Darkweis, it went poof but I salvaged it from the notice:

"Im into monogomy in a marriage. Like this forum too many people get involved someone will get feelings hurt.

With a monogomous relationship it allows two people to just focus on one another and devote themselves to that one person. No sneaking around or getting other people involved. I mean face it, how often does one run across someone who will just offer sex no strings? there is always strings attached and that leads to feelings and feelings lead to someone invariably getting hurt.

One woman one man. Thats much simpler for my simple brain to wrap around.

Be well,

Pat"

by Darkweis, Oct 17, 2008 10:35:05 AM

In my situation, my marriage was more like a corporation...the daily business at hand was taken care of...bills, children, housework...etc. My marriage was not a sexual relationship. FWB was a good option for me, because I could have that raw desire met with no strings attached.

If I was your friend MiChele, would there be any benefits? Short or long term?

In a perfect world (perfect being the operative word here), I think monogamous marriage would be a pretty ideal solution to our desire for companionship.

Trouble is, we don't live in a perfect world.

People aren't always up-front about how they feel about raising children, taking care of finances, how to deal with marital problems, sexual incompatibility... I could go on and on, but you get the point.

So to begin with, there's often not full disclosure before two people get hitched.

Add in the fact that people can grow and change, which will also cause marital strain. Two people can start out very compatible, only to have that change as the years pass. And then you're stuck in a relationhip which isn't working...

On the other hand, FWB sounds pretty good, too. You can have sex with someone with no strings. But... is that a long term solution? By the very nature of FWB, it's about screwing someone who's handy and also at sexual loose ends. That's great for now, but what about later?

As others have suggested, one of the problems of putting FWB into practice is that people will say, "no strings attached," but they often don't really mean it. And then someone ends up getting hurt...

What I'm getting at is that both situations have their merits, but they also have their shortcomings, as well. One solution doesn't fit all, and even two solutions don't provide a comfortable fit for most.

To be honest, one issue I've been grappling with lately is the whole idea of having a legal definition for marriage. I'm not sure there's a place for that any longer. Contract law can cover most of the legal issues (like who inherits in case of death or who has power of attorney and can speak for the rights of someone who can't speak for him or herself), and what it doesn't cover can be amended, as issues arise.

So my question is: why does government insist on having some kind of say in marriage at all? Why not allow adults to make their own choices and their own arrangements, as they see fit, rather than as a bunch of politicans see fit? The we can all decide for ourselves, without fear of social stigma, what best suits our needs.

One can never have too many friends Randy ;)

Wonderfully stated!

I believe that it definitely depends upon the people involved.I feel it is about the level of contentment people get with marriage, the stability and knowing what to expect. Having someone you build a life with who becomes your lover, friend and your rock. With FWB, there is that excitement level that people enjoy and those who like variety and the freedom to go and come as they please. Some people are not ready for the marriage stage. They prefer the selective intimacy the lack of obligation. However, again there has to be a mutual agreement even with FWB because it's easy to allow the wrong feelings to get in the way.