FRIENDS WITH DE FACTO “BENEFITS”?

Albeit a social species with inherent bonding tendencies, the so-called “relationships” in-between Homo sapiens individuals are no less convoluted.

*Friend With Benefits (hereinafter referred to as FWB): sexual, yet aromantic and voluntary relationships.

Albeit a social species with inherent bonding tendencies, the so-called “relationships” in-between Homo sapiens individuals are no less convoluted.

Given every dissection, along with scrutinies under the neuroscience/psychology/biology microscope — seldom have we nosed out a formula — how it rolls in, upholds and thrives — for a healthy relationship.

What science has unveiled, like biological instincts and mental-physiological mechanisms are universal. Each, nonetheless, is purely a pre-installed “hardware” on which humans perform social functions. To ultimately break down humans, particularly their social behaviors, the subsistence of social factors as external softwares, thus, is deemed no less critical.

Every previous article, per se, has it: we are human, due not to the number of chromosomes, but the recognition of our fellow humans.

To put into perspective, society is never a sole collection of individuals, it is instead a network of entangled, interpersonal connections and interactions, thus, is woefully perplexing.

Once deprived of sociality, every homo sapiens is solely a discrete piece nestled among a host of other forlorn pieces. Though social connections are what define “human”, the constructions of which, as a rule, are baffling. We humans have no other choices than sticking to heaps of social norms. In this manner, the somewhat grievance on “being humans suck”, or “I wish I were a dog”, results not from our biological burdens, but the weary, ever-sophisticated social loads.

Simply put, even such humans’ most instinctive tasks as eating, sleeping, pooping, or intercourse have been standardised (contrary to other species), which must be conducted in alignment with the so-called moral standards,and a host of [long-established] customs. But how about other complicated things?

A romantic relationship is indeed shaped by oodles of social factors beyond “the zeals between two individuals of 46 chromosomes”. To begin with, the prerequisites are the somewhat kindred worldviews, interests, social status, education or incomes. The partners’ surroundings — friends, family, and co-workers — are no less crucial.

It is this perplexity that has distorted ours — even though some fervently hurt for it, romance never pops by in their lives.

Even when it does, its convoluted nature (in either breakups or reconciliation) can evoke hesitation within the most fervent lovers.

If things go well, a couple espouses, coming to a commitment on shared responsibilities, finances, parenting, and interpersonal networks. Later on, even when the sentiment dies away, the now husbands-wives are still bound by this legally sounding commitment. Also, there are equal changes of conflicts, breakdowns and separation, alongside negative emotions and traumas. Modern society, nevertheless, has turned the latter woefully common — as the barefaced end of love. For “ever-after happiness” is a bona fide hoax, isn’t it?

Amid a world of an eight-billion population, with a host of peculiar views and lifestyles, some have taken the assumption that these scenarios are loathsome.

It is when FWB rolls in.

1. The social context has engendered the so-called “social outflow” phenomenon.

FWB is defined as the “friendly”, aromantic relationship between two individuals including copulation [1] . There is, thus, no responsibility ties, nor any romantic bondings. After all, it is merely a voluntary sexual behavior between two acquaintances.

This relationship, as its name would suggest, seems indeed “beneficial” as investments in marriage and romantic relationships turn out arduous and risky. In fact, statistics indicate that the past three decades has been its heyday. To put into perspective, as much as 55.7% US colleges reported to have copulated with a friend during 1988–1996, and a such figure even soared to 68.6% over the course of the next 14 years [2] . By 2011, this emerging trend was even depicted in the movie of the same name, earning FWB a stature within pop culture [3] . Unsurprisingly, this relationship has even triumphed the over-50 population [4]

Regarding the timeline, the prevalence of this movement rolled in after the third wave of Westerner feminism. FWB thereafter unleashed every traditional prejudice and constraint on women’s sexual desires [5] . Incorporating with a lascivious lifestyle among younguns — for example, the prevalence of the ‘hook-up’ culture (dating for sexual, rather than romantic purposes [6] ), that FWB has gained ardent support from both genders is deemed doomed [7] .

In addition, some psychological and social theories also evidence the prevalence of which is reasonable enough. To demonstrate, even though research does not turn down the possibility of a mere friendship between two individuals of different genders; it proves the man is set sexually attracted to the other and often appreciates the anticipated romantic affection from his partner [8] .

Self-determination theory rules that humans are beguiled, and always in a search for trials, alongside refreshing things. Many, thus, turn to FWB, failing for the temptation of a lascivious, non-binding relationship. This theory even proposes to-be-defined goals and how to home in or resist this beguilement. In the case of FWB, what couples aim at is pure intercourse without gamling on every woefully common mistake of conventional romantic relationships [9] .

Affection Exchange Theory, on the other hand, suggests “individuals need to give and receive affection in order to survive and procreate” [10] . Accordingly, despite the rule of thumb in FWBs, which is to evade every romantic feeling, post-sex behaviors, for example chatting, hugging or kissing, unintentionally evoke positive emotions in the former partners. Having gained attention as a social phenomenon, subsequent studies [on FWB] have also spelt out motivations other than sexual desires to fall for this kind of relationship — the long for emotional bondings (or intimacy, usually in women) [11] , or the utility of which as a stepping stone to romantic relationships [12] .

It is not to mention the above-average frequency, along with satisfaction of FWBs, which is marginally less than those of actual couples [*]. Bearing no tied responsibility, let alone the decent experience, is it the best alternative to marriage, which comes hand in hand with commitment, responsibility and traumas?

It turns out, the shortcut to evade relationship risks and social barriers, after all, is a dead-end leading nowhere, let alone heaps of onerous burdens alongside.

To all appearances, it seems evident that this relationship is precarious (the most attraction to “friends”). The fragment of those successfully upgrading their bondings (with FWB being stepping stones) is indeed mediocre. A survey on 125 “friends” in FWB reveals only 9.8% could de facto proceed to romantic relationships; the other 28.3% perpetuated the former state. Besides, 35.8% upheld the friendship; whilst remaining 25.9% had already done away with their past “benefits” [14] .

That 35.8%, nonetheless, was further split into two peculiar groups. While the former reported their less intimate and gradually dying away friendships afterward, the latter claimed to have gained kindred, even more fervent friends [15] . This precariousness, as it turns out, is much akin to that of romantic relationships — the only difference is that there is no safeguard to the so-called “happy ending”, even a friendship afterward.

One catalyst of FWB, indeed, is alcohol [16] , which hobbles resistance, disrupting clear communication and conscious decision-making, allowing entries into inherently precarious relationships.

Women particularly, upon entering a FWB relationship, often home in emotions, along with expectations for progress, thus, are more vulnerable afterwards. Though both friends secret oxytocin after copulation, females are under more onerous impacts, thus tilted to intimacy and emotional attachment [17] .

2. Vietnamese’s domiciled “FWB”, or the gross distortion of foreign terms.

Social phenomena are always imbued in social contexts. An apple can never, out of the blue, pop by on a mango tree — the prevalent sexual US trends, by the same token, can never make its own way into Vietnam. Otherwise, the Vietnamese version of “FWB” should have another definition, peculiar to which bona fide hailing from the Western context. Which, I reckon, are purely the past phenomenon (some transformation of which).

For example, the American sugar dating (conventionally involving “sugar daddy”, “sugar baby”, sometimes FWB even), to put into perspective, stems from individualism, extravagant tuition fees, as well as the emblematic nuclear family model. An Atlantic article even published statistics indicating “sugarbabies”, for the most part, were students and the arrival of which was coincidental with the crippling tuition fees burden — the consequence of policies that cut on scholarships and corroded student debts, which is inherently characteristic to this nation [18] . A survey by California State University based on data from sugar-dating websites also found a rapid increase in female student accounts [19] .

According to Seeking Arrangement (another sugar dating platform), 36% of “gifts” to female members compensated for their tuition fees, 23% for housing and the rest for books, clothing, travel and other supplies [20] . It also spelt out 1.4 million female students-members, and 1 million of which was from the US (2015).

Before delving further into this, it seems critical to take heed of the American culture — that parents shoulder no responsibility for financially supporting their over-18 children, which includes tuition fees and studying loans. It is not to mention an overall liberal worldview, the sovereignty of individualism and a host of cultural and legal factors behind.

So what, after all, gave its way into Vietnam, a country with moderate college fees, parental financial support, along with every time-honored “custom”?

Even though the participation of colleges in prostitution activities is indeed latent in our society [21] , the scale and nature of which are peculiar with the US version. As aforementioned, this phenomenon is deep-seated, and to break it down for further study would be arduous enough. Within the scope of the article, we take the assumption “sugar baby” was imported into Vietnam as a new label for prostitutes to polish themselves and boost their prices, instead of an original, newly emerging social phenomenon.

In a like manner, FWB has recently been abused on Tinder, or even Facebook, by those craving sexual partners, who, thus, are heedless the original term defines friendships in which sexual desires arise. Should you be in search for a strange sex partner, even when “dates” are perpetuated, this, per se, is instead a senile social phenomenon.

FWB, per se, is engendered by individualism, the third wave of feminism, alongside the professionalized, capitalist sociality. A society as such does tolerate friends, whose thoughts and intentions pop by so naturally that they prompt each other this kind of relationship.

On the other hand, within the Vietnamese society, this is perhaps still an “eccentric” and no less “loathsome” thing. It does exist, albeit relatively rare, in forms of social media tales, thereafter getting wielded by former participants of decrepit social phenomena — as soon as they find a handsome term for those “kindred to mine” on Reddit or 4chan.

3. Personal liberty rarely accompanies social privilege.

Whichever society they descend upon, outlawed behaviors always come hand in hand with hazards. For we are born humans, whose lives hinge upon others’ judgments (which is inescapably frustrating). Therefore, to pursue personal interests might abear oodles of social risks, especially in the Vietnamese society.

Even the US has enacted the Stop Sex Trafficking Act (SESTA) in 2018, which force-closed every sugar dating website (sugar dating or middleman services to which were thereafter categorized as prostitution). Vietnamese, by the same token, have never appreciated such activities.

Though I personally bear no bias toward sugar dating, FWB or prostitution even, this society has been conducive to a woefully little number of such individuals. Remember it is always the majority that rules the societal operations. Albeit biologically, there is seemingly nothing wrong with going after personal desires, the behaviors of “using money, or social relationships to meet such demands” is social, thus is bound by every social norm (including laws and morality).

Thriving on a society, its monogamous nuclear family model, its disciplinary customs, and “recognized” faithful humans, before committing anything against their wishes, it would be wise to anticipate what you are gambling — on them hobbling your reputation, financial ability, or identity.

To live in desolation, independently in a self-created world that somehow tolerates, at least quietly fuels these activities would be much different. On the other hand, to address these contradictions, the only possible way is to spark a revolution, or to count on time, alongside social movements, wherein the majority grapple for your dogmas.

Within the current society, nevertheless, those falling for sugar dating or FWB are seemingly running themselves into dead ends, for they, sooner or later, would take to marriage under every crippling pressure it imposes [on them]. Since this escape is coerced, former “benefited” participants still abear certain prices [for which] in the future.

After all, in a yet-flawless society, ill-favored circumstances as such are deemed inescapable. For it is what engenders us so that we are thereby dogged with heaps of other conflicts it breeds.

Take, for example, sugar babies. Once financially sufficient, there is seemingly no reason to fall for oldsters instead of fervent, youthful partners (let alone the fetish factor).

To FWB pursuers, were they to live in a less arduous life, with more time to date, less burdened responsibility, or less of perfectionists, what would possibly be the reason, if any, to hurt for temporary, risky, aromantic and doomed relationships?

Is it, thus, the social order that somehow foments these phenomena, alongside fierce criticism on such disorders?

Your turn to seek your own answer.

— — — — — — — — —

References:

[1] Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. K. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49–66. doi:10.1080/10570310500034154

[2] Monto, M. A., & Carey, A. G. (2014). A New Standard of Sexual Behavior? Are Claims Associated With the “Hookup Culture” Supported by General Social Survey Data? The Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 605–615. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.906031

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_with_Benefits_(film)

[4] Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex Differences in Approaching Friends with Benefits Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 275–284. doi:10.1080/00224491003721694

[5] Williams, J. C., & Jovanovic, J. (2014). Third Wave Feminism and Emerging Adult Sexuality: Friends with Benefits Relationships. Sexuality & Culture, 19(1), 157–171. doi:10.1007/s12119–014–9252–3

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook-up_culture

[7] Jovanovic, J., & Williams, J. C. (2017). Gender, Sexual Agency, and Friends with Benefits Relationships. Sexuality & Culture, 22(2), 555–576. doi:10.1007/s12119–017–9483–1

[8] https://www.livescience.com/20119-men-women-sex...

[9] http://jamesbstein.com/.../Stein-Mongeau-Pohster-and...

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affection_Exchange_Theory

Bennett, M., LoPresti, B. J., & Denes, A. (2019). Exploring trait affectionate communication and post sex communication as mediators of the association between attachment and sexual satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109505. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109505

[11] http://jamesbstein.com/.../Stein-Mongeau-Pohster-and...

Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex Differences in Approaching Friends with Benefits Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 275–284. doi:10.1080/00224491003721694

[12] Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and Explicating Variation among Friends with Benefits Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 37–47. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.623797

[13] Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2012). Sexual Communication, Satisfaction, and Condom Use Behavior in Friends with Benefits and Romantic Partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(1), 74–85. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.719167

[14] Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2007). Negotiating a Friends with Benefits Relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1), 66–73. doi:10.1007/s10508–007–9211–2

[15] Owen, J., Fincham, F. D., & Manthos, M. (2013). Friendship After a Friends with Benefits Relationship: Deception, Psychological Functioning, and Social Connectedness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1443–1449. doi:10.1007/s10508–013–0160–7

[16] Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Effects of Gender and Psychosocial Factors on “Friends with Benefits” Relationships Among Young Adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 311–320. doi:10.1007/s10508–010–9611–6

[17] https://psychcentral.com/.../friends-with-benefits-can.../

[18] https://www.theatlantic.com/.../where-the-sugar.../384547/

[19] Cordero, Brittany (2015). “Sugar Culture and SeekingArrangement.com Participants: What it Means to Negotiate Power and Agency in Sugar Dating”. California State University

[20] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/post_10274_b_9683356

[21] https://plo.vn/.../trong-te-nan-mai-dam-co-2-hoc-sinh...