Is this thinking common amongst modern women?

[Blues]

I recently went for dinner with a couple of my co-workers. Theres this girl who just joined the company.

So I was just making small talk with her. Soon we started talking about relationships and stuff. According to her, she's not attached but she has a 'partner'. To me, anything less than a proper relationship is a FB. She disagrees. Apparently this partner she has been seeing for more than a yr now is more than a friend but less than a boyfriend. They are free to date others but no sleeping around.

So i asked her how this partner of hers is taking it. At first he didnt like the idea cos there wasnt any exclusitivty but now he thinks its great. And when they are ready to take it to the next level, they will have a talk about it. He bought her some exp stuff for her b/d as well, so he might be serious abt it as well. So the main role is just for companionship.

The reason she is doing this is because shes tired of having a serious relationship since her last breakup 2 yrs back. She doesnt want to be bounded by all the rules and boundaries of a LTR.

What is dont really get is, if you really like a person lots, and the feeling is mutual, wldnt it be a natural progression to have a more serious relationship than just being 'partners'?

I would think this arrangement would benefit a guy more than a girl.

 

[kyphan]

Not everyone wants to be attached. They want someone to spend time with that they enjoy being around, but not the exclusivity and certainly not the seriousness that seems to come in a comitted relationship.

Be realistic: some women just want sex, some want some fun, and some want a husband. Not everyone wants the same thing at the same time.

 

[Mind_Body_Soul]

Sounds like she's dating a wuss and if you expect me to believe she's not fuxing these other dudes she's dating, PLEASE.

I just hope he isn't so whipped that he is actually just "dating" these girls and isn't getting any puzzy.

Is he getting sex from her or not?

Sounds like he isn't man enough and she's just waiting for someone better.

 

[Vulpine]

This is funny.

We call it "FB". They call it "partner" or "boyfriend", depending on the company.

Guys and gals have different terminology for the same thing. We all know this.

An FB of mine, that I've been fuxing for close to 2 years off and on, admitted that, in certain company it's "uncomfortable" to use the idea "FB", so, she refers to me as (nameless) "boyfriend".

I laughed. "Boyfriend?" I laughed some more.

When her and I are together, we know what's what. But when she has to describe me to others, rather than get long-winded and explain, she just sidesteps judgement/explanation/misunderstanding/unwanted lecture and says "boyfriend". It's really part of the ASD mechanism.

I've come to recognize that the difference between a woman using a person's name and using the expression "my boyfriend" is the difference in attachment or level of involvement. See, if a woman refers to their bf as "Joe", it is known or understood that "Joe is her serious relationship", and she is proud of it.

However, if a woman uses the nameless "my boyfriend", it's could mean any one of her 8 boyfriends, but just the one she happens to be talking about in that particular instance. If you pay attention to women you are close to or talk to a lot, you'll hear them refer to "their boyfriend". But, in the stories, the subject couldn't possibly be the same person. It's fun, you'll see that some women NEVER seem to mention a boyfriend's name. Hmm.... :crackup:

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...The reason she is doing this is because shes tired of having a serious relationship since her last breakup 2 yrs back. She doesnt want to be bounded by all the rules and boundaries of a LTR.

What is dont really get is, if you really like a person lots, and the feeling is mutual, wldnt it be a natural progression to have a more serious relationship than just being 'partners'? ....

You answered your own question. It's not that being with the right person isn't an attractive proposition, it's that people are learning that the old world definition of relationships are very constricting. For most contemporary women the thing they fear most about relationships is the posibility of loosing their identity.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Under this arrangement, you should've asked her, who she thought would reneg on the 'relationship' first? If I thought a situation like this could exist in a vacuum I'd say the guy's only mistake was that he'd promised only to fukk her exclusively. Otherwise they're just dating non-exclusively and spinning plates.

The more likely scenario is that this girl is the guy's only option and he really has no better choice than to agree to her non-exclusivity (excluding sex) policy and would jump at the chance of becoming exclusive with her, only she want's a security blanket around while she plays the field. Any woman casually explaining a situation like this is firmly in control of the frame. That and the whole premise is ludicrous; if she came a across a guy she was genuinely attracted to do you honestly think she'd honor her self-imposed limitations on sex with the first guy at the risk of missing out on a better prospect? Please,..

In fact, the very idea that she thinks this guy is OK with the whole arrangement makes her true IL of the guy suspect.