FWB is just a booty call for some, for others it really is a friendship.

Real FWB is a relationship of sorts....just not a very deep relationship.

If the OP is suggesting that the line between FWB and 'a real relationship' is blurred, I agree emphatically. (The comments here have already demonstrated that the line between FWB and booty call is a blurry one.) I have known people who are in a FWB relationship who care more about each other (as friends!) then some people in a so-called 'real relationships' do.

I agree with everyone that the main distinction (when the line isn't being blurred) between FWB and a 'real relationship' is one of both commitment and exclusivity. (For some people 'commitment' is synonymous with exclusivity - but the polyamorous recognize that commitment can mean something slightly different than that).

Edit: To keep the terminology in perspective - 'friendship' and 'business partners' are also 'relationships' of sorts.

I think the difference is in the expectation of monogamy. Friends with benefits is just screwing around, regardless of what else you do when you are apart. Relationship is being committed even when you are apart.

Thank you.

The only difference between the two is morality.

What do you mean?

For example, how would you compare the morality of:

a) Two loving friends, who understand each other and have a friendship filled with kindness, patience, caring, and sex - but for reasons known only to them, they choose not to enter into a committed relationship.

b) A co-dependant married couple who are filled with resentment for each other, that are physically and emotional abusive?

Comparing the 'morality' of both of those situations is like comparing fruit punch to ducks.

Further.... FWB are free to do the same with anybody and at least one is unlikely to want to end being FWB when one does find a real relationship. There are major insecurity issues possible with FWB. Sex without a relationship itself, is a difference in morality.

Does this mean that you agree that we cannot generalize and say that 'committed sex' automatically is 'more moral' than 'uncommmited sex'?

I'm saying that morality does'nt exist in uncommited sex.


If I had sex with one of my female friends, I would feel like I was using them unless we were spending time with each other and doing things that normal couples do together. That would be a relationship no matter what we choose to call it. It would not longer be FWB.


I can't imagine being in a friends with benefits situation. I need something more than that or nothing at all. That would be tormenting for me. Likewise, I would not want to start a relationship with a person who has no problems with people being FWB. The difference of values would keep us apart.

I'm not saying that my views on one or the other is better, just what I believe in.

We are always free to change the circumstances of our life - good friends engaged in FWB are likely to communicate well (edit: and to care about each others feelings). People may be in a 'committed' relationship, and yet cheat on each other, or suddenly end the relationship without practicing any compassion or quality communication.

I realize that I am pulling up 'edge cases' here, what some might consider 'exceptions. I am not trying to argue towards a generalization, I am arguing against generalization.

Please know that I'm honestly trying to understand what you are saying. I'm guessing that you are saying that 'uncommited sex' is immoral - do I have that right? You might also be saying that 'uncommitted sex is not a moral issue' - but that doesn't fit with your other statements.





And maybe thats exactly what you would be doing. You would not be alone. I think that many people in FWB situations are actually selfish, hedonistic people who have little regard for the value of self restraint and of deep emotional connections.

I'm just not convinced that this is always the case.



Okay, I'm trying to get at the question of 'commitment' and 'morality'... I sorta agree with what I think you are saying - that FWB commonly involves less caring towards one's sex partner than something more involved.




I absolutely respect your thoughts, feelings, and opinion on this matter, as expressed in the previous paragraph.



I can respect that... and I'm sorry if this conversation seems to become redundant - its just that there are so many ways of looking at 'morality' and 'commitment' and I want to understand exactly what you are saying.

this was my understanding... although you can both agree to not sleep with anyone else as well.... but can date others.. and there will be no relationship... yes u can hang out or go on dates.. just not committed into a bf/gf <or whatever> type of a relationship

FWB is "i like you, but i cannot <like you> like you"
FWB explicitly precludes relationship by mutual agreement until
somebody falls for somebody.

being in a relationship is more like BFF and lover
and you both are interested in making it last...

FWB works fine in theory.... if you can keep yourself from having feelings for your friend.

Someone always gets hurt.

Why can't a 'FWB' relationship have feelings? If it's a monogamous relationship, there HAS to be feelings. The belief that a relationship of ANY kind, 'FWB' or not, can long exist without feelings is just incorrect ... and as far as 'hurt', that can happen in ANY relationship. It's not exclusive to 'FWB'. Ever see a marriage end in divorce ... ?

I think most people are too interested in simple categories and over-generalizing to appreciate what you are saying here. For most of us, a FWB relationship by its very nature doesn't qualify for the label 'monogamy' - though I agree with you. A FWB relationship can be monogamous: one example is when two people communicate their sincere mutual disinterest in a romantic relationship, and agree to have (casual) sex with each other and only each other.

I could even see people who have serious emotional intimacy issues doing this for long periods of time, and being very comfortable with it - it would fulfill some of their needs without challenging (threatening) their comfort zones.

There ARE feelings. It is "i like you and trust you as long as
you realize it ain't going any further".

A monogamous FWB? Yeah right....so in other words they couldn't find someone else to use too?

I completely agree with you... I think when RowBaby mentioned 'not having feelings' she simply meant to say 'not having deep romantic feelings' or something like that. (Apologies for putting words in your mouth, RowBaby).

You are assuming that they are 'using' each other, and assuming that they would want to have sex with others if only they could.

I agree that many FWB relationships are callous and selfish, but not all are 'using' each other (any more than people in 'normal' relationship 'use' each other).

And of course they might simply choose to limit the number of sexual partners to one. There are many possible reasons for this.