FWB question

[Star Bit]

Is there a difference between FWBs and uncommitted/casual relationships?

(edit, Googled this and it seems most people say they're synonymous, though some differentiate them by not dating or showing PDA with people who are just friends. Though you don't have sex with people who are just friends either, so... Relationships also don't have to be public, so things like pet names, presents, and booked time on holidays are also signs, but i also don't see how any of these things can be included and it not be serious/committed. Casual relationships and casual dating also seem to commonly be synonymous yet some differentiate them too. Some say dating doesn't include sex while a relationship may, but others say dating is not committed but a relationship is. I rarely ever saw anyone differentiate FWB by absence in romantic feelings, yet all agreed that FWBs cannot have commitment. The definition of date also varies. Some say it's intentionally spending time with just eachother, others say it's a budding relationship in which they're getting to know the one another; thus if you're already friends you can't be dating, but couples still go on dates, so if they go out it would then be a relationship date instead of a budding relationship date.)

Also, if someone wanted a FWB in the sense that they want what's physically typical of romantic relationships (e.g. not cuddling but non-platonic things like caressing, licking, etc.) wouldn't they actually be in a romantic relationship? (committed or not)

(edit, Depending on how the above relationship types are defined would depend on how this is defined, but it certainly would not be a QPR if it contained this.)

[nanogretchen4]

I think in a FWB relationship the participants were already friends and the benefits happen on an occasional or off and on basis. In an uncommitted relationship the benefits probably started early on and take place regularly for the duration of the relationship. I don't think caressing makes a relationship romantic if the participants are not in love.

[Star Bit]

But caressing and whatnot isn't platonic either (well, it technically can be but assuming it's not being done in a maternal way). Romantic attraction is not required for a romantic relationship. Just like sexual attraction is not required for a sexual relationship, just being sexually active is.

[Guest]

As for the title question... I don't see much of a difference between them. Commitment is one major marker for the romance aspect that separates FWB from "normal", escalator-bound relationships, IMO.

As for the other question...

You simply can't compare sex and romance in this way - sex is an activity, romance is an emotion (or a conglomerate of emotions). And since aros are, by definition, completely unable to feel these emotions, I think it's literally impossible for aromantics to be in a romantic relationship*; at most, they can pretend to be in one. One of the tools for that pretense may well be sensual activities like kissing, caresses, etc. (let's remember that sensual =/= romantic, which the existence of FWBs pretty much solidly proves), but those would be devoid of any romantic feeling - which is all that it takes for making them non-romantic. (As for platonic - let's keep in mind that for a relationship to be platonic requires it to involve neither romance nor sex - the is no such thing as a "platonic sexual relationship", much as some people are weirdly trying to redifine this, it's simply not how anyone uses the word is outside of internet subcultures - and many people would lump intense sensual activities - groping, naked cuddling, etc. - in with sex in regards to this question.)

Either way - everybody who feels romantic emotions for someone is most definitely not aromantic; if they still claim to be aro, they are wrong and need to be corrected on their obvious and glaring misuse of the label. And romantic relationships can'te xist without romatoc emotions - that's the indispensable core component.

* Except maybe if it's a one-sided romance in which the other partner has romantic feelings for the aro, but the aro doesn't reciprocate them... which, I guess, would be a fine basis for a 'ship if the other partner is lithro, but otherwise doesn't sound like a stable setup, at all.

[AshenPhoenix]

I think it depends on the stage of the people in it.

If they're only really having sex, and there's not much in between, then yes, there is a difference, because they're only really fulfilling a sexual urge with each other, and not really developing feelings.

Granted, some people manage this, but for the most part, in a FWB situation, things generally get a little bit more emotionally involved. I don't know if I'd call it an "uncommitted relationship", because it's still missing many hallmarks of a normal relationship (extended time spent with them, romantic gestures, romantic feelings depending etc. etc.). I'd call it something more along the lines of an "informal" relationship.

That being said, FWB situations have a tendency to evolve into relationships anyway, so maybe my comment is for null.

[Star Bit]

@Mysticus

Sexual doesn't equal romantic, yes, but other sensual things, pretty much yes. Aromantics can be in romantic relationships and two cupioromantics can make a romantic relationship; emotions have nothing to do with the fact that they are in a romantic relationship. A gay person currently or previously dating the opposte sex still dated the opposite sex. Romantic feelings aren't the only thing that make a relationship romantic. Someone can literally do all the things a couple does, and with the same intensity, yet just kuz they don't specifically feel romantic attraction they're not a romantic couple?? Yes, queerplatonic can get close but not that close. If feelings made relationships then having a friend crushing on you wouldn't make your relationship with them platonic anymore. Wanting a FWB where you lick the other person isn't platonic.

[Guest]

emotions have nothing to do with the fact that they are in a romantic relationship. [...]

Romantic feelings aren't the only thing that make a relationship romantic.

Yes, they are the only thing, and they have literally everything to do with that fact.

If they aren't, then I simply state hereby I can no longer believe "aromantics" really exist, and strongly encouarge any halfway reasonable person to denounce it as a made up label that describes no actually real phenomenon - these self-proclaimed "aros" are obviously nothing but special snowflakes who invented a silly word to make their life seem less mundane and average than it is. This "aromanticness" you seem to have in mind is NOT in any way a legitimate orientation or identity; it's a silly internet fad of people with nothing better to do in their boring little lives.

I stand by it: Two aromantics can NEVER EVER be in a romantic relationship with each other. No way, no how. It's utterly impossible, by definition. Fullstop, end of story, case closed forever.

If they are in a romantic relationship with each other, their "aromanticness" is immediately invalidated - They. Are. Not. Aro. Demonstrably. And anyone who feeds their delusion that they were aro is harming actual, legitimate aromantics in the process. We should not stand for this, not for a single second. They should be strongly encouraged, and in no uncertain terms, to drop the label immediately, because it clearly does not fit them.

And likewise, if a gay person dated the opposite sex and had romantic feelings for them, then that means they're simply not gay, end of story. They're demonstrably bi- or panromantic. The presence of these emotions is the deciding factor - the only deciding factor there is in it.

I will not tolerate your opinion on this, Star. It's utterly wrong and misguided, and dangerously so. It totally undermines all credibility for aromanticness as a valid concept.

[Guest]

Some time ago now, I was committed friends with benefits with a friend of mine (we called it CPFB - committed pseudo-fuck buddies haha)

We agreed we didn't have romantic feelings for each other anymore, didn't want a relationship, but don't get off on intimacy without commitment (I don't anyway, it was more a condition that I put on the friendship) so we participated in kink and sensual acts exclusively with each other for some time.

I think this is quite common for people who aren't in love and don't want a relationship, but are more comfortable relying exclusively on each other for sex because it's awkward getting to know someone new, no chance of diseases if you're exclusive with each other etc etc. You're just friends, but you fuck each other because you enjoy it and commit to being each other's only sex partner until one or both of you are ready to look for a relationship.

So yeah there is a difference when looked at like that.

EDIT oops forgot to say, Myst is right. It's not a romantic relationship unless romantic feelings are involved (is that what you were saying? This will be awkies if I misread you haha)

Sex literally can just be sex (and obviously all sorts of actions go with sex.. Kissing, caressing, baths together, whatever) it literally can be JUST fucking with no romance at all involved..Two people doing that aren't in a romantic relationship if to them they're just friends that are fucking. Actions don't define a type of relationship, the feelings involved are what defines it.

[Guest]

@Ficto... haha, that's interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that being a thing that folks do (shows how very much non-monogamous I am, I guess? :D )

ETA: No awkwardness, that is indeed what I'm saying. Romantic emotions are the only thing that decides whether or not a 'ship is romantic. Frankly, it baffles me how that isn't obvious to a level of "duh!!!?".

[Star Bit]

So two Cupioromantics can't make a romantic relationship; one of them would have to feel romantically? And Cupios aren't aromantic because they DESIRE romance. But if you're saying two aros being in a romantic relationship wouldn't be aro then you're admitting that feelings aren't the only thing that make a romantic relationship. And this perspective wouldn't threaten the aromantic identity because a majority of people who identify as so probably don't have the impulse to lick, grope, or (non-platonically) caress other people. Are you also saying if an aro is in a romantic relationship period; even if they don't genuinely desire it they're not aro?

If they aren't, then I simply state hereby I can no longer believe "aromantics" really exist, and strongly encouarge any halfway reasonable person to denounce it as a made up label that describes no actually real phenomenon - these self-proclaimed "aros" are obviously nothing but special snowflakes who invented a silly word to make their life seem less mundane and average than it is. This "aromanticness" you seem to have in mind is NOT in any way a legitimate orientation or identity; it's a silly internet fad of people with nothing better to do in their boring little lives.

Not like that wasn't/isn't done with asexuality; with people who desire sex but find no one sexually alluring. You've even said people who want to enact a fetish with a partner and then masturbate aren't asexual but Gray-ace at least. Same concept really.

@Panficto

Wouldn't that just be a casual/uncommitted relationship (even if you're temporarily committed)? More like... semi-committed relationship.

But whatever you call it, wouldn't it still depend on how deep the relationship goes? If you're essentially doing everything a couple does (past the kink) and may even have all the other types of attraction but still don't feel romantically wouldn't it be a relationship and not FWB? Or if they want to live with eachother wouldn't that be a relationship?

Actions don't define a type of relationship, the feelings involved are what defines it.

Again, that would mean a friend crushing on another friend would make their relationship romantic. Or that aces who are in sexual relationships aren't actually so because they don't feel sexually about the other person. No, feelings aren't the only thing that make relationship types; actions alone can too.

[Guest]

Two friends fucking is two friends enjoying the benefit of fucking. If they decide they only want to fuck each other (it's not like everyone is a sex-crazed lunatic who wants to fuck multiple people at once haha) then they're friends with the benefit of only fucking each other. Sex really IS a benefit (because it's fun and feels amazing) but if you've both established you're nothing more than friends, then you're n nothing more than friends with the benefit of doing things to each others genitals which is something you don't get to do with everyone.

It really is that simple!

[Star Bit]

Yes, two friends fucking is that simple, but when there's more to it it's not. According to the definition of a casual relationship it's still a romantic relationship but just atypical. Friend apples to romantic partners too; that's where girlfriend and boyfriend came from, so considering eachother friends is irrelevant.

"Casual dating or a casual relationship is a physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have casual sex or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting the extra commitments of a more formal romantic relationship."

[Telecaster68]

Why complicate it though?

[Star Bit]

^ Is this directed at me or the others?

[banana monkey]

Is there a difference between FWBs and uncommitted relationships?

Also, if someone wanted a FWB in the sense that they want what's physically typical of romantic relationships (e.g. caressing) wouldn't they actually be in a romantic relationship? (committed or not)

I'm guessing what your talking about here is 2 friends who engage in behaviours physically typical of romantic relationships (usually certain sensual activities) but they don't engage in sexual activities as with traditional FWB.

If that is what you mean, wouldn't it be a romantic friendship (or possibly even a QPR that is based on sensual activities, but I hesitate about that one) not a romantic relationship.

Oh dear, we could get into a discussion about what the differences are between romantic friendships (and or QPR's) and romantic relationships as it does leave me wondering..... cue another thread......

edit, I've thought about it some more, this is what I used to have with my best friend, the relationship developed overtime but when we first started cuddling, I would say it was romantic friendship or QP friendship, the point in which it became a romantic relationship was when we verbally agreed it was a relationship. (ie a committed relationship) (although we disagreed on its type, between QPR and romantic so it could have been either)

[Telecaster68]

You. If you've ever been in one, you'd know thing about FWB relationships is that they're really simple. That's their big attraction. No romantic angst, no jealousy, no plans for a life together, but they're not cold or casual either.

Dumping definitions and subdefinitions and ifs and buts and romantic qualifications on them is just complicating the basic truth that they involve two friends who fuck. There is nothing more to them than that.

[Guest]

If you've ever been in one, you'd know thing about FWB relationships is that they're really simple. That's their big attraction. No romantic angst, no jealousy, no plans for a life together, but they're not cold or casual either.

Dumping definitions and subdefinitions and ifs and buts and romantic qualifications on them is just complicating the basic truth that they involve two friends who fuck. There is nothing more to them than that.

CouIdn't have said it better myseIf.

[Star Bit]

So then this definition of casual realtionships is wrong?

"Casual dating or a casual relationship is a physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have casual sex or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting the extra commitments of a more formal romantic relationship. Casual dating may be part-time, or for a limited time. It may or may not entail partner-exclusivity. In each case, the relationship's dominance in the lives of those involved is being voluntarily limited, and there is usually a sense that the relationship is intended to endure only so long as both parties wish it to. Casual relationships sometimes include mutual support, affection and enjoyment, which underpin other forms of loving relationship."

Also, these relationships are intended to be temporary, but what about people who want them to be permanent? If someone was in a relationship with another person and thought it was committed due to virtually explicit actions but found out the other person wasn't committed/never felt romantically/only thought they were FWB were they in a FWB and not a one-sided committed relationship? Committed relationships are the only real romantic relationship?

And I'm not trying to complicate things, I'm addressing this gray area; just like asexuals aren't trying to complicate things just because they experience things separately. And just because people thought romance and sex were one thing or that things were simple doesn't mean they aren't actually complicated. So I'm not making things complicated, they were already complicated.

If that is what you mean, wouldn't it be a romantic friendship (or possibly even a QPR that is based on sensual activities, but I hesitate about that one) not a romantic relationship.

But those actions wouldn't be platonic and thus not be a QPR. Cuddling applies to QPRs because it can be platonically done; licking and caressing are not.

[Guest]

So then this definition of casual realtionships is wrong?

"Casual dating or a casual relationship is a physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have casual sex or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting the extra commitments of a more formal romantic relationship. Casual dating may be part-time, or for a limited time. It may or may not entail partner-exclusivity. In each case, the relationship's dominance in the lives of those involved is being voluntarily limited, and there is usually a sense that the relationship is intended to endure only so long as both parties wish it to. Casual relationships sometimes include mutual support, affection and enjoyment, which underpin other forms of loving relationship."

Also, these relationships are intended to be temporary, but what about people who want them to be permanent? If someone was in a relationship with someone and thought it was committed due to virtually explicit actions but found out the other person wasn't committed/never felt romantically/only thought they were FWB were they in a FWB and not a one-sided committed relationship? Committed relationships are the only real romantic relationship? And I'm not trying to complicate things, I'm addressing this gray area; just like asexuals aren't trying to complicate things just because they experience things separately. And just because people thought romance and sex were one thing or that things were simple doesn't mean they aren't actually complicated. So I'm not making things complicated, they were already complicated.

CasuaI dating and having a fuckbuddy are two different things for many peopIe. Ask someone who has done/had both. CasuaI dating is more, casuaI. Fucking a friend can be very far from casuaI (depending on how weII you know them and for how Iong etc, it can mean a Iot!) but that doesn't mean you're doing anything other than fucking a friend.

You're pIacing aII this importance on fucking Iike doing it changes things for everyone, but for some peopIe it IiteraIIy can be just a fun, pIeasurabIe activity Iike pIaying goIf. If two friends pIay goIf every day, does that mean they're in a casuaI reIationship? Or are they just two friends who pIay goIf? ..Why does sex have to be any different just because Iess cIothes are invoIved?

[Guest]

So two Cupioromantics can't make a romantic relationship; one of them would have to feel romantically?

Correct.

And Cupios aren't aromantic because they DESIRE romance.

Not sure about that. You are well aware that I consider "cupiosexuals" to simply be sexuals, fullstop; as for "cupioromantics", as you describe them here, I would rate them as aros who are dysphoric about being aro - they want to feel romantic emotions (which would be an indispensably neccessary condition to be in a romantic 'ship), but can't.

But if you're saying two aros being in a romantic relationship wouldn't be aro then you're admitting that feelings aren't the only thing that make a romantic relationship.

Whut? How does that follow, at all?

I'm saying that two aros CANNOT EVER be in a romantic relationship with each other. They can pretend and play make-believe, but it will never actually be a romantic relationship, because either (1) they are aro and thus incapable of these feelings to start with, or (2) they are feeling these emotions and thus simply aren't aromantic.

Your "if" clause there suffers from a severe case of flying pigs. ;)

And this perspective wouldn't threaten the aromantic identity because a majority of people who identify as so probably don't have the impulse to lick, grope, or (non-platonically) caress other people.

Actions are not the same as emotions. Aros can do all the kissing and cuddling and groping etc. in the world, and they can enjoy it. They can even desire it. That doesn't make them romantic in the least bit. The only thing that immediately and completely invalidates their (then, obviously falsely claimed) aro identity is if they feel romantic emotions - and that holds true regardless of the actions. Even if they have no interest whatsoever in cuddling, kissing, etc. - they are still romantic. The emotions are the deciding aspect, and the only deciding aspect.

Emotions present == romantic.

No emotions ever == aromantic.

=> Aros cannot ever be in (reciprocated) romantic relationships; that's a contradiction in itself.

You are conflating sensuality and romance. That's just as factually wrong a stance as conflating romance and sex.

Are you also saying if an aro is in a romantic relationship period; even if they don't genuinely desire it they're not aro?

If it's a mutual romantic relationship (and not just being with someone who feels that way for them, but they themselves don't reciprocate the feelings at all), yes, that means they are not aro. End of story. It has nothing to do with whether they like, desire, etc.pp. the relationship or not - if they have romantic feelings for their partner, that is the one exact thing that makes them romantic, not aro.

If that is what you mean, wouldn't it be a romantic friendship (or possibly even a QPR that is based on sensual activities, but I hesitate about that one) not a romantic relationship.

But those actions wouldn't be platonic and thus not be a QPR. Cuddling applies to QPRs because it can be platonically done; licking and caressing are not.

Says who?

Neither licking nor caressing has anything to do with romantic emotions. Licking might be seen as sexual, which would invalidate the platonic label even if no romance is involved (as platonic neccessarily means no sex, ever); caressing can definitely be fully non-sexual and non-romantic.

[Star Bit]

You're pIacing aII this importance on fucking Iike doing it changes things for everyone, but for some peopIe it IiteraIIy can be just a fun, pIeasurabIe activity Iike pIaying goIf. If two friends pIay goIf every day, does that mean they're in a casuaI reIationship? Or are they just two friends who pIay goIf? ..Why does sex have to be any different just because Iess cIothes are invoIved?

No, i understand the difference between just having sex with a friend, but like i keep saying, if there is more to it then it's not that simple.

@Mysticus

Yes, i know caressing can be done platonically, but assuming it's not. So as I've been saying, if someone wants to grope, lick, or caress them in a non-platonic way then that is not a QPR. But then what is it other than a romantic relationship? (since FWB is normally used sexually) Also, according to your aro logic alloromantics who just yearn for a romantic relationship (and may enter them without attraction), or sexuals who yearn for sex without sexual attraction are all in denial. I wouldn't call having an urge for a specific action denial. There are sexuals who yearn for sex yet don't expreience sexual attraction and thus won't have sex with anyone, but they're still sexual/Gray. So nope, you can desire things without ever experienced attraction. Cupioromantics can desire romantic relationships for many reasons just like sexuals can desire sex for many reasons past attraction.

(also, FWB and fuck buddies are different things; the former are friends and the latter are not)

[Guest]

You're pIacing aII this importance on fucking Iike doing it changes things for everyone, but for some peopIe it IiteraIIy can be just a fun, pIeasurabIe activity Iike pIaying goIf. If two friends pIay goIf every day, does that mean they're in a casuaI reIationship? Or are they just two friends who pIay goIf? ..Why does sex have to be any different just because Iess cIothes are invoIved?

No, i understand the difference between just having sex with a friend, but like i keep saying, if there is more to it then it's not that simple.

(also, FWB and fuck buddies are different things; the former are friends and the latter are not)

Um me and my friend were (a)fuck buddies for quite some time (as I aIready expIained) .. We even caIIed ourseIves committed-pseudo-fuckbuddies. We were very cIose as friends and both needed some kinky fun so meh, why not?

Sex invoIves aII sorts of things, not just rubbing your genitaIs together. for sex to be satisfying for many peopIe, they need kissing, cuddIing, caressing, sIowIy Iicking aII over each other's bodies etc, to have sweet words whispered in their ear whiIe they get fucked. That's aII normaI parts of sex. It might Iook romantic, but it's stiII just fucking if that's aII it is to the peopIe invoIved.

[Guest]

It is only romantic if there are romantic feelings involved. Otherwise, it's sensual, but non-romantic.

And please keep the "attraction" term out of this; I obviously haven't talked about that, as you well know I consider that entire concept moot.

Obviously a romantic person can be in relationships that aren't romantic. Like, duh! But the reverse simply isn't true - aros CANNOT be in (mutually, not one-sided/unreciprocated) romantic relationships. Ever. Fullstop. It's literally, fundamentally impossible - they could sooner breathe in space or walk on water. If they are in a mutually romantic relationship (i.e., have romantic feelings for someone), it is plain to see for anyone with half a brain that they obviously are not aro. It's absolutely ridiculous to say otherwise.

Seriously, if feeling romantic emotions can be part of being aro, then I will take a firm stand and say that those so-called "aromantics" you're talking about simply do not exist, end of story - it's a ludicrous special snowflake term that needs to be systematically purged and invalidated, in the name of logic and honesty. No reasonable person can believe this were a real thing, let alone a valid orientation; everyone who deludes themselves into "identifying as aro" must either be lying or be deeply confused (probably by the propaganda of other self-proclaimed "aromantics"), because "aromanticness" doesn't even exists in reality. It's simply not a thing. Let's stop the lies and propaganda and instead, you know, start actually educating.

I think a main flaw of your theory is that you don't seem to differentiate between the desire to feel an emotion, on the one hand, and feeling the emotion, itself, on the other These are very different things, on a par with how being hungry and actually eating are different things. (Asexuals can desire to feel desire for sex - if nothing else, then out of a wish to be "normal" and to "fit in" - but they cannot ever desire sex, itself, so that desire to desire remains forever unfulfilled. If it were fulfillable, they wouldn't be asexuals. Same thing with what you call "cupioromantics" - they can desire to have romantic feelings, but they cannot ever actually have romantic feelings, and therefore, cannot ever actually be in a romantic relationship.)

An aromantic who "is in a romantic relationship" is always living a pretense. They are playing make-believe. If they really are aro, then the relationship is neccessarily hollow and "fake" in terms of romantic feelings; if those feelings were really there, then the person would simply not be aro to start with - they are romantic, because they feel romantic emotions, and that's the exact thing that makes a person romantic. It's that simple. I don't get how you can't see this; it could not be any more blatantly obvious and self-evident.

[Star Bit]

Well I'm not the only one with a "if there's too much isn't it a relationship?" perspective.

I saw a vid talking about fuck buddies vs FWB (this isn't the only place i saw a difference being mentioned) and the guy was insisting that if you require so many things (e.g. cuddling after sex) they're in a relationship and not FWB (coming from a guy that seems to have been in many FWBs and fuck buddy relationships). Also, Cupioromantics don't nececerily desire to feel romantic attraction, they just desire what's in a romantic relationship; "i love you"s, gifts, doting, making out, etc.

Also, what would be your reaction if it's disclosed that-- let's say 1/10th (i.e. a minority but still significant)-- of the population doesn't actually feel romantic attraction and actually desires romantic relationships for other reasons?

[Guest]

Well I'm not the only one with a "if there's too much isn't it a relationship?" perspective.

The "too much" is about the emotional aspect. Not about the actions.

If we go by actions, then most people would agree that the second you start having sex, and it's not just a one-night-stand, then it is no longer a friendship - you have entered a partner relationship. Which is exactly the attitude that gets disproved by people having FWB and "f*** buddy/regular booty call" arrangements.

BTW, the main difference betwen f*** buddy and FWB is that you are a lot closer to the other person in an FWB. I wouldn't call something an FWB arrangement if there's no love involved in it, as friendship requires love.

Also, Cupioromantics don't nececerily desire to feel romantic attraction, they just desire what's in a romantic relationship; "i love you"s, gifts, doting, making out, etc.

You can definitely have that in an FWB or QPR arrangement, too. These things don't make a relationship romantic.

[Telecaster68]

Well I'm not the only one with a "if there's too much isn't it a relationship?" perspective.

No, but none of them are sexuals (and Pandoes have a desire to share her sexuality, just in a very idiosyncratic way) so it's impossible that you have the same insight into massive variations in the dynamic of how sexuality can work between two people. It can be really complicated and entwined with emotions and deep psychological needs, or it can just be fun and simple. You're trying to cram a relationship that isn't FWB into being FWB by overcomplicating definitions.

if there is more to it then it's not that simple

And it's no longer FWB.

You're pIacing aII this importance on fucking Iike doing it changes things for everyone, but for some peopIe it IiteraIIy can be just a fun

And the same people can want and get different things from sex with different partners at different times. At some points, FWB is what you want; at other times, a deep, intimate highly emotional connection, of which sex is a part, is what you need. With some people FWB is great; with others, you need a deep, intimate highly emotional connection.

[Guest]

Replying to what you added after my last post...

Also, what would be your reaction if it's disclosed that-- let's say 1/10th (i.e. a minority but still significant)-- of the population doesn't actually feel romantic attraction and actually desires romantic relationships for other reasons?

If you read (and actually make an effort to understand) what I have already said to you, repeatedly, you really can answer that question yourself. I can't be bothered to write it out in more detail for the n-th time yet again.

[Star Bit]

@Tele

Are you saying sexuals don't have my perspective, kuz they factually do; that's what my comment said past what you quoted; a sexual man was saying the same thing and so is everyone else on the internet when you look up the difference between the two.

"And it's no longer FWB."

Yah, that's what I've been saying and everyone else is saying no.

@Mysticus

Yes, i know you'd react as you've said. I meant it at not only you.

[Telecaster68]

Are you saying sexuals don't have my perspective, kuz they factually do; that's what my comment said past what you quoted; a sexual man was saying the same thing and so is everyone else on the internet

You've quoted, and not sourced, one guy saying something very specific, about cuddles, not about a deeper understanding of how sexual relationships don't fit boxes easily. And 'everyone else on the internet'? Really?

[banana monkey]

So then this definition of casual realtionships is wrong?

"Casual dating or a casual relationship is a physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have casual sex or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting the extra commitments of a more formal romantic relationship. Casual dating may be part-time, or for a limited time. It may or may not entail partner-exclusivity. In each case, the relationship's dominance in the lives of those involved is being voluntarily limited, and there is usually a sense that the relationship is intended to endure only so long as both parties wish it to. Casual relationships sometimes include mutual support, affection and enjoyment, which underpin other forms of loving relationship."

Also, these relationships are intended to be temporary, but what about people who want them to be permanent? If someone was in a relationship with another person and thought it was committed due to virtually explicit actions but found out the other person wasn't committed/never felt romantically/only thought they were FWB were they in a FWB and not a one-sided committed relationship? Committed relationships are the only real romantic relationship?

And I'm not trying to complicate things, I'm addressing this gray area; just like asexuals aren't trying to complicate things just because they experience things separately. And just because people thought romance and sex were one thing or that things were simple doesn't mean they aren't actually complicated. So I'm not making things complicated, they were already complicated.

If that is what you mean, wouldn't it be a romantic friendship (or possibly even a QPR that is based on sensual activities, but I hesitate about that one) not a romantic relationship.

But those actions wouldn't be platonic and thus not be a QPR. Cuddling applies to QPRs because it can be platonically done; licking and caressing are not.

That would mean that I had romantic feelings for my best friend, will think about that one. (was sure i didnt but hey) - anyway, it would still be a romantic friendship even if not a QPR. - the original question still applies.