Do you want to fuck her when she's not pregnant also? If not, then don't lead her on by using her stomach as a reason to get back together for a one night stand.

(February 4, 2023, 4:37 pm)Wallsdd So I have this girl I used to date and I met her when she was 6 months pregnant almost 3 years ago right, so we dated/fwb for about a year and fell off and stayed somewhat friends and now she’s pregnant again and absolutely HUGE! She’s 34 weeks now and easily bigger that 40 weeks with her last pregnancy. It’s pretty hard on her actually unlike the last pregnancy. It’s honestly crazy how big she is compared to her last pregnancy. So clearly this turns me on and she doesn’t know about the fetish but is somewhat suspicious of me having it. 

My question is should I purse having sex with her again? We haven’t had sex in a year but I know she would let me but only if it’s on “relationship” terms. I know I could act like I want a relationship but I don’t know if I wanna do that in my life anymore. New year new me. Lmk your thoughts and what you guys would do

When she says it must be in “relationship terms” does she mean a serious committed relationship or fwb? There are several types of relations two people can have. 

If she is saying no sex unless you sign up to be her committed boyfriend it’s not worth pursuing her just to get some swollen pregnant pussy. She’s going to drop that load eventually and when that happens the fun is over and you’ll be stuck with a loud crying baby which I’m sure you don’t want. 

If you can’t get into her pregnant pussy because of her relationship terms you can always spend time with her, get belly feels and maybe some pics to keep for later. You could try opening up to her about the fetish and seeing if she would be willing to help you satisfy it on fwb no strings attached terms.

She sounds absolutely amazing from your description. Good luck mate. Enjoy her in whatever way is not going to put you and her in a unwanted situation.

(February 5, 2023, 2:03 am)Akhenaten You are looking for different things. I know banging a hot preggo rocks, but she's put her cards on the table and you gotta respect that.

Tell her it's FWB or nothing. Best of luck to her finding a relationship in her current state, if she's dead-set on that. Yes, it's possible... but generally more difficult.

Well I have been flirting with her for the past 2-3 days and she’s very “easy” if you know what I mean. She sent me a full on nude from the side and it is AMAZING and doesn’t even do her justice. She doesn’t know about the fetish because when I first started messing with her a few years ago she would “joke” about it and make it seem weird or like I was weird so I denied deny deny. But I have told her she looks good and make comments on her giant boobs which I know she likes to show off which is why I got the picture I’m talking about.

I think I can get her to fuck me at least 1 more time before she pops without her thinking we have to be something right away. I’ve already put it in her head that if we were to date I’d like to do it after she has her baby. And it’s not like I wouldn’t date her at all it’s just I know how she is and she’s kinda crazy and I see why she’s 37 with 3 kids and alone ?. Shes more tolerable when shes not pregnant I’ll tell you that. Too many hormones rn

(February 4, 2023, 11:00 pm)doubleintegral Unless she has made it clear that another FWB arrangement is off the table, I don't see the harm in asking about that again.

(February 4, 2023, 6:10 pm)BasedGd1768 It's not nice to mislead ladies in this way, but they're also kind of asking to be misled when they put sex in these terms.

So when a woman wants sex on her terms, she's asking to be misled?

No, if you (specifically) say, "My rule is no sex unless it's serious," then, yes, you are effectively inviting people to mislead you.

Tangent: I read a Psychology Today article a while back that said ultimatums (e.g., "don't do X or I will leave you") are terrible for relationships.  Why?  As far as I understood, it's because instead of letting the person show who they truly are --- and then deciding if you want to stay with them or if you're compatible --- you are trying to coerce them to be a certain way.  In the end, so argued the article, this amounts to an invitation for *them* to leave *you* rather than the other way around.  I guess the idea is you are, in effect, only giving them the power to hurt you.  You're not actually making them change, because people are who they are, they likely can't change even though they might want to in order to be with you.

Basically, what I'm trying to say can be illustrated with two scenarios:

(1) Jane meets Phil.  They talk.  She notices he also wants to save to buy a farm one day, just like she does.  They go on a few dates and she finds they both want similar things at this point in their lives.  She's physically attracted to him.  He's good to her.  She decides she feels she trusts him and wants to take the relationship further.  She's comfortable sleeping with him.  When he indicates he's interested, she goes home with him.

(2) Jane meets Phil.  She's into him and hoping he would be interested in a serious relationship.  He notices her interest and reciprocates.  They go on a few dates.  She's still hoping for a serious relationship, and her interest only intensifies, but she doesn't notice that Phil makes no indication he's interested in her longterm.  Phil does make it clear he wants to sleep with her, but she says "I won't sleep with you unless we're in a serious relationship."  A few days later, Phil texts Jane saying he wants to be serious.  They have lots of sex for the next few weeks and Jane is really happy because she finally has the man she wanted.  Phil is affectionate, but he never discusses the future with Jane.  He gets bored and dumps Jane after four weeks, and now she's devastated.

Which scenario sounds healthier to you?  I didn't say if Phil was actually interested in being serious and just changed his mind --- or if he was lying all along --- and that's part of my point.  How sure are we about what we want?  Or what others want?  In my case, I only wanted an FWB a few years ago, now she's my much-beloved wife.  And do we really think a verbal agreement makes up for real trust and bonding?  It might be an agreement, but it sure as hell isn't a guarantee, lying or no lying.  The guy could br completely honest and the girl still ends up feeling horrible about fucking him --- I don't think that's the issue.

But even if Phil was lying, who actually bears the responsibility for Jane's disappointment, embarrassment, etc.?  Did Jane get to know Phil and be with him *for who he was,* or did she decide ahead of time she wanted a specific thing and try to get Phil to do that thing?  Where does Phil's capacity to hurt Jane come from?  It comes from Jane's unrealistic and unfair expectations.  Phil was being Phil, and when confronted with an ultimatum, he played along *at little cost to him.* I'm not saying no cost --- he might feel bad about lying, and in some cosmic sense he may be less morally good or honorable --- so that's a cost.  But Jane had her part to play in the affair, and, *to the extent that her disappointment is greater than his chagrin*, she bears greater responsibility in that sense.  "I hurt a lot so you're a terrible person" is a pretty childish pose for an adult.

Think of an analogy: suppose I'm a billionaire, you make a very modest living and are supporting three kids, and I bet you one million dollars that the Bears will beat the Rams on Sunday.  You lose and I insist on taking the money.  You're now bankrupt, will lose the house, and your kid's college savings accounts.  Well, shucks, I must be a terrible person to insist on taking the money, when so much was at stake for you and so little for me.  But do you bear no responsibility?  Surely you do, and your family might be mistaken for feeling *you're* really the main person at fault (but of course who bears more of the blame is actually irrelevant; the point is you made a grave mistake).

(Take it a step further: suppose Canadian culture has decided that being a hockey player is super cool --- unless you're a goalie, that's just gross, those guys are disgusting.  So guys won't be a goalie for their friend unless they really, really like them.  So I ask you to be a goalie and you say, "Only if we're really best friends, like the best friend you've ever had."  I like playing hockey and don't understand what the big deal is so I say, "Oh, yeah, man, you're my best friend ever --- no comparison.". So even though it's hard for you to do because you don't want to be one of *those* guys, you agree to be the goalie for me and I shoot a few pucks into your net.  Later, you find out I don't really care *that* much about our relationship, I just wanted to play hockey with a goalie for once, and now you're devestated.  Am I such a terrible person, or are your expectations way off --- and I just want to play hockey at least once in a while?  Or maybe the problem is Canadian society has unrealistic standards about hockey?

I bring this up because how much of this is about "it's sex" and "she's a girl and you're a dude, so we hold you to a higher standard"?  Casual sex is kind of normalized now so the idea that telling a white lie to get laid is so horrible is more than a little weird to me.  Like, maybe casual sex is the problem.  Part of my first post was about how, when society makes no sense, we all lose and end up doing bad things.)

Also, --- in contrast to the OP, I don't claim it applies here --- Jane doesn't necessarily know what Phil understands "serious" to mean.  He may not realize he's doing anything wrong.  Like, if I tell you I like the color blue and then you find out I'm lying --- I actually hate blue and much prefer yellow --- and you proceed to become deeply upset, I might be surprised then, right?  Phil may not have realized how important the "serious" stuff was to Jane.  (He thought she was playing hard to get, for instance.  Or maybe it was a formality Jane liked to go through for her own sake.)  And we know there are people out there who have personalities where they like to say what others want to hear or they're not very self-critical so it's possible Phil cannot be bothered at all to feel bad about what he did (even if he lied intentionally) and thinks Jane is being ridiculous --- think of a mini Trump.  Again, OK, Phil may be a piece-of-work, but Jane got hurt and she has options, right?  So does Jane "have work to do" (as they day in therapy), or are all men pigs?  I think it's the first of these.

My point is, well, yeah, if all you are looking for is some kind of verbal agreement, then I hope it's not important to you because there are guys out there that don't think this is important or are willing to let it slide, one way or another.  And as I tried to insinuate, a lot of the problem lies in mistakenly trying to coerce our partners into being someone they are not rather than finding someone who we like for who they already are.  (I'm not saying Phil is the victim; there is no victim.)  In scenario (1), Jane didn't need some kind of guarantee because she liked Phil for who he was and came to feel she trusted him on her own accord.  She implicitly felt the risk of getting hurt was worth it.  In scenario (2), Jane wanted a very specific thing from the beginning and proceeded to pursue that at all costs without listening to what Phil's actions were telling her.  Lying is morally wrong, but what I'm trying to say is (2) is just plain unhealthy (and maybe more concerning in the grand scheme of things, as Phil could not have hurt Jane without her "permission").

As far as the actual OP is concerned: it would be nice if the OP's friend were DTF--- why can't we live while we're young? --- but it's *also* relatable that she wants something more lasting (she is pregnant, after all).  Can we just go on a date together and see where things go?  I don't like the haggling over terms and conditions here.  Also, in this situation, even being seen in public with a hugely pregnant lady would be an adrenaline rush for me.  So, now that I've thought about it, if it makes sense to go on a date just to have a good time and get to know each other, I would do it.  Having a pregnant friend to hang out with would be awesome, and obviously she's a person with a personality and a whole lot more than just her body to offer so as long as you have reasonable expectations (i.e., don't assume you're going to screw her or get to disappointed if you don't), I think it could be a lot of fun.  

And I have a theory these "no sex unless serious" things don't last if you actually get to know the person a while and have chemistry...  I mean, being a goalie is actually fun from what I hear.

I'll give my perspective, having done this exact thing a number of years ago, and having just gotten out of a fucked up relationship where I had the best sex of my life, only to have her weaponize it and manipulate me the entire time. That context is necessary because you need to know where I'm coming from. The reality is, if you don't have kids and she has/will imminently have at least two, she knows deep down that you're there for sex. Let's be real. Give it a chance, see where it goes. This type of situation is fleeting and rare. I've been looking for something similar for five years and it hasn't come about. The bigger question is are you actually friends? Does she want to be with you? Do you just want to be around her because you're horny and she's your ideal woman? Are you fine not seeing her again if it goes south? Up to you, but you only live once.

I’d at least TRY to.

Also idk if this matters to y’all but the chick has some of the best vag I’ve ever had if not the best she’s just super irritating and 1 of those people you can tell is gonna be alone for a while cuz nobody wants to put up with her and that’s why I havent tried to fuck her in a year. But I have mad plans to spend the night over her house tomorrow and she says no sex but we will see how that goes.

All the best. Hope you get to smash without any strings attached... But I hope you don't end up lying to her just to get some belly. It will kinda suck to get dumped after giving birth.

(February 5, 2023, 7:03 pm)BasedGd1768

(February 4, 2023, 11:00 pm)doubleintegral Unless she has made it clear that another FWB arrangement is off the table, I don't see the harm in asking about that again.

(February 4, 2023, 6:10 pm)BasedGd1768 It's not nice to mislead ladies in this way, but they're also kind of asking to be misled when they put sex in these terms.

So when a woman wants sex on her terms, she's asking to be misled?

No, if you (specifically) say, "My rule is no sex unless it's serious," then, yes, you are effectively inviting people to mislead you.

Tangent: I read a Psychology Today article a while back that said ultimatums (e.g., "don't do X or I will leave you") are terrible for relationships.  Why?  As far as I understood, it's because instead of letting the person show who they truly are --- and then deciding if you want to stay with them or if you're compatible --- you are trying to coerce them to be a certain way.  In the end, so argued the article, this amounts to an invitation for *them* to leave *you* rather than the other way around.  I guess the idea is you are, in effect, only giving them the power to hurt you.  You're not actually making them change, because people are who they are, they likely can't change even though they might want to in order to be with you.

Basically, what I'm trying to say can be illustrated with two scenarios:

(1) Jane meets Phil.  They talk.  She notices he also wants to save to buy a farm one day, just like she does.  They go on a few dates and she finds they both want similar things at this point in their lives.  She's physically attracted to him.  He's good to her.  She decides she feels she trusts him and wants to take the relationship further.  She's comfortable sleeping with him.  When he indicates he's interested, she goes home with him.

(2) Jane meets Phil.  She's into him and hoping he would be interested in a serious relationship.  He notices her interest and reciprocates.  They go on a few dates.  She's still hoping for a serious relationship, and her interest only intensifies, but she doesn't notice that Phil makes no indication he's interested in her longterm.  Phil does make it clear he wants to sleep with her, but she says "I won't sleep with you unless we're in a serious relationship."  A few days later, Phil texts Jane saying he wants to be serious.  They have lots of sex for the next few weeks and Jane is really happy because she finally has the man she wanted.  Phil is affectionate, but he never discusses the future with Jane.  He gets bored and dumps Jane after four weeks, and now she's devastated.

Which scenario sounds healthier to you?  I didn't say if Phil was actually interested in being serious and just changed his mind --- or if he was lying all along --- and that's part of my point.  How sure are we about what we want?  Or what others want?  In my case, I only wanted an FWB a few years ago, now she's my much-beloved wife.  And do we really think a verbal agreement makes up for real trust and bonding?  It might be an agreement, but it sure as hell isn't a guarantee, lying or no lying.  The guy could br completely honest and the girl still ends up feeling horrible about fucking him --- I don't think that's the issue.

But even if Phil was lying, who actually bears the responsibility for Jane's disappointment, embarrassment, etc.?  Did Jane get to know Phil and be with him *for who he was,* or did she decide ahead of time she wanted a specific thing and try to get Phil to do that thing?  Where does Phil's capacity to hurt Jane come from?  It comes from Jane's unrealistic and unfair expectations.  Phil was being Phil, and when confronted with an ultimatum, he played along *at little cost to him.* I'm not saying no cost --- he might feel bad about lying, and in some cosmic sense he may be less morally good or honorable --- so that's a cost.  But Jane had her part to play in the affair, and, *to the extent that her disappointment is greater than his chagrin*, she bears greater responsibility in that sense.  "I hurt a lot so you're a terrible person" is a pretty childish pose for an adult.

Think of an analogy: suppose I'm a billionaire, you make a very modest living and are supporting three kids, and I bet you one million dollars that the Bears will beat the Rams on Sunday.  You lose and I insist on taking the money.  You're now bankrupt, will lose the house, and your kid's college savings accounts.  Well, shucks, I must be a terrible person to insist on taking the money, when so much was at stake for you and so little for me.  But do you bear no responsibility?  Surely you do, and your family might be mistaken for feeling *you're* really the main person at fault (but of course who bears more of the blame is actually irrelevant; the point is you made a grave mistake).

(Take it a step further: suppose Canadian culture has decided that being a hockey player is super cool --- unless you're a goalie, that's just gross, those guys are disgusting.  So guys won't be a goalie for their friend unless they really, really like them.  So I ask you to be a goalie and you say, "Only if we're really best friends, like the best friend you've ever had."  I like playing hockey and don't understand what the big deal is so I say, "Oh, yeah, man, you're my best friend ever --- no comparison.". So even though it's hard for you to do because you don't want to be one of *those* guys, you agree to be the goalie for me and I shoot a few pucks into your net.  Later, you find out I don't really care *that* much about our relationship, I just wanted to play hockey with a goalie for once, and now you're devestated.  Am I such a terrible person, or are your expectations way off --- and I just want to play hockey at least once in a while?  Or maybe the problem is Canadian society has unrealistic standards about hockey?

I bring this up because how much of this is about "it's sex" and "she's a girl and you're a dude, so we hold you to a higher standard"?  Casual sex is kind of normalized now so the idea that telling a white lie to get laid is so horrible is more than a little weird to me.  Like, maybe casual sex is the problem.  Part of my first post was about how, when society makes no sense, we all lose and end up doing bad things.)

Also, --- in contrast to the OP, I don't claim it applies here --- Jane doesn't necessarily know what Phil understands "serious" to mean.  He may not realize he's doing anything wrong.  Like, if I tell you I like the color blue and then you find out I'm lying --- I actually hate blue and much prefer yellow --- and you proceed to become deeply upset, I might be surprised then, right?  Phil may not have realized how important the "serious" stuff was to Jane.  (He thought she was playing hard to get, for instance.  Or maybe it was a formality Jane liked to go through for her own sake.)  And we know there are people out there who have personalities where they like to say what others want to hear or they're not very self-critical so it's possible Phil cannot be bothered at all to feel bad about what he did (even if he lied intentionally) and thinks Jane is being ridiculous --- think of a mini Trump.  Again, OK, Phil may be a piece-of-work, but Jane got hurt and she has options, right?  So does Jane "have work to do" (as they day in therapy), or are all men pigs?  I think it's the first of these.

My point is, well, yeah, if all you are looking for is some kind of verbal agreement, then I hope it's not important to you because there are guys out there that don't think this is important or are willing to let it slide, one way or another.  And as I tried to insinuate, a lot of the problem lies in mistakenly trying to coerce our partners into being someone they are not rather than finding someone who we like for who they already are.  (I'm not saying Phil is the victim; there is no victim.)  In scenario (1), Jane didn't need some kind of guarantee because she liked Phil for who he was and came to feel she trusted him on her own accord.  She implicitly felt the risk of getting hurt was worth it.  In scenario (2), Jane wanted a very specific thing from the beginning and proceeded to pursue that at all costs without listening to what Phil's actions were telling her.  Lying is morally wrong, but what I'm trying to say is (2) is just plain unhealthy (and maybe more concerning in the grand scheme of things, as Phil could not have hurt Jane without her "permission").

As far as the actual OP is concerned: it would be nice if the OP's friend were DTF--- why can't we live while we're young? --- but it's *also* relatable that she wants something more lasting (she is pregnant, after all).  Can we just go on a date together and see where things go?  I don't like the haggling over terms and conditions here.  Also, in this situation, even being seen in public with a hugely pregnant lady would be an adrenaline rush for me.  So, now that I've thought about it, if it makes sense to go on a date just to have a good time and get to know each other, I would do it.  Having a pregnant friend to hang out with would be awesome, and obviously she's a person with a personality and a whole lot more than just her body to offer so as long as you have reasonable expectations (i.e., don't assume you're going to screw her or get to disappointed if you don't), I think it could be a lot of fun.  

And I have a theory these "no sex unless serious" things don't last if you actually get to know the person a while and have chemistry...  I mean, being a goalie is actually fun from what I hear.

This case is called a boundary, not an ultimatum. An ultimatum would be after they already had an arrangement and she was trying to exert control by threatening that arrangement to try to force him to change his behavior. Homegirl is being upfront and saying she's not down for FWB and is only looking for sexual intimacy in a committed relationship. This is about her own behavior, was communicated prior to a relationship, and is a healthy way to set boundaries.

Your example of Jane and Phil is also a case of Phil disrespecting boundaries, not responding to an ultimatum. Each person gets to dictate their terms for mutual engagement. Lying about it is a shitty move no matter how you cut it or what limp-wristed justification you want to put behind it.

OP, be honest about what you're looking for and what you're able to commit to, both with yourself and with her. Put that ball back in her court and let her decide what she wants to do with that. She may decide having a FWB arrangement or ONS with you at this time is better for her than being led on and hurt by someone trying to get their dick wet.

Well I’m at her place now so I will update tonight or tomorrow morning