Jump to content

User:Pearcebarr/Friends with benefits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friends with benefits refers to relationships where the members are sexually intimate, yet not committed romantically[1]. The assumption is that these otherwise platonic friends' casual sexual relationship is more casual and less stressful than exclusively romantic relationships[2]. While it may be helpful to think of Friends with Benefits relationships as similar to non-committal sexual relationships, or one-off sexual encounters, Friends with Benefits have unique nuances which set them apart from most other relationships. To better understand what they are, it is helpful to think of them by what they are not. For instance, things like hand holding and cuddling are hallmarks of romantic relationships, but they are not often found in Friends with Benefits relationships[2]. Friends with Benefits type relationships can be explained through the context of things such as hookup culture, sexual liberation, or the feminist movement. There are various theories that can be used to aid in explaining the phenomena, and it is even referenced throughout pop culture.


Context[edit]

While the history of brothels, prostitution, and other forms of non-committal sexual relationships can be traced back as far as Ancient Greece with Athenian lawmaker and lyric poet Solon founding state brothels and taxing prostitutes on their earnings in the 5th century BC,[3] the concept of Friends with Benefits is a modern creation. Moreover, there are nuances in the differences between these different types of relationships. While there exists no universal explanation as to why this phenomena exist, there are hypotheses.

Dating in the Digital Age[edit]

The Digital age has created the concept known as Hookup Culture. Apps such as Tinder, Bumble, and Grindr have incentivized partners to meet up for one off sexual encounters, rather than join in committed romantic relationships[4]. Because of the pervasiveness of dating apps we have more choices for partners than we have ever had, which could cause relationships to get more perplexed[5]. What this means is that we have more options, so it is harder to know what is the best option[5]. When people are not sure if they are making the right choice for their partner, they may not emphasize romanticism or commitment. This lack of strong commitment, and romanticism are also found in Friends with Benefits, and, because of those commonalities, dating apps could be used to explain the relationships.

Sexual Liberation[edit]

At its essence, sexual liberation was the movement that normalized people having sex outside of marriage, whether it be pre-marital, or extramarital, and having other non-traditional sexual partners or experiences[6]. The origins of the modern sexual revolution can be traced back to the 1940s, when it was discovered that penicillin could be used to treat syphilis [7]. Researches have found that this discovery lead to the increase in riskier and non-traditional sexual acts[7]. Twenty years later, in the 1960's The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)[8]. The contraceptive made the chances of pregnancy lower, which could have resulted in a higher number of people having sex a younger age, and outside of marriage. Romanticism and commitment are both factors of traditional relationships, and as traditional relationships have been deemphasized, because of sexual liberation, relationships that feature romanticism and traditional commitment may also be deemphasized. This allows for Friends with Benefits, which are less concerned romanticism and traditional commitment, to be viewed as more normal.

Feminism[edit]

Feminism has a long history of work that includes articles, films, books, art, legislation, and other things that operate under and try to further the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes[9]. This includes work that has argued for the sexual equality of the sexes. The traditional primary association of sex was reproduction within families[10]. This mindset forced women to view sex as a function, and not as a necessarily pleasurable experience. However, the rise in modern feminist texts has opened women to many of the pleasures and responsibilities of sexual expression that had previously been reserved for men[11]. This shift in mindset showed that sex did not need to exist as a function for reproduction, and, so, it was not exclusive to married couples. The work feminism has done has changed the mindset of viewing sex as a means to an end (e.g. having sex only for the purpose of reproduction), and made it more of an end in itself (e.g. having sex because it is pleasurable). The shift in mindset that feminism has allowed could have made relationships where the goal was sex (Friends with Benefits), instead of romanticism in the traditional sense, more popular.

Differences From Other Similar Relationship Types[edit]

While non-committal relationships and friends with benefits are both stereotyped as being nonromantic, this is where the similarities seem to end. Friends with benefits relationships often do not have the public romantic hallmarks, such as hand holding and cuddling, but there is nothing to say the members of the relationship cannot be committed to each other. On average Friends with Benefits relationships last for 8 months,[12] which means, even though it may be much less than traditional relationships, they do involve some level of commitment.

They also differ from prostitution, escorts, sugar baby, gold digger, and other similar relationship types. These relationships are thought of as ones where material gifts like cars, luxurious vacations, and shopping excursions[13] are given in exchange for the expectation of a sexual encounter. So, while these two types of relationships, Friends with Benefits and ones that are based on material gifts, both have seemingly similar levels of commitment, and romanticism, they are different because Friends with Benefits are not defined by gift giving.

Pop Culture[edit]

Film and television[edit]

Music[edit]

Theories[edit]

Relational Turbulence Theory[edit]

Relational turbulence theory attempts to explain the ways that people think, emote, and communicate during negative relational conditions[2]. Turbulence is the global and persistent evaluation of the relationship as tumultuous, unsteady, fragile, and chaotic that arises from the accumulation of specific episodes[14]. Two generative mechanisms contribute to couples’ negative outcomes in RTT: relational uncertainty and partner interdependence[2]. Relational uncertainty is concerned with questions about the nature of involvement within a relationship,[14] and interdependence is the degree to which two people interrupt each other’s causal chain of events[15]. Relational turbulence theory proposes that relational uncertainty likely influences relationship satisfaction[2]. Friends with Benefits based relationships have high levels of uncertainty compared to traditional relationships, and these perceptions of uncertainty were positively related to perceptions of turmoil[2]. Turmoil, then, could be related to relationship satisfaction.

Equity Theory[edit]

Equity theory focuses on determining whether the distribution of resources is fair to both relational partners[16] In traditional man and wife marriages, research has found the level of equity in a relationship was important to wives but not to husbands[17]. This research, though, is not substantiated in Friends With Benefits type relationships. Instead, research has found that equity is actually more important in Friends With Benefits type relationships[17]. This could be explained by the low commitment aspect of the relationships, where partners face little to no penalty for leaving the relationship. Since the penalty for leaving is so low, you could persuade a partner to stay in the relationship by ensuring equity. Also, because the penalty for leaving is low, a partner could be more willing to leave the relationship if they are not receiving as much as they feel they are owed.

Uses and Gratifications Theory[edit]

Uses and Gratification theory posits that people are active participants in seeking the media that will satisfy their specific needs[18]. Uses and Gratifications theory argues that we do not simply consume media that we are presented with, instead we intentionally choose media that satisfies our given needs[19]. For example, if you had a liberal mindset, you would intentionally choose liberal news sources, because it satisfies your needs more than other types of media. While traditionally, the theory has been used to study media, it can be applied to Friends With Benefits type relationships. Uses and Gratifications theory, when applied to relationships, would say we do passively participate in relationships, but seek out ones that fulfill the needs we have. The needs that used to be dominant in relationships were concerned with child rearing, and marriage. Because of factors discussed in the context section, there currently exist needs in relationships that are fundamentally different than those that existed decades ago. To use the language of Uses and Gratifications theory, people now have begun to intentionally seek alternative relationships to satisfy their new needs.

Cultivation Theory[edit]

Cultivation theory argues that television and other forms of media play a major role in shaping the ideology and social reality of the people who consume it[20]. For example, if you grew up in a household that watched a liberal news source every night, cultivation theory would predict you would be likely to grow up with a more liberal mindset. Research has found that members of Friends with Benefits relationships were on average 18 years old,[12] back in 2011. This means that the people most likely to be in Friends With Benefits relationships are people who consumed popular media in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. This is when movies like When Harry Met Sally,[21] and tv shows like Friends and Sex in the City were popular and promoted a more liberal view of sex and relationships. Because people grew up consuming media that had a liberal view of sex and relationships, Cultivation Theory would argue it has mindset shaped the social reality of people who are now the traditional age to join in relationships, and marriages. Now, instead of joining relationships and marriages, they have been cultivated to prioritize relationships that are non-romantic and lower levels of commitment like they have seen in media.

See also[edit]

Citations[edit]

  1. ^ Knight, K (2014-12). "Communicative dilemmas in emerging adults' friends with benefits relationships: Challenges to relational talk". Emerging Adulthood. 2 (4): 270–279. doi:10.1177/2167696814549598. ISSN 2167-6968. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e f Ray, C, D; Stein, J, B; van Raalte, L, J; Mongeau, P, A (2019-4). "Testing relational turbulence theory in friends with benefits relationships". Ohio Communication Journal: 6–18. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "A brief history of brothels". The Independent. 2006-01-21. Retrieved 2019-10-03.
  4. ^ Robbins, M. "Has tinder replaced dating with hookup culture?". CNN. Retrieved 2019-10-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ a b Dodgson, L. "Dating apps give us too much choice, and it's ruining our chances for finding love". Insider. Retrieved 2019-10-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ Barber, N (2009). "Sexual liberation: Whose sexuality is liberated, men's or women's?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2019-10-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ a b Francis, A M (2013-1). "The wages of sin: How the discovery of penicillin reshaped modern sexuality". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 42 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0018-4. ISSN 1573-2800. PMID 23054260. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "A Brief History of Birth Control in the U.S." Our Bodies Ourselves. 2006. Retrieved 2019-10-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ "Feminism". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-10-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. ^ D'Emilio, J; Freedman, E (2014). "Intimate matters: A history of Sexuality in America". networks.h-net.org. Retrieved 2019-10-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. ^ "Changing sexual attitudes and options". www.cliohistory.org. Retrieved 2019-10-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ a b Weaver, A; MacKeigan, K; MacDonald, H (2011). "Experiences and perceptions of young adults in friends with benefits relationships: A qualitative study". The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 20: 41–53.
  13. ^ Nelson, R (November 6 2014). "'Sugar baby' reveals why married men cheat with her for thousands of dollars". HuffPost. Retrieved 2019-10-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. ^ a b Solomon, D, H; Knobloch, L, K; Theiss, J, A; McLaren, R, M (October 2016). "Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships". Human Communication Research. 42 (4): 507–532. doi:10.1111/hcre.12091.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Berscheid, E (1985). Compatibility, interdependence, and emotion  Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 143-161). New York, NY: Springer.
  16. ^ Guerrero, L., & Andersen, P. (2000). Emotion in close relationships. In C. Hendrick, & S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 171-182) Sage.
  17. ^ a b Goodboy, A, K; Myers, S, A. (Spring 2008). "Relational maintenance behaviors of friends with benefits: Investigating equity and relational characteristics". Human Communication. 11 (1): 71–85.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Katz, E; Blumler, J, G; Gurevitch, M (1973). "Uses and gratifications research". Public Opinion Quarterly. 37 (4): 509. doi:10.1086/268109.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ^ Severin, W, J (2001). Communication theories : Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. Tankard, James W. (5th ed ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. ISBN 0801333350. OCLC 43397110. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ Jäckel, M (2003). "Media effects. Advances in theory and research". Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft. 51 (1): 109–111. doi:10.5771/1615-634x-2003-1-109. ISSN 1615-634X.
  21. ^ McCallaway, C (November 28 2018). "7 Movies like friends with benefits". Reel Rundown. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pearcebarr/Friends_with_benefits&oldid=922489366"