Dear Gianna

Q: [Mila writes]: I had a friends-with-benefits situation for four months, but I’ve just found out he actually had a girlfriend. I was furious and confronted him about it. My friends say that since I agreed to something casual, with no strings attached, I’ve got no right to demand explanations about his relationship status. But I think I do have the right to know whether I’m seeing someone who, like me, isn’t looking for commitment at the moment—or someone who’s already taken and is dragging me into cheating on another person.

A: Dear Mila,

This line of thinking (that if you agree to be friends with benefits, you must accept the other person can do whatever they like), is one I’ve heard many times, but I really don't understand. I agree that if there is an agreement to being only friends with benefits, both parties can date around freely. But it doesn't mean that I can be made an unwitting accomplice in a situation that goes against my values.

Giving consent to being friends with benefits is not the same as consenting to being the lover of someone already in a relationship. No one has the right to decide that for me. If being in a relationship with a taken man goes against my values, there is no situation in which tricking me into it is ethical.

I think that people who defend this position don’t fully understand the difference between my freedom and other people's freedom. I’ve always held onto a phrase by Kant (often attributed to Martin Luther King too): “The freedom of one individual ends where another’s begins.”

What does that mean here? It means that even if he thought he was simply exercising his freedom to have relationships, he actually violated your freedom not to be someone’s mistress.

And there’s more. Kant also gives us a powerful definition of how to treat others in any human relationship: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always as an end, never merely as a means.”

What does this mean? That when we act morally, our aim should be respect and dignity for the other person, which is achieved when we treat them as an end in themselves, never just a means to our own gratification.

In your case, your friend-with-benefits deprived you of the autonomy to make an informed decision. He used you as a means, for his own pleasure, instead of treating you as an end, with honesty and dignity. In other words, he dehumanised you. So I’m not surprised you got angry.

There is an unspoken agreement between friends with benefits: seeing each other with no future plans, and even seeing others in the same casual way. So if he had stuck to these terms and conditions, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

The real issue here isn’t “betrayal.” It’s deception—he wasn’t honest about who he was.

You had agreed to be with a single man, who would be having other casual relationships. But he's a committed man, who's lying to his partner. That’s not what you agreed to, and not what you signed up for.

Let's talk mythology for a moment; if you have read my articles you know I have this irresistible urge to put mythology everywhere. In the myth of Alcmene, the titular protagonist was known for being beautiful and devoted to her husband, Amphitryon. But of course, Zeus father of the gods, couldn’t stand the idea of a woman who was completely faithful to her husband and not interested in the mighty ruler himself. So, while Amphitryon was away at war, Zeus disguised himself as the soldier and visited her.

Alcmene, overjoyed at her beloved’s early return, welcomed him warmly, and they spent a night together that lasted three days. Later, when Amphitryon truly returned home, Alcmene mentioned the wonderful night they had shared. Amphitryon was furious, until he realised she wasn’t to blame. He even raised the son of that union, Heracles, as his own.

The point? Alcmene consented to her husband, but the man before her wasn’t who she believed. And that’s the same for you: you agreed to someone single, but he wasn’t the man he claimed to be.

Just like your man: he wasn't in the situation he claimed to be, which changed your position.

The real problem here, as in so many other cases, is the assumption that relationships only deserve human decency if there’s a contract spelling out terms and conditions. Which is very puzzling to me, because while I only have an obligation of fidelity to a spouse or committed partner, I have an obligation of human decency to everyone.

A friend-with-benefits doesn’t have less human worth than a wife. Of course, the “contract terms” differ: you’re not spending holidays together, opening joint bank accounts, planning children, summer holidays, or being monogamous. But humanity should never be overlooked.

As Sartre might say: don’t act in bad faith: don’t convince yourself your principles weren’t violated, just to please your friends or look “cool.”

Follow your instincts, and walk away from anyone who doesn’t respect your autonomy. Because anyone who ignores your dignity is unworthy of your time, your trust or your body.

Remember: Know Yourself to Love Better

My book suggestion: Unfuck your Boundaries, by Faith G. Harper (Click here )

If you found this helpful, follow me for more reflections and advice on love, relationships, and knowing yourself:

Facebook | Instagram |YouTube| TikTok