Romance-friends™ –romance form for the 21st century KU1WSF

Revision 1164 -2010.09.19pst1830 (~80% complete):

^KW5LRC: Romance-friends™ aka Romance-as-friends™: make your romance foremost your friend –romance form for the 21st century

^KUQ5EF: PREFACE: If one cannot do safe sex 100% then one is NOT qualified to do this (nor any romance form besides possibly traditional marriage with no sex outside it).

1. ^KUQ6V1: This is no different than the safety restrictions on a sporting activity: if you cannot do it safely, you have no business doing it. Such as "If you're not going to drive a car safe, you shouldn't be driving".
   
2. ^KW4KU3>: And in this case in what's presented here is like handing over the keys to the top formula race car, so you absolutely need to take safety seriously! Absolutely safe sex 100%.

^KW4OD2: Dedication. I dedicate this my invention (Romance-friends™) to my mother & father. They met in college (in a bookstore, both being writers) and were together until death did they part --as whether they were married, with kids, separated, dating others, divorced, or separated but married to each other again AND dating others (all 6 of which they did), it all really didn't matter, indeed none of it changed a thing, as regardless what label society placed on them they were always best friends, to the very day my dad died; they always came back together for long talks nearly every day --perhaps like that first day the met in the bookstore over 40 years ago. As though their never-failing insistence on honesty (as ever being dishonest would be far worse than sex with anyone else) they achieved a friendship that went beyond sex indeed beyond sex with anybody and even beyond marriage & divorce, a friendship that just couldn't be thrown. And perhaps in their embarrassment from having taken a non-standard path (indeed many) in their 1980s middle-aged crazies, they never thought they had discovered anything culturally significant: indeed they thought they didn't know what they were doing, and were a bit ashamed (they didn't even tell us kids they had gotten divorced, nor when they had gotten remarried!). But in fact unknowingly they discovered such great friendship between the romantic sexes which few people of this world every know: so powerful that whether they were married became immaterial, whether having sex with each other or with others didn't even matter, so long as the other was happy: they had unknowingly discovered and proven Romance-friends™ - to death did they part. So that's why I dedicate Romance-friends™ to them.

KU1X4H: The core idea:

1. 
   
. ^KW5KIL: In a nutshell:
1. ^KU2CVL: Basis:
   
1. ^KW5L05: 1st: The best romance is based on friendship, right? Yes, most everyone agrees. SO just do it! Start fully doing friendship in romance! Make friendship unequivocally the basis of the romance. Make your romance foremost your friend.
2. ^KW5M8Y: 2nd: In fact I've always said: good sex can last an hour, but good friendship can last a lifetime.
   
2. ^KW5N59: So (the core ideas):
1. ^KW5N9F: Friendship, not sex/romance, needs to be made the core of the romantic relationship.
2. ^KW5NBY: Romance/sex needs to made just another activity: Nature's greatest natural high (and my favorite drug!), but just drug (feelings & chemicals you trigger in your body, typically with help of a partner), but NOT love ("wanting what's best for"), just chemicals, which can be dangerous (as jealousy) so you need to manage them (just like when playing football with your friends you need to put on pads to be safe): physically & emotionally you need to wear a condom.
3. ^KW5NOV: And just as you have say your football friends & shopping friends, you should also have your romance-friends™: Romance-as-friends™.
3. ^KW5O67: Now while I expect most will enjoy pushing friendship (point 1), I know some will find unappealing this seeming minimization of sex & romance (point 2), for religious & cultural beliefs plus mostly since it's just not easy to separate romance, sex, and other chemical feelings from actual friendship & love. In fact I also likely know who will have this reaction, and why, and why that's wrong. So bear with me! It's impossible explain swimming without getting into the water: you've just got to jump in and swim: to some degree you've got to get the whole concept in your head before it will all "click" & make sense.
   
2. ^KW5L73: implications:
   (especially from the 1st basis "The best romance is based on friendship, right? Yes, most everyone agrees. SO just do it! Start fully doing friendship in romance! Make friendship unequivocally the basis of the romance. Make your romance foremost your friend.")
1. ^KUQ154: Have you ever heard that kids sometimes "get it" better than adults? Well what I'm about to share with you is probably the greatest example of that of all time. I am about to show you how a Kindergartner could tell what adults should do in romance (based on this simple rule: make your romance foremost your friend) where as about 95% of adults today don't seem to have a clue! (seemingly adults' vision is now clouded by their hormones & often-warped romantic culture & sometimes religious practices (that seemingly result from these hormones)).
2. ^KUQ15L: It's so simple: What you already know about friendship (which even a Kindergartner knows) apply it to "adult" romance!
   
3. ^KU32ZT: Specifically DO Friendship-OVER-Romance!™ :
   If you wouldn't do it to your friend, DON'T do it to your romance;
   if you WOULD do it for with your friend, then DO IT with your romance.
   --That's it! BUT
   
4. ^KW4RXJ: In many critical ways we are NOT being friendly in romance. For instance,
   ^KW5BX7: In the spirit of (& modeled after) the famous & brilliant ad campaign "Friends don't let friends drive drunk", here are
   7 essential things we do in friendship but we generally never do today's romance which kill romances from being actual friends
   (things which which need to be doing (and most always do in friendship) in order to be actual friends):
1. ^KU33YU(1): Friends don't usually have a long list of criteria before someone can become their friend
   (as amazing looks plus typically the human-only "measures" of numerical age, income, career, religion, political party), as:
   
2. ^KU33Z0: Friends don't try to get everything from one friend (variety & balance), as
   
3. ^KU33ZD: Friends generally consider it a bad idea to have just one friend (multiplicity) and
   
4. ^KU33ZH: Friends ADD friends; friends don't leave a friend because they found another friend, instead
   
5. ^KU33ZQ: Friends are happy and attracted when their friends enjoy friendship with others (anti-jealousy)
   (^KW5CO9: moreover "my friends have friends" gives power & introductions, the core of social networking), and instead
   
6. ^KU33ZV: Friends generally share their friends & friendship relations with others and the world (openness)
7. ^KW5B52: Friends generally consider attractive someone who has 1 or more other friends and who has other successful friendships.
   
5. ^KW5VG5: Who can make sense of the 7 "advanced" concepts?
   
1. ^KU3408: For those romance experts out there already familiar with polyamory (the next most advanced romance form today, almost as advanced as Romance-friends™), they will realize I just derived all polyamory's fundamental principles (variety & balance, multiplicity, anti-jealousy, and openness) and potentially infinitely more which polyamory hadn't even thought of, but all without even knowing what ROMANCE is! As just from ordinary friendship, all these guidance are already there, and more!
1. ^L90I7Z: Polyamory makes some key realizations: (1) that even in romance, it's not that too much jealousy is bad, it's that most any real jealousy is bad, most exactly that jealousy is UN-loving and so replaces it with compersion (indeed pioneers that word & concept). And (2) (the start of the realization) that inclusiveness is loving and exclusiveness is fundamentally unloving.  BUT...
   
2. ^KW5TYC: Even polyamory, the 2nd most advanced form of romantic relationship, is still missing the point: like all other I've heard of (other than Romance-friends™), it's still basing the relationship on sex & romance.
3. ^KW5UD5: Wrong! Sex & even romance are fleeting; friendship needs to be core. Then you'd have these (and so many more components) automatically. And it's been staring us in the face with the old adage “The best romance is based on friendship” (that most of us have heard but probably not really thought about) - from that we can infer the polyamory rules plus so many ,ore rules of how to behave nicely which we learned way back in Kindergarten. But we couldn't see this: because even in most advanced polyamory, we've been basing romantic relationships on the wrong thing: on sex instead of on friendship!
   
2. ^KUQ4VQ: But what's really amazing/embarassing, yes, even Kindergartners could tell us this, too, again without knowing a thing about romance. As it's all there and more in just ordinary friendship! They would say to us adults, “I don't know this kissing game you big people like to play, but I know one thing: I know you always have to treat your playmate as a friend. Be a friend. Are you doing that? 'Cause, don't forget, that's the golden rule.”
   
3. ^KW5TDQ>: But for adults, they find being friendly in romance in these 7 simple ways like doing multi-dimensional vector calculus –actually probably even harder, as most math professors in all their abstract thinking probably still haven't even formed the concept of romance-as-friend™ (I mean full friend) –it's pretty unimaginable concept for adults and so makes divorce lawyers a lot of money, as it seems adults rather pay them than think about it. For, after adolencence they get hormones & and cultural & religious reprogramming so start having behavior problems when it comes to “the kissing game” (romance). So they end up making the kissing game WAY too complicated & hurtful, treating their playmates as "a friend only when it feels like it". - No that's not okay.
   
6. ^KW5VFE: So for the adults, let me translate the above 7 derived rules about friendship (in order) into adult-speak that they might comprehend how, yes, they can (and should) apply them to their “kissing game”:
1. ^KUQ53C: Friends don't usually have a long list of criteria before someone can become their friend, so if you want your romance to be your friend, do the same for your romance.
1. ^KW5W94: “That's impossible” some might say, “I need my laundry list for my mate to meet; hey I need to find my soulmate!”.
2. ^KW5W9W: No you don't! You don't need any of that. Do you look for the soul-friend, to solve all the problems of your life?! Of course not. Soulmate searching is like trying earn a living buying lotto tickets! Get out of the clouds and get serious. It's not “finding the right person” (no such person exists!), it's becoming the right person to appreciate the great people everywhere! And learning to work to make it work!
3. ^KW5WJK: Pretend there was no romance; might this person be my friend? If yes, then add the romance back; are we romantically attracted? If yes, then okay, the two of you can be romance-friends™ (provided you can still behave as friends of course). -That's all there is to it.
   Next question.
   
2. ^KUQ5AX: Do I try to get all my friendship from just one friend? Of course not. Then similarly it's a bad idea to expect to get all my romance from one person, even if that deeply feels like the right thing to do (both culturally & genetically) as it likely will for at least most women, because, once again, the best romance is based on friendship so trying to get all your romance from just one person would NOT be friendly, just like trying to get all your friendship from one person would not be friendly. Instead much more healthy is romantic variety & balance, at least for most people (who can do safe sex 100%)
3. ^KUQ7HT: Just as it's generally a bad idea to have just one friend, it's also generally a bad idea just one romance, as again romance is supposed to be based on being friends, and friendship is fundamentally non-exclusive.
1. ^KUQ7Q2: Therefore we can infer that monogamy (this thing adults came up with, not kids) is fundamentally not friendly:
   
1. ^KW4SGH: The best romance is based on friendship. Friendship is fundamentally non-exclusive. So monogamy is fundamentally non-friendly.
1. ^KW4SML: --Oops! Did we forget to think about this "small" problem -- by forgetting to notice this "small" hypocrisy of our faith in monogamy? That it contradicts friendship. I think we did!
   
2. ^KW4ST4: So then how should we think of monogamy?
   
1. ^KUQ7U9: Does this mean we should prohibit monogamy? No more than we should prohibit someone from having an exclusive friendship --you can do it, it's just probably not the best idea, as least not for most people (who can do safe sex 100%);
   
2. ^KW4SU5: Real monogamy (which is happy) is kind of like winning the lotto! (well the odds are not quite that bad) But would you try to earn a living by buying lotto tickets? Of course not! Then don't try to count on making your life happy via monogamy.
3. ^KW4T5G: Indeed in US the odds of monogamy working (at least via happy marriage) seem to be about only 1 in 8
   (How computed: about 51% of marriages end in divorce, say only about 1/2 of those are actually happy; then note an increasing % of adults are just not getting married (today most (about 55%) aren't married); multiplying those 3 together gives you about 1 in 8 changes of success).
   
4. ^KUQ83H: "friends don't leave a friend because they found another friend" instead "Friends ADD friends"; consequently, for romance actually based on friendship, a friend doesn't leave a romance because they found another romance; instead a friend adds romances, at least for most people (who can do safe sex 100%).
5. ^KUQ8FQ: Somebody who has a lot of friends, and who demonstrates positive friendly interactions with people. Might I like to be his/her friend, and watch them do friendly interactions with others? Certainly! Then similarly somebody who has positive romances with people I want to watch those romances, and be romantic with that person, too. No jealousy! Shun feelings of jealousy as you would feelings of wanting to steal.
   
6. ^KUQ8RY: In traditional dating one is supposed to be with one date at a time and generally hides one's date from one's other dates (typically as if they never existed)
1. ^KW5RXA: This is mainly to cater to jealousy (romantic selfishness (anti-loving)) (plus the cultural/religious expectation to be else to appear romantic with just one).
2. ^KW5RXH: But it has numerous problems:
1. ^KW5RUD: unfriendly (friends share friends),
2. ^KW5RUV: avoids comparison & learning, which prevents problems from being solved (if someone (perhaps even you) is doing something wrong, you won't know or can't tell)
3. ^KW5RYO: unsafe: it avoids problems someone is getting into with someone from being spotted by another
4. ^KW5S0O: cuts opportunity to meet new friends.
1. ^KW5S7F: One might think? "Why the heck would I want to meet the mate someone else my romance is dating? I'd hate him or her!"
2. ^KW5S7S: Well if you just get over your jealousy (romantic selfishness (anti-loving)), you'll probably find:
3. ^KW5S8B: Your mate typically attracts & selects people like you (no surprise, since s/he picked you) who then could be your real good friend (again if you just get over your jealousy (romantic selfishness (anti-loving))); in fact
   because your mate likley conciously & even instictively attracts people like you, s/he might be better finding them than you! No joke: Just look at:
   
   ^KW5SD5: this my own experience of this. Around 1991 (before I realized all jealousy is fundamentally destructive) after breaking up with Congpa, she (pissed off I turned her down for marriage) then tricked me into trapping me into taking her and her new boyfriend around town (to get back at me, she didn't tell me she was coming when she came to visit me, as was typical of the mean stuff she did which caused me to break up with her in the first place). Well not wanting to let her appear to get the best of me, I pretended it didn't matter, and actually forced myself to be friends with the guy (well at least just for the duration of the visit). Turns out he was not only working in computers like I was, and indeed not only into programming, but also developing a new programming language as I was doing (rare), and in fact --I kid you not-- a language based on the Self programming laguange which he introduced me to. Even in my own computer circles, I had never run across a guy doing such seemingly similar work as me, and this guy was also my age. BUT, because I was just pretending not to be jealous, after they left I never talked with him again. Which was probably a big mistake: the Self programming laguange which he introduced me to (and was extending years before anyone had even heard of the world wide web), later "inspired a number of languages based on its concepts. Most notable... the JavaScript language used primarily for dynamic web pages in all modern browsers.".
3. ^KW5T4O: Consequently we should do in romance as we do in friendship:Friends share their friends & friendship relations with others and the world (openness).
7. ^KW5J4U: Romance-friends (romance as friends) guilds us in how to treat romantic experience (and career world does even more).
   
1. ^KW5K9M: We have a a career resume (with our experience), so why not a dating (and friendship) resume with our experience (my idea)? It sounds crazy, but, hey, it actually makes a lot of sense. In careers, experience is highly (& rightfully) valued; indeed even in friendship it's valued: "Friends generally consider attractive someone who has 1 or more other friends and who has other successful friendships." So if we want romances to be friendships, we need to do the same.
   
2. ^KW5JP8: Why aren't we? Again we're too caught catering to jealousy (romantic selfishness (anti-loving)); it goes so far that women (and men) lie about (reduce) their claims about the number of sex partners they've had, instead of celebrating about how many people they had great times with. Many seem to think past romances should be hidden, forgotten, their phone numbers thrown away, their pictured burned.
3. ^KW5JPE: Huge mistake! (ignoring, hiding & erasing our romantic past). For
   
1. ^KW5JYI: It's VERY unfriendly to the romances of the past (hypocrtically people we have promised to be most close to!),
   
2. ^KW5K3G: Plus it creates another big problem:
   ^{* KW5JZF:} We carry our mistakes to the next person, and
   * ^KW5K2K: We cease to help our past friends where we knew them probably better than most anyone else!
   ^KW5K52: For, as the Ancient Greeks said, "The unexamined past is doomed to repeat itself."
   
   
7. ^KU342L: It's so logical & obvious! So why haven't we been doing these things?? Why aren't we really being friendly in romance?
   Well nature & nurture explains it to a T, but the reasons (motives) are bad (selfish & unloving) and/or not applicable especially today.
   
1. ^KU343H: Blinded by drugs.
   Many say (not getting this yet) "Romance is special." -Yes it is: it's the best natural drug we've got.
   But then go on to conclude "It's not "just a friend"" -No, slow down!
   
1. Yes, Romance feels uniquely special (hey that feeling of being in love, romantic attraction, and great sex is the my favorite drug in the world),
   
2. and those great feelings (and some unpleasant ones as jealousy) come real fast & strong so it's easy to conclude it (and try to make it) something different than friendship
3. BUT "easy come, easy go"; specifically I will explain those strong feelings are just natural chemical drugs --transitory-- and not actually love; instead
   
4. let us not forget "the best romance is based on friendship" so your romance it needs to be made fundamentally still a friend.
5. And "just a friend"? Banish that derogatory expression! --unless you want to insult all your friends! That's almost like saying "just a god". As friendship is core vessel of love! In many respects, friendship is we've got (unless we want to live alone on this planet) and the core of a quality family!
2. ^KU35TR: But why is feelings of romance & sex really a chemical, and not love? It's explained to a T by sociobiology (genes also heavily determine our personalities, not just our physical attributes, and so our personalities, too, are heavily genetically determined over what will cause us to reproduce our individual genes).
   
1. ^KU3SV8: Re-prhasing a 1977 Time Magazine article on "Sociobiology and Sex" passage with additions in parenthesis: In evolutionary terms, sex is the central game in life, and the (subconscious )aim of every player (of every life form) is to copy as many (of its )genes as possible into the next generation at the lowest cost.
   
2. ^KU376L: As every life form does, we have the fundamental goal to reproduce (copy our-self) and our-self is foremost defined by our genes.
1. ^KU3TF3: So the successfully reproducing genes have been the ones which have put in us chemical desires (as sexual attraction, arousal, and jealousy) to drive us to reproduce ourselves (and sadly & selfishly we're talking about reproducing one's own individual genes: our romantic mate's genes is only of interest in as far as it reproduces our own).
2. ^KU3TFC: In fact, reproducing and sex and even most derived mating rituals fundamentally has nothing to do with being friendly & loving, just selfishly reproducing ourselves.
3. ^KU3TFK: I know for most humans, especially women, this is a very thing to swallow, but so sociobiology would explain it to be true.
3. ^KU37NT: Moreover, among human romance, it's fundamentally a war-zone out there: in fact, the War of the Sexes" is BRED-in for a billion years! -- read this to see how & the differences.
   
4. 
   
5. ^KU37PD: But sociobiology (nature) isn't our only programming;
3. ^KU37R4: Nurture (our upbringing) also plays a huge part (especially in humans), but much of our basic romantic teachings do not have good motives or reasons which are applicable today, and are often fantasy, so are unhealthy. Why do traditional marriage & monogamy? While it might terrible (else terribly hard) for finding love sexual fulfillment,
1. ^KW602N: That's the way we've always done it (for thousands of years)
   and while humans will change their communication habits (electronically) now about every 2 years, shockingly most of them haven't updated their religious teachings for the last 2000 years (and these generally dictate "proper" marriage & sex). Of course any intelligent person knows this by itself is a terrible reason. But this is seemingly we're we're slow to change today, as the remaining reasons are increasingly crappy. But for the most part we just do what our parents did, and what society tells us to do, and have done monogamy and standard heterosexual marriage so long we don't even know why we do them, we just do it. Indeed why was "No sex before marriage" still common even as late as the 1980s, but now it's kind of faded a way? Most people probably wouldn't know, but the next point tells you:
   
2. ^KW5ZSD: It's the only humane option when there's no sex education & preganancy & STI control plus abortion.
1. ^KW60JO: This is the only respectable reason, and it's an outstanding one. And note it would also dictate no sex outside of marriage (including before).
2. ^KW60K9: But since around the 1940s (and increasingly), we've solved this, so it's no longer applicable (with the once exception that also we need something as Romance-Friends™ to guide as to what sort of relationships we should have instead).
   
3. ^KW60TM: It is genetically & culturally preferred by woman. Yes, but the reasons for that are not good.
   
4. ^KW5Z8M: It breeds the maximum number of people loyal to the things the leader wants
   
1. ^KW5WRE: This keeps the leader in power.
   
1. ^KW5WOY: (For most of human civilization, if I am a powerful ruler (as China), and I want to overthrow the Mongels to the north, that takes sheer numbers of people on my side, and it's hard to convert people to my side, so it's much easier to breed them. So do I want my people exploring multi-partner relationships & exploring finding love and great sex? No of course not, I want them banging out kids (citizens) for me! And traditional marriage & monogamy gets the the most kids for my huge armies.
   
2. ^KW5X1I: But for me the supreme ruler? What sort of romance for me? Oh, that's a different story. While I want to my citizens to slave hard in the the traditional marriage and monogamy (to bang me out kids), for myself, well take a look at:
1. ^KW5Y2C: Henry VIII: he had 8 wives plus many more mistresses, including children by at least 10 women - hardly one mate for life!
2. ^KW5Y2N: The last emporor of China Puyi: (made famous in the film The Last Emperor (1987)): he had at least 4 wives at the same time, including 2 at the age of 16 and (according to the film) ~800 concubines and to keep the other men attending him any chance of sex with them he had them castrated into eunuchs.
1. ^KW5Z16: And it spreads the leader's religion.
   
1. ^KW5Z7O: It's a ton easier to breed people into a religion than to convert them, especially after one has been raised one faith. Because a person generally sticks to the religion they were raised in. And that means more money (a lot more money) for the church.
2. ^KW5Z2C: Want an example? You need look no further than the Catholic_Church ; which is famous not only for monogamous marriages, but also the virtue of woman (she could only have sex with one man, her husband) plus historically not allowing divorce, and still not allowing abortion & contraception. The result? Banging out huge numbers of Catholics: Indeed, it's “the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians^{[note 2]} and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion”.
   
2. ^KW5ZPK: And Sure it's easy
   
3. ^KU20QD: so we need modern solutions as notably romance actually based on friendship so
   
4. ^KU20QO: instead of having a girl/boyfriend or husband/wife/spouse or lover or f-ck-buddy or even friend-with-benefits,
   one has romance-friends™ (my term) analogous to all other friend types (football-friends or shopping-friends or school-friends, etc)
1. ^KU20QY: so as you might guess from that analogy:
   
1. ^KU20R8: being friends (friendship) is made the basis of the romance, friendship always made the core & placed the ABOVE being romantic/sex or any other activity, so
   
2. ^KU20RD: romance/sex is made to be just an activity (an awesome natural drug) you safely share with some friends
3. ^KU35NA: As I've said since ~2000: Good sex can last an hour, but good friendship can last a lifetime. So put your values where they belong!
   
2. ^KU20RK: consequently[ due to male jealousy and so anger:]
1. ^KU20RV: Dismissed is the fantasy of finding a single "soul-mate", "the one" romance, to answer "all" your needs (and typically in all situations in fact "to death do us part").
1. ^KU20SL: Do you search for the single SOUL-Friend?! --of course not!
2. ^KU21I4: One could also to earn a living by buying lotto tickets!
   Instead
   
2. ^KU21IH: Like all real friends, being NON-exclusive by default (friendship is fundamentally non-exclusive), but always dedicated, is what's healthy.
1. ^KU21IO: Just like real friends, having a few good friends (not just one) is good when you can pull it off
   
3. ^KU21IZ: and true (platonic) love is "wanting what's best for" (not sexual) so
4. ^KU21JB: you don't let yourself fall in love (driven by romantic hormones and fantasy; plus "falling" is bad);
   instead, like real friends, you guide yourself to grow in love, as
5. ^KU21JG: you make the basis of your love NOT romance and sex, but the friendship (or just trying to love all).
3. ^KU21JM: and taking the concept all the way, the whole social goal is
1. ^KU21JS: NOT primarily marriage and/or a family-tree/lineage and with friends second (as it typically is), but
2. ^KU21JY: being friends with everyone first, the foundation of quality family, and
   
3. ^KU21K8: growing in love, you build a family-network of friends (think of web social networks as MySpace and LinkedIn but fewer & deeper connections) peppered with safe romance & other fun activities friends share and salted with kids & parents that result. So
   
4. ^KU21KD: your friend network IS your family (along with kids & parents that result).

^KU21LE: Analysis:

1. ^KU21KL: This I ague romance-friends is the most socially-advanced romance form, even a bit more advanced to the very similar polyamory,
   as romance-friends uniquely centers the relationship on friendship and platonic love (which has great roots & success) instead of sex which is at the center of all other romance forms (casual sex, one-nighters, prostitution, monogamy, don't ask don't tell, cheating, polygamy, swinging, f-ck-buddies, polyamory);
1. ^KU27LY: while the other recent romance form technologies (f-ck-buddies and friends-with-benefits and swinging and polyamory)
1. ^KU282T: all openly & honestly support multiple simultaneous romance partners (especially polyamory where the openness is public), and
   
2. ^KU2833: make notable strides rid romantic jealousy (especially polyamory which replaces it with compersion which it pioneered), and
   
3. ^KU283U: polyamory is the only to encourage full symmetry,
   
2. ^KU2846: romance-friends does all of this and more: romance-friends is the only romance form to:
1. ^KU284B: foremost term your romance partner as another friend and not a sex/romance partner, and romance is now just another activity, and while not what we're used to, the logic for it is profound so I think this is very key
2. ^KU27ZH: Is not just something which looks like it might work, but where everything is logically entailed under the rules we've long succeeded with in friendship, with 0 exceptions (Friends generally encourage friends to have friends (anti-jealousy), it's generally a bad idea to have just one friend (multiplicity), friends don't try to get everything from one friend (variety & balance), and friends generally share their friends with others and the world (openness)).
   
2. ^KU21WH: the name romance-friends™
1. ^KU21XA: I invented about 2001 when searching for a better term for a romance partner than the ones available today.
   
2. ^KU20TT: Unlike the other names for romance partners (a girl/boyfriend or husband/wife/spouse or lover or f-ck-buddy or even friend-with-benefits),
1. ^KU20YH: Works for both genders/sex and if married-or-not so
   DOESN'T reveal the gender/sex of the other person nor sexual orientation nor if married-or-not (so simpler, symmetric, & avoids discrimination)
2. ^KU214M: Instead of focusing on say secondary details (as woman & marriage suggested by "wife") instead focuses on the primary details: on the romance & especially friendship.
   
3. ^KU21Q1: Doesn't presume/suggest exclusivity; instead tends to suggest non-exclusivity (via the friendship focus)
   
4. ^KU20TG: and most key of all, analogous to all other friend types (football-friends or shopping-friends or school-friends etc)
3. ^KU21Z9: Seemingly does NOT cover pure sex partners as one-time prostitutes and one-night-stands as these are generally not what you would call "friends"
1. ^KU222L: Such one-night-stand sex personally doesn't appeal to me but that is still not a good enough reason not to cover it.
2. ^KU225Y: Not including this group (which I still think as healthy) is in my mind the most debatable aspect of the word "romance-friend", though I won't go so far as saying it's a drawback.
   
3. ^KU224U: The more broad term romance-partners could be used to cover both both situation, but the loss of the word "friendship" is huge, especially for for this philosophy of romance actually based on friendship.
   

3. ^L48U4N: Life instead based on Romance-Friends (under construction)

1. ^L48U6E: You avoid else correct any situation where there is unsafe sex. You always practice & encourage safe-sex (with condoms, etc): "No glove, no love."
   
2. ^L48VGG: As you wouldn't typically promise to be exclusive in friendship, in romance truly based on friendship
   you typically do NOT promise to be romantically exclusive with anyone and fight the urge to do so.
1. ^L48VJE: Exception: you've been living with someone for say 1 year and it's been going well and you still want to be exclusive. Then try being exclusive for say 1 month, and if that works, 2 months, then 4 months, etc; when it stops working, go back to being non-exclusive.
2. ^L48VTL: If someone has already promised to be exclusive but at least one of the partners has desires to be with others, then you encourage/do renegotiation to non-exclusive status under the terms here.
   
3. ^L48U9Z: You do DO keep your promises and are regularly romantic with at at least to people and ideally all possible where the romance goes well; you fight any urge to be romantic with just one person.
   
4. ^L48W0U: You avoid else correct any situation with cheating (someone breaking a promise of romantic exclusivity).
   
5. ^L48WPK: Whenever you or another experience jealousy, you instantly remind that jealousy is an unhealthy emotion and insure the jealousy is safely dissappated and replaced with compersion.
   
6. ^L48VSN: Besides the terms here plus mutual romantic attraction, you do NOT have nor let yourself have significant extra criteria for being romantic with someone new. Consequently getting romantic the first time with someone is much easier and should take no more than 1 hour to a few days, and never more than one month.
7. ^L48XZ3: Every child needs a steady home and definitely a steady school & community plus loving supportive happy parent(s) plus ideally at least two parents of different sexes. Consequently,
   
1. ^L48Y7T: It needs to be determined how much each of these factors are worth.
2. ^L48Y92: If the criteria can't be well met, then the child should not be born else transferred to parents which can provide this.
   
3. ^L48Y4J: Ideally the parents must live in the same house else very close by (walking distance), else no more than say a 5 minute drive.
4. ^L48YAX: The child must have his own bed and closet & drawer & desk space; the child should not be required to change these things more than 1 time per week.
5. ^L48YE6: The child must not change his/her during the school's term (semester, trimester, or quarter), and if at all possible should not change his/her school more than once every say 3 years.
   
4. ^KU24WE: I strongly recommend everyone seriously try romance-friends romance form, and will back up anyone doing it.
1. ^KU24XZ: But since it is so pioneering, you need to be sold on the concept, and cannot yet depend on others having done it --unless you count very similar and almost-as-advanced polyamory (which is probably a good idea), otherwise-- you'll have to be "first on the dance floor with a brand new partner dance" and few have the guts & strength for that. But:
5. ^KU255Y: The reasoning behind "romance-friends" romance form is very solid
1. ^KU2572: Based on both science (sociobiology: so you know why everything is before you decide what to change) plus a proven & root social concept (friendship) telling you exactly what to alter.
   
2. ^KU25A6: And in at least theory, once widespread, it should beat all other romance form I've seen, with only polyamory coming in as a close second.
3. ^KU26XT: And Polyamory is almost as advanced (and in most ways almost the same) and is out there and growing:
1. ^KU2ARM: Google Search[polyamory] returns "118,000" pages including:
1. ^KU2AS0: 3rd: Newsweek's Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? (2009.07.29 recent Newsweek articles & videos on polyamory)
   
2. ^KU2B4S: http://Polyamory.Meetup.com has 80 local groups worldwide with:
1. ^KU2BKN: 7 polyamory-related groups in LA County including the newest Polyamory-specific Active Polyamory which in 2009.11 exceeded 300 members.
6. ^KU22FV: My personal experience: tough, but I believe in cause.
   
1. ^KU21UO: I practice what I preach.
   
1. ^KU25FB: I have done "romance-friends" for all my romance & sex since around 1996 (now 13 years ago) when I started pioneering the concept. As a consequence:
1. ^KU25WY: "I never cheat and am always open. However with most women (and some men) cheating’s [is the]only way possible to have multiple partners unless you’re buying people with money or fame, and I don’t buy people, either, cause that’s not love." - quoting from an email sent December 2, 2009 1:47:24 AM to polyamorist Crystal.
2. ^KU25FY: I have always been up-front (within the first or second meeting) on everything, both in word and in writing.
   
3. ^KU25FM: And since I came up with the term "romance-friends" in about 2001, I've called all my romance partners my romance-friends and insist my family do the same.
   
2. ^KU244P: Also very relevant to interpreting any results is tragically I'm unusually limited in whom I'm attracted to romantically: maybe 1/50th of the options the average man has:
1. ^KU24O6: I'm not interested in one-night-stands and sex-only relationships; while these relationships don't generally last (by definition) they do cut a man's desperation from going without sex for more than a week or two, which then makes it notably easier to meet other women (when you have women (whom are not always with you) seems to be been when a man can most easily meet women)
   
2. ^KU24P6: I also demand honesty (as "romance-friends" is all about) which is generally rare in romance as men generally have plenty which "you don't tell a woman that!"
   
3. ^KU24QC: I'm attracted to a particular type of woman who are fairly rare:
1. ^KU26LO: Generally only particular pretty-faced Asian women who are independent if not out-spoken and somewhat leftist, but most Asian countries are still more conservative and still many Asians at least like to think they are more conservative & traditional. And while these exist, it pretty much wipes out everyone in a polyamory group (readily understanding my thinking) as polyamory seems far too left for most Asians; in my 10 years of polyamory, I have only seen 1 pretty-faced Asian woman involved (Crystal).
   
2. ^KU26MS: Moreover I also like this generally Asian woman to have (like my mother & sister) a Caucasian figure, especially busty, but most Asian woman are tiny and not busty.
4. ^KU24TY: Worst of all, all my life I'm attracted to women who are not my race, and usually just Asians. Consequently, so she also must be someone romantically attracted to someone not her race (and seriously, since I'm not into one-night-stands) but in California last I checked only 1 in 10 marriages is cross-racial; and in particular she must like a white guy which then limits it a tiny bit more.
   
3. ^KU22GZ: In this period,
1. ^KU25N2: at least 1/2 of the dates or potential dates I've went for I lost by being upfront and honest, plus far thinking in this unique way, but I still don't quit.
2. ^KU25NE: I've still had probably 50 romances. This is much more than I've ever designed; I seek quality not quantity, but (what few, especially women, don't realize) it is through typically through quantity that one gets quantity. This is actually not a large number as 50/13=~4 romances per year.
3. ^KU25O7: Most of them were short (as a week to two months) but a handful lasted as much as a year.
4. ^KU26RB: "So, as [one] might [roughly] predict, the longest polyamorous relationships I’ve had (with 2+ women actively involved) have only lasted about 2 months then 1 leaves. I remind though that everyone knows each other, so that’s still fairly impressive that it even lasts that long, but it still doesn’t last. \
   Nonetheless, while the ideal of polyamory and such and the potential of multiplicity is very important[ to me], actually having multiple partners for me is of decreasing importance, indeed almost no importance. I would be quite happy with one partner as long as it was steady & deep, and we could actively & openly flirt with others." - quoting from an email sent December 2, 2009 1:47:24 AM to polyamorist Crystal.
4. ^KU28KT: overall as I emailed sent December 2, 2009 1:47:24 AM to polyamorist Crystal:
   "
   
1. I think the future is polyamory (and my more advanced solution: romance really based on friendship, where sex & romance is just an activity, not a relationship).
2. Will that future materialize in our lifetime? I don’t know,
3. But at least for me I’m a fighter & a pioneer of the future, so my destiny is chosen: I may die trying, but it do it still, as it is so the soldiers behind me can live.
"

^KUQ739: Applying the Romance-Friend concept but only monogamy (and assuming the monogamy is real)

1. ^KUQ74I: This is kind of like saying we're friends, but not fully: very much like saying "Pretend it's considered healthy to have just 1 friend. What are the rules of friendship now?" Nonetheless,
2. ^KUQ75V: Due to popular appeal of monogamy, this is under development.
   

---

http://blogger.LoveRules.Info/2009/12/ku1wsf.html published from Writely source.
^KQ5ZAU: Some Background on this Document:

1. created Writely source and published to http://blogger.LoveRules.Info/2009/12/ku1wsf.html with name q[Romance-friends™ - romance form for the 21st century KU1WSF]
2. ^KW5PIU: renamed to[KU1WSF(Romance-friends™ –romance form for the 21st century)] conforming to present naming standards.
   
3. 2009.12.11pst0056 at about "(~75% complete)" 1st published content.
4. ^L72HYO: Published-at URL:” http://bit.ly/bNfeeY (short-URL) which redirects to http://blogger.LoveRules.Info/2009/12/ku1wsf.html
5. ^L72IA4: Renamed all q[http://LoveRules.Info] to q[http://blogger.LoveRules.Info]; plus removed font-tag.
   
6. ^L72IFB: renamed to title[Romance-friends™ –romance form for the 21st century KU1WSF] per new title format and using short URL.
7. ^L72IW4: Removed every HTML[ ]