Can a Guy and a Girl be Just Friends?

[Skipadeedoodah]

Who doesn't want to try something different sometimes?

Makes perfect sense 🙂 Just wondering! Thanks for sharing 🙂

 

[BellaRisa]

I'm aware that being a virgin makes my opinion on this subject somewhat biased, because to me sex is still something extremely..I don't want to say special because I'm sure it's special to almost everyone...but...reserved for someone?? If that makes sense...

That makes *total* sense hon, trust me I understand! It was VERY important to me that my first time be with someone I loved and who I knew truly loved me, someone that cared about me enough that I would never, ever look back and regret having had my first time with them. Someone who had earned my faith and my trust and I knew would be there for me no matter what shape our relationship took. And I had girlfriends sincerely telling me to hurry up and just do it, that it wasn't as special as I was making it out to be and even that it would hurt more the longer I waited (good lord). I basically told them to kiss my ass and I did what felt right, and when the right person came along it was every bit as amazing and special as I thought it would be. And the next year he married me

I know good and well that the only reason I feel comfortable exploring my sexuality beyond my primary relationship is because of the strength and power of that relationship, which is always unto itself and very much reserved for *us* 🙂

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

And the next year he married me

Auwwwwwwwwww *melt* LOL

 

[BellaRisa]

But even as a poly, you have boundary lines drawn and rules said or unsaid about how the relationship is run. You even have rules and boundaries between your husbands (please correct me if I didn't use correct terminology). So it means you hold each of them in a different yet special way. It also means that although you love them both, they hold different places in your heart and your life. So as different as we might appear on paper, we hold more in common than I thought.

Exactly! That's why I had to post and say that I agree with you, because the more you and I share the more I realize that we're actually very similar when you get down to it; we may have different boundaries, but those boundaries are VERY important and better be respected by anyone we're involved with. 😉

(Husband and Dominant, by the way 😎 )

 

[Cy/MiG]

You are going to argue semantics over one word. If so, then so be it. You can't use platonic as a way to convey your constructed ideology that sex creates a synthesis within a relationship and moves it to a higher plateau universally. To argue such a finite point, to argue the broad overreach is a failure to understand the flagrant inconsistency of human relationship. There are no universal truths, just personal examinations, and your belief is not somehow substantially correct than the opposition.

I don't believe I ever intended to argue 'universal truths'.

I just brought up textbook definitions made long before either you or I were brought into this world.

My curiousity is simple:

If someone can have sex with someone else and still be 'just friends'...

Then what perks does an 'acquaintance' have??? 😀

 

[dvnc]

Just postin' props t'y'all for not gettin' hostile on one another over a topic that gets MANY people in the vanilla world completely crazy. That we can discuss something so individual, with such differences person to person, speaks well of this forum. Good on y'all!

 

[Cy/MiG]

I get what you're saying, but you're assuming that being "just friends" and maintaining a "platonic" relationship are synonymous. For many people they very well may be, and I assumed the same thing in my OP, but clearly for alot of people here, "just friends" means they're not in a romantic, commited, partnership, while "platonic" means they're in a nonsexual relationship, and those two situations are not necessarily one and the same.

I'm not saying they have to coincide... hell, life's often a cluster-F.

But seeing as how this will be my last sober post of the day, I've thought about it a little long and hard.

And please keep in mind I'm not trying to argue 'universal truth's', just asking for clarification on the concepts of 'value' and/or 'terminology'

Here goes:

There are four 'friends':

Jane, Dick, Dave and Derrick.

Jane and Derrick know one another from other 'friends'. They've never had sex.

Jane and Dave have known each other most of their lives and are considered 'close', they've never had sex.

Jane and Dick have known each other for a while and have had sex.

Now...

Jane + Derrick=no sex='friends'

Jane + Dave=no sex='friends'

Jane + Dick=sex='friends'

???

Now I know I sound robotic and heartless from my POV, but it doesn't take Einstein or Socrates to notice that the example I just gave does not equate.

It doesn't add up. Once you throw a new factor/monkeywrench into the equation you cannot call two things the same that aren't.

Once I change the value of 9 to 10, then 10 has to either become 9 or I have to change it to 11, so on and so forth; domino effect.

Because if 9=10 then 10 CANNOT = 10

It'd be like me calling all cats dogs and still calling dogs dogs.

It isn't logical.

Anyone with eyes can see that they aren't the same. So either I'd need to call dogs cats or make up a new term for them... (like dinglehoppers 😀)

The way I see it, once you 'change' the terms/conditions of 'friend' then you would have to differentiate between 'TYPES of friends'. (such as, 'friends with benefits')

I'm not saying people can't be 'just friends' and be having sex, I'm asking:

How in the hell can two people having sex share the same definition of the word 'friend' as two people who aren't (with the same mutual friend, of course)???

Because again...

Jane + Dave=no sex='friends' ?

AND

Jane + Dick=sex='friends' ?

Clearly one is either more or less than, 'just a friend'...?

Or someone is using 'extremely personalized' logic

Yeah, I know...

 

[T.K.McTickleson]

ladder theory for the win

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

How in the hell can two people having sex share the same definition of the word 'friend' as two people who aren't (with the same mutual friend, of course)???

I don't think that are trying to share the same definition exactly. I think that what they're saying is sex doesn't necessarily make them MORE than friends, just a different KIND of friends. A fruit is a fruit whether it's an apple or an orange. Still fruit - just a different kind. I think that's the point people are trying to make. Make sense?

 

[BellaRisa]

I'm not saying they have to coincide... hell, life's often a cluster-F.

But seeing as how this will be my last sober post of the day, I've thought about it a little long and hard.

And please keep in mind I'm not trying to argue 'universal truth's', just asking for clarification on the concepts of 'value' and/or 'terminology'

Here goes:

There are four 'friends':

Jane, Dick, Dave and Derrick.

Jane and Derrick know one another from other 'friends'. They've never had sex.

Jane and Dave have known each other most of their lives and are considered 'close', they've never had sex.

Jane and Dick have known each other for a while and have had sex.

Now...

Jane + Derrick=no sex='friends'

Jane + Dave=no sex='friends'

Jane + Dick=sex='friends'

???

Now I know I sound robotic and heartless from my POV, but it doesn't take Einstein or Socrates to notice that the example I just gave does not equate.

It doesn't add up. Once you throw a new factor/monkeywrench into the equation you cannot call two things the same that aren't.

Once I change the value of 9 to 10, then 10 has to either become 9 or I have to change it to 11, so on and so forth; domino effect.

Because if 9=10 then 10 CANNOT = 10

It'd be like me calling all cats dogs and still calling dogs dogs.

It isn't logical.

Anyone with eyes can see that they aren't the same. So either I'd need to call dogs cats or make up a new term for them... (like dinglehoppers 😀)

The way I see it, once you 'change' the terms/conditions of 'friend' then you would have to differentiate between 'TYPES of friends'. (such as, 'friends with benefits')

I'm not saying people can't be 'just friends' and be having sex, I'm asking:

How in the hell can two people having sex share the same definition of the word 'friend' as two people who aren't (with the same mutual friend, of course)???

Because again...

Jane + Dave=no sex='friends' ?

AND

Jane + Dick=sex='friends' ?

Clearly one is either more or less than, 'just a friend'...?

Or someone is using 'extremely personalized' logic

Yeah, I know...

I've read your whole post above, and I understand where you're coming from...I guess I have to ask you what you would call two people who enjoy sex but not a romantic relationship and consider themselves just friends. Would you tell two grown people who consider themselves to be just friends that they're more than than just because they enjoy sexuality along with the other aspects of their friendship? Why does sex have to mean a deeper relationship? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm just asking if it has to. And if the people involved feel they're still just friends based on their feelings for one another, who are we to tell them otherwise?

 

[Cy/MiG]

I don't think that are trying to share the same definition exactly. I think that what they're saying is sex doesn't necessarily make them MORE than friends, just a different KIND of friends. A fruit is a fruit whether it's an apple or an orange. Still fruit - just a different kind. I think that's the point people are trying to make. Make sense?

Perfect.

And I mentioned that countless times. (i.e. 'friends with benefits'...)

I thought there was some argument and/or consensus as to otherwise.

 

[Cy/MiG]

I've read your whole post above, and I understand where you're coming from...I guess I have to ask you what you would call two people who enjoy sex but not a romantic relationship and consider themselves just friends. Would you tell two grown people who consider themselves to be just friends that they're more than than just because they enjoy sexuality along with the other aspects of their friendship? Why does sex have to mean a deeper relationship? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm just asking if it has to. And if the people involved feel they're still just friends based on their feelings for one another, who are we to tell them otherwise?

Personally:

'Friends with benefits' or 'Friends who have [had] sex with each other'. Basically, a little more than JUST friends.

As for other friends/people, whatever they call themselves, I still think they should differentiate between friends who they sleep with or not.

Otherwise it's just confusing [and illogical] as hell, IMO.

<---I may be drunk, but that's funny as hell!!! 😀

 

[BellaRisa]

As for other friends/people, whatever they call themselves, I still think they should differentiate between friends who they sleep with or not.

Otherwise it's just confusing [and illogical] as hell, IMO.

<---I may be drunk, but that's funny as hell!!! 😀

Confusing and illogical to whom? It would seem to me that those involved aren't confused and they see the logic, and it's no one else's business...right?

 

[Cy/MiG]

Confusing and illogical to whom? It would seem to me that those involved aren't confused and they see the logic, and it's no one else's business...right?

To anyone who knew the hypothetical 'friends' and were also considered 'friends' [but in a platonic relationship].

 

[Myriads]

The aspect of the debate that I see that bothers me is this:

Friends + sex = more then friends.

Why?

Friends + White Water Rafting = more then friends?

Why does a shared activity automatically make the relationship need to be defined as 'more'?

Fucking is not special to everyone. For many it's just a good entertaining way to kill an hour. It certainly CAN be more, but it need not be.

I think the debate is getting hung up on a value being placed on sex that not all of the folks discussing things share.

Myriads

 

[kis123]

The aspect of the debate that I see that bothers me is this:

Friends + sex = more then friends.

Why?

Friends + White Water Rafting = more then friends?

Why does a shared activity automatically make the relationship need to be defined as 'more'?

Fucking is not special to everyone. For many it's just a good entertaining way to kill an hour. It certainly CAN be more, but it need not be.

I think the debate is getting hung up on a value being placed on sex that not all of the folks discussing things share.

Myriads

With all due respect.......

Cmon' how on earth can you compare white water rafting with sex? Does sex have that little meaning to you? Some of us put sexual relations on a much higher pedastal and we'd like to know why some can have sex and only consider themselves "friends'? It doesn't fit IMO; something's out of kilter and we want those of you who can make this unique distinction to educate the rest of us who simply don't understand.

Oh and btw, if you can merely equate sex to some sort of act, maybe I dont' need the education.

 

[BellaRisa]

With all due respect.......

Cmon' how on earth can you compare white water rafting with sex? Does sex have that little meaning to you? Some of us put sexual relations on a much higher pedastal and we'd like to know why some can have sex and only consider themselves "friends'? It doesn't fit IMO; something's out of kilter and we want those of you who can make this unique distinction to educate the rest of us who simply don't understand.

Oh and btw, if you can merely equate sex to some sort of act, maybe I dont' need the education.

While I know Myriads can speak for himself, I don't believe he's saying that he can compare sex and some activity like white water rafting, but that some people in this world can. And I have to agree, I've met a few of those people 🙂. Not only was that pretty common in college, but I've been to a swinger's club or two, it's NOT my thing but I went with friends and socialized, had some BDSM fun, etc; the people there had sex directly in front of me and all around me, having just met that night, and many never saw one another again (or maybe not 'til the next party). I repeat, it's NOT an interest of mine, I'm not monogamous but sex means more to me than that. BUT, a great many people in this world consider sex to be a fun recreation, no more no less, and that's fine as long as they're not hurting anyone. And those folks *would* compare sex to tennis or some other fun but relatively meaningless activity.

 

[Cy/MiG]

The aspect of the debate that I see that bothers me is this:

Friends + sex = more then friends.

Why?

Friends + White Water Rafting = more then friends?

Why does a shared activity automatically make the relationship need to be defined as 'more'?

Fucking is not special to everyone. For many it's just a good entertaining way to kill an hour. It certainly CAN be more, but it need not be.

I think the debate is getting hung up on a value being placed on sex that not all of the folks discussing things share.

Myriads

If someone goes 'white water rafting' with ALL/most of their friends, then yeah, it's nothing.

But would they have sex with all/most of their [opposite sex] friends?

If not, then I would think it's 'something more'.

 

[BellaRisa]

If someone goes 'white water rafting' with ALL/most of their friends, then yeah, it's nothing.

But would they have sex with all/most of their [opposite sex] friends?

If not, then I would think it's 'something more'.

So...because it's not something you would do with all of your friends, just a few of your friends because those are the ones you click with sexually...it has to be something more? Why does sexual compatibility have to mean more? I wouldn't go white water rafting with friends who are lousy at it, doesn't mean the ones I 'would' go with are more special than the ones who can't swim...

(And what does it matter if it's the opposite sex or not?)

 

[Cy/MiG]

So...because it's not something you would do with all of your friends, just a few of your friends because those are the ones you click with sexually...it has to be something more? Why does sexual compatibility have to mean more?

In general, most people don't sleep with people they don't like.

So 'something more' is implied.

I wouldn't go white water rafting with friends who are lousy at it, doesn't mean the ones I 'would' go with are more special than the ones who can't swim...

I agree with what you're saying in this instance, but like Kis said, I don't think the sex vs. white water rafting analogy is that solid.

(And what does it matter if it's the opposite sex or not?)

It doesn't. I'm just generalizing.

Relax.

 

[BellaRisa]

In general, most people don't sleep with people they don't like.

So 'something more' is implied.

People don't tend to be friends with people they don't like either, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, unless you're saying something's 'implied' with everyone you like. Which is ridiculous...

I agree with what you're saying in this instance, but like Kis said, I don't think the sex vs. white water rafting analogy is that solid.

The white water rafting analogy is very solid for people who think that way about sex. I don't feel that way, but I respect those who do and I don't classify them as something more if *they* don't, tellingthem who they are to each other would be rather presumputous on my part.

I'm just generalizing.

Relax.

What makes you think I'm not relaxed?

Chill out 😉

 

[Deleted member 66627]

If not, then I would think it's 'something more'.

What makes you think that?

 

[BlackestLily]

The aspect of the debate that I see that bothers me is this:

Friends + sex = more then friends.

Why?

Friends + White Water Rafting = more then friends?

Why does a shared activity automatically make the relationship need to be defined as 'more'?

Fucking is not special to everyone. For many it's just a good entertaining way to kill an hour. It certainly CAN be more, but it need not be.

I think the debate is getting hung up on a value being placed on sex that not all of the folks discussing things share.

Myriads

Amen.

 

[penny lane]

Fucking is not special to everyone. For many it's just a good entertaining way to kill an hour. It certainly CAN be more, but it need not be. Myriads

I keep getting this image in my mind-- a friend calling up another friend:

Friend A: Hey what's going on? How are you doing?

Friend B: I'm doing great! Hey, why don't we get together this afternoon...grab some lunch, play some scrabble, then maybe after that we can fuck!?

Since this is NOT my way, thinking about it is extremely humorous. 🙂

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

The aspect of the debate that I see that bothers me is this:

Friends + sex = more then friends.

Why?

Friends + White Water Rafting = more then friends?

Why does a shared activity automatically make the relationship need to be defined as 'more'?

Fucking is not special to everyone. For many it's just a good entertaining way to kill an hour. It certainly CAN be more, but it need not be.

I think the debate is getting hung up on a value being placed on sex that not all of the folks discussing things share.

Myriads

I agree. While I don't personally subscribe to this type of thinking, I certainly don't see anything wrong with those who do. It comes down to difference in opinions. To some people sex isn't necessarily the "next level" of a relationship. It's just part, or not part, of whatever relationship they're in. Michael and I are in a romantic relationship that happens to be a non-sexual one for religious reasons, and honestly I don't feel like our relationship is going to change (except in practice 😛) when we get married and start having sex. We're not going to be any more or less intimate emotionally than we already are. Sex is not the begin all end all of a friendship or relationship.

With all due respect.......

Cmon' how on earth can you compare white water rafting with sex? Does sex have that little meaning to you? Some of us put sexual relations on a much higher pedastal and we'd like to know why some can have sex and only consider themselves "friends'? It doesn't fit IMO; something's out of kilter and we want those of you who can make this unique distinction to educate the rest of us who simply don't understand.

Oh and btw, if you can merely equate sex to some sort of act, maybe I dont' need the education.

Maybe it's just me, but this response comes out somewhat offensively. I mean, you sound like by equating sex with white-water rafting that Myr is taking something away from it. You say "Does sex have that little meaning to you?" like because he (may or may not...I don't know if he said this school of thought applies to him or not) enjoys sex without romantic involvement that he is somehow devaluing sex in a way that is somehow immoral.

If someone goes 'white water rafting' with ALL/most of their friends, then yeah, it's nothing.

But would they have sex with all/most of their [opposite sex] friends?

If not, then I would think it's 'something more'.

I drink alcohol with some of my friends, because it's a pasttime we enjoy. We're in our 20s and going out to the bar and drinking until we fall over is fun for us. I also have friends who don't drink, either because they've been there done that, because they've had bad experiences with alcohol, or because they simply don't see the point of poisoning your body with mind-altering substances.

It's an activity I enjoy with SOME friends, but not most and definitely notall. I don't distinguish my non-alcohol-drinking friends from my alcohol-drinking friends. I just pursue different activities with the different groups of people.