Three little words...no, not "I love you." Friends with Benefits. Can such a concept really exist? I may not be the most versed in sexual experiences, but I have been around the block a time or two. Show of hands, how many of you have accomplished a Friends With Benefits situation successfully? Not as many people as you think just waved their hands in the air...like they just don't care.
There is one main reason people always blame for the lack of viability in Friends with Benefits: Attachment
Attachment
Humans are emotional creatures. Females more so than males, but either way sex is an emotional experience. There's the body issues of the self conscious. There's the worry of not pleasing your partner or worse, being flat out bad at it. The fear that what you find kinky, they find scary. The list goes on. Point being, despite what anyone says, sex is always awkward and confusing to some degree. When you take off your clothes (or at least some of them) to have sex, you are metaphorically shedding a piece of your wall. You are putting your guard down and exposing a small weak spot. It's inevitable. It's impossible not to. And no mater how small that crack in the wall is, there's always that chance you get shot. That is, shot with the arrow of attachment. Once again, it's more common with women than with men, but it does swing both ways. Trust me, I've seen plenty of guys fall hard after sleeping with a Man Eater. Guy or girl, it's easy to tell ourselves not to care. What's difficult is actually making our emotions do what we tell them. Once you're shot, there is NO going back. You're poisoned with the need to be with that person on some level more than just primal. Sorry, no doctor can cure that ailment.
But Attachment is not the only reason Friends with Benefits fail. There's always the need to be territorial.
Territory
While attachment falls under "Love/Belonging Needs" in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Territory falls under "Safety Needs." We may be a civilized race, but that doesn't mean we're not still animals. Homo sapiens to be exact. Many animals, such as dogs, feel the need to mark their territory. A mutt doesn't pee on a hydrant because of an emotional attachment. It is merely staking it's claim to make sure others know it's been there. While many people IN relationships suffer from this issue, it manifests itself in a slightly different way for Friends with Benefits. While not present in all Friends with Benefit scenarios, the worry of other people getting involved with your "friend" is a common concern. It could be the number of others they are sleeping with that worries you for your own health and safety. It could be the awkwardness of them sleeping with a friend or coworker you have to see everyday. While the ground rules may allow for an open arrangement, it doesn't mean one party will not get livid if the other sleeps with their enemy. The basic instinct is to protect your surroundings. When the "friend" strays from the guild lines, it may make the other fearful because they are no longer in control of the situation. Humans enjoy the safety of their car, their home, their bed, etc. While many think Friends with Benefits is a safer alternative to dating, it is in fact more unstable due to its amorphous nature.
The bottom rung of Maslow's triangle is "Psychological Needs." These are what I like to call primal needs. Maslow describes this as anything that is a literal requirement for human survival. While eating, breathing, or sleeping are what most people think of as "Psychological Needs" I assert that sex, ere go procreation, is a requirement for the survival of the human race. Sex is a primal instinct. You remember what Cole Porter taught us: birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So when two individuals engage in a Friends with Benefits situation, it is often to simply fill their subconscious need to mate. So how will this contaminate the success of this no strings attached setup? Well its in the title: Friends
Friends?
There is one major component to Friends with Benefits that is not present in agreements like "F@$% Buddies" or "Booty Calls." The people are friends. It sounds simple and obvious, but it's actually a very important part that is often overlooked. There's always the worry of breaking up a friendship that can ruin any Friends with Benefits. But more subtle, there's the self analysis that makes one discover: "are we really friends??" At first I thought this was the perfect solution to the aforementioned problems. If you're not really friends, then there's no worry of getting attached. I mean, who would get attached to someone they don't even like. This way, it's only about the primal need to get laid. It seemed like the perfect loophole. Until you realize the fatal flaw. You can't be Friends with Benefits without being friends. Then all you're left with are the benefits. This ironically become messy because without the friendship element, communication is difficult. Setting ground rules and having mutual understandings tend to get thrown to the wayside. While some "go with the flow" personalty type may be able to thrive in that situation, the average person will find it difficult. As if the actual sex isn't awkward and confusing enough, having the arrangement be awkward is simply unsustainable for most people. Think how difficult it would be to solicit someone you don't even like for sex. Try talking to them about STD tests. Try talking to them about anything. It's as painful as pulling teeth. Trust me, even if it's good in the bedroom, it's the getting from the living room to the bedroom that's the deal breaker.
So what's my conclusion to all of this. I honestly don't know. As I've gotten older I've realized the more casual the sex, the more maturity is needed. I'd like to think by my age we all all mature enough to handle such a complex arrangement but I'm quickly realizing that's not true. Friends with Benefits are not for the weak. So maybe it's a game where there are no winners. Then again, you know what they say: if at first you don't succeed...
