My wife in our open relationship recently added a fourth "Friend" to her semi-regular sex partners. She actually connected with 3 of the 4 through her activities in the Rotary club so perhaps it's "Service Club with special benefits". Smile

One reason there's been so little research on FWB relationships is that it covers a variety of connections, from very casual flings to true friends who are also occasional lovers to exes who still get together once in a while. These types of relationships have been around for a long time. What's interesting to me is that they have only been labeled FWB for the past 10 years or so. I think I first heard the term in the late 1990s.

I wonder why something that's been around for much longer has only had a name for a short time. I have no answer. But I speculate that the formalizing of certain relationships with the name FWB might have something to do with the high rate of divorce today's young adults grew up with, much higher than the divorce rate we Boomers faced as kids and teens. There's a big debate over the longterm consequences of divorce. Some experts say children of divorce are scarred for life. Others say that kids are resilient and that as long as the divorcing parents are civil, the kids do fine. There's probably some truth in both of these arguments. But if you grow up in a world where marriages are very fragile, where everyone knows someone who's been divorced, I think it's pretty rational for the children of that world to grow up feeling skeptical of jumping into deep emotional commitments. So FWB represents a sort of middle ground between real commitment and a casual fling.

The Times article engages in a certain amount of hand-wringing: Oh, these college kids don't seem capable of commitment. There's no proof of this. Our generation proudly cohabitated before marriage. (I did.) Back then, pundits said the same thing: Oh, these kids can't commit. My girlfriend and I were committed. Eventually we married. But we saw no reason to rush into marriage, so we lived together, for 7 years. It seems to me that today's young adults are saying the same thing about relationships. Commitment, yes, when we're ready. But until then, FWB. I think this is a reasonable, in fact, mature position, especially given all the pain of divorce so many young people have witnessed and experienced.

Hey! I'm kinda surprised no one is commenting on this?! Okay, I'll throw a little something out...

I've never had a friend that I started having sex with. I've definitely thought about it though (just did this last weekend!) but I've always felt that it would get all weird hanging out together later. I like having male friends. If I value the friendship I'll keep my hands off! But man, it sure is outrageously tempting at times! I love the idea of FWB but I think I'd dump the friendship if I acted on it. But maybe not? I hear that mens testosterone levels are highest in the month of October... maybe women too? Hummm.... ;)

I also find myself wondering if this is a good model for those of us who are in LTRs but have outside partners. This is a model that is generally used by single people who don't want to commit, but those in "open" relationships are also not in a position to commit to the other partners. I'm not sure it works, but it might. What do others think?

After having read the NYT article on FWBs and then Michael's comment, I am not quite certain the difference between FWBs and "lovers" outside LTRs. Before I got married, I had a few FWBs. As married, I currently have a lover. When I compare these two, the nature of "friendship" is completely different.

The former did not require a strong sense of "intimacy" or "trust," consequently my emotional, and indeed "true" sexual, needs were never completely satisfied. It can be fun to have sex with these what I call "fuck buddies" and "pretend" as if we were lovers for a while. Yet, eventually one comes to realize that a functionalist approach to relationships leaves you to a desert island (though I still befriend with some of my former FWBs).

On the other hand, the latter relationship does require a sense of "intimacy" and "trust" to mutually meet emotional and sexual needs. Certainly, my lover is a friend to who I feel a strong commitment. I consider him as my soulmate. At the same time, I am committed to my marriage as well for a variety of reasons, e.g., kids, finance, stability, etc. etc.

I agree Michael's interpretation of why today's college students may have a hard time with making commitment. At the same time, as he correctly points out, we cannot generalize about their approaches to relationships from one study. In many ways, I find my own college students to be more puritanical and uptight than my (those in the 40s) or previous (those in the 50s) generations were.

I think the posts by Talia and WoodDragon show that there's a continuum of intimacy in relationships from casual friendships, to deeper friendships to friendships that become sexual without deep commitment to deeply committed sexual relationships. That spectrum includes monogamy and various gradations of nonmonogamy. That's fine, as long as everyone involved is on the same page. For too long, American culture has defined relationships in only two ways: two people dating and then engagement followed quickly by marriage. One look at divorce rates suggests that this is problematic. I think it's refreshing that people today, not just young people but people of all ages, are redefining relationships to fit their needs and not the other way around.

Michael hits the most important and challenging point in FWBs when he says: "That's fine, as long as everyone involved is on the same page." This is not as easy to be achieved as it sounds! At 40+, it is far more important than at 20s that you and your FWB expect the same things from the relationship.