"I miss sex. It's a physical act just like playing tennis," Justin Timberlake says in the new rom-com Friends With Benefits.
"I work 80 hours a week, I need someone in my bed at 2am who I don't have to eat breakfast with. Why can't we just have sex?" Natalie Portman whinged about in the equally sappy No Strings Attached.
End scene.
Roll credits.
Enter reality.
There is no such thing as a "no strings attached" or "friends with benefits" relationship anymore.
Hearts and hip pockets may now both have to suffer through a break-up thanks to the reclassification what it means to be in a "de facto relationship."
Before couples have the "where do you think this is going?" conversation, which can build or break a relationship, a more important Q&A session over dinner on the third date may need to be "when should we discuss our binding financial agreement?"
But let's face it; the risks of having to deal with a subpoena while in convalescence from a break up have gotten higher over the years.

Once upon a time (prior to 2009) a de facto relationship was defined as two people who lived together for two years or more. If the relationship failed, each partner walked away with what they contributed.
Due to amendments to the Family Law Act, marriage rates are falling quicker than share market prices and more people are "living in sin," according to my Nonna.
What constitutes a relationship has changed and as I discovered, not a lot of people know about it until the excrement hits the proverbial fan.
A break-up of a two-year courtship could now end up in a divorce court battle over individual possessions and result in ongoing compensation, even if a couple has never shared the same address and went on more breaks than Ross and Rachel on Friends.
In his book Breaking Up, family-law barrister (and survivor of two divorces), Robert Larkins points out that couples who decide to not say "I do", like Brad and Ange, now have the same financial obligations to each other as those who decided to put a ring on it, e.g Beyonce and Jay-Z.
"For the purposes of the law, the distinction between getting married and being in a de facto relationship has gone," Mr Larkins told me.
No wonder my date cancelled on me last night.
Since my plans fell through, I decided to take a snap poll and ask my married, attached and single friends for their understanding of a de facto relationship.
"It means that two people live together and if it all goes pear shaped they get half your sh**," the attached one said.
"It's just being with someone, like Bert and Ernie," the sometimes attached, sometimes single one added.
"A relationship without marriage, but still a loving and committed partnership, which refers to same sex couples too," the married one continued.
"Any couple in a relationship that have common property, be it a house, investment or a child," the single one piped up.
Another mate who now lives with her partner said it was last week's census that got her thinking about the state of her relationship.
"I never officially moved into his place, it just kind of happened. I've been there for over a year now," she said.
"We'd never called it anything until I had to fill in the census form and I kind of awkwardly asked him 'do I list myself as de facto?'"
Interestingly, the last time population statistics were collected the term "de facto" had a different meaning.
There are a lot of labels when it comes to relationships - boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, baby mama/daddy, ball'n'chain - but when it comes down to it, if we're not married but are dating, courting, cuddling and/or living with someone how do you define a relationship? Or is love enough these days?
What do you think of the changes?
How do you define your relationship? On paper or an unspoken understanding?