Talk:Fuck buddy

This page borders on self parody of Wikipedia. In an effort to create some semblance of respectability, I've moved the 'Morality' section to the top. If someone feels that this is inappropriate, you can move it back down, and I'll let the issue drop.
 * I feel the 'Morality' should be moved back to the end (in alphabetical order), as not adding any real value by being on top. Also, I think it would be better to reword it (I couldn't think of a proper way yet), as to avoid absolutism (concept of f.b. is not in accordance with traditional moral values implies that any culture's traditional moral values do not fit, and never did, whereas I am sure there were cultures that permited, and possibly even encouraged such relationships. Of course, this is not a researched fact, thut I'm commenting, not fixing). --Yurik 15:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The concept
It seems that the concept of non committed sex has existed for the length of the human condition. Perhaps the sitcom Sex In The City has brought this topic to the point of open discussion and labeling as a phenomena. The possible fact that young women now may avail themselves officially of the behavior always attributed to young men seems to stick mainly in the egos of those young men who now may feel as utilized by the women as they had once taken advantage of the female sex. In the movies made in the 1950's, there emerged a double standard of good women, who were suitable for marriage and motherhood, and bad women, who were ultimately doomed to a life as whores. Prior to that time, women who enjoyed sex and sexual behavior were accepted as equals. There has recently been television program which outlined the distinction via class structure for this acceptance. The "lower" working class were more open about their sexuality whereas the "upper" classes were more prone to condemn sexual interest outside of marriage for women.

Isn't there a better term than fuck buddy?
I think the term "friend with benefits" is a better and more commonly used term for this. What would you think about moving the article and setting up "fuck buddy" as a redirect? -Ld | talk 15:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it could be merged into casual sex? violet/riga (t) 16:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Just saw you found friends with benefits - that'd be better, though I think that name is still somewhat unencyclopedic. violet/riga (t) 16:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you're right. I thought about this, and I think "casual relationship" might be the most appropriate term.  Afterall, they used it in the New York Times.  -Ld | talk 16:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good name for it. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm going to attempt to merge the 2 of these into a third article (watch me screw this up :) -Ld | talk 19:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Upon visiting this article, I was redirected to casual relationship. I'm of the opinion a redirect to casual sex is more suitable. 'Fuck' means to fuck afterall. -- Longhair | Talk 20:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)