While that is probably true, friends with benefits is completely non-transactional.
It’s just two friends who fuck when they feel like it. For example, an ex and I decided that we didn’t work as a couple, but the sex was great so we just kept doing that until one of us found a significant other.
No, it says “the guy will still sleep with you.” This is saying that guys will often be open to having sex with the woman who was friend-zoned if she initiates.
What it’s saying is that when a girl friend-zones a guy, he doesn’t get a relationship or sex. But when a guy friend-zones a girl, there’s a chance the only thing she doesn’t get is the relationship.
How is it prostitute zoned if money isn’t involved?
Because sometimes people need shelter, food, or protection
It can still be a transaction without money changing hands
That’s not the same. Friends with benefits and a sugar daddy situation are very different scenarios
Are they a sugar daddy if they just let you sleep in their bed so you’re not homeless?
Only if it’s contingent on having sex with them.
I was always under the impression that a sugar daddy paid for lots, not just freeing up enough space for a second toothbrush in the bathroom
While that is probably true, friends with benefits is completely non-transactional.
It’s just two friends who fuck when they feel like it. For example, an ex and I decided that we didn’t work as a couple, but the sex was great so we just kept doing that until one of us found a significant other.
Yes, but the thread is talking about being friendzoned by men (usually taken to be a bad thing) and yet the man still wanting sex
No, it says “the guy will still sleep with you.” This is saying that guys will often be open to having sex with the woman who was friend-zoned if she initiates.
What it’s saying is that when a girl friend-zones a guy, he doesn’t get a relationship or sex. But when a guy friend-zones a girl, there’s a chance the only thing she doesn’t get is the relationship.