Changing FWB into SO?

[catcul]

I read a letter asking for advice on a now defunct web site. Here's the TL;DR version.


* She wanted to start dating a certain guy.
* He tells her that he is only interested in a "no strings attached" relationship.
* After a while, she tells him that she wants an exclusive relationship, and he agrees.
* He keeps pursuing other NSA relationships with other women. (How surprising. )
* Now she's unhappy and is asking for advice on how to get him to be faithful.


Some of the comments say, "You need to break up with him. You deserve better."

While I do agree that she should break up with him, I don't agree with the statement that she deserves better. She pursued a traditional relationship with a friend with benefits, AKA a fuck buddy. She should have just passed this guy up and go for a guy that also wants a traditional relationship.

[Greenday]

She does deserve someone better. Just because she's stupid doesn't mean she doesn't deserve someone who wants an exclusive relationship.

[Andara Bledin]

She does deserve someone better. Just because she's stupid doesn't mean she doesn't deserve someone who wants an exclusive relationship.

These two things. They are not mutually exclusive. You really shouldn't assume that your values are everybody's values.

That said, the fact that he agreed to an exclusive relationship and then continued to seek out others leads me to believe that either she didn't define that exclusive meant monogamous (those are not necessarily the same thing) or he didn't mean it when he agreed to enter into it.

Either way, they're incompatible as a couple and she should never have thought she could change him.

[catcul]

I still have to disagree with you, Greenday. I will admit that he probably lied when he agreed to make their relationship exclusive. However, she lied to him and herself when she agreed to become an FWB when she was clearly not OK with it.

The reason he won't change is that he's getting exactly what he wants (sex) without any of the responsibilities of a relationship. It's no more complicated than simple logic and Pavlovian psychology.

[siead_lietrathua]

These two things. They are not mutually exclusive. You really shouldn't assume that your values are everybody's values.

QFT, and because you said it nicer than i was feeling like sayin it.

the couple in the OP should have had more of a conversation about what kind of relationship they wanted other than agreeing to date and not just bang.
from what little is in the OP is seems to me almost like the girl wanted to date the guy, so agreed to being FWB in order to almost put herself into a place where she could finagle him into being hers only, which is kinda jerky. and well yes it sucks that the guy still was going around with others, unless they sat down like growed-ups and agrees to monogamy, he had the right to assume it was ok.
after all, if she was fine with being his FWB while he was with other girls, then he probably figured she would be ok being dating while he still sees other girls. (putting her in a "primary" position while keeping his "secondary" partners, basically)

[HYHYBT]

However, she lied to him and herself when she agreed to become an FWB when she was clearly not OK with it.

All right. We KNOW he's a liar. We know nothing of the sort about her. People change their minds about what they want. There is absolutely nothing in the tale as presented even to *suggest* that she was dishonest in agreeing to FWB, so why read that into the story?

The most straightforward reading I can see is as follows:
1) Both want, and agree to, FWB.
2) She decides she wants to try for a real relationship.
3) Rather than assuming he cannot possibly have come to think that way too, she asks.
4) He agrees to change their status to SO, implying (unless he said otherwise *at this point* that he had indeed changed his mind as she had.


So... why is this reading of the story wrong?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'd keep in mind that some people are going to view her as attempting to be a cowgirl in this situation. That is, the mere fact that she attempted to get monogamy after starting a NSA relationship is the abhorrant part as they may see it. The thing is, there are people who do this in a malicious way, but I'm not sure we can assume that from what the OP gives us.

But from the prompt, I take it that NSA was the original agreement and monogamy was the renegotiated agreement. If we take those communications as honest, that leaves the culpability with the guy.

Yes, if she acted in good faith she deserves better. A lot of people date around until they find someone they want to spend most their time with. And a lot of people eventually say, "ok you." I mean the reality is, everyone has the right to say when they need more or less from a relationship. And the other person has the right and obligation to answer honestly in response. Sometimes, two people can't form a compatible relationship. The guy's job was to answer honestly which he didn't.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

And I will add, being ok with having a FWB relationship with someone you find cool or interesting for a few nights every month and being ok with being in a FWB relationship when you realize you really, really, really like the person are not equivalent circumstances. Some people are wired to be fine with the first and not with the second. Some are fine with both. Some are fine with neither.

[catcul]

HYHYBT and D_Yeti_Esquire, you both have to keep in mind that we're getting only her side of the story. She could have just said, "I think we should start dating." He may have thought, "Since we had an open relationship, we should continue to have an open relationship."

If she thought that she deserved better, she would end this relationship and try to find better.

[Hyena Dandy]

All right. We KNOW he's a liar. We know nothing of the sort about her.

I'd say that, the way the story is presented, it's the other way around. The order of events listed is that she wanted to be dating, and he said he only wanted to be in a friends-with-benefits relationship. We don't see him say that he wants to be in a monogamous relationship. We don't even see him IMPLY that. We see her THINK she implies that by asking to be his girlfriend. But all in all, we do know that the first point is wanting to date him, and yet saying that she wanted to be friends with benefits.

I am fine with people being friends with benefits, and that turning into a relationship. I have no issue with that. I don't know anyone who's polyamorous having an issue with that. I even am fine with people being friends with benefits, and wanting to become monogamous. But I am really not fine with people being friends with benefits and thinking that that will be their way into getting a monogamous relationship.

I'll admit, it is possible that she only later changed her mind and decided she wanted to be in a monogamous relationship, but even then, she was coming from "I want to be dating him... And I am going to pretend I like being FWB until that happens."

[Andara Bledin]

All right. We KNOW he's a liar.

Do we? All we have is the woman's take on the situation, and based on her being in it in the first place, she's obviously not the most reliable when it comes to relationship issues.

As I stated, quite plainly I thought, exclusive and monogamous are not necessarily the same thing. The vast majority of the time, they will be. But not everybody defines their terms the same way (as extended participation on this forum should make fairly clear) and if both parties don't confirm that they're using the same definitions, that leads to trouble. This is the reason why court filings will have a section of definitions in them; so that no matter what the future decides a word means, the use as pertaining to the filings is made clear.

And that's only if he actually agreed to an exclusive relationship in the first place. It wouldn't be the first time I've encountered a person who changed the terms of a relationship and believed that the other person had agreed when no such discussion had ever taken place.

But from the prompt, I take it that NSA was the original agreement and monogamy was the renegotiated agreement. If we take those communications as honest, that leaves the culpability with the guy.

Actually, monogamy was never used in the OP.

See above; exclusive and monogamous are not direct synonyms.

[HYHYBT]

If she thought that she deserved better, she would end this relationship and try to find better.

Without first asking whether it would be OK to promote the existing relationship? Why?

[Hyena Dandy]

Without first asking whether it would be OK to promote the existing relationship? Why?

What do you mean by 'Promote'?

Promotions are a step up. I can't find any other way to read this than "Monogamous relationships are better than non-monogamous relationships."

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

See above; exclusive and monogamous are not direct synonyms.

So define what they mean in this context. No need to go multiple rounds on the definition in this case.

Obviously, this isn't a discussion if she doesn't have problems with him sleeping with other people after a certain point. So she believed to be participating in a form of monogamy.

[Andara Bledin]

So she believed to be participating in a form of monogamy.

Emphasis mine. Her beliefs, if not stated explicitly, aren't germane to his actions.

Exclusivity that isn't also monogamy has to do with long-term versus no-term relationships. For those who have open relationships but are exclusive, hooking up with one night stands aren't off the table, but seeing other people more than once is.