I’m not sure I’ve ever met someone “friendzoned” using a partner for that. Maybe for emotional support but what you described there is more how toxic relationships go down.
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.
It’s not friend zoned its prostitute zoned.
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
I’m not sure I’ve ever met someone “friendzoned” using a partner for that. Maybe for emotional support but what you described there is more how toxic relationships go down.
I have extensive experience with those, so that’s probably the lens I viewed the comment through.
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
You’ve made quite an insane assumption seeing this post and deciding that it had to be transactional.