Archive | Sunday , October 5 , 2008

Friends With Benefits Article 2#

 

By Diane Mapes

  

 

 

 

Enlarge this photo

 

Related

We met outside the Queen Anne post office. Bob (as I’ll call him) was a thirtysomething personal trainer, new in town, recently divorced, and inspired by the day’s crisp sunshine. After a few minutes of pleasant chitchat, he handed me his card; not wanting to be found guilty of the infamous Seattle slap-down, I quickly reciprocated. Two hours later, Bob called.

“I really enjoyed talking to you,” he said. “You seem bright and funny and friendly. I was wondering if you’d like to get together sometime for … ” A drink, a movie, dinner, my mind skipped ahead.

“For, um, I guess most people call it friends with benefits,” he said.

My mind tripped over an assumption and fell flat on its face.

“Let me get this straight,” I said. “We’ve known each other all of five minutes and you’re calling to ask if I’ll have sex with you?”

“Well, we’d have coffee first,” he told me cheerfully.

Today’s dating scene is about as easy to pigeonhole as the color of paint. Sure, there are plenty of traditionalists out there, but there are many others who don’t date so much as hang out or hook up (AXE, which makes male grooming products, even named Seattle “the best city in America for hooking up”).

Some rely on what I’ll politely call “bed buddies” to get them through the lonely times. Others turn to their friends or neighbors for that occasional cup of sugar. But Bob’s proposition seemed curious even for these bi-curious times. When, I wondered, had friends with benefits turned into strangers with benefits? What exactly was going on Out There?

That was fun … next!

Alan, a 44-year-old SGG — single guy with goatee — who described himself on his Craig’s List ad as “thoughtful, funny, creative and articulate,” seemed a good place to start. Recently out of a seven-year marriage, Alan was looking to enjoy all the benefits of dating (including safe sex), but with a variety of women at once.

advertising
Click Here

“I guess I’d call this open dating,” says Alan, who, like others for this story, asked that we not use his last name. He has corresponded with about 20 women in the past two months, many of whom have passed on his commitment-free philosophy. “The natural expectation seems to be that you date as a first step to being in a relationship. What I’m referring to is endless dating. We can have a relationship as friends, but I don’t want to be tied down.”

The irony, of course, is that as a poet, chef, musician and artist, Alan appears to be the perfect candidate for romance. Even his first Craig’s List date reads like out a page out of the hipster’s handbook of love: They met at a coffeehouse on Broadway, went to “The Dukes of Hazzard” at a local drive-in to neck, then watched the sun come up over breakfast.

But instead of coming home and penning a sonnet to his new lady friend, Alan came home and started e-mailing other women. Some of whom he’s now seeing — on the nights he’s not seeing his drive-in date. And they all know about each other.

“Right now, I’m only dating three women,” he says. “Well, kind of four.”

The new rules?

Confusion seems understandable. After all, dating — along with matching tote bags, sex and commitment — has changed dramatically over the decades. Fifty years ago, a single woman would sooner hide out in a darkened apartment than let her neighbors know she didn’t have a Saturday night steady. These days, she’ll post her picture on AdultFriendFinder or Lavalife’s “Intimate Encounters” section to find a no-strings sex partner for the night.

“A lot of my friends will do hookups or casual sex,” says Emily, a 25-year-old educator who recently became single again. “But that’s not for me. I guess I have a little bit more respect for sex. I think that you should be in love instead of sleeping with someone you don’t care about.”

Alan, of course, claims he does care about the various women he’s sleeping with — he just doesn’t care about them that way. And both he and Bob (whose candor still has me wondering whether I should shake his hand or slap his face), are completely up-front about their lack of romantic interest. But do we really want that kind of honesty when it comes to our so-called love life?

“If somebody has no intention of looking for someone special in their life and just wants sex for fun and pleasure, isn’t it better that they tell you up front?” says Pepper Schwartz, University of Washington sociology professor and author of “Finding Your Perfect Match.”

“The honesty may be a little difficult to take, but it might hurt less in the long run.”

Buddies and booty calls

Ah yes, the long run — that thing so many singles are thinking about when they head out into the dating trenches. But today, there are lots of short-runners out there, too, whether by choice or by circumstance.

“Sometimes you realize you just can’t be in a relationship with someone,” says Marie, a 34-year-old bachelor girl who works in the beauty business. “A guy could be totally hot and then he opens his mouth and immediately you know he’s not a good fit.”

Selfishness, poor self-esteem, a refusal to settle — there are dozens of reasons we end up in the bedroom with someone we don’t necessarily want to take home to Mom. Some people simply don’t have a capacity for true intimacy. Others just can’t turn down an easy opportunity.

“A few years ago, I met a guy and we went out on a couple of dates, but we just didn’t click,” says Mary, a 36-year-old technical writer. “But I knew he was available to sleep with. And I have to admit there were some lonely cold winter nights when he would call and I’d drop a hint and 20 minutes later, he’d show up at my door.”

Mary acknowledges the buddy system may have worked better for her than for her buddy, who eventually began to grouse about the inequities in their relationship. But in the caveat emptor world of casual sex, is it our responsibility to look after our lovers’ hearts along with our own? Or is it enough to just “be honest?”

“He knew I didn’t want anything more — I was clear about that — but I was the one who should have refrained,” she says. “In retrospect, I was playing with fire.”

Neither Mary nor her buddy were seriously burned, and both have since moved on to respective long-term relationships. But Daniel, a 35-year-old Seattle sales associate, didn’t fare as well. After six months in a friends-with-benefits arrangement (the pair did everything together, from working out to waking up), he broke the cardinal rule of the casual relationship and fell in love.

Shortly thereafter, his friend started dating someone else. Not only was Daniel left without a buddy or any benefits, he didn’t even have the satisfaction of a decent breakup.

“I’m moving away from the friends-with-benefits arrangement,” he says today. “There’s always one person that ends up getting hurt. And I don’t want to be that person or be the person doing that to someone else.”

Rules of un-engagement

Herein lies one of the flaws of the buddy system. Spend one too many nights with your beneficent friend and you may develop feelings for them, a huge no-no in the upside-down world of buddydom.

How do people get around this? On Seinfeld, Jerry and Elaine had a set of rules: no sleepovers and no next-day phone calls. Others have found it helpful to limit their bed buddies to people they could never date — someone too young, too old, or too unsophisticated for public consumption. Still others simply hook up (safely, one hopes) with a new buddy every time they need some company.

Whatever the case, most singles agree these arrangements are short-term.

“You can’t have friends with benefits forever,” says 25-year-old Emily. “It’s based on sex instead of a deeper connection.”

That missing connection may be the real downside to the buddy zone. After all, no one can exist on a diet of devil’s food cake forever; after awhile, you fail to appreciate what a sweet treat it truly is. And so it goes with our sexual appetites. Stay in the zone too long and you may become jaded, then contemptuous, and soon, your lovers become nothing more than disposable sex partners, or “DSPs,” as one of Marie’s friends calls them.

Pepper Schwartz refers to this as “the subtle danger” of the buddy system. By adopting a strictly utilitarian attitude, “you can become more cynical and less romantic about sex,” she says. “It becomes a question of whether you’ll be able to have a transcending experience with the person you love, or if sex will be mechanical and utilitarian even then.”

New York Times Article: Friends With Benefits Article 1#

Friends With Benefits, and Stress Too

Michael Kupperman

 

 

Published: October 2, 2007

To some, it may seem like an ideal relationship, less stressful than an affair, longer lived than a fling or that elusive one-night stand. You can even sit around in your sweats and watch “Friends” reruns together, feeling vaguely reassured.

Yet relationships in which close friends begin having sex come with their own brand of awkwardness, according to the first study to explore the dynamics of such pairs, often called friends with benefits, or F.W.B..

The relationships tend to have little romantic passion, but stir the same fears that stalk lovers: namely, that one person will fall harder than the other.

Paradoxically, and perhaps predictably, the study suggests, these physical friendships often occlude one of the emotional arteries of real friendship, openness. Friends who could once talk about anything now have an unstated taboo topic — the relationship itself. In every conversation, there is innuendo; in every room, an elephant.

The research, conducted among Michigan State University students, confirmed previous findings that most college students report having had at least one such relationship. Although that is undoubtedly true of many couples throughout history, “friends with benefits” have become a cultural signature of today’s college and postcollege experience.

“The study really adds to the little we know about these relationships,” said Paul Mongeau, a professor of communications at Arizona State University who was not involved in the research. “One of the most interesting things I get from it,” he said, “is this sense that people in these relationships are afraid to develop feelings for the other person, because those feelings might be unreciprocated.”

In the study, appearing in the current issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior, Melissa Bisson, a former graduate student at Michigan State, and Timothy Levine, a professor in the communications department, surveyed 125 young men and women and found that 60 percent reported having had at least one friend with benefits.

One-tenth of these relationships went on to become full-scale romances, the study found. About a third stopped the sex and remained friends, and one in four eventually broke it off — the sex and the friendship. The rest continued as friends-with-benefits relationships.

In a follow-up study, the researchers gave 90 students who reported having at least one such relationship a battery of questionnaires asking about passion, commitment and communication.

“We found,” Dr. Levine said, “that people got into these relationships because they didn’t want commitment. It was perceived as a safe relationship, at least at first. But also that there was this growing fear that the one person would become more attracted than the other.”

Yet, he added, the overall qualities of the relationships appeared to be true to the name. On standard psychological measures, they appeared more like friendships than romances.

Friends with benefits scored in the middle on a scale assessing intimacy and low on passion and commitment, the study found. “When scores were compared to previous findings with romantic couples, scores on all three dimensions were lower, with the largest differences observed in commitment followed by passion,” the authors wrote.

The relationships may be less common than reported. “Friends with benefits” appears to have become an umbrella term for a wide variety of sexual arrangements, some of which are quite familiar, Dr. Mongeau said.

In addition to budding romances, he said, the “friends” may also be former lovers who occasionally see each other or they may be people who hang out at the same places and now and then end up wrapped around each other, even though they are not really friends.

Dr. Mongeau said the study seemed to have captured the dissonant, circular thinking that characterized what it felt like for a friendship to enter treacherous territory.

“There’s clearly a strong desire to be with this other person, who fills important needs,” he added. “But at the same time, it’s as if I’m saying, ‘O.K., I’m not going to get passionately involved — because then it’s at risk of being a real romance.’”