posted December 18, 2012 06:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
I think this FWB thing is kind of like "someone's garbage is someone's treasure"...
It definitely does not work for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
I could easily do this with the right person.
They would have to be someone who is very comfortable in their own body and does not have religious/morally-based sexual hang-ups --- the kind of person who could hang out with others butt-naked on a nudist beach.. and act exactly as he would fully-clothed in an office.

I am very comfy in my own body - and I can enjoy the sexual experience for everything it has to offer physically.
They'd have to be the same.
They'd also have to be a REAL friend. Some people don't know how to truly be friends to others.

Right now - there is a Libra guy in my life (Leo Moon, Scorpio Venus and Libra Mars). I am close friends with him. He is actually born on the same day & year as someone else I was friends with in the past.
He is gay but he has said that he is open to experimenting. So if he does make a move - I wouldn't say "no".
I could easily have sex with him because I do like him and because I trust him so much - we are very very close.
He is also my type sexually - He often says and does things that turn me on.
But I am definitely not 'in love' with him.

---

posted December 18, 2012 09:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
I could easily do this with the right person.
They would have to be someone who is very comfortable in their own body and does not have religious/morally-based sexual hang-ups --- the kind of person who could hang out with others butt-naked on a nudist beach.. and act exactly as he would fully-clothed in an office.

I am very comfy in my own body - and I can enjoy the sexual experience for everything it has to offer physically.
They'd have to be the same.
They'd also have to be a REAL friend. Some people don't know how to truly be friends to others.

Right now - there is a Libra guy in my life (Leo Moon, Scorpio Venus and Libra Mars). I am close friends with him. He is actually born on the same day & year as someone else I was friends with in the past.
He is gay but he has said that he is open to experimenting. So if he does make a move - I wouldn't say "no".
I could easily have sex with him because I do like him and because I trust him so much - we are very very close.
He is also my type sexually - He often says and does things that turn me on.
But I am definitely not 'in love' with him.

---

posted December 22, 2012 04:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Btw, what Hollywood depictions show FWB in a positive light? Every single movie & show I saw (granted, I don't go out of my way to see them) end up moralizing about FWB being wrong, or at least the FWB turns into soul mates finding each other in the end (after the dramatic breakup and making up of course). I've even seen at least a dozen eps of Sex in the City (which, btw, I found surprisingly vanilla that only pretended to be daring, though granted it was enough to give Puritans the vapors) and the entire The L Word series as well, and as every other show & movie I recall all FWB always ended badly (including with stalking, violence, etc) and/or moved into actual romance.

I hope no one mentions Savages as that wasn't FWB but instead polyamory, and despite the woman herself (along with other characters) saying it couldn't last forever I was surprised at how sympathetic they made it.

---

So I take it that FWB isn't something Hollywood normally shows in a good light after all?

Just out of curiosity I looked up the movie Friends With Benefits and, as I suspected, it follows the formula I described above:

quote:

---

the FWB turns into soul mates finding each other in the end (after the dramatic breakup and making up of course)

---

posted May 07, 2015 09:29 PM            

quote:

---

the FWB turns into soul mates finding each other in the end (after the dramatic breakup and making up of course)

---

Yeah... I know what you mean.. This is pretty lame.

I think people who have not had a real friendship with someone of the opposite sex, imagine that this is impossible... or alternatively think... "Well what's the point of that? If they are a real friend .. and we are also having sex.. why don't we just get married tomorrow?"

posted May 07, 2015 10:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:

Besides, I was with women that were more dry than reading the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Think process. There was zero affection. I was like the drive through at a McDonald's. After those three months, I stopped having sex/dating for another three months before I regained interest, but only after being encouraged by friends.

---

Hotdamn!

posted May 07, 2015 10:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
Bump!

---

I knew it was you before I even clicked to open it.

This thread looks EPIC. And I'm not even done reading through it yet...

posted May 08, 2015 02:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
Yeah... I know what you mean.. This is pretty lame.

I think people who have not had a real friendship with someone of the opposite sex, imagine that this is impossible... or alternatively think... "Well what's the point of that? If they are a real friend .. and we are also having sex.. why don't we just get married tomorrow?"

Lol...

---

Something that eludes me here...as someone who has and has had a significant number of very close male friends, I can say one thing they have in common, putting them in the "friends" category, is the fact that I am not attracted to them, physically, in a significant manner. I can agree there is a certain degree of physical "warmth" around someone of the opposite sex, especially someone you feel so close to, yet the main reason why we are close and very good friends and not romantic/sexual partners is because there is no significant sexual/romantic attraction or we feel we wouldn't be compatible in this respect. (some of my male friends are in relationships or I am and sometimes there is potential strong attraction as well, but it doesn't matter since it's sublimated anyway, in the context)

If a guy is a close and good friend and also of sexual/romantic interest to me, it obviously becomes a potential partner, a romantic/erotic interest. I would never call him FWB, I think that's demeaning, he's a guy I'm very close to and also attracted to, that's enough for me to consider him a romantic interest (and viceversa, I would consider it demeaning if one of my "friends" saw me this way); the term FWB itself is pejorative, both for describing sex, and people: it gives the impression my friend, or one of my friends, is responsible for catering to my physical needs. I don't see my friends this way. It also gives the impression someone sees sex as just a physical need someone else needs to cater for, so why not a friend? I don't see sex this way either. What I mean is: sex is a strong physical need, yes, and I feel it. But it isn't just this, for people; so I deliberately choose to look at it as it is.

posted May 08, 2015 05:06 AM            

quote:

---

If a guy is a close and good friend and also of sexual/romantic interest to me, it obviously becomes a potential partner, a romantic/erotic interest. I would never call him FWB, I think that's demeaning

---

I see what you mean.
But I don't share your feelings at all.

If a guy was a good friend *plus* I was attracted - that does not immediately make him a potential partner in my mind.
First of all because I really have no desire whatsoever to have a serious relationship with anyone at all right now.
And secondly because, at least for me, romantic love is more than just: sex + friendship.
There has to be a kind of chemistry.. and things have to *click* or feel right on more levels.. for me to truly feel "in love" with someone.

I gave the example with my gay friend earlier in this thread.. Obviously we were never going to have a serious relationship.. because he is gay. But I did find him attractive back then. I was not "in love".
I could have had sex with him though.. just for personal enjoyment I guess... to enjoy being alive and sexual with a fellow, like-minded human. And for no other reason.

quote:

---

it gives the impression my friend, or one of my friends, is responsible for catering to my physical needs. I don't see my friends this way. It also gives the impression someone sees sex as just a physical need someone else needs to cater for, so why not a friend?

---

Well honestly, for me sex is not a very strong need at all. I have a low drive and consider myself demisexual, so I barely ever have a desire to have sex with someone.
If I was to have sex with someone (as FWB)... like the gay friend I mentioned (who is one of the few men I have felt like having sex with in my lifetime)... this wouldn't be to fulfil a physical need. Because I can easily go without.
It would be a choice I make to do something that I believe would be enjoyable for both of us.

posted May 08, 2015 05:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LovelyAries86:
I knew it was you before I even clicked to open it.

This thread looks EPIC. And I'm not even done reading through it yet...

---

posted May 08, 2015 06:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
Well honestly, for me sex is not a very strong need at all. I have a low drive and consider myself demisexual, so I barely ever have a desire to have sex with someone.
If I was to have sex with someone (as FWB)... like the gay friend I mentioned (who is one of the few men I have felt like having sex with in my lifetime)... this wouldn't be to fulfil a physical need. Because I can easily go without.
It would be a choice I make to do something that I believe would be enjoyable for both of us.

So for example.. you don't *need* to go to an amusement park lol.. or watch a movie you love.. or have a nice chocolate cake. But you might choose to do these things because - you only live once - and they are enjoyable experiences to have.

---

You're confusing me, and I had the same problem with PixieJane's description. Demisexual is someone unable to experience sexual attraction unless they feel a deep emotional and romantic connection with someone. Demisexuals most certainly don't experience sex as comparable to eating a chocolate cake or watching a movie together.

posted May 08, 2015 07:09 AM            

quote:

---

Demisexual is someone unable to experience sexual attraction unless they feel a deep emotional and romantic connection with someone.

---

I think this is why you got confused. It doesn't have to be "romantic" - just a strong emotional connection.

Here is a quote from the main definition of demisexuality (which is what I relate to!)

quote:

---

A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone. It's more commonly seen in but by no means confined to romantic relationships.

---

posted May 08, 2015 08:24 AM            

It's not that you can only have sex with people who you have a strong emotional connection with. I mean technically anyone can have sex with anyone.

Technically a demisexual person could also be a prostitute for example - and have sex with multiple strangers (as a "job") - although she has zero desire for it and *no* sexual interest or attraction towards them.

But as a "demisexual" - you only have a desire to have sex with certain people who you already have a close emotional connection with. You could have 10 close relationships and only end up being attracted to 1 of these people. It's not like you are attracted to *all* the people you get close to.

However, when it comes to: perfect strangers, acquaintances, friends who are not "close", celebrities - and others whom you have no emotional relationship with -- they seem completely blank sexually. There is just nothing to them on a sexual level, regardless of their appearance or voice or other attributes. You simply don't see them in a sexual way at all - and there is no desire to have sex with them.

Every one of these people ... from the demisexual's perspective - are like the equivalent of an entirely unattractive person.
Imagine a guy you simply would never find attractive... Now imagine that this is exactly how I feel towards *everyone* I don't have a close relationship with - including men who are good looking e.g. Think Leonardo Di Caprio look-alikes.

posted May 08, 2015 10:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Well, the term itself is prejudicial, as described in the entire definition. It gives the impression being able to have sex only with people with whom one has a strong emotional or romantic connection is a form of asexuality; as if being highly sexual means being indiscriminate about sex, screwing everyone

---

Demisexuality isn't a code of conduct, it's a state of mind. It's not about action or behavior, it's about attraction/desire itself.

That is someone with strong sexual longings can still rein them in as most people (I like to think) have impulse control, and can even be celibate for a variety of reasons...but those who make the choice to be celibate aren't therefore asexual, rather it's something they struggle with...and someone asexual would have to struggle if choosing to have sex with someone else despite having no desire for it (it does happen), or when someone gay/lesbian marries someone of the opposite sex to please their church or family (or even just to protect themselves from persecution). Most of the prostitutes I've known (which included a lesbian turning tricks with men and straight boys with men) felt disgusted by the sex but they did it anyway to survive, not out of attraction but out of a choice that was contrary to their desires.

Again, someone with a high sex drive can be celibate; someone asexual can have sex, because a label like "asexual" or "demisexual" is describing the innate attractions and sex drive rather than the sexual behavior.

And if you want to throw in moral judgments (*) when it comes to virtue and spiritual strength regarding sexual behavior then technically the person with the higher sex drive who abstains partially or completely has actually achieved something or demonstrated strength of will or faith whereas the asexual or demisexual is just following their own nature and therefore is not showing strength or virtue. As the saying goes it's easy to be a saint in paradise and love all humanity from a cave, but the ones that are truly inspiring are those who face the full brunt of the world and somehow rise above it. A person who has lived an easy life who does no wrong isn't virtuous, just innocent, and one can't count on the continued seeming virtue of an innocent once the said innocence is truly put to the test because they've never developed any moral or spiritual strength (if anything they may have become entitled brats who would crumble at the first serious trial or hard choice they faced). In this case I mean a person exercises restraint and thus learns strength and virtue only when there's sexual desires to struggle with and the demisexual or asexual would have to find other ways in order to practice virtue and develop moral or spiritual strength.

posted May 08, 2015 11:43 AM            

First, it describes someone who is in fact very SELECTIVE (unintentionally)in their attractions. Now we all know from an evolutionary point of view (biological evolution) SPECIALIZATION is a higher form of...something. The more evolved an organ is, the more specialized.
So the first "prejudice" is towards the so-called "demisexuals", because the definition suggests this characteristic is somehow in the average of something rather than, or even a form of lacking something rather than possessing an evolved, specialized form of something. It describes them as a minority, yet it uses general population descriptors.
The truth is most people experience TRUE genuine sexual attraction in combination with a strong emotional connection. This is valid for the general population. People sometimes (often hehehe) are horny and they experience the impulse of mating, that's when the barriers of sexual "attraction" are expanded. But we MISTAKE those moments for attraction/chemistry towards someone in particular.
So the second prejudice is towards what they call the "sexuals" - more like scientific ignorance rather than prejudice - which they say it's the majority. They imply the majority of people experience "primary sexual attraction" based on " a person's looks, clothes, or personality" (silliest 3 items list ever lol) which is scientific nonsense.
The sexual attraction/chemistry between two people, as proven by numerous studies (don't make me look for them lol unless it's absolutely necessary) is a complex of factors out of which perhaps 70% are "invisible" (of "hidden" biological/psychological nature). It's a known fact for instance, that sexual attraction/chemistry does not depend on looks: you can look at a person considered very attractive or even consider them physically attractive (beautiful, good looking) yet have no real genuine physical attraction and/or chemistry if you are to have sex with them.

One very old cookbook psychological fact about female sexuality: since it is directly connected to the possibility of pregnancy and thousands of years of a certain mentality (various taboos and mores), most women on this planet (it is changing, quite rapidly, but the psychological fact is still valid for a vast majority) do not experience full arousal and willingness/desire to have sex unless some emotional/feeling safe conditions are in play: it's a millions of years instinct, perfectly natural from an adaptation and survival point of view. Women many times deny or ignore this instinctual reality, during times (such as nowadays) when it's "masked" by societal trends. Many times women do it not because they are indeed into the sex, but for various other reasons you two described; the true sexual arousal and openness for sex happens only when they feel emotionally and physically safe, and this usually implies an emotional involvement from the partner. According to this definition, most women are "demisexuals". And yes, they are, for half of this definition, the other half creates the prejudices I mentioned; well, I hope it makes more sense now, I tried to put it in a way that you might be able to understand, to paraphrase you

posted May 08, 2015 07:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
The truth is most people experience TRUE genuine sexual attraction in combination with a strong emotional connection. This is valid for the general population

---

Most of the girls at my school were always going on about "hot" some guy was, whether it was his eyes, his smile, or his butt. They pursued guys they did not know (and their hearts would break if he didn't respond as she had hoped) and still do so as they get older, which means no emotional connection had been made. A demisexual doesn't have crushes like that, however, but rather needs to be around someone a long time before that's even a possibility. Demisexuals aren't going to become sexual with someone just for "being hot" while under the effects of drugs and alcohol (though a prudish sexual person could) because that's not a side that's simmering below the surface waiting for the impulse control to weaken to get out. And looking at all the sexy pix on the magazines at the counter designed to grab both male and female attention isn't going to get anymore of an instinctive reaction than a pic of some statue from Ancient Greece.

posted May 08, 2015 08:01 PM            

quote:

---

I really don't think the majority of the women I grew up with were "demisexuals" as you describe the term, there seemed to be huge differences in how everybody approached sex. I was considered strange because I wasn't promiscuous in the slightest (have never cheated on anyone and don't respond to flirtations when with someone), and kept having long-term relationships with just one guy at a time

---

I know what you mean. A majority of women do seem attracted to different men they are not connected to. They may never act on the attraction, but the feeling is there.

About being promiscuous... The thing is, a demisexual person does not need to be "kind hearted" or empathetic or religious or spiritual - in order to be "demisexual".
No more than a gay person needs to be "kind" to be gay.

They could even be a jerk. For example, they could go out of their way to hurt someone by sleeping with another person... or they could be promiscuous simply to get attention.
In the same way in which - you could imagine a gay person who intentionally has sex with someone they are not attracted to, with an ulterior motive (e.g. to hide that they are gay).

The main point about demisexuality is just that - they (we) simply experience zero sexual attraction and zero actual desire to have sex with other people (90% of the time).

If a demisexual person chooses to have sex with someone they are not emotionally connected to - they could only do *so* for other reasons... with a double agenda, that has nothing to do with attraction.

posted May 08, 2015 08:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Most of the girls at my school were always going on about "hot" some guy was, whether it was his eyes, his smile, or his butt. They pursued guys they did not know (and their hearts would break if he didn't respond as she had hoped) and still do so as they get older, which means no emotional connection had been made. A demisexual doesn't have crushes like that, however, but rather needs to be around someone a long time before that's even a possibility. Demisexuals aren't going to become sexual with someone just for "being hot" while under the effects of drugs and alcohol (though a prudish sexual person could) because that's not a side that's simmering below the surface waiting for the impulse control to weaken to get out. And looking at all the sexy pix on the magazines at the counter designed to grab both male and female attention isn't going to get anymore of an instinctive reaction than a pic of some statue from Ancient Greece.

This was a problem for me in school because at best people thought something was wrong with me that needed to be fixed. And at worst others assumed that I was having sex with all the boys I was friends with (that is since I wasn't dating any of them I must be screwing all of them). So I certainly don't feel like I have much in common with other females and their views on sexuality in that regard, nor they with me.

---

posted May 08, 2015 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BelligerentPygmy:
Actually - reread the thread. That's pretty much what 'demisexuality' supposedly is in the first place - that you supposedly don't get hot in the pants unless you know the person well or have feelings for them - and I'm like, "That pretty much describes most of the human population". Sure, everybody thinks someone is physically attractive, but get them alone in a room with that person and if they don't know them well and don't have feelings for them, they aren't gonna sleep with them.
If that's 'demisexuality', then sorry, most of the free world is 'demisexual'

---

Amelia's reply:

quote:

---

You're missing something. For example lets use me:

I see a guy I feel chemistry and find them attractive, I become curious about getting to know them. If after I get to know them I like who they are inside and find myself caring about them then I want to get in his pants.

Demisexuality sees someone and feels 0 attraction and after getting to know them and connecting with them start finding them cute and feeling attracted.

Most people look at someone, find them attractive and then get to know them and then eventually have sex if all goes well.

Most people think looks get you in the door and then people take it from there...

With demisexuality based on the description of Betty looks do nothing and don't get anyone in the door for her.

Most people decide to get to know someone bc they find them cute and interesting but I agree with you that most people get to know someone before sleeping with them.

Peace. I respect your opinion.

---

posted May 08, 2015 10:32 PM            

quote:

---

I just want to point out that going to an amusement park is by no means a mundane activity, especially if it's a place like Disney World. It can be a truly magical experience, especially with someone you have a strong emotional connection with. !

---

Hahahaha! Love this LoL

Yes... it's totally magical - More people should go to Disney world

posted May 08, 2015 10:35 PM            

quote:

---

Many times women do it not because they are indeed into the sex, but for various other reasons you two described; the true sexual arousal and openness for sex happens only when they feel emotionally and physically safe, and this usually implies an emotional involvement from the partner.

---

I also just wanted to mention - that there are both male and female demisexuals. So it's not "just" a female thing.

This is a guy talking about it on youtube. He gives a pretty good description of what it's like.