No Strings Attached, in my opinion, is a hilarious movie. It is based on the premise of Emma (Portman) and Adam (Kutcher) having a friendship with sexual involvement. Things are fine and hedonistically functional in the beginning. However, problems arise when the eventual amorous feeling arise. After much contention, they start being what they were meant to be: a couple. Naturally, they hilariously worked to avoid the unavoidable.
If Adam was paying attention, though, he would have caught the moment of foreshadowing.
During the end of the session in which they establish their limits, a neighbor is walking his dog. Adam kisses Emma goodbye and eyes his neighbor. He states “We are sex friends. You know…friends that have sex.”
In classic fashion, the neighbor replies “That’s not possible.”
And what’s the CCL for this round? Let me make it simple: It is highly likely to have/maintain “friends with benefits”.
The reason that this can be considered a “lie” is due to the complexity of it all. Having a friendship can become complex enough. Adding sex to the mix? That can make things even more taxing. In the end, “friends with benefits will have you losing benefits.
I do, however, understand the intentions behind this ironic phenomenon. Why not have a worry free, no commitment relationship. It is always good to get great sex from someone you can trust. There are few worries of doing too much or trying to be romantic. Conclusively, you can “get a nut off” without working your butt off.
Many people see the viability with having “beneficial friendships”. A study published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior with 125 undergraduate students from Wayne State University and Michigan State University questioning the viability of these relationships noted that two-thirds of participants had been in a "friends with benefits" relationship, 36 percent were currently in one [1]. Even more understanding was the reasoning behind having this type of relationship. The participants felt the true advantage of such a relationship was "no commitment" (reported by 59.7 percent of participants), which was followed closely by "have sex" (55.6 percent) [2]. So, there are those that find “friends with benefits” worthwhile.
With “friends with benefits” relationships, you have the best of both worlds. Yet, the only example of “best of both worlds” came in musical form with Jay-Z and R. Kelly. That REALLY worked out well, didn’t it?
All jokes aside, there is an enormous reason that these relationships usually need a “caution” sign attached to it: there is likelihood that someone will catch feelings. What people fail to realize is that there is a real difficulty in separating emotions from sexuality [3]. For humans, sexuality is more than a mere hedonistic occurrence. Sexuality, and sexual intercourse, has a tendency of being more of a physical/spiritual/mental connection between two people. Even more, It strips us, if just for a moment, of all of our social masks, and bares our physical desires (and some might argue, our souls) to the other person [4]. In turn, “friends with benefits” needs a caution sign for all people to cautiously understand what they are sacrificing within these types of relationships.
Yet, the structural form of that relationship is no match for human biology. People have not realized that our bodies release oxytocin, the “love and cuddle hormone”. Both sexes possess it and it is usually released during sexual intercourse or moments of love [5]. It plays an important role in ALL relationships, whether they are amorous or regular friendships. They can lead to preferential treatment of people, the love of pets, and even the dampening effect of cortisol (the depression chemical). Therefore, we are biologically wired for relationships when sex enters the fray.
Please note that oxytocin levels taper off if someone does something you don’t like. However, people do need to realize that oxytocin exists in both males and females.
Adding it all up, here is why “friends with benefits” relationships are troubling: they structurally make no sense. Simple friendships are fine, but even some of those are suspect to chemical attachment due to oxytocin. Then, people think “Hey, we are friends….why not have sex!” They come up with this bright idea not understanding that sexuality increases this love hormone, causing even more attachment, even more increased feelings. Potentially, a person may end up catching feelings with their friend they were only supposed to have sex with.
Then again, people are looking at their relationships from the wrong lens. Great relationships are built off of great friendships. They are not companionships that just develop into love. They come from situations where the oxytocin levels increase from minimal to overdrive. They come from situations where you see that you don’t want to live life unless that person is next to you. They come from situations where you would rather be with that person instead of having a bunch of “unemotional trysts”. Consequently, great romances are best built off of great friendships.
“Friends with benefits” exists out of unfounded convenience. In the beginning, they work because there is no commitment. Yet, many dissolve because of the elephant in the room: the commitment that SHOULD be there does not exist. Eventually, either the people start dating or they leave it all alone. In many cases, though, “friends with benefits” should not be approached. In reality, “friends with benefits” tends not to work out because those involved disregard its true benefit: being in love.
‘Nuff said and ‘Nuff respect!
