep with my spouse but you two can't develop feelings for each other." Seems unrealistic at the very least. Controlling & unhealthy at worst.

On the other hand, people who choose to be monogamous together are choosing to limit and/or control their feelings for other people, aren't they?
 
PS. PianoBoy is now "Married-With-Children" (who'd have ever thunk?)yet still the free-spirited freak I knew in high school...I am happy for him and glad to have seen him again.

Ha! My free-spirited dude also ended up Married With Children (the unlikeliest outcome I would ever have predicted for him). He fell deeply in love at age 45, to a woman also in her mid-40s...they had an unexpected pregnancy and decided to get married, settle down, and raise the baby (a boy). Their house even has a picket fence! I think he had to give up acting and get a real job. :)
 
Unlike some of the other debates and discussion on here which are most definitely about semantics, I think that this goes well beyond word-choice or meanings of words - I firmly believe that trying to put agreements in place which try to limit or somehow control how someone feels in their heart are counter-productive, repressive, and unrealistic.

I feel like this is the situation that I'm in right now. My metamour J has always held veto power in her relationship with JP. As far as I know, all of his previous relationships have been FWB at the most. In fact, I think that is what we were originally supposed to be - but it does seem to have become more. He has been involved with other women over the years but I'm the first one that he's "brought home" - J is very much a homebody and not social at all. I now spend most weekends at their home with them and J will happily spend time on her computer while JP and I watch tv together. We refer to ourselves as the wife (J, obviously) and the mistress (me) - while letting others such as family and J's co-workers draw their own conclusions. I feel that this is becoming more than FWB between JP and I but the only word I can think of to describe my feelings at the moment is "attached" which is just so vague. It's a bit confusing - to say the least... Hard to negotiate/renegotiate boundaries when I can't yet put my feelings into words.

Yes, definitely. I can't find a positive way of viewing a situation where someone would say, "You can sleep with my spouse but you two can't develop feelings for each other."

Maybe someone who feels the need to say something like this has had an experience with a cowboy/cowgirl?
 
My experience has been that regardless of how the relationship starts, it will evolve on its own.

CG and I started as FWB and seem to have remained at that stage, although I briefly started having more feelings for him which then fizzled out. His wife would like for us to be more closely connected, but it's not something we can coolly decide.

TKO started decidedly as FWB, actually as play-partners, and has evolved into a fully poly relationship including a great connection with his other girlfriend. Who would have thought?

I guess when you meet new people you can't say up front what type of relationship is going to happen. Unless it's "love at first sight" (in which btw I don't believe), any relationship will tend to start as friends, evolve into including sex and/or and evolve into including feelings maybe in reverse order.
 
Back
Top