|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Dec 9, 2009 15:27:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 9, 2009 15:59:41 GMT
I could have told you that without experts...
Biologically, we are made to "mate" with the best possible choices of partners. That we have a high sexdrive when we are young, is for us to be able to find the person who (biological speaking) we want to reproduce with. Love is just for binding us towards one person so that the potential kids are taken care of.
The whole "oh no, there'll be harmful consequences!" stuff comes from A) people who never tried it or B) people who get no chance to try it... or C) religious moral preachers.
I like that the researcher added that physical risks must be looked at and related it to proper education. Since this was made in the US, that might be helpful to some to re-think their abstinence education ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Dec 11, 2009 5:57:42 GMT
You're forgetting that there are SOME people who it will cause harmful consequences. Just because for most people it's okay doesn't mean for everyone it would be fine.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2009 7:29:57 GMT
Anyone who is not honest about their intentions or feelings is going to get hurt with any FWB arrangement. So Lews is right. And the number of people who are genuinely, openly honest about such things is a lot lower than you might think. I've known people who were badly hurt by FWB because they were secretly hoping for more than they ever admitted to.
The trick with 'psychological harm' is that humans are a very diverse and resilient species and there's almost nothing we ever do that could genuinely be considered to cause us 'psychological harm'. You can bet that an awful lot of people who have done truly terrible things sleep like babies.
In all ways, the things we do and the attitudes we cultivate shape us as people. That is always worth remembering. And too often ignored by these kinds of study.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Dec 11, 2009 9:33:18 GMT
Erm, What both you and Lews seem to be missing is that the study didn't consider social consequences, it just considered the subject matter, which was casual sex with people you're already friends with. And there is a very good reason for this - Once you start considering social consequences you get into the whole realm of cheating and stigmatism.
So what they've basically said is that casual sex, in and of itself, doesn't cause any psychological problems, however if you're not careful it can cause physiological problems.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2009 11:50:35 GMT
Social and emotional consequences, DPR. Of which the emotional consequences are the more likely for many if not most and certainly the most important.
Now you tell me: is it honest to say that emotional and social damage is not 'psychological harm'?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Dec 11, 2009 12:11:37 GMT
erm, emotional harm comes under psychological harm - hence was ruled out by the study.
If you could outline the sort of emotional consequences that you think could actually cause psychological damage that are directly caused by casual sex with friends, as opposed to the social backlash of said act, it would be greatly appreciated.
And Social harm is definitely not the same as psychological harm, it may cause subsequent psychological harm, or it may instead cause subsequent psychological strengthening - assuming that there is any (social harm). This all depends on the individual in question.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2009 18:00:15 GMT
What value does any study have if it ignores as inconvenient any possible consequences that it would prefer not to recognise? Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about it?
Rather than 'psychological harm' which is not measurable and frequently depends on the interpretation and/or views of the observer anyway, let's say 'psychological alteration'. Not least because it's a clearer term.
Now: is it possible for anyone to engage in any form of new behaviour without psychological alteration? I'm sure I don't have to answer that one for you or anyone else.
As for emotional consequence, it is a scientific fact - IE nothing ever claimed by me, but a thing verified repeatedly by scientific study - that for many and perhaps most women it is impossible to separate sex from emotion. In other words that for many/most women, the act of having sex repeatedly will result in stronger emotional bonds with the person they are having sex with.
There is also the honesty factor. Not everyone going into an FWB is totally open and honest about what they really want. Sometimes that changes over time (Note paragraph above, though it's not always women by any means who is guilty of this), sometimes they were not honest with themselves and sometimes emotions genuinely change.
All of which are possible emotional consequences. And that's completely ignoring the possibility of pregnancy or STDs, which is present in most human sexual relationships.
For anyone going into an FWB believing sex is essentially a meaningless act, like eating when hungry or drinking when thirsty - and far more importantly genuinely feeling it, not wishing they did - the prospect of direct emotional or psychological 'harm' is minute and rests on the possibilities of pregnancy, disease or social consequence.
For anyone else, the possibility of emotional harm and psychological alteration is most definitely real.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 12, 2009 3:21:43 GMT
If someone is going into a FWB thing without protecting himself, he is an idiot.
I don't think the idea of the study was to look at any possible consequences, because all of those things you said Eli, can be happen with a "normal" relationship too.
The study simply said - one doesn't need to feel bad about a fling or too in highschool/university, because it does not make people any more damaged then any other form of relationship.
And the assumption that women can mostly not seperate sex from emotions is not proven by any valid study afaik.
I had FWB and the once that did not effect me at all (especially not badly) are the once I actually REALLY was friends with. If someone is effected by something like this, it is usually because they do it with aquantainces, not real friends. That's my experience anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 12, 2009 4:45:24 GMT
The difference is that there's no chance of psychological or emotional benefit with FWB, Kit. Unless it turns into something it was never intended to be, of course. It's purely a physical release, but like all other forms of human behaviour it is both perception and attitude forming.
It likely made no difference to you at all because you see sex as an entirely mechanical process, as devoid of meaning as eating a normal meal. As such, there is no possibility of you taking harm from FWB because your attitudes and perceptions are already entirely aligned with it.
Most people do not know themselves and what they want from future relationships as well as you do.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 12, 2009 9:12:12 GMT
The difference is that there's no chance of psychological or emotional benefit with FWB, Kit. Apart from higher self confidence. And a decrease in stress levels. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Dec 12, 2009 13:27:29 GMT
The difference is that there's no chance of psychological or emotional benefit with FWB, Kit. Unless it turns into something it was never intended to be, of course. It's purely a physical release, but like all other forms of human behaviour it is both perception and attitude forming. It likely made no difference to you at all because you see sex as an entirely mechanical process, as devoid of meaning as eating a normal meal. As such, there is no possibility of you taking harm from FWB because your attitudes and perceptions are already entirely aligned with it. Most people do not know themselves and what they want from future relationships as well as you do. If that was true, then it wouldn't be "friends with benefits" as there would be no difference between one night stands, random sex through a variety of mechanisms and friends with benefits. As it is, the study distinctly seperates the fact that it's casual sex with "friends" from any of the others because it is very different. Espically for women.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 12, 2009 17:50:09 GMT
The point of FWB is basically convenience, DPR. People burned by relationships and not seeking that kind of emotional closeness at the moment (IE already emotionally damaged), those who don't feel they can get a relationship (IE low self esteem), or those who do not want a relationship at that point in their life (Too many possible reasons to list, not all of which are bad) are those most likely to get into an FWB arrangement.
It's not unusual for FWBs to be between exes, where they are still friends but have drifted away from a romantic relationship, but those are the types most likely to have hidden agendas and other undeclared issues.
So it's not always bad, as I've already noted. At best, however, it is a 'null' arrangement, offering neither harm nor benefit on a psychological level.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Dec 12, 2009 22:38:34 GMT
My response is strictly to do with the method used. First of all, it is completely ridiculous that a news outlet in the U.K. is running this story. It was a very small study over a very short period of time within a very small group. It isn't supposed to be generalized, especially generalized as having meaning on another continent. There also is no mention if it is a random representative sample or volunteer, which makes a huge difference. It is annoying me that there is very little concrete data in the article. How were the questions worded? Were they surveyed individually or while in a room surrounded by their peers? Were they surveyed only once over the course of this year or was it multiple times?
How on earth could anyone take this seriously when it was only conducted over a year in Minnesota? It would need to have lasted longer than that and to check in over a lengthy period of time. What was the operational definition of psychological damage? Wawawa.
Edited to say: No, not just that! I mean, honestly how could you tell if these people were at a higher risk for psychological problems (Whatever do you mean by that, people?!) if it was only over a year? What!
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 12, 2009 23:14:35 GMT
^ All of which are VERY good questions!
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 15, 2009 5:02:36 GMT
@ Eli (my answers to your responses to me)
How come you assume I see sex as something "entirely mechanical", if I would do so, seriously, I have toys for that.
Not making a gigantic deal out of sex doesn't mean someone is emotional dead towards something.
I don't make a big deal of gift giving either, or doing something nice for a friend, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything to me. It's interesting you assume that, you must have made bad experiences.
And what I'm mostly suprised about Eli, is your idea that it has no positive effect or is a null arrangement how you worded it. A ONS is a null arrangement, that is something, at least I had before, because I was (possibly) bored out of my mind or tipsy.
A FWB thing though is with FRIENDS, so it alread can't be totally irrelevant. I guess people are different in this but I differ greatly between a "sex buddy" (someone you only call when you have a "need") and a FWB. With the FWB I'm actually friends, so I'm not solemnly meeting that person to have intercourse but to go bowling or see a movie.
I (personally again) would never start the idea to have a FWB with an ex. For once, because nobody can be 100% friends with an ex. You can be very good friends but not trust-to-the-end friends, because you had feelings for that person other then friendship.
Before current BF, I had a solid FWB. I wouldn't call him that though, because we were and are friends first.
What the positive effect of a FWB is? It's fun.
Very similar to what I said about my feeling towards Christmas in the Forum News thread, adults seem to forget that fun was once not something going hand in hand with responsibility and therefore is rather avoided. When you was a kid, fun was something you could gain from doing what feels good. No strings attached.
That's what I'm (I can only ever talk for me of course) still did. This friend was a FWB too because it was fun. Nothing more, nothing less. There were no love other than friendship involved and we weren't lusty nutties that striped naked by the second we met. We would meet to go ice skating, just like we ended up doing well.. other stuff if we wanted to. Usualy very planned btw.
That might be another thing. Because there was no love involved, we would actually plan when we wanted to have any kind of sexual relations. Much more like a game then spontanious lust or whatever people call it in movies.
I think your biggest mistakes Eli, is to assume that people who join FWB relations are automatically damaged from former relationships and that you don't comsider simple fun to be a valid enough reason to join.
I know you are very secretive about yourself, but I would simply suggest you personally, did not make good experiences with that type of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 15, 2009 7:23:27 GMT
ONS is usually completely destructive rather than null, as it causes people to regard each other as objects to be used (If indeed they do not do so already). It is usually an expression of insecurity or low self esteem (Or the consumption of too much alcohol, of course, which is itself a negative).
The positive effect of any friendship is fun, amongst other things. That's not in any way enhanced by being FWB. A good friend is a good friend. Or do you feel your friendship was strengthened and deepened by the sex? If you do, I'll have to concede a positive effect is possible (Though for most, unlikely).
You are completely right that I do not consider 'fun' a valid reason to become FWB, because it's not a valid reason for anything. People don't ever just have 'fun', believe it or not. There's always some reason WHY something is 'fun' for them. The reason why is the true motive.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 15, 2009 7:49:20 GMT
You are completely right that I do not consider 'fun' a valid reason to become FWB, because it's not a valid reason for anything. People don't ever just have 'fun', believe it or not. There's always some reason WHY something is 'fun' for them. The reason why is the true motive. And here I disagree. How I explained, as a child, you also regard fun as fun and nothing else. Fun, means positive feelings evolve, one's happy. That does not need explaination. And yes it did change the friendship, we both had less stress, we had something to giggle about later and really if you trust someone you don't love enough to have sex with him, you gain just that, more trust. So yes it did strenghen our friendship.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Dec 15, 2009 10:12:52 GMT
Erm, Fun/enjoyable can be a reason in and of itself - There may be reasons why something that people usually consider fun might not be fun, however these usually involve past harmful experiances.
For many people the beginning and end of why they do something they enjoy is "because I enjoy it" - Most of these things cannot be broken down into I enjoy it because - as there are so many different reasons why it is enjoyable from past experiance to now that it is now enjoyable because of "Habit". Equally 1 bad experiance can destroy that.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 15, 2009 10:24:57 GMT
Kit - if it deepened your friendship, then clearly positive things CAN come out of FWB. I concede the possibility.
***
Kit & DPR - you are simply completely wrong about 'fun'. Anything and everything that we do that we enjoy, we enjoy for a reason. Whether we are aware of that reason or not is irrelevant to the case. Just as 'happy' is not a state that exists without cause, neither is 'fun'. Which is why some things that are totally boring to one person would be 'fun' to someone else.
To make it clear: 'fun' is a state of enjoyment reached through some activity, right? As in 'having fun'. We can have fun alone or in company, but 'fun' is always a feedback process. As such, there is no such thing as 'having fun' without cause.
|
|