This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Casual dating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The one area where I can see you can add something to make it better is under the college casual relationships heading. If you can find hard facts to add into this paragraph it would make your article much stronger. You have some really good points, but just need to back them up with more hard facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkonop ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
In my opinion this article and the article on sexualized friendship are very low quality, though I don't have enough knowledge to correct that. (Unsigned commenter)
This is so not NPOV.. >.<
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:
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)
"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)
On the subject of being 'fuckbuddies' for the over 13's this clearly relates to a singular country and not to the further world. The expression is pretty clear, but i must object to it being a teenage observation. As we get older and more set in our ways, delivered the children through education, been divorced, working the long hours (which for many of us of the over 40-50's is the sanctuary of 'later' life) this is a far more benefitting scenario than running headlong into a new relationship that might or might not turn your life to heaven, or upside-down again. Being with another person when both need it is a far more rewarding experience than satisfying a married partner at their whims. As both know well that this is not an everlasting solution, one is considerably more adept at working on the mutual satisfaction aspect that just a singular satisfaction. Yours truly. Svein
Um, what?
"Others believe that casual relationships of this sort are unrealistic because strong emotions will inevitably come into play. Naturally this belief is typically not shared by those who participate in such relationships."
I don't know about this. Is there anyway to back up that those who participate in these relationships deny that feelings inevitably arise(or at leat are likely?) Most people I know say they'll deal with that issue when it comes.
Summat is wrong on this page, these are two very different things. JayKeaton 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a badly written article. I'm going to try and clean it up as much as I can because it's irritatingly crappy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
So is the conclusion that fuck buddies fall under casual relationship or not? And if not, does Fuck Buddy merit it's own page, as a cultural occurance that does exist within our society?
I was recently called a vandal for inclusion of this phrase within the article, by the way. Donthaveaspaz 03:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The article could do with a "how to get a chick to fall for this" section.
Somewhere along the line, some horrible NPOV issues have crept in. Statements like this gem:
POV aside, this article needs some serious cleanup. I've tagged it as such. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
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 LaPointe talk 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's more slang than anything. LOLERSKATES
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)
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)
blah i agree. we need an expert or something. someone tag this article as in need of expert help -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.182.51 ( talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY. This is total shit. And a perfect example of why all subjects should not be treated in encyclopedia form.
A couple of places in the article are tagged weasel words. If all the weasels were tagged the article would be about 10% longer. Wanderer57 ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
The current title of the article, "Casual relationship", goes too far in redefining a phrase based on current slang. It's essentially the same as creating an article called "Blow" that talks about cocaine. Granted this is a very common euphemism for cocaine but it is not the primary way the term is used. Similarly, while "casual relationship" is commonly used by many people to mean the same thing as "friends with benefits", this is not universal nor is it really the most commonly understood meaning. "Casual relationship" traditionally, and still more commonly, refers to a romantic relationship where two people are not exclusive and are attempting to avoid becoming too serious. Often such relationships deliberately avoid sex precisely because the relationship is intended to avoid becoming too serious. For the term "friends with benefits", however, sex is actually a defining characteristic of the relationship.
So there are two options:
- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 ( talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This page looks really good, the FWB section could use some reconstruction. All the information is there but the set up is in sentences rather than paragraphs. The subject is really interesting and I can't wait to read the end result. -- Jcpasiec ( talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: move the article to Casual dating, per the discussion below. Content considerations are not within the purview of a WP:RM close, so discussion should continue about any changes to scope that are deemed necessary. Dekimasu よ! 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Casual sexual relationship → Casual dating – Like I stated stated above, Beyond My Ken moved the article from Casual relationship to Casual sexual relationship in 2013, and, while I now understand why he did that, I feel that the title "casual sexual relationship" is too narrow for this article (especially considering what the article can be expanded with) and too redundant to the Casual sex title. The terms casual sex and casual sexual relationship are not usually distinguished in the literature; in the literature, they usually mean the same thing. And by "literature," I mean WP:Reliable sources concerning sexual activity. For example, this International Handbook of Adolescent Pregnancy: Medical, Psychosocial, and Public Health Responses 2014 source from Springer Science & Business Media, page 510, states, "Casual sex is a type of sexual relationship between new acquaintances or mere friends. Casual sex means that if two people feel like having sex, then they just do it without emotional strings attached and with no money involved. " And like I stated above, I know that casual sex doesn't always come with an "actual relationship," but even a one-night stand can be argued as having been a sexual relationship. I also point out that it's not like casual dating necessarily means sexual activity is involved...and yet that term (casual dating) currently redirects to the Casual sexual relationship article. The terms casual dating and casual sex are distinguished in the literature. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Jim Michael, regarding this, see the move discussions above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That leaves the question: Merge, or Delete?
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
17:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Early in the article appears
The first clause is essentially that "having done it once, they often weasel words 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)
"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)
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)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts Amherst supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Casual dating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The one area where I can see you can add something to make it better is under the college casual relationships heading. If you can find hard facts to add into this paragraph it would make your article much stronger. You have some really good points, but just need to back them up with more hard facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkonop ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
In my opinion this article and the article on sexualized friendship are very low quality, though I don't have enough knowledge to correct that. (Unsigned commenter)
This is so not NPOV.. >.<
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:
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)
"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)
On the subject of being 'fuckbuddies' for the over 13's this clearly relates to a singular country and not to the further world. The expression is pretty clear, but i must object to it being a teenage observation. As we get older and more set in our ways, delivered the children through education, been divorced, working the long hours (which for many of us of the over 40-50's is the sanctuary of 'later' life) this is a far more benefitting scenario than running headlong into a new relationship that might or might not turn your life to heaven, or upside-down again. Being with another person when both need it is a far more rewarding experience than satisfying a married partner at their whims. As both know well that this is not an everlasting solution, one is considerably more adept at working on the mutual satisfaction aspect that just a singular satisfaction. Yours truly. Svein
Um, what?
"Others believe that casual relationships of this sort are unrealistic because strong emotions will inevitably come into play. Naturally this belief is typically not shared by those who participate in such relationships."
I don't know about this. Is there anyway to back up that those who participate in these relationships deny that feelings inevitably arise(or at leat are likely?) Most people I know say they'll deal with that issue when it comes.
Summat is wrong on this page, these are two very different things. JayKeaton 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a badly written article. I'm going to try and clean it up as much as I can because it's irritatingly crappy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
So is the conclusion that fuck buddies fall under casual relationship or not? And if not, does Fuck Buddy merit it's own page, as a cultural occurance that does exist within our society?
I was recently called a vandal for inclusion of this phrase within the article, by the way. Donthaveaspaz 03:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The article could do with a "how to get a chick to fall for this" section.
Somewhere along the line, some horrible NPOV issues have crept in. Statements like this gem:
POV aside, this article needs some serious cleanup. I've tagged it as such. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
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 LaPointe talk 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's more slang than anything. LOLERSKATES
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)
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)
blah i agree. we need an expert or something. someone tag this article as in need of expert help -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.182.51 ( talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY. This is total shit. And a perfect example of why all subjects should not be treated in encyclopedia form.
A couple of places in the article are tagged weasel words. If all the weasels were tagged the article would be about 10% longer. Wanderer57 ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
The current title of the article, "Casual relationship", goes too far in redefining a phrase based on current slang. It's essentially the same as creating an article called "Blow" that talks about cocaine. Granted this is a very common euphemism for cocaine but it is not the primary way the term is used. Similarly, while "casual relationship" is commonly used by many people to mean the same thing as "friends with benefits", this is not universal nor is it really the most commonly understood meaning. "Casual relationship" traditionally, and still more commonly, refers to a romantic relationship where two people are not exclusive and are attempting to avoid becoming too serious. Often such relationships deliberately avoid sex precisely because the relationship is intended to avoid becoming too serious. For the term "friends with benefits", however, sex is actually a defining characteristic of the relationship.
So there are two options:
- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 ( talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This page looks really good, the FWB section could use some reconstruction. All the information is there but the set up is in sentences rather than paragraphs. The subject is really interesting and I can't wait to read the end result. -- Jcpasiec ( talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: move the article to Casual dating, per the discussion below. Content considerations are not within the purview of a WP:RM close, so discussion should continue about any changes to scope that are deemed necessary. Dekimasu よ! 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Casual sexual relationship → Casual dating – Like I stated stated above, Beyond My Ken moved the article from Casual relationship to Casual sexual relationship in 2013, and, while I now understand why he did that, I feel that the title "casual sexual relationship" is too narrow for this article (especially considering what the article can be expanded with) and too redundant to the Casual sex title. The terms casual sex and casual sexual relationship are not usually distinguished in the literature; in the literature, they usually mean the same thing. And by "literature," I mean WP:Reliable sources concerning sexual activity. For example, this International Handbook of Adolescent Pregnancy: Medical, Psychosocial, and Public Health Responses 2014 source from Springer Science & Business Media, page 510, states, "Casual sex is a type of sexual relationship between new acquaintances or mere friends. Casual sex means that if two people feel like having sex, then they just do it without emotional strings attached and with no money involved. " And like I stated above, I know that casual sex doesn't always come with an "actual relationship," but even a one-night stand can be argued as having been a sexual relationship. I also point out that it's not like casual dating necessarily means sexual activity is involved...and yet that term (casual dating) currently redirects to the Casual sexual relationship article. The terms casual dating and casual sex are distinguished in the literature. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Jim Michael, regarding this, see the move discussions above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That leaves the question: Merge, or Delete?
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
17:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Early in the article appears
The first clause is essentially that "having done it once, they often weasel words 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)
"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)
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)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts Amherst supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)