Summary of each Chapter and Subchapter of Advanced Romance:

Chapter I

The Fundamentalisms of Love

         

Advanced Romance is an exceptionally comprehensive look at almost all aspects of humane mate formation, mate maintenance, and/or mate dissolution. That is, fat and juicy love! AR uses dialogue, good writing and song lyrics to ensure that potentially dry prose becomes imbued with the lavish, poetic emotions of love.  

                                      

The first 100 pages introduces the 16 romantic rules (fundamentalisms) that are no longer true, and then transforms them to practical alternatives that fit modern realities. The first fundamentalism (fundy) is:

​

The Analysis Paralysis

The fundy that it’s useless, dangerous, or immoral to try to analyze romantic love.

​

This “fundy” governs how much we are encouraged to know about love — or forbids investigation of love at all. It includes the fear that if we study love, it’s magic will disappear.  

 

Oscar and Hammerstein’s South Pacific says it this way:

​

Some enchanted evening,

you will find a stranger,

you will find a stranger,

across a crowded room

​

And somehow you know,

You know even then

That somewhere you’ll see her Again and again…

​

Who can explain it?

Who can tell you why?

Fools give you reasons,

Wise men never try

​

One of AR’s assumptions is that investigating love will help form better relationships, and that love is powerful enough not to be significantly damaged by studying it. Love is so powerful because it’s woven deeply into humanity after approximately 2.7 million years of Homo sapien evolution, but also two-billion years of animal evolution. That’s 2 billion years of an evolving natural momentum and genius that has became magnified with the poetry, emotion and culture of humanity.

​

The intro chapter ends with one of many encouragements that if you have a good enough love you should hang onto what you’ve got because it’s a relationship jungle out there filled with booby-trapped, potential lovers. This is followed by Sade pleading:

​

In Heaven's name why are you walking away?
Hang on to your love.
In Heaven's name why do you play these games?
Hang on to your love…

It's so precious.

​

And then we present the new, transformed fundy:

​

Ia. New Fundamentalism: Study love as much as possible because it’s one of the most important factors in making your life happy — and in making society compassionate. 

AR presents and discusses the next fundies in groups of four or more in order for greater coherency and to not cause excessive eye glazing:   

​

The Next Five Fundamentalisms

​

The Failure-if-Not-Forever Fallacy

​

The traditional assumption has been that if your relationship doesn’t last until one of the spouses dies, then it’s a failure.

​

But given the approximately 50% divorce rate, and an 85% overall breakup rate, this fundy means about 85% of relationships are failures. (There are footnotes to articles or books supporting these figures and an Appendix discussing the divorce stats.

Not only has the old rule been that your relationship is a failure if it doesn’t last forever, but many conclude that there is something badly wrong with you or your exes, and that even your life is a failure as well. That attitude is supremely destructive of the appreciation of whatever relationship you did have.

​

Proof that this fundy is changing is a Match.com study that shows that 50% of men and 42% of women now stay friends with their exes. That is, they do not think their exes are such failures that they need to destroy all friendship bonds.  

​

The question may now become: how long should a relationship last before it’s considered worthwhile? One year? Five? Twenty? Five years of a good relationship might be considered long enough to conclude your coupling has not been a failure. Though this is a somewhat arbitrary number which really depends on the quality of your relationship. Maybe even some one-night stands are good relationships.

​

Carole King puts it this way:

​

There'll be good times again for me and you,
But we just can't stay together; don't you feel it too?
Still I'm glad for what we had and how I once loved you.

​

          There are many such emotional and cogent quotes throughout the book, but they will not be included in this summary from hear on out in the interests of brevity.

​

2a. New Fundamentalism: If your relationship was good but didn’t last forever, it’s probably not a failure.

​

The Wreck-the-Ex Hex

​

This assumption is somewhat related to the Failure-if-not-Forever Fallacy. It states that you should be enemies with your ex if they dump you, or you should cease feeling any responsibility for your ex if you dump them.

​

Given the 85% breakup rate, that means there is an enormous amount of relationship hatred in America — though as we’ve seen, many exes now stay friends. But if you do become an enemy of your ex, that means that you may have burned the bridges needed to get back together with your ex in the future — a time when they or you may have changed.

​

Because we may need to stay friends with our exes, the terms dumper and dumpee are not longer precise. AR changes them to distancer and preserver.  

         

 3a. New Fundamentalism: If possible, stay friends with your ex, regardless of whether you were the dumper (distancer) or dumpee (preserver), unless you have compelling reasons not too.

​

It may be better to stay friends with your ex for you, society, your friends and kids, etc. That is, unless you need some time away from the pressure cooker that your relationship was, or you ex has serious emotional problems that may crush your quality of life.

​

Thus, a new monogamy or marriage contract might state: “You’ll stay together as long as it’s nourishing to both parties, or there are overwhelming duties, such as children, involved. But if one party wants to change the relationship, you’re going to be as compassionate as possible to each other and stay friends — if at all practical.”

​

The Soap Opera Cop-Out

​

 The fundamentalism that relationship discussions must be knock-down-drag-out confrontations with everything from yelling, tears, broken furniture, physical abuse … all the way to suicide and murder.

 

Given most people know of the 50% divorce rate, and they should know of the 85% overall breakup rate, they know of the great potential of breaking up. To avoid becoming one of these statistics, they should be good at discussing their relationship — good at conflict resolution. Beatty Cohan’s book For Better, For Worse, Forever teaches conflict resolution skills brilliantly. 

​

CR requires great courage since any relationship discussion could result in the end of the relationship — or a greatly changed relationship. It may also require a diverse social network so that you are not looking at isolation should you break up. Eli Finkel goes deeply into this in his best seller, The All or Nothing Marriage.

 

An example of the frequent humor of AR is its quoting Dave Berry as he depicts an ideal of this fundy that is so unlikely it’s funny:

​

Your Lover: “Yes? Is there something you wish to tell me?”

You: “Um.”

Your Lover: “Are you trying to tell me that, although you care for me deeply, and you will cherish always the times we’ve had together, you really feel that we both need more space to grow and enrich our lives as separate individuals? For my sake as well as yours?”

You: “Well.”

Your Lover: “Then perhaps it would be best if we broke up, with no harsh feelings on either side.”

You: “Okay by me.”[i]

​

The Excess-Sex-Industrial Complex

​

This is a relatively new fundamentalism emerging from the 1960s that maintains that if you’re attracted to someone, or if you “see” them for a while, you almost have to go to bed with them.

 

 This fundy occurred simultaneously with the explosion of women’s rights. Women’s liberation, combined with new, more effective birth control methods was first used to promote free love. Sex seemed easy and relatively consequence free, and so was overly emphasized. And of course, Hollywood and Madison Avenue jumped on board because sex sells.

 

Regardless of these new freedoms, many in America have entered a post-Playboy, what we call post-Porn-ism, world. Why do you have to express your attraction by inserting your penis in their vagina? Or surrounding their penis with your vagina. Or the LBGTQ+ equivalent? 

 

You can obtain substantial benefits from STEs, sexually transmitted energy or emotions (not to be confused with STDs). That is, from many other ways other than all-the-way sex. Spending time together, handholding, dancing, etc. are ways to generate those nurturing and energizing STEs. Then include potent chemicals that occur when just talking or walking with someone to whom you are attracted. They include testosterone and estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin and vasopressin. Thus, if you’re not endlessly longing for ever more intimate STEs, those you get short of intercourse sex can be very satisfying.

 

AR is filled with new, common-sense vocabulary such as STEs, distancer and preserver, etc. It gives clear and transformational voice to many changes that American society has been contemplating, but few have been willing to admit, or if to admit, to think through thoroughly.

 

5a. New Fundamentalism: Just because you’re attracted to someone doesn’t mean you have to go to bed with them. There’s plenty of sexual energy and satisfaction to be had this side of bed.

         

The Replacement-Debasement Debacle

 

The fundamentalisms that compel you to impose massive pressure on yourself to try to find another one-and-only if you’ve lost what you felt was your original one-and-only.

 

6a. New Fundamentalism: When having dates or conversations with attractive people, look at them as possible friends, as well as possible mates. As noted, there are many sexual nurturings, many STEs, to be had this side of intercourse. Such attractive friendships may inspire the loneliness wolf to howl much less loudly.

​

          The movie, When Harry Met Sally, contended that you can’t be “just” friends with someone to whom you’re attracted. We contend you can, and that people are doing it all the time now that women almost are everywhere in the workplace, and almost any other place.  

​

Chapter II

The Next Four Fundamentalisms

​

The Evolution-Confusion Bruisin’:

​

The fundamentalism that evolutionary sex imperatives apply almost exclusively to animals, while human love is overwhelmingly a mental/spiritual event.

​

Dr. Helen Fisher (The Chemistry of Love) may have conclusively proven that the human brain secretes the aforementioned chemicals to promote each of what she calls the major divisions of romance:

​

Lust (testosterone and estrogen — testest for short.)

Romantic Attraction (dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin — dopenoser.)

Attachment (vasopressin, oxytocin — vasoxy)

Breakup (Cortisol, which stimulates dopamine and serotonin blockers).

 

Thus, there is scientific proof that evolutionary influences are using your own chemicals to pressure you into forming a sexual relationship. And regardless, if you believe in evolution at all, then you should believe that evolution is strongest where it is involved in its very essence: sexual selection and survival of the species. But you still have some free will in this area and can counteract these pressures to some extent.

​

Also, Dr. David Buss, in his wondrous book The Evolution of Desire, has done expensive, extensive, worldwide cross-cultural studies to find which mating behaviors are due to societal influences and which are due to evolution. Once you learn of these you can take steps to utilize them — or oppose them.

​

For instance, the primary evolutionary and anthropological drive of women is to secure as many resources as they can to help raise their baby. That means strictly enforcing the monogamy so the male will bring her the resources and not share them with other sex partners. However, women can now earn their own way, and many don’t need a male to provide resources. Also, birth control means that the likelihood of having a baby when a woman has sex is greatly decreased.

​

7a. Evolution’s and biology’s sex imperatives may apply more to animals than humans, but they still apply very strongly to humans. This is a good and a bad thing. Good in that it’s a basic energy source of humanity, a great font of joie de vivre, and a basic meaning of life. Bad in that it may railroad you into a relationship you wish you hadn’t been in.

​

 The Impersonal-Personal Paradox

​

The fundamentalism that romantic love is highly personal. Of course it is. What could be more intimately personal? But if evo-bio (evolution and biology) have anything to do with it, romantic love is also as impersonal as hundreds of millions of years of evolution — and your current year’s biology.

​

When falling in love you should realize you’re being railroaded by your personal aesthetic, your mind’s other preferences, society and evo-bio (evolution and biology). At least these four entities, and maybe more. Thus, mating is one big impersonal, and highly personal, aphrodisiac.

​

The distance gained by this knowledge should increase your compassion for the fellow creature with whom you’re embroiled in this hundred-million-year-old dance, this evolutionary romance, this personal-impersonal paradox. As well as perhaps incline you to take the initial attraction less seriously.

​

8a. New fundamentalism: Love is highly personal and highly impersonal. When lusting, falling, nesting or breaking up, realize that there are impersonal elements railroading these very personal behaviors, and have compassion for yourself and your lover because you are/were caught up in this ancient, impersonal process.

​

The Grass-is-Greener Misdemeanor

​

The fundamentalism that the relationship grass is greener on the other side of the romantic hill.

​

This fundamentalism is inspired in great part by the highly sexualized society in which we live with the media constantly bombarding us with sexual images, as well as by the free-love movement of the `60s and beyond. But also, evolution plays its part by putting pressure to maximize the variety of DNA combinations (having many different sex partners).

 

In addition, there is now the fact that women are in almost every workplace and almost every other place, so temptations are increased dramatically.

​

9a. New Fundamentalism: The relationship grass over the hill is probably not greener if you have a good enough relationship now, and the temptation is probably due to society or evo-bio rather than your own needs. Ignore the temptations if at all possible, but if you must, have compassion for your current love, whom you know thoroughly, while realizing that much of the new love is an illusion that you actually know little about.

​

The One-and-Only Paradox

 

The fundamentalism that evolution or God has created one special person with whom you can mate perfectly and be happy-ever-after.

 

There probably is someone with whom you can live happily or happily enough. That part of the One-and-Only Paradox is true. But evolution is working its hardest to ensure that there are many people with whom a one-and-only feeling can occur.

 

In addition, as time goes by in your monogamy, your current mate becomes more and more the irreplaceable one-and-only because of the enormous number of warm attachments, chemical attachments (testest, dopenoser, vasoxy) and tender history passing between you.

 

10a. New Fundamentalism: Evo-bio or God has created many special persons with whom you can happily mate and with whom you can be happy enough ever-after. If you are good and courageous with one of these special people, evo-bio or God will make it begin to feel, and actually be, that they are the one-and-only mate meant for you. And you can feel this amazing one-and-only miracle several times in your life — or just a wondrous once.

​

Chapter III

The Last Six Fundamentalisms

​

The Abstinence Imbalance 

​

The fundamentalism that sex is basically evil and a sin outside of marriage. This is obviously changing for a large part of the population, partly due to birth control and the expanding rights of women, and partly due to new attitudes about sex, religion and society.

​

11a. New Fundamentalism: Sex is an important step in any serious relationship and should not be entered into lightly. However, society should not ostracize you and/or, God will probably not send you to Hell if you do choose to have sex outside of a state- or religious-sanctioned marriage.

​

The Under-Zealous-Jealousy Prohibition

​

The fundamentalism that jealousy is inevitable when one’s relationship appears to be challenged by another person, and thus that jealousy is not worth studying.

 

Anthropologists and sociologists have found that society is a big part of the cause of jealousy. That is, people often experience the pain of jealousy because they think that is what society thinks they should feel. Thus, studying it can lessen its power. On the other hand, perhaps just as often, jealousy wells up in one’s emotions from deep inside, as well as from one’s evolutionary past. Jealousy may be an evolutionary way for the man to ensure that his genes are passed on, and for the woman to ensure that she has sufficient resources to raise the potential baby.

And so jealousy everyone needs to study jealousy thoroughly to minimize its destructive effects and maximize its beneficial effects. This we do in a following chapter.

​

12a. New Fundamentalism: Jealousy should be studied, role-played and approached in every way you can to gain some perspective on this powerful and often destructive emotion.   

​

​

The Hurting-by-Subverting-Flirting Fallacy

​

The fundamentalism that Platonic flirting with other people is bad for your monogamy and/or a sign of immaturity or degeneracy. Or that it’s impossible to have Platonic friendships if it involves flirtation. Or that such flirtations are the first indication that you’d like to have sex.

 

There are three different kinds of flirtation. You can flirt with the intention to take the relationship to a more intense sexual level, you can flirt with merely the intention of enjoying the flirtation for itself, or you can flirt with the hope of forming a Platonic friendship with an attractive someone.  

 

Esther Perel, in her groundbreaking book Mating in Captivity, shows how flirting with other people may actually increase the attachment to one’s monogamy by providing extra eros energy that you can bring back to your monogamy. As well as by reminding your mate that you’re attractive to others. This can increase your mate’s enthusiasm about you and the overall joy of the relationship. And vice versa.

​

Ms. Perel explores sexual autonomy, or what she calls The Third. This Third is one’s own sexual imagination and unconscious, a phenomenon that cannot be completely controlled. For instance, few people are monogamists in the dreams they have when sleeping. And few people can completely control their flirtatious impulses when around someone they feel is attractive. Perel shows how such uncontrollable flirtations are a natural process and that therefore modern monogamies need to define flirting parameters in order to have a lasting and relatively peaceful relationship. 

​

Regardless, flirting is more common than ever now that women are in the workplace, and almost every other place. Sometimes you are forced to work with attractive coworkers with whom flirting becomes an everyday, unavoidable thing. The behavior of most people changes to some extent when around those they’re attracted to, whether they like it or not, and that change is a type of flirting. And so flirting, and the resulting Platonic friendships with attractive people, needs to be thoroughly explored. It is in AR in our Chapter V called Flirtatious Monogamy.

​

13a. New Fundamentalism: Flirtatious friendships are a gigantic source of joie de vivre and may help your monogamy if they bring back energy to that monogamy rather than challenging it. Nevertheless, flirting should not violate agreed-upon flirting parameters in your monogamy. Regardless, controlling flirtation is almost impossible now that women are in the workplace and almost everywhere else.

​

The Hand Maid’s Tale Jail

                       

The fundamentalism that the main goal of women should be to have babies and be a mother.

​

The liberation of women and birth control have made this fundamentalism much less true. Women can have any work goal now, be it being a mother and homemaker, a professional, a blue-collar worker, or a leader. Or all of them.

​

14a. New Fundamentalism: It’s glorious if a woman wants to be a child bearer, raiser and homemaker, but it’s also glorious if they don’t want to — or want to do both. Either of these choices now have overwhelming social approbation. And these new facts increase the autonomy of women, their ability to either stay in a relationship or change it, as well as the levels of flirtation they are exposed to and participate in.

​

The Who-Do-You-Love Taboo?

 

The fundamentalism that you’re in control of who you love or your sexual preferences, be they LGBT+ or straight, or be they preferences for short-term or long-term monogamy — or polygamy.

​

15a. New Fundamentalism:  Love whomever or whatever, under whatever parameters you want. Some authorities view your mating style, whether short-term or long-term, as a spectrum of possibilities just as your LGBT+ or straightness is often now considered a spectrum of possibilities rather than one or the other. Canada has passed a law that makes palimony an exception to its bigamy and polygamy laws.  

         

The Father-Knows-Best Reassess

​

The Fundamentalism that your relationship needs to look like Barbie and Ken, the Leave it to Beavers, or the Swiss Family Robinsons.

​

16a. New Fundamentalism: Your relationship can look traditional, or it can be as eccentric as you need or want. Your relationship can supply many needs or only one need, or somewhere in between. And that need need not be sexual.  You decide what you need from your primary relationship, and what you and your partner can realistically offer. The needs that your romance do not fulfill can be found in other friends without serious challenge to your monogamy if those needs are negotiated for openly and your partner consents.

​

          Okay: The rest of the book is largely an in depth look at selected fundamentalisms, with flirtation and jealousy being two of the principal ones. So you need not read further to have a basic understanding of what AR is about. However, to apply these fundamentalisms to actual life situations, the rest of the book is essential. But before getting to them, four other aspects of love are presented:    

​

Chapter IV

Other Love Barriers

         

These are other major areas that should be addressed in any book about love that is comprehensive. They are basics which are still powerful even after the revolutions of the 1960s and beyond:  

 

1. Avoiding Loneliness 

​

Loneliness can be devastating.A good romance can cure loneliness to a great extent, but not as much as it used to do when humans lived in tribes, or when extended families lived in the same town or same village. Thus, there’s more pressure on marriages and relationships today.

​

Nonsexual roommates are another option to fighting loneliness. Learning to happily live alone is another. Many millions of people are learning to do this well and happily. But if you are friends with your ex(es) and prospectives, the loneliness is much less. This could be called the Phony Loneliness Baloney because if alone or if with a non-romantic roommate, we’re supposed to feel lonely or incomplete. This is no longer true for many.

​

2. Raising Children

 

Society needs a stable, loving, financially sound platform on which to raise kids. However, raising children is outside the purview of AR. Instead, we mostly address romantic aspects before kids, or after the kids have come and are somewhat gone, or if you never had any kids.  This is a huge gap in the otherwise comprehensiveness of AR. Sorry. But neither of we authors has had kids and so we feel unequal to exploring this immense area. But we still believe we explore enough other areas to be worthwhile and comprehensive.

 

3. Finances

 

Many people need financial help in securing adequate housing, food, heat, and entertainment. Choosing a mate largely based on financial aspects is thus an important consideration. Unless you’re independently wealthy, a good relationship is sometimes the best way to handle this financial challenge. Then again, many men can navigate financial hurdles on their own these days, and thanks to women’s liberation, women can too.

​

4. Ego and Self Esteem

​

Being dumped (distanced) used to be considered one of the worst events for one’s ego. But now, with the 50% divorce rate and 85% breakup rate, the pain and lowered self-esteem of distancing should not be as severe. It’s more a sign of the times and less a sign of deficits in you or your ex. Call it the Dodo Ego?

​

Chapter V

Flirtatious Monogamy

(Dealing with the Third)

         

          Though many may think that exploring flirtation is a somewhat frivolous undertaking, it uncovers AR’s most important and noble goals. These include a world in which humanity is able to harness the great energies provided by love more effectively, more humanely, and less destructively.

 

As noted, Dr. Fisher’s discovery of the dopenoser and vasoxy chemicals, along with the already well known testest, proves that there are large energy boosts that accompany lust, attraction and attachment — even without intercourse. Add to that all the mental strokes that accompany talking with people to whom you are attracted, and you realize that “just” flirting is also a powerful admission to the holy sanctuary of sexuality. This is a condition in which all human interactions have not only heightened sexual potentials, but also heightened every other type of interaction. These include intellectual, social, and self-esteem benefits. 

​

It may also seem paradoxical that flirting, which has a somewhat sleazy reputation if done even though one has a good monogamy, can help make monogamies better. But now, as noted, with women in the workplace and almost every other place, the amount of flirting going on has dramatically increased. Thus, flirting needs to be better understood in general, and more extensively discussed in monogamous relationships in particular, for the added flirtation stress not to hurt monogamies.

​

As noted, the first step in exploring flirting involves Ms. Perel’s idea of the benefits of flirting and her conception of sexual autonomy — The Third. To reiterate, The Third is one’s sexual autonomy that exists even in the best of monogamies, an autonomy expressed as attractions and flirtations with other people, and individual fantasies and unconscious dreams — among other ways.

​

Again, as noted, seeing an attractive person always causes some of the romantic feelings and evolutionary biology to kick in. In the past, just thinking about someone not your mate in a sexual way was considered bad, and to act on it at all, without even going anywhere near intercourse, was considered a form of cheating or moral weakness.

 

This leads to what Wikipedia says about Esther Perel: “She explores the tension between the need for security (love, belonging and closeness) and the need for freedom (erotic desire, adventure and distance) in human relationships.” Advanced Romance does that too, only it builds off of Ms. Perel’s already audacious exploration and explores its ramifications in more concrete situations. Part of Ms. Perel’s great genius is her ability to look at sexual autonomy objectively, without the moral condemnation that has accompanied it in the past:

 

This is probably the most controversial chapter and idea of AR. But we feel that given the new factors of the almost 50% divorce and 85% breakup rates, of women having civil rights and economic potentials, and of birth control, that instead of the clear rules to follow in forming relationships that existed during the 1950s and before, now there are more often negotiations to be had. In other words, couples can make their own rules about what flirtations are or are not allowed.

 

There are many startling and insightful quotes used for explication of flirtatious relationships in this chapter, including from books written by the already mentioned experts Perel, Buss, Fisher and Eli Finkel. Additionally Against Love by Laura Kipnis, Peggy Orenstein’s Boys and Sex, are referenced, as well as individual quotes from Margaret Meade, Abraham Maslow, Ralph Hupka, Alain De Botton, William Reich, and others. We’ve not included most of them in this summary for the sake of space. But they do give AR an added scholarly and authority boost, as well as add descriptive color.

 

Here are some of these quotes starting with Esther Perel’s definition of the The Third:

 

At the boundary of every couple lives the third. [We capitalize The Third. Ms. Perel doesn’t]. He’s the high school sweetheart whose hands you still remember, the pretty cashier, the handsome fourth-grade teacher you flirt with when you pick up your child from school. The smiling stranger on the subway is the third.

 

So, too, are the stripper, the porn star, the sex worker, whether touched or untouched. He is the one a woman fantasizes about when she makes love to her husband. Increasingly she can be found on the Internet. Real or imagined, embodied or not, the third is the fulcrum on which the couple balances. The third is the manifestation of our desire for what lies outside the fence. It is the forbidden.[ii]

​

And here is Adam Phillips, slamming this contention home by attaching it to evolution.

 

Masturbation is traditionally taboo not because it damages your health … or because it is against the law, but because we fear it may be the truth about sex: that sex is something we do on our own. That our lovers are just a prompt or a hint there to remind us of our own erotic delirium, the people who connect us to somewhere else…

 

Sex is also a great and wondrous communion with your mate. But this individual, erotic-delirium concept is another way of saying that sexuality and intercourse are very powerful and hook us up to 2 billion years of evolution. And though the word “delirium” best suggests the uninhibited expression that goes with intercourse, it also attaches in a more controlled way to “mere” flirting, as proven by Helen Fisher’s discovery of the dopenoser and vasoxy chemicals that are secreted during flirtations.  

​

And then there’s Ms. Perel’s Declaration of Independence for The Third:

​

Acknowledging The Third has to do with validating the erotic separateness of our partner. It follows that our partner’s sexuality does not belong to us. It isn’t for and about us and we should not assume it falls rightfully within our jurisdiction. It doesn’t.

​

Perhaps that is true in action, but certainly not in thought. The more we choke each other’s freedom, the harder it is for desire to breathe within a committed relationship. Pursue the logic and you have the itinerary for an emotionally enlarging journey. It goes something like this: I know you look at others, but I can’t fully know what you see. I know others are looking at you, but I don’t really know who it is they are seeing.

​

Suddenly, you’re no longer familiar. You’re no longer a known entity that I need not bother being curious about. In fact, you’re quite a mystery. And I’m a little unnerved. Who are you? I want you…

​

I’d like to suggest that we view monogamy not as a given but as a choice. As such, it becomes a negotiated decision … Just how accommodating each couple may be to the third varies. But at least a nod  is more apt to sustain desire with our one-and-only over the long haul — and perhaps even to create a new “art of loving” for the twenty-first century couple.[iii]

 

And so, Ms. Perel believes The Third cannot be possessed by one’s monogamous partner and admission of this can lead to a much more enriching monogamy.

 

Peggy Orenstein’s wonderful exploration of the young men’s attitudes about romance in her seminal book Boys and Sex: Navigating the New Masculinity, reveals another aspect. The book explores the efforts of high school and college males not to feel vulnerable or feminine, and thus their tendencies to want superficial sex rather than form long-term, vulnerable, attachments or monogamies.

​

We call this effort at invulnerability the “Did you F her?” phenomena. After coming back from a date, that is the question many males ask. If the true answer is something poetic or vulnerable like: “No, but she was glorious to be around,” or “No, but her movements were the embodiment of grace,” they are often mocked by their peers. But now, given Fisher’s experiments, a young man can say: “No, I didn’t have sex with her, but I did get substantial testest, dopenoser and vasoxy infusions.” The same could be said for having attractive friends. “Did you commit adultery?” “No, but I committed testest, dopenoser and maybe a little vasoxy.”

 

Voila! We rest our case. The Third exists and it can be used to bring back energy to one’s monogamy — or to prove tangible benefits in relatively Platonic dates. But then of course The Third can also hurt your monogamy if your mate perceives that your flirtation is a threat, as maybe leading to adultery or the end of the monogamy.

 

Thus again, the types of flirtation allowed in each individual relationship should be negotiated in this new world in which flirtation is rampant. Thus we include a serious, but also amusing list of ways to flirt which include the following, with each method listed in order of what might be considered a greater threat to the monogamy.

​

• Eye contact, batting eyelashes, or staring

• Eyebrow raising

• Smiling

• Winking

• Teasing

• Conversation (e.g. banter, small talk)

• Coyness, marked by cute, coquettish shyness or modesty, coquettish or playful aggrandizement of a friend’s importance

• Flattery (e.g. regarding beauty, sexual attractiveness)

• Giggling, or laughing encouragingly at any slight hint of intimacy in the other's behavior

 

Thus will you allow your mate to have an attractive friend if all they do is have coffee together? And just how long will you allow your mate to speak to an attractive person at a party? Only so long as it takes to get the introduction’s done, and then they better move on? Or two minutes and fifteen seconds?

Also, just what is your definition of adultery? Only intercourse sex, as the law defines it? Or is it any interactions that generate testest, dopenoser and/or vasoxy?  

​

How to Flirt with Minimal Monogamy Hurt

 

As noted, there are so many chances of flirting in today’s work and play places that to tell one’s mate about them all may involve an element of sadomasochism. But if you do have an attractive friend that you see, say, every other week, then tell your mate who they are so they won’t be surprised by it. But you don’t need to tell about every outing, every flirtatious behavior, unless your mate wants to know.

​

Jealousy and The Third

​

In AR’s model, jealousy is minimized because of the greater emotional security of those involved. This includes what Eli Finkel, author of the bestseller, The All or Nothing Marriage, calls “diversified social assets.”  This in part is the understanding that attractive friends can be good for a monogamy, and because of the deeply understood knowledge of the overall 85% breakup rate. You don’t want to be left sexually bereft, or devastatingly lonely should you break up or your mate die. But if you are easily made jealous then a no-flirtation monogamy might still be best for you. Your choice.

​

Socially Acceptable Ways to Deal With The Third (Dancing)

​

In addition to discussing what levels of flirtation are acceptable to your mate, you also may need to decide what degree of flirtation you will have with your attractive friends. Hugs for five seconds or less? Dance close and slow, or just free style and far apart? Dancing used to be the one acceptable way for many to flirt with what would otherwise be considered unacceptable levels of touching. Now there are legion.

 

In the 1960s Puritanism was overcome by many and we fell into what we call Porn-ism: having the goal of intercourse sex for even mild flirtations. This rocketed potential STEs (and STDs) throughout society. We need to bring balance to this force of nature. And one way to do that is realize that flirtatious, Platonic friendships can be good in themselves, have substantial sexual benefits in themselves, without having to take them to their ultimate expression of intercourse sex. Regardless of what the movie, When Harry Met Sally, contends.

​

Mere Monogamy

​

Another effort at cheerleading you to appreciate your monogamy if you have a good one. But also, a look at how damaged exclusive monogamy is as our most distinguished exemplars continue to fall short of it, including about 7 out of the last 15 Presidents, and thousands of Catholic priests and Protestant preachers.

 

Historical and Cultural Control of Third  

 

The Middle East deals with The Third by allowing men to have carte blanche to express it, and by preventing women from expressing it at all with burkas and stay-at-home orders. Conservative fears of Sodom and Gomorrah are explored and the lesser known, but possible bigger scandal of the Benjamite Murders and wars (Judges 19-21.) Such extremes are possible but in AR we assume that advances in women’s rights will prevent it from ever happening on such a grand scale again.  

​

Flirting With Intention

 

The Ultimate Flirtations: Open Marriage, Palimony, etc.

​

AR describes types of consensual non-monogamy (CNM), and palimony. We believe that some people are capable of CNM. To do it healthily requires advanced levels of conflict resolution skills, a suppressed jealousy response and constant and highly-honest communication. For most people this may be too much. So if you’re trying to maintain your monogamy you will NOT want to do the thing that potentially infects your mate with STDs, or that injures your monogamous connection the most with the maximized STEs that intercourse sex can have.

​

Regardless, AR extensively explores CNM mating implications, and uses some insights gained from them for enhancing monogamies. These include the concept of compersion, which is joy at your mate’s finding a new love. Then there’s new relationship energy, NRE, the energy that comes with finding an exciting person to whom you are attracted. As noted, NRE is energy that can be brought back to the monogamy. But you don’t have to have sex with that new person to bring back NRE’s or to feel compersion that that your mate has found it.

​

Chapter VI

Survey of So Far and Miscellaneous Meanderings

​

Monogamy and Serial Monogamy  

​

Most baby boomers and generations since then are serial monogamists by definition because they’ve met serial monogamy’s basic criteria: having sex with more than one person over the course of their lives. On the other hand, with marriage now occurring in the late 20s, most of them are serial monogamists who have become monogamists. That is, they lived as serial monogamists until they married, and then became monogamists in their late 20s. Divorce rates are also falling for this cohort of generations, perhaps reflecting some evidence of more intelligent romantic choices due to a number of factors.  

​

In Advanced Romance we often emphasized the direction of preserving monogamies. But we’ve also tried to enhance them through a type of physical monogamy and mental polygamy. We don’t mean that mental polygamy makes the physical monogamy significantly less monogamous. It is mostly a means for recognizing the power of erotic autonomy, or The Third, and the new factors due the liberation of women and birth control.

​

We believe such an approach can help ameliorate, as Laura Kipnis explains:

 

The fear and pain of losing love is so crushing that most of us will do anything to prevent it, especially when it’s not our choice … This will mean that falling in love also commits us to anxiety, typically externalized in charming behaviors like jealously, insecurity, control issues (the list goes on) — or in some cases to externalized violence — the response of a system in emotional overdrive.[iv]

​

On the other hand, if you’re working full time, or your time is full for other reasons, you may not have time to have other attractive friends…

 

On the other, other hand, some people are just not good at romance. Either their social skills, health, personality, looks, poverty or other factors make securing one mate tough enough. For yet others, sex is too embarrassing or too distressing and they’re glad to be done with it. It is embarrassing and often distressing. But also can be transcendent bliss.

 

Also included in this chapter are other barriers to learning about love. That is, the Analysis Paralysis expanded, which include you only think about your past love’s past pain or pleasure, you’re so desperate for another relationship that you ignore any lessons learned, or it’s too embarrassing or painful to think about it.

 

Another variation of this is both a mental and physical celibacy. You have your main friend, but neither of you wants to have sex. Nevertheless, you enjoy spending lots of time together. That’s great too. In fact, that’s the only certain liberation from what evolution is railroading you to do. Aces, asexual people, are exploring the variations of this extensively.

 

There’s also a list of the advantages of monogamy vs consensual non-monogamies taken from The Jealousy Workbook by Kathy Labriola, a therapist for consensual non-monogamy clients. We see this mostly as a list contrasting physical and mental monogamy verses physical monogamy and mental polygamy:

 

Labriola’s Advantages of Physical Mental Monogamy with our insight comments following each

 

1. Feeling secure in a relationship

​

The balance between security and freedom is one of the central conflicts that modern love must confront, time and time again. Physical and mental monogamy is one way to control the conflict.

​

2. Feeling secure and unique as the one-and-only partner

​

The idea of The Third makes this the One-and-Only Paradox. However, having a go-to person is so important in this world filled with such loneliness and woe, but also someone to share the good feelings of togetherness and happiness.

​

3. Believing my partner is attracted only to me

​

Again, The idea of The Third makes this highly dubious. Though some who are extremely monogamous may accomplish this.

​

4. Knowing my partner will always prioritize me

​

There is less priority today given women are everywhere, but you can still discuss which events you want prioritized in your monogamy, be it “be home by 7pm no matter what,” or just “be available for weekends and holidays.”

​

5. Spending most of our free time together

​

Spend enough time together to keep the wolf of loneliness away, but not so much that boredom sets in.

 

6. Feeling protected from sexually-transmitted diseases

 

No more annoying and inhibiting baby and STI -control clothes!

 

7. The stability of being able to plan the future together

​

How many domestic and business empires have been built on this wondrous trait of a good monogamy. How many glorious vacations?

​

8. Feeling safe to open up to a deep level of intimacy with my partner

​

Knowing your partner will never leave you allows for the greatest honesty and intimacy perhaps. Why not tell all if there are no deal breakers? What a wondrous gift for humanity.

​

Physical Monogamy and Mental Polygamy:

​

1. More sex

​

More sexual energy, even without having more intercourse sex if The Third is used carefully and successfully.

​

2. More Sexual variety

​

We see this as a more bananas type of added value. Good sex is good sex. Having it with more people is of dubious added value. This is primarily a playboy’s dream that when practiced leads to so many complications that it isn’t worth it. Though some people can do it fairly safely, apparently, with CNM.

​

3. Feeling more free

​

Freedom to meet new attractive friends is a great and powerful thing. As noted again and again, all-the-way sex is not necessary for this power to be greatly experienced.

​

4. Getting more romantic attention

​

This can be multiplied if it’s known you won’t insist on going to bed with the person you’re getting the attention from. Attractive friends arise!

​

5. Feeling more sexually attractive and desired

​

This conjures up the frisky feminine, awash in admiration, confidently and playfully spreading joy. But also the femme fatale. And, of course, this also applies to the frisky masculine.

​

6. Bringing out different aspects of myself

​

This is a basic premise behind mental polygamy. Sexual communication, be it only flirtation, allows for greater appreciation and tolerance and so creates a more confident and creative individual.

​

7. More emotional support

​

Only if the primary monogamy is not threatened by the mental polygamy. If one’s monogamous emotional core is threatened, then one’s overall emotional support is precarious.

​

8. More practical support when needed

​

This is more about friendship than sex, but yes, attractive friends can be helpful to everyday living.

​

9. Feeling less dependent on my partner

​

You will not lose all your emotional support should your main monogamy die or distance you.

​

10. Feeling more alive

​

Attractive friends mean much more testest, dopenoser, vasoxy, as well as all the mental and emotional additives.

​

11. Feeling of more abundance and less scarcity

​

Is love a limited thing? Or can it be expanded? maintains it can be expanded but need not involve all-the-way sex for this to happen.

​

​

Now we’re back to the beginning: Having attractive friends allows more energy to bring to your monogamous mate. Perel’s idea of how The Third nurtures the monogamy.

​

Chapter VII

The Under-Zealous Jealousy Prohibition

​

By encouraging some people to have sexually-attractive friends AR must thoroughly confront jealousy. Jealousy is a major reason not to have attractive friends, and the most potent threat to AR’s contention that it’s beneficial to have attractive friends — even while in a monogamy.

 

Wikipedia defines jealousy as “a feeling that comes from a perception of loss and betrayal, or possible loss and betrayal, and the actions that try to eliminate the causes of that feeling.” But if you agree with Perel and feel that your mate and you having attractive friends makes you more attractive to your mate and vice versa, then jealousy might need to be deemphasized.

​

Wikipedia also divides jealousy into more manageable, bite-size traits, each one as gut-wrenching as the one before. We comment on each one of these using our updated fundies and other insights.

​

1. Fear of loss

​

Thus, the threat of such a gigantic loss can plunge you into an aloneness so severe that all the rest of society — and even the rest of the universe — seem hostile, indifferent or meaninglessness. But if your ex still sees you and treats you with respect, the aloneness is somewhat less? How much depends on how open you are to the continuing support, and how many other friends you have. And how interested you are in your non-relationship, work or play.

 

      Other aspects of jealousy are:

 

2. Suspicion or anger about being betrayed

3. Low self-esteem and sadness over the loss

4. Fear of loneliness

5. Fear of financial destitution

6. Fear of lowered status in society

​

The historical queen of anthropology, Margaret Mead, contends jealousy is a learned and social behavior, while others contend it’s inherent from biological and evolutionary sources. Some say both. Much of this chapter is informed by Gordan, Clanton & Smith and their thoughtful collection of essays called Jealousy.  It’s most severe diatribes against jealousy include:

​

The jealous outburst can become a vehicle for sadism. Jealousy gives one the right to be cruel; it seems to legitimize retaliation … [It says:] stop what you’re doing, or I shall be more miserable … Husbands and wives ruin their relationship with each other by preaching that love is a duty. Love cannot be a duty because it is not subject to the will.[v]

         

But regardless of whether jealousy is a phenomenon that is mostly due to cultural pathways, or it’s an inherent biological command, Mead notes: “No one, not in some way pathological, likes to see another in an acute state of misery and humiliation.”[vi] Thus admitting that for some, jealousy is a major factor and to inflict jealousy is to cause great pain.

​

After some painful exploration, AR concludes that jealousy can be studied by everyone, can be role-played so that its novelty is not so surprising when it is felt, and so its power has a chance of being reduced.

​

Or, as Karen Durbin says: “It seems that jealousy will be with us as long as sex remains an expression of love and as long as love remains the most effective means (apart from religion) for assuaging our essential isolation.”[vii]

​

The chapter also investigates animal expressions of perhaps a type of jealousy, from the big-horn sheep head buttings, to corkscrew vaginas in ducks that submits to duck rape culture while still allowing the female some choice of which male duck impregnates her. This competition seems to suggest that jealousy is an evolutionary trait probably passed on to humanity. But again, humanity probably has greater free will than animals and so perhaps we’ve evolved somewhat out of the “green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on,” as Iago taunts in Othello.

      

Chapter VIII

And Away We Go

​

The Facts Jack: Mate possibilities may include your exes and prospectives, that is, attractive friends. But if for some reason that isn’t what is happening in your life, here are the facts for the best way to find someone new:

​

According Health.com, meeting mates through friends occurs 39% of the time, and meeting at work 15% of the time. Next on the list was in a bar or public area (12%), through a sport/religion/hobby event (9%), family (7%), and school (6%). Just 1% of poll takers said that they met their beloved at a speed-dating event. In conclusion, there are lots of ways to meet people and a lot more single people to meet given the 85% break-up rate.

​

In addition, on-line chatting that does not lead to in-person dates or mating should not be excessively disparaged. Isn’t it better than watching Friends reruns? AR provides a big list of these online sights that now include great specificity with various religions or non-religious ones, vegetarian or meat lovers, Sci-fi aficionados, pet-book-or-horse lovers, Geeks, Hippie Freaks, STI sufferers, and on and on.  

​

You’ve Got A Good Relationship Bite: Now What? …. Try to realize how much evolution, loneliness and other forces are railroading you to go all out for this someone, and then try to reign in your overflowing passion for mating in order to be somewhat objective about your choice. Or not. Or get a roommate so that loneliness is not added to evolution in propelling you to desperately, recklessly seek a mate.  

​

Enlightened Dating Negotiations: A theoretical dialogue in which flirtation with possible mates, while staying friends with exes and making friends with prospectives, are all thoroughly discussed. Part of this dialogue is:

​

“You’ll have to stop seeing you exes if we move in together.”

         

“Why?”

         

“Because they make me feel insecure.”

         

“But they think you’re great for me and one of them has a steady, and the other is happy to just be my friend. The Platonic sexual and intellectual kick I get from them I bring to you on a platinum platter, and it stimulates the verbal foreplay and enhances the main-play.”         

​

“It does the opposite to me. It forces me to hold back because it’s just not the way things are done, it’s low class, and you may switch your alliance to one of those any time. I feel like I’m on endless trial.”

         

“There’s a 50% divorce rate and a bigger breakup rate. Everyone’s always on trial to some extent these days. Let’s get married anyway. I’ll guarantee you get half of my financial assets if we get divorced. That should make you feel better.”

           

“I’ve been married already. I’m not going down that road again. Just stop seeing them [other attractive friends] and that will be dedication enough.”

         

“Now wait a second. You and I are no longer naive lovers, new to this profound game. We don’t want to have a family, in fact we can’t, unless we adopt. These are friends I’ve had for twenty or thirty years. To abandon them is to break bonds that have sustained me for decades. Not to mention I might meet another friend whose input will substantially enhance us — and me. Why should I so imprison my libido if it’s a minimal threat to us and if it brings fresh infusions of romantic energy?” …

​

“Well, let’s think about it for a while. Meanwhile, please come over here. There’s something in my eye that needs removing.”

​

​