'Friends with Benefits' sex does no psych harm - profs

[FarCenter]

By Lewis Page, 9th December 2009 13:10 GMT

Boffins in Minnesota have a message for young adults: sleeping around is OK. Your prospects in terms of psychological health should you indulge in casual flings are every bit as good as they would be if you bizarrely chose to waste your wild-oats years in one or more doleful and ultimately doomed monogamous relationships.

According to Marla E Eisenberg and her colleagues at Minnesota uni:

Speculation in public discourse suggests that sexual encounters outside a committed romantic relationship may be emotionally damaging for young people, and federal abstinence education policy has required teaching that sexual activity outside of a marital relationship is likely to have harmful psychological consequences.

Au contraire, say the researchers - a few notches on the bedpost achieved in one's salad days will do no harm at all. Having surveyed 1,311 Minnesotan youngsters whose average age was 20.5 during 2003-04, they found no evidence that the odd fling leads to psychological problems whatsoever.

"Young adults engaging in casual sexual encounters do not appear to be at increased risk for harmful psychological outcomes compared to those in more committed relationships," says Eisenberg.

The study did appear to refer to so-called "friends with benefits" cheery consequence-free shagging among likeminded sorts who already know each other socially, as opposed to more risky practices such as simply picking up sailors on the docks.

<SNIP>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/09/friends_with_benefits/

[Blasphemer]

1. That's a no-brainer... nt

[EndersDame]

2. I got into a serious relationship shortly after losing my virginity

I really wished I fooled around more :)

[Zywiec]

3. This won't go over well with the DU puritans n/t

[izquierdista]

5. Well, fuck 'em

Or to paraphrase George Carlin, why is it that people who complain about sex are the ones you wouldn't want to fuck anyway?

:toast: na zdrowie :beer:

[seabeyond]

4. lol, and here is a real duh. one study after another. nt

[Thickasabrick]

6. Well if this helps to defund the federal abstinence program, I'm happy. nt

[pnwmom]

7. As long as you aren't an angel-faced woman doing it in Italy. Then you are Luciferina,

amoral, and capable of anything.

Even of the devilish feat of being able to magically wipe away every trace of your DNA, footprints, and fingerprints in a violent crime scene, while carefully leaving the DNA, footprints, and fingerprints of the one partner-in-crime that you wished to incriminate.

[MellowDem]

8. From what I've seen...

casual sex doesn't cause emotional distress, as long as both parties involved realize it's only casual. The only time anyone seemed to get emotionally hurt was when they both approached it casually, and then through more intimacy (not just sex), one wanted more and the other didn't. Hell, some of the most dramatic and constantly heartbroken guys I knew were the ones that wore their heart on their sleeves but by and large kept it in the pants.

However, I must say that their definition of casual sex is rather "rare" in relative terms. Most of the casual sex I've ever heard of is definitely more along the lines of "simply picking up a sailor at the docks" ie: total strangers. And then STD's, the fear of pregnancy, etc. has definitely been the cause of emotional distress. That's why friends with benefits was held in such high esteem by my college peers, because it's such a rare and supposedly rewarding (sexually) relationship. It's one of the few instances where sex really is consequence free (mostly). But if you know a person well enough to be "friends", the relationship rarely stays strictly casual, usually becoming serious or just ending altogether. The study seems to be based off of a rather bad definition of "casual".

I think that some people's personalities are set up for them to have psychological problems when it comes to relationships, sex or not.

My only beef with the article is pushing the rather low-brow idea that it is somehow crazy not to engage in casual sex in your younger days. I have always had committed relationships, nothing casual, and I don't regret it or wish I had been shagging it up. I have friends who were very permiscious in their younger days, and while they don't regret it (unless it resulted in STD's or unwanted pregnancy), they don't feel like they couldn't have done without it either. They usually tell me that they don't actually even remember it anymore, a few years on, and the only real happiness (or hurt) it brings them is the emotions of the relationship. One-night stands are sometimes fun stories, but little else, definitely not usually an important memory, unless it was a first time maybe.

[Toasterlad]

9. Wow! Consensual Sex Between Two People Doesn't Kill You!

Who would have thought???

:eyes:

[frebrd]

10. No emotionally damaging consequences at all........

unless they've been brainwashed by some tightassed religion!

:)

[customerserviceguy]

13. Exactly

Religion supplies the guilt that triggers the psychological trauma once the breakup has occurred. It's more likely that young women would have had this sort of stress placed on them while growing up than young men would.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. I've had friends with benefits in the past...works out great.

Especially when I'm high stressed.

[flvegan]

12. Woo hoo!!!! Ladies, I'll meet you at my house!

:hide:

[Ilsa]

15. Watch out, you hunk! ;-)

[treestar]

14. Hard to pin down

We don't know if the people are telling the truth. Most people won't admit to regretting it, especially men.

It depends entirely on the individual.

[Forkboy]

16. Like any relationship, it works out great until she wants to "borrow" my Nomeansno CDs.

[AllentownJake]

17. It works when both parties know it isn't serious

It is a disaster when one party is doing it in hopes of a committed relationship.

[cali]

18. exactly

I could kill my son right now. Over the summer he slept with a girl who I've known and he's been friends with for years. And he knew she's had a terrible crush on him since she was like 8 years old. I love her dearly. Her parents are close friends. So for that matter are her uncles, aunt, grandmother and various cousins. For him it was casual. For her it wasn't. It's now a mess.

[AllentownJake]

20. I've gotten myself in trouble on both sides of the coin

I'm 30 now, learned my lessons...I hope.

[cali]

21. I'd cut my kid more slack

(he's 23) but a) he knew she should have been off limits because he's never been interested in her as a girl friend and he knew how she feels about him, and b) this isn't the first time. I think it would be good for him to get the other side of the coin. And it's not like he doesn't have women as friends. He just should know better by now.

[AllentownJake]

22. Don't worry he will probably get smacked the way I did

and boy when it happened it hurt and seeing you raised him, he'll think twice before doing something stupid like that again.

In issues of love, I truly believe in Karma.

[seabeyond]

23. wow. eeew. bummer, lol. doesnt sound fun. nt

[anonymous171]

19. I love drawing moral conclusions from wholly non-moral premises too nt

[TK421]

24. I knew this, but thanks for the post since it only enforces my suspicions

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. well it has to be a better idea than hooking up with random weirdos on the internet

[MineralMan]

26. They could have just interviewed a few of us who lived through

the late 60s and early 70s. Lots of casual sexual encounters going on back then. Lots.

[Mojorabbit]

28. Yes and no regrets ,

only fuzzy memories. LOL

[BeFree]

27. Uhmmmm

We called it "Make Love, Not War".

War, now that will fuck up your shit, dude. Seen lots of guys come back from 'Nam.