"So I'll be your friend
And I'll be your lover
Cause, I know in our hearts we agree
We don't have to be one or the other
Oh no, we could be both to each other." (Gloria Loring and Carl Anderson)
In my last post, I discussed the relationship of friendship with (sexual) benefits. Now I will turn to discuss the associated relationship of lovers with (emotional) benefits; the benefits here include caring and friendship that continues between the lovers' occasional meetings.
Yolanda is an attractive married woman in her upper forties who has a married lover in his early sixties. They meet a few times a year and have a great time together. They both immensely enjoy being together, but disagree about their activities in the period between their meetings. Her lover hardly wants any connection in between-he does not want it to disturb his marriage. Yolanda does not want their togetherness to be entirely restricted to their actual time together. She needs affection and friendship all the time. She wants him to write frequently in between their meetings. Yolanda does not want a loving affair, but a loving relationship. She does not want to be an occasional lover and does not consider herself to be a mistress. She wants to be a full time lover whose love can merely be entirely implemented occasionally. Yolanda wants to be a lover with emotional benefits.
Yolanda is different from Bertrand Russell, who had a long love affair with Lady Ottoline Morrell, and demanded she cease allowing her husband, Philip, access to her bed. Yolanda knows that she does not want to spend her whole life together with her lover-since she loves her husband and kids and her lover is too old to be a life-long partner for her. Hence, unlike Russell, she does not want her lover to limit his activities with his spouse, but she does want to upgrade his involvement with her.
Wally, a divorced woman in her mid-fifties, who is living with her partner, has a different attitude: She wants her lover to be an occasional lover. Wally does not want any connection whatsoever with her lover in between meetings; she believes that such connections might ruin her relationship with her partner. She does not want to provide her lover with the emotional benefit of an ongoing loving relationship in which they are constantly connected. Such connection demands much energy and resources, and these are bound to hurt her partner and consequently ruin their togetherness.
Heidi, a talented business woman in her fifties who is living with her partner, has a similar attitude. She is having a great time with her probably soon-to-be lover, but between their rare meetings she feels bad about them and does not permit any contact between them. Heidi enjoys their occasional stormy meetings as long as there is no commitment and no plans for the future. She is still not sure about having an occasional lover, but she is certain that she does not want to offer any emotional benefits.
It can feel uncomfortable to provide a lover with emotional benefits while being in a committed relationship, as such emotional benefits often intensify the already pervasive sense of guilt about infidelity.
The relationship of both friends and lovers with benefits are at the same time a compromise and a way of coping with that compromise. Both relationships are compromises, a second best when compared with genuine romantic love where the lovers spend as much of their time together as they wish. This second best can be either friendship (with sexual benefits) or loving affairs (with emotional benefits). Second-best options are a way of coping with the circumstances of compromise. The relationship is less than that of genuine love, but more than mere friendship or an occasional affair.
Relationships of both friends and lovers with benefits are incomplete, restless and undefined, relationships that aspire for something more. Genuine romantic love is different-you do not yearn for more once you have it. As Perry Como says: "If I had you, could I ever want for more? It's just impossible!" Romantic love is often described as paradise, being in heaven-nothing more is wanted other than to remain in this paradise forever.
Friendship and sexual affairs are also well defined and can stand on their own. Friendship is an ongoing relationship that people can maintain all their lives. Familiarity and a shared history are conducive for solid long-term friendship. Sexual affairs are briefer in nature, but they have well-defined beginning and end.
Unlike friendship, sexual affairs, and romantic love, friends and lovers with benefits are in a vague and undefined relationship; they often want more benefits, the extent of which are undefined and which exacerbate the complex and restless nature of the relationship. The vagueness of the relationship paradoxically requires a subtle balance with specific boundaries. When the general framework is not well-defined, people's behavior within the framework should be more careful as there are no red lights indicating that one is approaching a danger zone.
The benefits these friends and lovers wish to give and receive are not naturally associated with friendship or affairs and getting them does not upgrade the relationship to a fully committed loving one. Moreover, of the decision to offer benefits does not mean that their extent or their implementation can be fully determined. Hence, it is necessary to balance their extent carefully, as one may not want or may not yet be able to cope with a fully committed loving relationship.
The lure of friends and lovers with benefits is the no-strings-attached aspect. But this aspect is partial; it refers merely to the presence of the benefits and not to their extent. The participants do not perceive the limited benefits as posing any risk to their everyday lives. Because of the tempting nature of the benefits, people typically want more and more of them, and this can impact negatively on their everyday lives (especially in the case of lovers with benefits), which could make it impossible to continue the relationship with benefits. The limited benefits are often not sufficient and are perceived to involve unbearable restrictions.
In this regard, Jennifer Wright writes: "The appeal of 'friends with benefits' seems to be that it's about having 'no drama.' No one complains about anything. No one is required to make plans. Really, the only emotion you're supposed to register is unparalleled bliss and physical delight. Of course, it backfires and results in infinitely more drama and crying, because the world is a dark and twisted place."
Such drama and crying stem from the fact that it is often more difficult to restrict your benefits than not to have them at all. Accordingly, Wright calls for rejecting friendship with benefits and getting back to lovers whose relationships is loaded with emotions.
Lovers with benefits do have the advantage of being able to share their emotions with their partner, but they must restrict thoughts about a comprehensive implementation of their love. Friends with benefits have greater restrictions about their desire to upgrade their relationship into a comprehensive loving relationship-they are not even allowed to express their loving attitudes. Lovers with emotional benefits are closer to genuine love, but it is often very difficult for them to restrict their love to the expected boundaries.
The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, even if I cannot whisper into your beautiful ears every morning that I love you so much, I still want to keep saying it and writing it to you. Is that too much to ask, my married beloved?"
