Aug 122012
 
 Posted by on UTC 2012.08.12Sun at 06:20 polyamory M70ZHK, romance-friends™ M8MBFU  Add comments

M+W+M+W in heartM8M7RQ:romance-friends™ vs. polyamory: mostly commonality, difference is polyamory is starting to blossom but romance-friends is newer technology with notably better design & potential http://1.JotHere.com/3501#M8M7RQ

  1. "BETTER WAY" arrow signM8M8YY:Differences: polyamory is starting to blossom but romance-friends™ is newer technology with notably better design & potential

    1. M8PJUZ:Overall difference (of romance-friends™-compared-to-polyamory): while notably younger & smaller, has much better design (including definition & especially foundation) directing it to do notably less-bad & more-good.

      1. M87M9Q:Writes (SaberPen=me) in my OkCupid dating profile, quote:
        THE 7 WAYS THAT I’M DIFFERENT IN ROMANCE FROM MOST MEN:
        :
        (6)EXCELLENT: As a consequence all the prior points plus more,
        *the only romance-form I do is ROMANCE-FRIENDS™ – romance form for the 21st century (I also teach it); it is the most advanced & modern & logical romance form I know. In a nutshell, it’s simply “The best romance is based on friendship, so just do it: always treat your romance as a friend including as you would treat a friend” –trivial for a kindergartner to get & do, but very hard for adults having been romantically mis-coded by hormones, genetic traits, & society. But worth every penny to bite-the-bullet and learn & do it –because, unlike every other romance-form, Romance-friends™ gets romance fully, including it is the only romance-form to finally truly base romance on friendship, not sex (as “the best sex lasts a few hours, but the best friendship lasts a lifetime!”).
        **Romance-friends™ is largely-an-extension-(in results) and ideally-the-successor of the next-best romance-form, POLYAMORY, which has a large“About 2,020,000 results” in Google Search and is now being promoted nationwide by Showtime in their new TV series “Polyamory: Married & Dating”; indeed a polyamorous person might say “Polyamory got the key basics of romance right and is definitely in-the-ball-park; but Romance-friends™, with its basis-on-universally-understood&respected-friendship-plus comprehensive-sociobiological-awareness, it gets romance fully, with sociobiology clearly explaining most everything that happens in romance (except what-to-do) and then Romance-friends™ clearly explaining what-to-do and in most any situation and in terms even a kindergartner could understand!”
      2. .
    2. M8MCPY:Much better design (including definition & especially foundation) directing it to do notably less-bad & more-good

      1. M8LZ3S:Polyamory and especially romance-friends™ don’t have common negatives of notable other open-relationship types because of both being founded in strong rules which avoid these problems; so they both reach mostly-the-same geat & very-important accomplishments in romance, but each by coming the opposite direction:
        M8PJL3:polyamory, like all other romance-forms, comes from a basis of sex, but
        M8PJNE:romance-friends™ uniquely comes from a basis of friendship.

        1. M87EUP:Polyamory removes common negatives from prior open-relationship forms, even the ones with significant rules as swinging and even polygamy, by rules notably distinguishing itself.
        2. M8LZNK: Romance-friends™ is even more impressive in its rule foundation (indeed unique among every romance form) by instead just using all the well-known & trusted rules of friendship to govern romance (as M8MDJJ:Romance-friends™ is the ONLY romance-form NOT based on sex, but instead on actual friendship), and this ends up implying all best & typical rules polyamory accomplished without even having to mention this “p” word (which brings up misconceptions of Polpolygamy (including poligany igamy Polyandry, and perhaps swigning) and so much more.
          1. M8M03E:Romance-friends™ uniquely approaches the problem of romance instead from the friendship-direction: Instead of what every other romance form tries to (trying to add some friendship into romance), romance-friends™ uniquely puts romance in its place (per my saying, the best-sex lasts a few hours, but the best friendship lasts a lifetime) and has romance fall UNDER friendship (per “the best romance is BASED ON friendship”), making romance just-another-activity healthily-possible from being-friends.
      2. M8PID2:The 2 romance-forms’ different basis then results in different associations which readily come with it:
        M8PJPL:polyamory readily brings with it lots of negative sex associations, starting with its very name sounding like polygamy, associations which hopefully one works to hold back (starting in 1st explaining it one needs to alert “we’re not that!”), still it doesn’t always happen, including one sometimes also gets swingers & polygamists & even plain-adulterers looking for an easy secret lay (example)), whereas
        M8PJQO:Romance-friends™, as an extension of friendship, brings lots of positive friendship association plus potentially a number of one’s friends as well.

        1. M8MEVJ:compared with romance-friends, a notable drawback to polyamory is it’s notably closer to notable other open-relationship types with their bad negative associations & occasional-realities.
          1. M8MF6N: notably since polyamory logically & probably-historically grew out of notable other open-relationship types , including:
            1. M8MFBL:in thinking, possibly mostly an extension of swinging but conceptually closer to polygamy.
            2. M8MFCN: in the community, still often linked with swinging
            3. M8M1EL:in and, probably worst of all, in the name: for newbie‘s, a huge drawback to the name “Polyamory”, one smartly avoided by the name “romance-friends™, is, to a newie, “Polyamory” sounds dangerously like the the other “poly”s (“polygamy” and it’s subtypes “polygyny” & “polyandry“), but typical polyamory is notably different, including without common negatives.
              1. M8PLDV:Anyone 1st explaining it, if responsible, has to immediately alert (right after or before) “No, we’re not that!“.
                1. M8PLGF:See this example in my definition,
                2. M8PLJ2:See it in this other good introductory video.
              2. But immediate alerts still often don’t work, as people’s prior associations are so strong.
                1. M8M285:  Indeed I’ve regularly had people tell me “Oh, what you do is not for me: I’m not into that polygamy stuff.” to which I have to (as kindly as I can) reply: “I never mentioned “polygamy”!, hey, I’m not into that, either; I said “polyamory”, as that’s instead remarkably positive.”
          2. M8MF4Z:unlike romance-friends™ which comes at things fresh & instead from the direction of well-trusted & understood friendship.
            1. M8MFHB: Yes, romance-friends quickly falls into the territory of open relationships (specifically to something very close in results & rules of polyamory), BUT, unlike all other romance forms, it reaches this point from the perspective of well-known & trusted friendship (as from “friendship is fundamentally not exclusive, indeed inclusive” and “It’s generally unhealthy to have just one friend”. “you don’t generally leave a friend because you found a friend”,  “you hare happy your friend has friends” (thus compersion), etc), so
              1. M8MFKY: the result is likely a lot more trusted (“Hey if even basic kindergartner friendship tells me to do this, then, heck, I better do it!”)
              2. M8MFQG:Significant additional results are entailed, which are useful (and indeed which polyamory lacks): as
                1. M8MFVL:“You don’t make a long laundry list of what it takes to become your friend” and
                2. M8MFVV:“you don’t go looking & demanding you find your soul-friend: `oh, you’re not my soul-friend? I’m leaving!’ would be ridiculous'”.
                3. M8N1G5:“You don’t stand up & flake & dump and do-one-night-stands-on your friends easily, so don’t do with your romances.”
      3. M8PKIL:Notably easier to explain & understand, including less-embarrassing plus socially safe even for even kids:

        1. M8MDFR:Romance-friends™ is maximally easy to explain & understand, in terms even a kindergartner could understand: as “The best romance is based on friendship. So just do it. Have friendship govern romance: if you do it or don’t do it friendship, then do the same in romance. Tired of romance not being friendly? That’s because in romance, we”re typically NOT being friends. Don’t that; instead make romance is just another possible activity you can do between friends. And no matter what your activity, you do it as friends. Well here is the same: Whatever vehicle you drive, you have to follow the rules of the road, right? Well here the particular romance you do is just the vehicle, friendship is rules of the road.”
        2. M8MG53:In contrast the definition of polyamory has notable drawbacks:
          1. M8MH2W:pretty complex, especially when one gets into the notable additional rules, as that link shows, including with no one standard and
          2. M8MH3Q:immediately is in the perilous (and adult) territory of open-relationships, even its very name.
      4. M8PLUT:Much more well-defined

        1. M8PM74:First , a ton easier & more-pleasant to explain.
        2. M8PMT5:Second, from the very start:
          1. M8PMRN: Clearly defined.
            1. M8PN5C:Not entirely surprising given the inventor of romance-friends™ is an engineer from MIT with a passion for integrating mathematical formalism into language, computers, & life.
            2. M8PNH2:Polyamory’s definition is fairly complex with no one standard.
          2. M8PMW4: definition placed in a central public location (indeed the best, a web page) inviting public written comment there: see link Romance-friends™.
          3. M8PMQZ:And, especially in case of questions, inventor is known.
            1. M8PNEJ: DestinyArchitect invented Romance-friends™;
            2. M8PNES:the inventor(s) of polyamory isn’t clear.
      5. M8POV0:Designed with the science behind it in mind, notably designed in accordance the science behind romance.

        1. M8MH9A: sociobiology (a very recent science) explains & creates the war between the sexes, romance-friends™ dictates the compromise & terms of peace (based on friendship & love).
          1. M8PPFB:That’s our conscious mind understanding & appreciating nature & biology, and only-then consciously altering it.
        2. M8MHC6:Polyamory designers clearly had great inutition, and polyamory supporters frequently rightfully cite studies (as virtually no creatures are really monogomous, and bonobo’s got it right), but none I’ve seen cite seeing this big picture of sociobiology (so explaining why things are they way they are) so then how the solution then rightfully replaces it.
        3. M8POYL: And while one can in theory reach even the best solution without knowing anything about why it makes sense, person wisely trusts a solution much more if clearly knowing why it works, else clearly knowing the creators clearly know why it it makes sense.
      6. M8MJY8:Romance-friends™ is social-technology™ about a 12 years newer than polyamory.

        1. M8MK01:polyamory was invented about 1992, romance-friends roughly about 2004.
        2. M8MKCV:Romance-friends™ youngness correctly suggests
          1. M8MKEC:it’s not as tested, not nearly, but
          2. M8MKEN:it’s also got more history to design from, including me (the designer) well knowing about
            1. M8MKOK:polyamory (I even started a polyamory including having well-knowing polyamory (I even started a Meetup group, Polyamory of Pasadena, in 2004) plus
            2. M8MKOY:knowing about the recent field of sociobiology.
      7. M8MH0U:notably better potential

        1. M8MH1A:With it  good design (notably being so easy & inuitive to understand that even a kindergarddger could get it (the adults are the ones with problesm), plus following right out of friendship, and NOT immediately in the perilous territory), romance-friends™ would seem to have dramatically greater potential than even polyamory.
          1. M8MHNA:polyamory comes on intense and radical including advanced open-relationships but in the end typcially conceeds it’s not for everybody, probably not most people (though inuitively it’s followers see that something here is indee right for everybody)
          2. M8MHTY: Romance-friends™ comes on simple & easy, in familiar rules of friendship even a kindergartener knows, but then very quickly it rightfully smacks in the face virtually everyone practicing monogamy, and in a way their kindergartener might: “The best romance is based on frinedship. And friendship is fundamentally non-excusive, indeed it’s rather inclusive. Therefore monogamy is fundamentally unfriendly!” -whoa! The logic holds. A deserved smack! And it continues. “It’s generally bad to just have 1 or 2 friends. So why, mommy & daddy, do you limit yourself to just each other, so limit me to just two parents?”
    3. M8MAV3: Popularity & Community: presently different in size

      1. M8MAWG: Polyamory’s has the notable edge here, as it’s starting to blossom with most-notably the Showtime series.
      2. M8MB2C:Still Romance-friends™:
        1. M8MCHQ: Is the only romance-form I’ve done (see my OkCupid profile) since coming up with the concept.
        2. M8MB4R: Has been publicly published on the web since “12/02/2009 04:52:00 PM“.
        3. M8MC59:Google Search(“romance-friends”) and Google Search(romance-friends) finds this concept (specifically that article) ranked #1 & #2 respectfully, so this name has become official within Google-Search!
        4. M8MBUA: has articles on JotHere: 3+ and growing, including:
          1. M8MBUA:a suggested agreement of terms, something most romances don’t have in writing regardless of romance-forms.
        5. M8MCE9:Within the last week I have gotten about 4 personal requests to start a workshop or community group (as a Meetup group) around the concept, so I likely will start that soon.
  2. M8M92R: Commonality: mostly

    1. M8LXEG:Polyamory & Romance-friends™ are NOT-the-same-as notable other open-relationship types (being notably WITHOUT common negatives but WITH unique positives), a key point newbies typically miss.

      1. M8M0VS: Define “newbie” to be a person new to polyamory & Romance-friends™.
      2. M8M2RX:Define “notable other open-relationship types” to include 
        1. M8M2V2:types:
          1. M8M366: freely having sex without rules where one can do whatever romance s/he pleases), else, when some rules are added:
          2. M8M377: swinging
          3. M8M37Q: even polygamy
          4. M8M38V:When NOT secret, friends-with-benefits & fuck-buddies
        2. M8M2XG: as these are-else-have-been much more talked about and mostly have had a lot longer history.
      3.  M87EHJ: In general, to newies , polyamory & romance-friends™  are best NOT quickly called a kind of open-relationship because:
        1. M8M10Znewies typically have strong associations with the term “open-relationship” from notable other open-relationship types.
        2. M8M11J:but these associations are-typically-negative and DON’T apply here, as romance-friends™ and polyamory don’t have these common negatives.
      4. M85JBY: Yes, Romance-friends™ and polyamory are technically a type of open-relationship, but
        1. M8LYJA: then again so is friendship (if one reads “open relationship” literally: w/o romance) and “the best romance is based on friendship” (the basis of Romance-friends™), so just dismissing all “open-relationships” would not be being friendly as being “open” is requirement of friendship!
        2. M8MJLZ:You see, polyamory and especially romance-friends™ don’t have common negatives of notable other open-relationship types because of both being founded in strong rules which similarly avoid these problems, so they both reach this same great point.
      5. M8MISM: Also compared with romance-friends, a notable drawback to polyamory is it’s notably closer to notable other open-relationship types with their bad negative associations & occasional-realities; still:
      6. M8MNFS:see unlike all romance forms, there are notable unique positives.
    2. "BETTER WAY" arrow signM8MLC1:Unlike (notably better than 🙂 all other romance forms (not just unlike notable other open-relationships), roughly from best to worst points:

      1. M8MPVA:The #1 way (from really living it) to rid of the typically extremely destructive mantra of needing in romance to find “the one” and “one’s 1 perfect soulmate”, including expecting & burdening one person to provide all one’s romantic fulfillment.

        1. M8MQ2A:Why? Obviously really seriously & openly having multiple simultaneous romances teaches balance!
        2. M8MQ3E:While a number of men buy into this the destructive monogamy belief thus soul-mate-montra, it’s an extremely serious problem for most women, likely since they’re wired both genetically & culturally to think they only need one mate.
        3. M8PR0O:Monogamy is generally a bad goal? Yes!
          1. M8PTF7: “Monogamy destroys families.” -says Tahl at minute 0:31-0:36 in Showtime’s Polyamory’s Behind The Scenes, where I think he means “Monogamy destroys families routinely & frequently & seemingly-typically.” which is VERY true.
          2. M8PR48:Why?
            1. M8PR5H:It seriously goes against friendship. Notes romance-friends™, “The best romance is based on friendship and friendship is fundamentally non-exclusive but rather inclusive. Moreover, it’s generally rather unhealthy to have just one friend.”
            2. M8PSKY:It’s not what virtually any life form actually does in practice, including swans (now that we’ve got DNA testing to show it).
            3. M8PR4M:It leads to “you must find for yourself the one perfect soul-mate to fulfill all your romantic needs” which is an overall extremely destructive mantra.
              1. M8PSOY: Why?
                1. M8PSSP: Unfriendly. Notes romance-friends™, “You don’t go looking & demanding for a soul-friend.” and “You don’t have this big laundry list of what it takes to become your friend.”.
                2. M8PSPJ:Generally totally unrealistic. Life is multiplicity & balance. Including:
                  1. M8PVRK:In friendship Notes romance-friends™, “It’s generally very unhealthy to have just one friend.”
                  2. M8PVT3:In business & career,
                    1. M8PVX0:it’s typically totally foolish to have just 1 customer and just 1 supplier.
                    2. M8PVXD:It’s typically foolish to be wedded to just 1 employer.
                    3. M8PVYF:We have many choices of schools.
                  3. M8PVU1:In government,
                    1. M8PVWF: we nearing world-wide agree that democracy is better than monarchy.
                    2. M8PVZ8:We have our choice of cities, states, and sometimes countries in which to live, with never one clear winner.
                  4. M8PW1A: One could go on. Indeed it’s hard to find examples where doing what monogamy does, excluding others, makes sense & is truly happy & scalable.
                3. M8PSOG:(Since you only can have one & s/he must be perfect), this leads to breakup & divorce (leaving one romance to “legitimately” have another, or when the 1st simply isn’t perfect)
                  1. M8PSZ5:Which breaks families & hearts & homes
                    1. M8PT0L:including the hearts & homes of children of the adults involved.
                      1. M8PT2L:See more details in these-2-romance forms instead protect the kids.
          3. M8PQZH:Why?
            1. M8MR3O: romance-friends™ explains it trivially: You don’t go looking for & requiring your perfect soul-friend, so don’t do so in romance!
          4. M8PR8L:Also (Monogamy is generally bad goal) especially with today’s humans
            1. M8PTWD:Why?
              1. M8PUS1:The typical physical negative consequences of sex are serious: kids that can’t be properly cared for (most serious), sexual diseases, and pregnancy dangerously-weakening & sometimes-killing the mother.
                1. M8PV37:But can we well-prevent else typically-prevent these things?
                  1. M8PV3M: For the first 99.9% of human existence (~3.7 million years), the answer was very much No, indeed typically we barely understood these things.
                    1. M8PTX0:So expecting & demanding monogamy, indeed only having one sexual partner in your life, notably only your spouse (so also only after after you were marred), made a great deal of sense.
                  2. M8PU8M:but now (since about 1960s), the answer is YES, indeed in some cases (as not letting women die from preganacy and unwanted kids die, the question is a resounding YES in at least the western world).
              2. M8PU93: So now the only thing left which is really driving us to continue to expect to be monogamous is:
                1. M8PUGI:our proper need for something solid & benign to culturally replace our expectation-of-monogamy & traditional marriage: and that’s romance-friends™.
                2. M8PUAR:our strong human wiring for 99% of human existence, both genetically & culturally:
                  1. M8PUNZ:for about for the 1st 99.9% of human existence, our genetics, but these were to prevent the physical problems of sex so are no longer applicable.
                  2. M8PUOC:for the last ~5000 years of human existence, our culture including religion, but these stemed from:
                    1. M8PVMV: the physical negatives of sex which bot those are fixed plus
                    2. M8PVN9: how to culturally manage romance, especially in this new word, but that’s now fixable, too.
      2. M8ML91: much more friendly and loving (at least in theory, and seemingly in practice), and literally inclusive rather than inclusive.

        1. M8MNY8:  Why? As romance-friends explains, if romance is truly based on friendship, this is what logically results in being friends. And since this result is what polyamory typically specifies as well, the same would hold true for polyamory.
        2. M8MO3M:For me and at least society, this is what is most important: doing what would be most loving so most friendly.
      3. M8M523: typically creates a solid & open network of romantic-friends, especially in romance-friends™.

        1. M8M5CU:This makes the situation hard to describe, especially to newbies, so one might just say “It’s complicated.”.
        2. M8M588:But a network is generally much stronger than just 1 group, especially when the group is small (as 2) as it typically is in romance.
      4. M8MLLB: (similar to polygamy but notably better) readily provides kids with 3-or-more parents (instead of the increasingly typical single-parent) plus often spares kids from their-parents-divorcing & having-a-broken-home-&-family.

        1. M8MOSO:Recent, real example: Due to his parents going poly, Devin gets 4 parents to look after him, instead of just 2 or 1! When Devin’s parents wanted more romantic variety, instead of divorcing they moved in another couple into their home & bed (and with Devan’s agreement); so now instead of having just a single-parent or be shuttled-between-parents in a home broken by fighting & divorce, Devin also ends with more love as well! –now with 4 parents to pay attention to him & love & care for him & help him grow up, as the pic suggests.

      5. M8LVPW:number of simultaneous serious-romances is technically unlimited

        1. M8LW3P:In practice it generally goes no more than say 14, and often significantly less.
        2. M8LVU9:Thus polyamory is often called & given logos of “infinite love”

          1. M8LW00:but typically such phrasing & symbols are typically much more applicable the more general & powerful concepts of romance-friends™ & even love-all.
        3. M8MM5T: While this point is often first in newbie‘s mind (you get more sex or at least sexual variety!)  I list it towards the end of the positive points as the ones above it tend to be more significant in practice.
          1. M8MM9P:So in short one can say “people often come for the sex, but stay for the love & eventual community”.
          2. M8MMAA:In this case though, such symbolism (as the heart) may not refer as much to infinite romance as it does infinite love.
      6. M8MDTI:(along with polygamy especially where that’s not accepted), very hard to do, indeed the hardest-to-do of all romance forms!,

        1. M8MDVO: because (with some fixes for each) one has to, from most-worst:
          1. M8MDWR:generally openly go against society’s high moral conventions
            1. M8MSLT:go against society’s moral conventions:
              1. M8MEET:the huge convention of: monogamy-else-single in public and anything else either not-done else (kept secret and definitely CAN’T be anything committed loving).
                1. M8MT6K:So then openly having multiple serious/commited romance partners would be outrageous & shameful, and likely called “sick” ,”narcissistic” & “certainly hurtful”, or “a lie”, or “simply impossible”.
              2. M8ME4W:held by nearly all religious and even most non-religious
              3. M8ME5K: violating in an area which is
                1. M8MEF8:a bigger no-no than
                  1. M8MEGE: a different religion (it could be much more accepted & easy be of a different competing religion (as Islam instead of Christianity)
                  2. M8MEIF: romancing & marrying the same sex (now fairly common & majority-accepted in the US)
                2. M8MEAM:barely known (for polyamory) and likely never heard of (for romance friends)
            2. M8M5JJ: and one generally can’t hide it, must reveal it (having multiple-simultaneous romance partners, and indeed committed & open)
              1. M8M5ND: Because, well, because here the goal is to have serious romances and NOT hide.
              2. M8MTD8:But then most any
                1. M8MTFF: woman revealing she’s doing this will typically be labeled/thought a slut/whore or at best “prostitute”, and will be rejected by men for any serious romance
                  1. M8MTK7: well that is if she’d doesn’t (women typically don’t) know how to call men on this bluff, and say “You will respect me & share me”.
                2. M8MTFL:man revealing this, especially to any woman he might want romance with, will typically be thought of as playboy (or the recent term “man-whore”) and will be rejected for any serious romance, and often for any romance at all.
                  1. M8MTLX:well that is if he doesn’t know how to explain the principles behind this well, but even still, while women might listen then, the vast majority still won’t take him seriously themselves being strongly wired to want just 1 mate.
              3. M8M5TK:And even if somehow such a multiple-relationship is started, it can still lead to limitless seriously awkward moments,
                1. M8M5XO:” as with purchasing a home. “Hi, I’m Julie, your new neighbor! And this is rest of our household: my serious romances Jeff, Jorge, & Jill.”
              4. M8M5SQ: This is probably a major reason why it has been slow to become popular.
                1. M8M60C: Around 2002 (about 10 years after polyamory had begun), Jennifer (the president of (LA Poly Support now replaced by polyamory on Meetup))  told me she saw swinging 10x more popular than polyamory because it’s so much easier & typically hid (from the neighbors, workplace, church, even the kids); but when you’ve got 3+ adults romantically living together, that’s hard really hard to hide.
            3. M8MTSQ:I think this is the notably highest obstacle actually, indeed so high that M8MTTS.
            4. M8MTTS: if reversed, the good news is that I think it will be downhill.
              1. M8MTWK: If it can become socially acceptable to this form of romance (romance-friends™ or polyamory), I believe that will lead to a lot of people doing it and with much less difficulty, as they see everyone else doing it.
              2. M8MTYO:I think of this way: learning to drive looked impossible to me (and probably to many people), too many things to remember & do at once, until I remembered & saw everyone else do it, so then I thought I must be able to do it, too.  I think this romance form is about the same difficulty.
              3. M8MU2N:as humans are the very indeed the most socially reporogrammable.  Whole countries can be rewired to do the seemingly socially impossible: notable examples are Hitler doing it for evil, Ghandi and Mandela doing it for good.
          2. M8MDX1:go against one’s romantic jealousy (genetic & culturally taught, and against others having both physical  & emotional connections)
            1. M8MRXF:polyamory addresses this via very-cleverly pioneering & teaching compersion.
            2. M8MRYK:Romance-friends™ addresses this by reminding say “You’re normally happy & want your friends to have friends.”
            3. M8MU9Q: While compersion and similar seems impossible
              1. M8MUAN: I”ve basically done it. Especially doing it alone, it took years.
              2. M8MUCS: Real examples of huge nation reprogramming to do the “impossible” well suggestions it’s possible.
              3. M8MUJX: “minimizing jealousy” & surrounding article gives instruction & encouragement.
        2. .
    3. M8M6BZ:Who are the initial people into this style of romance, from most to least notable trends:

      1. M8MXT0: Racial breakdown: unintentionally very white: ranging from ~66% Caucasian to ~2% Asianamong the successful I’ve heard of, it’s been 100% Caucasian.

        1. M8MXUC: Ethnicity breakdown from OC-Polyamory membership most recently visited:
          Race Count %
          Caucasian 27 66%
          Black 5 12%
          Hispanic 3 7%
          Middle-eastern 3 7%
          Indian 2 5%
          Asian 1 2%
          TOTAL 41 100%
        2. M8N02G: Of the successful polyamorists I’ve heard of, they have been 100% Caucasian.
          1. M8N019:In Showtime’s big series “Polyamory: Married and Dating”, showing the most sensational polyamory I’ve heard of, all ~20 (so 100%) of polyamorists seen there are white.
        3. M8N0CY: Why does this happen?
          1. M8N0C7:I have no indication that the polyamorists intend to be racially discriminating. Rather they tend to be socially rather liberal & open-minded & inclusive, just as one would expect.
          2. M8N0G9: My guess is simply the typical social liberalness & social innovation of each race (with white people being the social & independent mavericks, followed by blacks (as is generally the case), thru at the very end Asians who rather prefer to be uniform), but with these differences even more magnified (i.e., with the contrast turned up) for reason I don’t know.
        4. M8N0MT: It pisses me off that strong racial unbalance happens at least in polyamory.
          1. M8N0QS: even in Orange County (of Southern California) which is a democratic state plus today heavily racially mixed (with indeed one of the largest populations of Asians in the country) plus notably racially integrated especially among the 20s & 30s crowd.
          2. I like racial balance but it certainly isn’t happening here, indeed anything but balanced in successful polyamory I’ve seen.
          3. M8MZJF:  And for me personally, this might sound great since I’m also Caucasian; however, since I’m genetically-wired to be turned on by E. Asians both in eyes & skin, including least attracted to Caucasian, it is actually the worst it could be for me, indeed pretty much romantic suicide. I  never expect to date an E.Asian already into polyamory or romance-friends™, as they don’t exist; rather  I can only hope I can teach them, but given the self-selection preferences, it looks highly unlikely.
          4. M8N13R:One at least nice piece of news: the founder & head of OC Polyamory, Kundan is Indian (Bermese), though he’s not in any romances that I’m aware. Still being non-white and the head, he can’t help but encourage other non-whites.
        5. M8N18Z:My guess is in romance-friends™, results will be similar to polyamory since it’s similar, though possibly better for E.Asian.
          1. M8N1DD: With my strong (indeed genetic) interest in E. Asians (including Heading Meetup.com/AsianFriendster and feeling especially at home among E.Asians), I will be able to increase the representation somewhat of this lowest represented group.
      2. M8M6EP: Normally super-rare: people born without romantic jealousy.

        1. M8M6FH: Such people seem to exist.
          1. M8M6JY: About 1/2 of the people I met attending the ~2002 LAPS described themselves this way.
          2. M8M6KE:By my theory that romantic jealousy is a dominant genetic tait, such people should exist.
        2. M8M6HT:For these people, this kind of romance is a natural. They find very odd the rest of humans, for getting romantically jealousy and definitely NOT wanting to romantically share their mate even when their mate would really like the variety.
        3. M8M6QN:The founder & head of OC Polyamory, Kundan told me he’s this way.
      3. M8M6VU:Normally very-very rare: people with both the intelligence & courage to seriously question & go against near-universal social traditions plus their own genetic programming (as jealousy), even in traditional romance where (when pioneering) it could cost them their own family, romance, & having kids as possibly then no one would want a romance with them

        1. M8M73R: That’s me.
          1. M8M7C4: I’m an MIT CS Grad, doing my bachelors degree & masters work at MIT, but uniquely typically applying my intelligence to the social as that is where society needs the most help (hey, broken families have long become the norm; we need to work on that and not a better smartphone!). My greatest achievement is actually in the social, social architecture.
          2. M8M7G7: From seeing romantic-jealousy not actually being loving and trying to get everything from one woman being typically unrealistic, I actually independently invented what-was-effectively-polyamory in ~1997 (reinventing most everything except compersion), until, when telling my invention to someone, they told me they had heard of something similar called “polyamory” (how I 1st heard of the term).
          3. M8M7I2: And a few years later I went on to pioneer something even better, romance-friends™.
        2. M8N0WX:My first polyamory meeting, ~2002 LAPS, I also met another person similar to me: a graduate from CalTech (so clearly also very smart), and CalTech graduates are fairly rare as they only graduate about 250 per year so I do think it was much more than a coincidence; and lime me he also had ordinary jealousy but thinking about it similarly came to the conclusion romantic jealousy was unloving, so came here.
      4. M8N8AK:(normaly fairly rare:) Women wanting multiple simultaneous mates –postulated significant subgroup

        1. M8N8B8:This can occur via 2 methods I can think of:
          1. M8N8K1:Women naturally wanting more than 1 mate at a time (normally occurs about 5%)
          2. M8N8KZ:Women who are bisexual so then want both.
          3. @@To be continued.
        2. .
      5. M8MRME: In poly groups, about 2 men for every woman: poly group is ~64% male, ~36% female; in successful poly households, it seems a bit to more “favor” the men (having more women than men): ~44% men favored, ~30% balanced, ~27% women favored.

        1. 2 handsome men kissing 1 happy womanM8N4P2:For polyamory groups, it seems 2 men for every women.
          1. M8MRN8:Such Typical healthy men are wired to want sexual & romantic variety. So if this gets it, and they handle their jealousy and not hiding things, they’re game.
            1. M8N33D: The main problem by far is almost no women aren’t wired this way. So once polyamory activities start becoming a sausage-fest, they leave.
            2. M8N340:The secondary likely reality is that many or at least some are just looking what sounds like cold be open casual sex, but if they were ever to get into a piolyamory relationship, it wouldn’t be for them; but the reality is there are not enough women for this to ever even start; but since joining most polyamory groups is typically free, they still perpetually stay a member.
          2. M8MX58: On OC-Polyamory membership most recently visited, male to female is 28:16, or 64% male, 36% female.
          3. M8MXE7:For the 2010 World Polyamory Conference the initial fee was “$407 per person – Men’s Rate” & “$357 per person – Woman’s Rate”, likely to balance the ratio.
          4. M8MXEI:Swinging events I’ve heard also have this problem, I recall even more severely (probably because of the emphasis on casual sex), and either just allow (heterosexual) couples & women, or charge single men notably more.
          5. M8N4E7: Unlike monogamy & even swinging, indeed everything but rare polyandry, polaymory & romance-friends™ can uniquely solve this: each poly woman, just have yourself 2 or 3 poly men (see pic of the happy lady :-); hey if the men truly are poly as they declare, they’ll go along!  Women may forget this, probably not used to having multiple men at once including since typically automatically desiring it. But, seriously, we need people in relationships, not idle.
        2. M8N4R3:For successful polyamory households, it seems to typically a bit more “favor” the men (having more women than men).
          1. Linzy-Vanessa-Anthony in showerM8N4TJ: Showtime’s big series “Polyamory: Married and Dating”, 1 of the 2 families is a balanced 4, while the other is 2-women+1-man.
          2. On the other hand the largely successful polyamory group http://Meetup.com/Loving-More is run by a bisexual man with a man & a woman: it might seem the man is in the center here, too.
          3. M8N6MS:Of Google Image Search(polyamory), of images which are not balanced as far as the sexes, there are 28=44% images “favoring” men (with more women than men in the pic) and 19=30% where the group of 4+ is balanced, and 17=27% favoring women; there are also images of balanced relationships not included in this total.
          4. M8N50M: Among Google Image Search(polyamory), it seems
        3. M8N530:The notable asymmetry
          1. M8N549:is bothersome.
          2. M8N54Q:it’s sadly but probably due to the fact that even genetically presently, polygyny is much more likely than polyandry.
      6. M8N8D9:(Normally somewhat rare): Bisexuals:

        1. M8N8DS:Bisexuals would be naturally in this romance form because they are romantically attracted to both sexes, so then by definition want at least 2 mates so not to have to make up their minds between these two significant desires.
        2. M8N8G2: From studying OkCupid profiles, most woman listing themselves as polyamours are bisexual (citation needed).
          1. M8N8I8:This is several times greater than the normal occurance of bisexualism.
      7. M8N20R:Age range: 20s thru 50s, maybe 60s, seemingly evenly spread across the sexually active years.

        1. M8N221: In swinging, from very cursory sightings, the ages seem to be 30s to 80s, with the dominant age seeming 50s & 60s.
          1. M8N28N:  In the famous swing documentary movie The Lifestyle (1999), the ages seemed 50s to 70s, however
          2. M8N2CE:in visiting a few resorts (in Land O Lakes, FL) known for swinging (but not for swinging but for nudism), the swingers who identified themselves seemed to be in this wider age range.
          3. M8N2ES:This age range may be explained as the 50s & 60s were then couples that by that time had their kids grown and were so off to do swinging.
        2. M8N2F2: One might think that polyamory would take after swinging in age demographics, but fortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case, rather it seems to be fairly evenly spread across the sexually active years , probably because polyamory is instead an unhid romance form and a type of family-unit and one that can then start even before one has kids.
        3. M8N3GK:3 apparently 20-somethings at OpenSF Polyamory Conference

          M8N2NZ:To my pleasant surprise, in going to local nightclubs in both San Bernardio County and Yost (in Santa Ana, Orange County), CA, I’ve run across (1 each) polyamory households, and they’ve all been triples in their 20s.

        4. M8N2OV:And in the polyamory Meetup groups I’ve mostly 30s thru 60s, evenly spread.
          1. M8N2TQ:I haven’t seen 20s there but then again one rarely sees 20s on Meetup in even ordinary-dating groups, as I figure that crowd goes to other venues (as college buds & functions plus night-clubs) in order to meet.
      8. M8N1KY:Average-looking men & women

        1. M8N1RT:One might guess that mostly the ugly people, especially women, then being romantically desperate, especially say women, might come to this romance form; but for all time except my very first polyamory group visits, this fortunately has not been the case. Rather the men & women have been average looking.
        2. M8N1T0:Showtime’s big series “Polyamory: Married and Dating” delightfully (for promotion) features pretty much all good looking women & men (and seemingly in their 30s & 40s), but this quality of looks does seem unusually good.
      9. M8M6VE:women wanting sex but are extremely overweight (but I saw only in my first polyamory group visits)

        1. M8MX6C:Yeah, I hate to talk about this, but it was real.
        2. M8MXH8:I notably saw the ~2002 LAPS, but then when visiting subsequent polyamory groups in LA, never saw it again.
        3. M8MXNE:Why did this happen?
          1. M8MXJ6:My 1st guess is because such women likely simply aren’t physically attractive enough to get a man exclusively, so then are willing to share him, and perhaps (thanks to polyamory) also get additional mates in the process.
          2. My 2nd guess is that the president fit in this category (was extremely overweight) so perhaps she then attracted similar women.
  3. M31REF:Comparison to alternates, from most to least similar:

    1. TBA
    2. M31V8H:No other similar known
  4. M87H1I:Popularity & Community

  5. M87FAX:What to do?

    1. M87FDP:IMHO, there’s a tremendous need to promote romance-friends™ else polyamory to the world!

      1. M87FF7:Why?

        1. M87FHI:At least in America and seemingly much/all of western world, monogamy is increasingly & typically failing, including with (at least in America) the broken family long now the norm and most marriages ending in divorce and now most adults not getting married.
        2. M87FI0:And many other romance forms, as infidelitydon’t ask-don’t tell arrangement, swinging, even one-of-the-latest fuck buddies, have tried & not filled in the need, especially when it comes to sustained family.
        3. M87FID:And almost-uniquely, polyamory and especially Romance-friends™ have the idea of being romantically inclusive rather than exclusive, which is literally more loving.
        4. M87FIX:Therefore IMHO, it’s very important for world human families & health to get-out the-word-about & acceptance-for polyamory and especially Romance-friends™.
      2. M87FJG:How?

        1. M87FOO: A most notable method right now is via Showtime’s “Polyamory: Married & Dating” -see that page.
        2. M87GZU:Join a poly group & polyamory dating site: see Polyamory Popularity & Community
        3. M8N8V0:Do replacing monogamous thinking with romance-friends™ & similar which includes
          1. M8N8RY:Work on doing romance-friends™ in all of your romance.

  6. M31R7R: Section Additional History, in order:

    1. M8709U:I create this:
      1. M3KNZ6:Why?  Before, instead was:
        1. M8M7WZ:Wrote some distinction at 3467#M85JBY
        2. M3KOSW:reached my limit when
          1. That became long (so especially deserving of its own post)
      2. M3KNXM:by:
        1. M37OOV:on (the most similar recent one=http://1.JotHere.com/3467#M871DM) latest version M8LUGU, do Copy to a new draft.
        2. M37OP0:then there: give this a new ID & updated content to fit.
    2. M8M7ZF:Moved that source to here
    3. M8M853:moved 3467#M87FDP and (soon) extended
    4. M8M9TF:moved 3467#M87M9Q
    5. M8MKW0:~50% complete safety draft
    6. M8N3QR:~80% complete safety draft
    7. M8N90L:~85% complete draft, but quite usable so still 1st publish now.
    8. M8OIYH:~90% complete draft, but quite usable so publish
    9. M8PWBD:~95% complete draft, notably cleaned up.
    10. MD2672:Updates to current document format (starting with M8M7RQ_ link) except didn’t remove top-level online plus “THIS POST” section; 1st pic was now broken so fixed; pdt2012.11.06tue0121

  One Response to “romance-friends™ vs. polyamory: mostly commonality, difference is polyamory is starting to blossom but romance-friends is new with notably better design & potential”

  1. […] in bathtub photo from http://gaypoly.wordpress.com/ Polyamory symbol from http://2.loverules.info/3501 Poly gender keychain image from […]