Ok. So everybody talks… frets, really… about the idea of sex with no strings attached.
So let’s define our terms.
Sex with no strings attached means… you both agree to have sex with no further obligation.
So… what happens when someone breaks that agreement by, say, falling in love with the other after all, expressing harbored feelings, trying to see them, being jealous of subsequent partners, proposing that the partner is not actually an erstwhile one but an ongoing one, or even outright proposing, period?
If there are no strings attached then that’s a totally, totally fine thing to do, right? If there are no strings then there’s no “string” saying one party can’t do any of that. If, on the other hand, the second partner can hold the first to his or her no-strings obligation then that itself is a string of no small significance.
Nor is that the only string implied in no-strings sex. (For instance Avatar of Overworked and under-f*cked presents a very sensible set of rules, a.k.a. strings, here.)
There are strings in every sort of relationship. There just happen to be different kinds of relationships, with their own equally important strings. Different strings, yes, but no less stringy for it.
So what’s the point? Well, I’d like to propose we drop the term. It’s an inflammatory term for those who prize relationships with long-term strings. It’s oxymoronic — no-strings relationships come with strings. It’s inapt — as with any relationship if both parties don’t agree to the same terms going in problems can arise.
None of this suggests “no-strings” sex is bad. It can be rather wonderful. Unless, of course, one or the other of you fails to honor all the strings attached to it.
Submitted by 610 (not verified) on Sun, 2006-02-12 17:55.
Aw, Figleaf, you beat me to it. After my comment and your response on 2/9, I've been mulling over the inherent stringiness of "no strings," and if that term even holds any real meaning at all. But you've pretty much said everything I wanted to say. I agree,"no strings" taken literally simply is not possible.
[Oh thanks, Syl. Again, I don't object in principle or practice to relationships of very brief duration, but I think they'd work out better overall if we stopped pretending there were no obligations. --fl]
Submitted by 610 (not verified) on Sun, 2006-02-12 20:06.
So true!
[Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 610 (not verified) on Mon, 2006-02-13 00:55.
Damn, you're good.
[Thanks, Avatar. --fl]
Submitted by 610 (not verified) on Mon, 2006-02-13 01:54.
Of course there really isn't such a thing as a no strings relationship, but ....... if you asked the majority of people what 'no strings attached' relationships were they'd have a definition which would probably not refer to it being an impossibility. No strings attached to me refers to the usual - unemotional, fleeting (usually?) and free to end it at a moment's notice if need be. Strings are everywhere, perhaps 'casual' would be better than no strings?
[Yup, when most people say "no strings" they really just mean "no *rings.*" Which might have been fine back when women were for all intents and purposes still property to be "given away" by a male relative to a husband on the wedding day, when the ring-string was the only one people thought mattered. Better now to recognize that even very short-term relationships bring their own different but still-important responsibilities and honor them. If we want to keep having them in the 21st Century, which many people do, then it's an important step. Thanks, Dewdrop. --fl]
Submitted by 610 (not verified) on Mon, 2006-02-13 08:17.
Thanks for this Figleaf.
When I first put up my blog intro, I ended it with
a 'sex with no strings.. can i do it?' And since then, over these six months, I've realised so many times it wasn't the relevant question to be asking but been too lazy to go change it.
Without 'strings', where's the interaction? Sex with no long-term commitment would be far more accurate..
Thanks for reminding me again to go change it in my template once and for all :)
Love,
Learn
["Without 'strings' where's the interaction?" Wow, that's a nice way of putting it, Learn. Denial isn't a very good basis for a relationship of any duration, and denying that there are obligations of non-marriage-track relationships just makes them harder to define, recognize, or honor them. I also think the term subtly elevates reinforces the assumption that marriage is the only relationship that really counts. Which is kind of problematic since there are so many other kinds. Thanks for your kind words, Learn. --fl]
Submitted by 610 (not verified) on Mon, 2006-02-13 09:33.
Yes, I think "casual," or "fling," or "fuckbuddy" (or "one-night stand" if it's even shorter) all sound like better descriptive words than "no strings."
If I could way oversimplify, I could have three different sorts of sexual relationships: 1) it's our understanding that we expect this relationship to last and are committed to making it last, 2) it's our understanding that we don't intend this relationship to last, and will be moving on whenever it suits one of us, or 3) it's our understanding that we're not sure whether we intend this relationship to last, and we may make up our minds in either direction, depending on how things unfold. And there's a big difference between 2) and 3), even if neither of them involves actually having made a commitment.
[Good point, Lynn. Each of the three types (each of which may have myriad sub-types) is legitimate in its own right. Giving them deprecating names like "one night stand" or "no-strings" or "just shacking up" delegitimizes them and makes it more difficult to honor their very real terms. (I might add that this applies to terms like "close friend" and "Boston marriage" that gay and lesbian partners have been forced to use since "marriage," which we've tended to see as the only "real" relationship, has remains largely denied to them.) Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 610 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-02-14 04:29.
I don't like 'no strings' but I've been guilty in using it when approached by younger males (lol) or those that are a decade younger than me. But I prefer that term, over the term (which for the last 5 years has gained popularity in Oz) 'fuck buddy', which I loathe.
[Yeah, most of the terms we use are pretty derogatory. I know I'm probably boring as all get out but I'd prefer to call them something that's simply descriptive: "one night relationships," "weekend relationship," "short-term relationship." And I'm not sure why we stopped calling them flings. Fling might have some deprecating overtones but at least it suggests interest, enthusiasm, and enjoyment. My preference would be partnership, which I think works equally well for anything from a four-minute tryst at a rest stop to a Paul-Harvey 75-year marriage. I think what matters most is intentionality, not duration, so as long as you're both there for each other it's not as important how long it lasts. Thanks, Anastasia. --fl]