i just thought about it, isn't that just a term with ironically, serious implications.
a friend and i were talking (okay, gossiping) about another in such a situation. but it doesn't help that there have been many films that really do highlight the 'trend', as
the name speaks or
No Strings Attached. heh, helps the actors are cuteys.
the pretty much constructed idea of a casual relationship, physical or emotional, between two unmarried people and engaging in
apparently, uncommitted sexual acts.
didn't watch the show, but from this, the room looks amaaazing.
that causal? it just assumes the relationship is mutual, and mutually beneficial even. oh and of course, informal. what makes it so sure it's only between unmarried folks? and how sure is this lack of commitment? if you keep going to the same Friend, that's somewhat a commitment anyway; if not it's just unpaid prostitution. at least it's right to encompass both physical and emotional aspects, whether intentionally or they come as a hindsight or side effect is debatable.
haha typical social sciences student, seriously, definitions are the first thing to poke at.
admittedly, it's only in the recent years have i started to attach the term to stories heard around. and it's not just the faraway distant ideas implanted by movies, fictional books or films but real-life encounters from those i know of or of course, who can deny, gossip.
maybe it's the life period of everyone (in my social circle and stage, yes includes those younger and similar aged) goes through. as they say, it's part of the "continuous process of exploring" of youths (which apparently is up to the age of 37 years old).
do you fall into one? do you search out for one? do you grow in a friendship that leads to one, or stumble into it during the process? or for that matter, fall into, search out, lead to, stumble into many.
and who is to say that the idea of such, the ultimate goal is really uncommitted sexual acts? would that be the defining moment of the casual relationship? so at any point before that, it cannot be termed as what it is to be coined?
aww, don't have to be Friends to do that.
either way, friendships are made with reasons in mind, consciously or not. there are many cheesy reasons why we have friends and they're all usually linked with solidarity. but from that idea, don't we make friends or these acquaintances precisely for selfish reasons anyway? which really just means that all the friends we have are have benefits anyway.
but of course, the mutual bodily fluid swaps and physical activity is an added benefit, to some (or maybe if the trend proliferates, many). and then along the way, of course, somehow, the relationship doesn't become so mutual anymore.
i just think it's unfair to really say that this (voluntary or involuntary) participation as a special Friend, only has its validity with uncommitted sexual acts. cos if you think about it, everyone can be exploited as a friend, with or without that added condition.
you don't need to be in that position with your pants off. and of course, you don't need to be in that position to feel that way, with or without your pants off.
okay, to be fair, both
Friends with Benefits and
No Strings Attached, do address the subsequent complicated, sticky issues of the irrational in their stories. well done or not, that's another thing.
Labels: ponder, random
