Talk:Casual relationship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Near-Sexual?
I don't agree with the choice of words "near-sexual". There is no hierarchy of sexual behaviour. Is foreplay less sexual then penetration? Is anal penetration less sexual then masturbation? Is sex among people of the same sex less sexual then sex among people of different sexes? (Unsigned commenter)
- As to the first point, there are differences in sexual behavior and there are different levels, and I disagree: I do believe there is a hierarchy of sexual behavior. Sexuality is what's in people's heads and therefore different people take all the differnt Is foreplay less sexual then penetration? Absolutely; most of us are aware, either directly or through what we've seen in movies and such, about how many girls were willing to get into heavy petting and such, but would not agree to sexual intercourse. Anyone watched the movie Animal House, where a girl was giving her steady date a hand job in the front seat of a car, but wouldn't have sex with him. Of course now, that sort of attitude is much rarer than it was when being (at least thought of as) easy was considered a bad thing. Even today, many young women will perform oral sex on a man, or even permit anal sex while declining intercourse, so that they can remain "technical virgins"; see the article. This has been reported even in newspaper stories, so it's not something new. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is sex among people of the same sex less sexual then sex among people of different sexes? No, I think it is considered more sexual or at least, of a different category than sex between a man and a woman. Otherwise, why are so many of the (so-called) religious right so upset over involvments among gays and lesbians and have such horrid fears over gay marriage? Apparently they think the interactions between men and men, and women and women, are different or of a different character than the interactions between men and women. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion this article and the article on sexualized friendship are very low quality, though I don't have enough knowledge to correct that. (Unsigned commenter)
- I have merged the content from sexualized friendship into this article and made that a redirect to this one. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This is so not NPOV.. >.<
- Seem good enough. It lists objections to the style of relationship, plus critisism of those objections. JeffBurdges 15:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the Criticisms section is not NPOV. I don't have much of a problem with anything before that section, though. (except for the last bit, which I just fixed up)
- I'm going to tag the criticisms section as not being NPOV. - James Foster 09:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if neutrality is the issue here, but rather objectivity. There is hardly any "hard", viz "real", information here, except maybe the references to Alanis Morissette and "Sex and the City", which are themselves not very substantial. Overall this constitutes a prime example of Wikipedia at its worst. --Maikel 13:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Article seems NPOV enough as long as the NPR interview backs up its claims. - JeffBurdges 13:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Confused definitions
Now, granted, my native language is not english, and therefore I can't be certain how each of these terms is used in English-speaking culture -- however it has seemed to me that my english-speaking friends have used the following three terms to denote different things:
- friends with benefits: two preexisting friends start having sex together, however their friendship remains the predominant part of their relationship. They generally stop having sex with each other, once one of them forms a romantic attachment to a third person; but their friendship will (theoretically atleast) not be affected.
- fuckbuddies: two acquaintance who are usually *not* intellectual friends have formed a semi-formal pact to have sex with one another for purposes of pleasure/stress release/etc. Friendly non-sexual activities generally don't occur, nor does "friendship" exist in any meaningful level : the relationship between them is almost entirely physical.
- casual relationship: A sexual relationship that unlike the previous two relationships may evolve to a true romantic connection, but the two parties take this possibility in a "casual" manner, not worrying about it overmuch, nor waiting for romantic commitment before proceeding to sexual relationships.
The three things seem to me to be differentiated enough that placing them all under the same article and treating them like synonyms seems misleading. But as I said, I can't be entirely certain that the definitions above are truly the ones commonly in use -- it simply seems to me that they are the meanings commonly used by my english-speaking friends when talking about such. Aris Katsaris 12:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what the fuck?
"Friends with benefits" was popularized by some crappy-arse sitcom? This article has several lines like this that are just laughable, it could use a good working-over Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 10:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Harsh but true ?
On the subject of being 'fuckbuddies' for the over 13's this clearly relates to a singular country and not to the further world. The expression is pretty clear, but i must object to it being a teenage observation. As we get older and more set in our ways, delivered the children through education, been divorced, working the long hours (which for many of us of the over 40-50's is the sanctuary of 'later' life) this is a far more benefitting scenario than running headlong into a new relationship that might or might not turn your life to heaven, or upside-down again. Being with another person when both need it is a far more rewarding experience than satisfying a married partner at their whims. As both know well that this is not an everlasting solution, one is considerably more adept at working on the mutual satisfaction aspect that just a singular satisfaction. Yours truly. Svein
[edit] Uh-ok?
"Others believe that casual relationships of this sort are unrealistic because strong emotions will inevitably come into play. Naturally this belief is typically not shared by those who participate in such relationships."
I don't know about this. Is there anyway to back up that those who participate in these relationships deny that feelings inevitably arise(or at leat are likely?) Most people I know say they'll deal with that issue when it comes.
- I'm of the view it is unlikely to occur to me, however for the females in the world I've come across I'm not so sure... they are after all in my opinion more emotional creatures than myself.
[edit] Casual relationship = fuck buddies?
Summat is wrong on this page, these are two very different things. JayKeaton 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean-up!!
This is a badly written article. I'm going to try and clean it up as much as I can because it's irritatingly crappy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
[edit] Fuck Buddies
So is the conclusion that fuck buddies fall under casual relationship or not? And if not, does Fuck Buddy merit it's own page, as a cultural occurance that does exist within our society?
I was recently called a vandal for inclusion of this phrase within the article, by the way. Donthaveaspaz 03:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- As I stated on your user page, it was a mistake.
- However, I didn't think that this term passed WP:Profanity, as its inclusion in the article didn't seem necessary. Anyone else care to have a say? JayKeaton above seems to think the term is misused. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see this issue has been discussed quite a bit before on this talk page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How to?
The article could do with a "how to get a chick to fall for this" section.
