Talk:Casual dating

message: I just went ahead and "wiki-fied" some sections in your article. Everything looks good, but maybe you could go in and find more things to "wikify" to make your article even stronger.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkonop (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikifying

message: I don't agree with the choice of words "near-sexual".  There is no hierarchy of sexual behaviour.  Is foreplay less sexual then penetration?  Is anal penetration less sexual then masturbation?  Is sex among people of the same sex less sexual then sex among people of different sexes?  (Unsigned commenter)
:As to the first point, there are differences in sexual behavior and there are different levels, and I disagree: I do believe there is a hierarchy of sexual behavior.   Sexuality is what's in people's heads and therefore different people take all the different   Is foreplay less sexual then penetration?  Absolutely; most of us are aware, either directly or through what we've seen in movies and such, about how many girls were willing to get into heavy petting and such, but would not agree to sexual intercourse.   Anyone watched the movie Animal House, where a girl was giving her steady date a hand job in the front seat of a car, but wouldn't have sex with him.  Of course now, that sort of attitude is much rarer than it was when being (at least thought of as) easy was considered a bad thing.  Even today, many young women will perform oral sex on a man, or even permit anal sex while declining intercourse, so that they can remain "technical virgins"; see the article.  This has been reported even in newspaper stories, so it's not something new.    Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is sex among people of the same sex less sexual then sex among people of different sexes? No, I think it is considered more sexual or at least, of a different category than sex between a man and a woman.  Otherwise, why are so many of the (so-called) religious right so upset over involvments among gays and lesbians and have such horrid fears over gay marriage?  Apparently they think the interactions between men and men, and women and women, are different or of a different character than the interactions between men and women.  Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have merged the content from sexualized friendship into this article and made that a redirect to this one.  Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Near-Sexual?

message: Now, granted, my native language is not english, and therefore I can't be certain how each of these terms is used in English-speaking culture -- however it has seemed to me that my english-speaking friends have used the following three terms to denote different things:
* friends with benefits: two preexisting friends start having sex together, however their friendship remains the predominant part of their relationship. They generally stop having sex with each other, once one of them forms a romantic attachment to a third person; but their friendship will (theoretically atleast) not be affected.
* fuckbuddies: two acquaintance who are usually *not* intellectual friends have formed a semi-formal pact to have sex with one another for purposes of pleasure/stress release/etc. Friendly non-sexual activities generally don't occur, nor does "friendship" exist in any meaningful level : the relationship between them is almost entirely physical.
* casual relationship: A sexual relationship that unlike the previous two relationships may evolve to a true romantic connection, but the two parties take this possibility in a "casual" manner, not worrying about it overmuch, nor waiting for romantic commitment before proceeding to sexual relationships.
The three things seem to me to be differentiated enough that placing them all under the same article and treating them like synonyms seems misleading. But as I said, I can't be entirely certain that the definitions above are truly the ones commonly in use -- it simply seems to me that they are the meanings commonly used by my english-speaking friends when talking about such.
Aris Katsaris 12:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused definitions 

message: "Friends with benefits" was popularized by some crappy-arse sitcom?  This article has several lines like this that are just laughable, it could use a good working-over Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 10:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: what the fuck?

message: Summat is wrong on this page, these are two very different things. JayKeaton 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casual relationship = fuck buddies? 

message: The article could do with a "how to get a chick to fall for this" section.
::Sadly this only works for gay males :):):) Maybe ask at the reference desk? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to? 

message: Somewhere along the line, some horrible NPOV issues have crept in. Statements like this gem: 
:"Some people prefer the term "Lovers Without Commitment", as it excuses the action by spinning lovemaking as more than a mere benefit...."
POV aside, this article needs some serious cleanup. I've tagged it as such. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV / rework article / cleanup 

message: I believe the term "fuck-buddies" is a legitimate term to describe a type of casual relationship. Occasionally this term is edited out of the article as vandalism. I think it deserves to stay. Any thoughts?Alex LaPointetalk 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuck-Buddies

message: Isn't this kind of contradicting? The women of Sex and the City was were like 33-48 years old (age of the youngest actress at the beginning of the show - age of the oldest actress and the end of the show). And they showed this behavior is not unknown, not to say even standard, for middle class single New Yorkers. -Lwc4life 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SATC couldn't "show" any behaviour as being known or unknown by anyone, since it's a work of fiction, not documentary.  It certainly portrayed it as common behaviour, but the mere fact of the portrayal can't be taken as evidence for the accuracy of that portrayal.  Similarly, there's no contradiction between the age of the actresses in SATC and the idea that the show popularised this behaviour amongst young teens--all that would have had to happen would be for young teens to watch SATC, see the depiction of the behaviour, and start emulating it.  Binabik80 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularized in Sex and the City vs. associated with early teenagers 

message: This article is truly awful at the moment. I certainly couldn't do any better but I really hope someone can.... 217.42.192.46 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Worst Article I've Ever Seen 

message: A couple of places in the article are tagged .  If all the weasels were tagged the article would be about 10% longer.  Wanderer57 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaselwords? 

message: Shouldn't fwb redirect to "Fly-by-wire" (digital control for aircraft steering)? That's certainly more important than fucking the girl next door and the girl next-next door the day after?
Otherwise, FWB is the registered name of Feinwerkbau, a german maker of professional sporting air rifles. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, is "fwb" an accepted acronym for fly-by-wire?  Because I would have expected "fbw" to be more likely. Binabik80 (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to explain the current redirect? 

message: Regarding this move, I don't understand it...considering that this article is currently about a casual relationship that may or may not include sexual activity; this is why Casual dating redirected to Casual relationship. With this move, Casual dating needs a more accurate redirect and this article needs even more fixing up than it did before. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article is entirely about casual sexual relationships, as is obvious from reading it.  There is no  need for an article about "Casual relationships" which have no sexual element. What would it cover, people's relationships with their podiatrists? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in your deduction that I have not yet read this article in its entirety. I was going by the lead, which stated (and still mostly states): "A casual relationship, or casual dating, is a physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have a sexual relationship or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting the extra commitments of a more formal romantic relationship." The article includes some non-sexual aspects, but is certainly mostly about sexual activity. Still, with the rename, I feel that some type of merge between it and the Casual sex article should probably be considered. I know that casual sex doesn't always come with an "actual relationship," but even a one-night stand (that page is currently blanked with a note, by the way) can be argued as having been a sexual relationship. I'm certain that there are going to be merge attempts regarding that article and this one, especially considering that this article already has a section on casual sex. We might as well address that now. And if one wants to argue distinctions on that, I point out that it's not like casual dating necessarily means sexual activity is involved...and yet it currently redirects to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text:  To me, "casual dating" implies no strong likelihood of sex; have I been doing it wrong? —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't about "casual dating". but "casual relationship" The expression "casual relationship" pretty much cover every possible relationship between people, from client and package delivery person to parking lot attendant and car driver. The only aspect which makes the "relationships" unique is whether there is a sexual element or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: @Tamfang: Yes, you have been doing it wrong. Everyone is getting much more sex tban you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond My Ken, I'm not arguing against you on the expression "casual relationship" or what this article mostly covers. In fact, I've previously thought similarly about this article restricting the expression the way it did. Above, I've made different arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with Beyond My Ken's argument that casual relationship covers every possible relationship between people. Young people, in fact most people exploring relationships, use a lot of metaphors - dating does not cover every possible instance of writing something in a diary, going out with is not the opposite of staying in with, hooking up has nothing to do with crochet, etc. Casual relationship is a phrase whose meaning is not to be taken literally. On the other hand, is it appropriate to have Wikipedia articles about euphemisms and metaphors? This is not 'Urban Dictionary'. WP:TITLE says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." The use and meaning of these euphemisms is not consistent across the English-speaking world - socio-sexual norms in India, parts of Africa, the UK, Canada and Australia differ from those in the US, and indeed the US has a variety of its own. It appears from the above that there may be a slew of these articles - some that are presently redirects, and others that are not - Casual dating, Casual relationship, Casual sex, One-night stand, Dating, and now Casual sexual relationship. I know it's harder work, but I suggest we gather together here a definitive list of the related articles, review the range of scholarly material that actually exists across them, and then plan a small number of unambiguous WP:COMMONNAMEs that will allow us to cover all the ground, exactly once, in a consistent way; leaving the rest as redirects. --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points/suggestions, Nigel. Thanks for weighing in on this at my request. As for euphemism, I'm not sure that I would, for example, describe dating as an euphemism...though there are societies that use different terms for that. Further, I don't think that the term courtship, which is more associated with the time period of a couple's life before engagement and marriage than the term dating is, is used much these days. Flyer22 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I knew it! —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The move from Casual relationship to Casual sexual relationship 

message: Hate to make my first post to Wikipedia be all complaining and not offering solutions but...
Reference 12 "What's love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships" does not say any of the things that it is cited for in the "Relationship maintenance and student concerns" Section. I just read the article. This sections feels like someone had some ideas about power imbalances in these relationships, and just cited some random source.
This article talks about rules in friends with benefits relationships, and perceived social support, and attitudes towards love and their influence on outcomes of those relationships.
I propose that someone delete this section or find references to substantiate those claims. I suppose it could be me if I come back to this page at some point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningchicago (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation is used at 14 places in the article.  Are you saying that it supports none of the statements its connected to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 12 does not say what it is cited for 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Casual dating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224144309/http://www.sexscience.org/uploads/media/JSR_43-3_Grello.pdf to http://www.sexscience.org/uploads/media/JSR_43-3_Grello.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: # Shouldn't it be retitled Casual college dating or similar? Except for the gratuitous "Casual sex" appendage, the article is entirely contained in one section, slugged "College students."
# The word "dating" appears exactly four times: title, first graf (second word), second graf (second word), one footnote. Based on that alone, it's really NOT about "dating" at all, right? Like, it's just a convenient label slapped ineptly on a bunch of loosely related factoids about random non-courtship f@cking amongst unsupervised teenagers? In any case, the term is never defined, or even links to a definition, instead playing a cheap shell game by swapping "dating" and "relationship" to keep the marks from looking too closely.
# Strangely (though perhaps predictably), Casual dating and Dating do not in any way refer to each other, indicating that the present article is functionally (maybe not intentionally) a content fork. The superior article, though itself bloated and rickety, has the following buried under Dating worldwide ==> North America ==> Canada and United States that seems to more than adequately make Casual dating's existence pointless (elisions mine):
:::Teenagers and college-aged students tend to avoid the more formal activity of dating, and prefer casual no-strings-attached experiments sometimes described as hookups. It permits young women to "go out and fit into the social scene, get attention from young men, and learn about sexuality" … The term hookup can describe a wide variety of behavior ranging from kissing to non-genital touching to make-out sessions…. A contrary report, however, suggested there has been no "sea change" in sexual behavior regarding college students from 1988 onwards, and that the term hookup itself continued to be used to describe a variety of relationships, including merely socializing or passionate kissing as well as sexual intercourse.
That leaves the question: Merge, or Delete?Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Further damnation: it's been established elsewhere (to the satisfaction of apparently everyone other than me) that dating is by definition a human courtship behavior, that there's really no such thing as repeatedly hanging out with someone without hope (however slim) of marriage (which, of course, is going to last unto death). If that urban legend has any validity at all, then "casual dating" is a blatant oxymoron: you cannot do something that's inherently serious in a non-grim manner. Much of Casual dating seems to be more about casual sex, which content really ought to be removed.Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah… no. On a straight-through reread, the implication is clear: casual (intimate) relationships occur only amongst college students. Anyone older, or younger, or not enrolled in a postsecondary program is exempt. Some effort MUST be made to expand the scope of this — if not possible, it speaks clearly against the page's root credibility.Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  major problems, readily apparent 

message: Early in the article appears
::many college students go on to have casual sex with either friends or peers they have been recently or newly acquainted with.
The first clause is essentially that "having done it once, they often do it at least once more." Innocuous, but obviously the "many" needs to be clarified — where does that lie between "most" and "some"? 
The greatest problem with the statement is the latter clause: it basically says their next hookup partner will be just about anyone they've known for at least a few seconds before the hokey-pokey begins — something that seems entirely reasonable to me.
Is that literally what the (over)cited source says, or is it the contributing editor's misstatement?Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  odd statement 

message: "Communication between the two partners is essential to making this type of relationship work and because the partners in the casual relationship are often friends beforehand, talking to one another is a much simpler task.[11]"
The citation actually finds that "Despite these uncertainties, however, participants reported little talk about the state of the relationship. Almost 85%
indicated that no relationship talk was initiated and 73% indicated no discussion of relationship ground rules."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.141.151 (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Negotiation between participants" section provides citation that directly contradicts what is said in the article 

message: The title of this article is about "casual dating", yet most of the information here is about Anonymous sex or about Friendship with benefits (look at the references). We should move the anonymous sex info to the anonymous sex article and either rename this article "Friendship with benefits" or move that info to a new article and rework this one to be more about casual dating.Mangokeylime (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See what is stated in the #The move from Casual relationship to Casual sexual relationship section above. And as for "Friendship with benefits", I stand by what I stated before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost all of the sources are about Anonymous sex and Friendship with benefits, not dating.