Changing FWB into SO?

[blas87]

Can I chime in, as a young lady with some former experience of the sort?

I used to be a dumb little girl who thought guys who were actually just using me for sex (and maybe sometimes actually did date-like stuff with me but not really a huge effort) would one day "come around" and want to be with me.

Thankfully, a few brain cells finally formed in this big dumb blonde head and I finally realized I was doing some things wrong and that those were not guys that were good boyfriend material.

I would never put a lot of hope of getting a real relationship out of someone you used to just screw around with, especially if you weren't exclusively only screwing around with just each other.

[Andara Bledin]

Thank you; that's exactly what I was saying. "Convert" might have been a more neutral word choice than "promote," but I wish someone who claims not to have understood the gist of the question would explain why that would make it confusing.

And yes, it's been addressed. By some people. Others have continued on, without explanation, as if it were totally obvious and beyond dispute that she should have, on deciding she wanted a different sort of relationship, immediately dumped him and gone seeking it elsewhere rather than even giving him a chance. IN particular, the post I was directly responding to. So the question wasn't redundant at all in that context.

Yes, "convert" would have been a much less antagonistic choice of word. It's easy to forget that this forum has quite a broad range of individuals who post here, so using terminology that implies that some are in "lesser" relationships for not being monogamous is going to raise questions and tempers without advancing the discussion.

The poster you were quoted with your question was actually arguing against the automatic assumption that she should just dump him. The statement was commenting that despite what other people had said (both of whom were called out in the post), the woman obviously believed that the man was worth having and it was only if meaningful communication happened and he agreed to monogamy and then kept sleeping around that she should find someone else.

[siead_lietrathua]

And yes, it's been addressed. By some people. Others have continued on, without explanation, as if it were totally obvious and beyond dispute that she should have, on deciding she wanted a different sort of relationship, immediately dumped him and gone seeking it elsewhere rather than even giving him a chance. IN particular, the post I was directly responding to. So the question wasn't redundant at all in that context.

well, i can kind of understand it. if you are with someone that is openly non-monogamous, asking for them to change what can be a vital part of their sexuality and identity can come across as selfish. it's the same as telling someone they would HAVE to change their religion/ political affiliation/ other strong identity symbol to be with you.
my husband put it well. "you are asking someone to be not all of who they are." and if we love people, we should encourage them to be themselves.

if the woman in the OP prefers monogamy, she should find a partner that also prefers monogamy. which the man in the OP does not. by trying to make him monogamous she's just setting up the relationship for failure.

[HYHYBT]

Thank you; that's exactly what I was saying. "Convert" might have been a more neutral word choice than "promote," but I wish someone who claims not to have understood the gist of the question would explain why that would make it confusing.

And yes, it's been addressed. By some people. Others have continued on, without explanation, as if it were totally obvious and beyond dispute that she should have, on deciding she wanted a different sort of relationship, immediately dumped him and gone seeking it elsewhere rather than even giving him a chance. IN particular, the post I was directly responding to. So the question wasn't redundant at all in that context.

[siead_lietrathua]

I don't even know what the question was.

i think (don't harf me out if i'm wrong HYHYBT) that they meant something along the lines of 'why should she have to dump this FWB first to move into a monogamous relationship with someone else, rather than initially seeing if her fwb wants to move into a mono relationship?'
which is a perfectly fine question, but it is one that has kind of already been addressed. there is no problem with asking your FWB to move into a mono relationship but it has to actually be discussed over. if the FWB is not interested in being monogamous, through words or action as like the guy in the OP, then she is better to cut her losses and find someone else if she values monogamy.
while you can "promote" a relationship from FWB to couple easily, becoming a couple does NOT equal instant monogamy, despite that being the societal norm.

[Hyena Dandy]

Sure, nitpick my phrasing and totally ignore the question.

I don't even know what the question was.

Which would be why I asked what you meant by "Promote."

I was trying to get information.

Edit: That was rude of me, I apologize. I get very snarky when tired.

[Andara Bledin]

Sure, nitpick my phrasing and totally ignore the question.

Well, aside from the fact that he wasn't the one you asked, he might want to know precisely what you were asking, thus the request for clarification of your meaning.

[HYHYBT]

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."

Sure, nitpick my phrasing and totally ignore the question.

[siead_lietrathua]

In fact it would be a ridiculous conversation to even have to convert a NSA relationship to a SA relationship while everyone is still having NSA relationships. It's a wasted conversation. Obviously, just keep seeing each other. It's the same net result. That's this conversation: "I really like seeing you... let's keep doing that and work out problems if they come up so we can keep seeing each other."

it's not a ridiculous conversation. it's a common one among people in open relationships. and really it's more like.
"hey hun, i know we agreed to just be FWB, but i find myself more attracted to you, and if you are interested, i would like it if we could try really dating."
from there it's a matter of negotiating out monogamy vs non-monogamy. if non-monogamy if you'll be using a hierarchy structure (primaries, secondaries, etc) or just varying titles (BF/GF/partner/FWB/etc). it takes a lot of time and communication to do the non-monogamy thing in a way where everyone knows what's up.

if their conversation went more like "wanna go steady?" "hmm, ok" "yay!" without any of that extra talking, then it's not the guys fault for assuming status quo if the girl never communicated she wanted monogamy. and assuming upgrading from FWB to BF/GF includes instant monogamy is, in my opinion, society-ingrained bullshit, so it's not really the girl's fault either. both of them probably never thought enough to talk it out.

after all, making the jump from FWB to GF/BF isn't about sex, they're already banging! it's about the family BBQs and other dating-like stuff you wouldn't drag a friend to.

[Nekojin]

I think the big problem here is one of expectations and assumptions - expecting a certain sort of behavior, without being completely clear of what's being expected. Without having more information, though, we can't really say who is "at fault." If anyone.

[Hyena Dandy]

Obviously, just keep seeing each other. It's the same net result.

I'm not sure what you mean, but honestly... Friends with benefits is not the same net result as romantic relationship that's non-monogamous. I have many poly friends. Some of them have boyfriends. Or girlfriends. And they still aren't monogamous.

[Andara Bledin]

Except you're assuming a miscommunication in the third step where none is specified by the OP.

No. I'm not. I'm saying that without additional detail, we can't assume that the guy was at fault, which is the assumption most of the participants in this thread went to. I'm only saying that we don't have enough details and that she wanted something other than what she was getting. That's it.

That's this conversation: "I really like seeing you... let's keep doing that and work out problems if they come up so we can keep seeing each other."

Magic.

Well, you know, except for the whole fact that that's not what she wants. But, yeah, if you ignore her desires entirely, it works out great.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Except you're assuming a miscommunication in the third step where none is specified by the OP. So we can go back and forth about relationship nuance, but a misunderstanding is an invented element. I'm not arguing the definition of monogamy because it's completely immaterial to this story.

Play with the emphasis of my statement as you like, there's nothing in this story that (unless its updated later) specifies that the guy misunderstood anything. In fact it would be a ridiculous conversation to even have to convert a NSA relationship to a SA relationship while everyone is still having NSA relationships. It's a wasted conversation. Obviously, just keep seeing each other. It's the same net result. That's this conversation: "I really like seeing you... let's keep doing that and work out problems if they come up so we can keep seeing each other."

Magic.

[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.

[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.