Friends with Benefits

You've already won me over in spite of me
And don't be alarmed if I fall head over feet
Don't be surprised if I love you for all that you are
I couldn't help it
It's all your fault

You are the bearer of unconditional things
You held your breath and the door for me
Thanks for your patience

You're the best listener that I've ever met
You're my best friend
Best friend with benefits
What took me so long

"What exactly does that expression mean, 'friends with benefits?' Does he provide her with health insurance?" - Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory

 

I've been thinking about two relationship labels today: "On again, Off Again" and "Friends with Benefits."  I'm going to share my thoughts on both of these and then an idea that I think will solve any confusion about these labels going forward.

This past summer, I was talking to a guy and I asked him if he was seeing anyone.  He told me that he had an "on again, off again" girlfriend.  The status kind of confused me, but I didn't really ask him for any details.  He didn't want to elaborate and I dropped the subject.  Didn't stop me from thinking about it and mulling it over, though. Was he available? Or wasn't he?  Then, today, I was at Target and two young men were talking in the electronics department (I wanted to test out the pheromone oil one more time before retiring it.  See my SCIENCE blog for more on that.)  The one young man said to the other young man, "I've been seeing Stacy off and on for the past couple of months."  The second young man said, "How's that working out?"  The first young man shrugged and made a grunty sound that is male for "let's change the subject."

Driving home, I kept thinking about it and I think I finally have it figured out.

"On again, off again" relationships are those where you are having sex with someone but you don't want anything else with them, but you also don't want to break it off because you like having sex with someone and you'd rather say you were in an "on again, off again" relationship with someone than to not be able to have regular sex.  The "On" is when you are having sex.  The ""Off" is when you're not.  I'm betting the woman in this relationship has no clue that she's on again/off again.  She probably just thinks he's busy. Or tired.  Or working. Or depressed.  Or a dick, but she'd rather be with a dick than be without, so she puts up with it. 

I've been thinking about my female friends and trying to recall if any of them have ever referred to the guys in their lives as "off and on."  I can't think of anyone.  Even me, who tends to have a more "masculine" approach to dating sometimes in that I do the chasing, the pursuing, the asserting...  I've never had someone "off and on."  They were either "on" or they were "off."  Two different statuses.  Together.  Not together anymore.  Not both at the same time. Now, there have been times when we/I couldn't tell where we stood in a relationship.  Were we doing well?  Not so well?  Were we on the verge of breakup?  Did we just need a break? But...  I've never said to anyone, "Yeah, I've been seeing Bill off and on all summer."  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Now, "friends with benefits."  Cuddle buddies.  Spooning partners.  F*ck buddies.  They are all the same.  I totally agree that people in a relationship should be friends.  I also think it's super cool to have friends with benefits -- meaning, "Pete is my friend.  He has a super cool boat.  We go out on it sometimes." or "Sara is my friend.  She works at Macy's.  She gets me Clinique 50% off."  THOSE are benefits.  Like reduced cost prescriptions and free annual breast exams with your insurance.  Not sex.   But, that's exactly what the label "friend with benefits" means.  Someone who is a friend, a member of the opposite sex friend, whom you do on occasion.  Mutually satisfying sexual release.  Well, fellas, hate to break it to you, but it's never that cut and dried.  Almost every woman who has sex with her male friend is secretly hoping for the Alanis Morissette version above.  We've all seen When Harry Met Sally.  We think that if we have sex with you, you'll eventually fall in love with us.  For us, sex = emotion.  Emotion = love.  Yes, I'm speaking in general about the entire female population.  Yes, I know there are probably a few women out there who probably really truly enjoy sex just for the sake of sex and want nothing else.  The reality is, though, it's never totally unencumbered. There will be expectations and there will be disappointment.  For someone.

So, my thinking this afternoon has led me to two conclusions.  The above misnomers were born out of one or both of the following: fear of rejection or fear of commitment.

Fear of commitment -- I can't offer any quick fixes for that.  Get over it.  Yeah, yeah, someone broke your heart.  Yeah, yeah, you think you are an island and you need no one.  Yeah, yeah, you don't trust easily.  Big deal.  Move on.  I have a fear of commitment myself.  My parents have been married for almost 44 years but they've been living under the same roof as roommates (not "friends with benefits") for over 30 years.  My mom has her own bedroom.  My dad has his own bedroom.  They are not role models for relationships.  My dad's sisters changed men more than most people change their underwear.  My own brother has had 4 separate relationships and only married and divorced one of them.  He has kids with 3 of the 4 women.  I've watched friends break up with man after man.  I've had not such great luck.  But, my fear of commitment is mostly based in a shaky confidence in my ability to keep a man entertained and around for the rest of my life and nothing to do with all of the bad influence I've had.  It's a poor excuse to miss out on something great and I'm working on it.

Fear of rejection.  This is where I think Facebook can help.  Remember when you were a kid, you could pass a note to Suzy or Sam that said, "I like you.  Do you like me?  Yes or No."  It was so much easier.  If they circled "NO", you moved on. OK, you probably crumpled the note, called them a dooty head and then moved on.  There was no direct contact.   

So, Facebook has poking.  I don't really get it - poking.  "You've been poked!"  The first time someone poked me, I thought maybe it was a dirty thing, a flirty thing, but the person who poked me was a married female high school pal.  I think poking is just a way to get someone's attention.  To let them know you are thinking of them.

So, why not add more options?  Facebook is making all of these other changes.  Why not make it easier for those who have dating issues?  They could add "Flirt, Nudge, Cuddle, Fondle, Stalk, Tickle, Touch, Lick, Wink, Kiss, Like, Love, Date, Probe (that one is for aliens)", etc.  THAT would make it a whole heck of a lot easier. 

If someone you weren't interested in did something to you that you didn't want, then you could just "decline" it like you do unwanted friend requests.  If you aren't sure, you can choose "not now".  If you are interested, you can respond in kind.  Lick away, I say.  

If you have a fear of commitment AND a fear of rejection, then you can just ignore it altogether and "pretend" that the person's overtures got lost in cyberspace.  Think about it - they aren't about to write you and say, "Did you, um, see my fondle request?"  They have a fear of rejection, remember?  The worst that can happen is that they fondle you (cyberally) again... and again... and again.  I'm sure you could block the fondling if necessary. Or, maybe, you'd come to like it over time.

In the end, we can eliminate the need for "on again, off again" relationships and "friends with benefits" (where the benefits are not oceanfront property and boat slip) and have nice, straightforward dating.  

I mean, I don't think Facebook really wants anyone to use the "It's Complicated" status. Do you want to look up your significant other and see "It's complicated."?

Let's make it "Uncomplicated."

Do you want to flirt?  Press 1 now.  Press 2 for Spanish.