Talk to me about couple privilege

Asparagus

New member
This is a concept I just don't get- what is couple priviledge, and on the flip side, what does a healthy relationship of a couple with their third look like. Applicable to me is if you are the third, and you detect it, how do you address it, and what are the things that are and are not within your right to ask? What is your responsibility in bringing things up, and what is that of your partners? Especially interested in how this might apply when there is expressed desire for equality, but in reality, the couple and the third have very different lives, including different locations, different responsibilities (kids, parents, animals)
 
Last edited:
Yes. This. Thank you. Almost every single time I have had a problem with my partners, it has been covered by this. Explains a lot of dynamics.

And I do realize this may get this moved to another part of the board, which is fine, but how, if you detect couple privilege, do you bring it up and talk about it?
 
This is a concept I just don't get- what is couple privilede, and on the flip side, what does a healthy relationship of a couple with their third look like? Applicable to me is if you are the third, and you detect it, how do you address it, and what are the things that are and are not within your right to ask? What is your responsibility in bringing things up, and what is that of your partners? Especially interested in how this might apply when there is expressed desire for equality, but in reality, the couple and the third have very different lives, including different locations, different responsibilities (kids, parents, animals)

... how, if you detect couple privilege, do you bring it up and talk about it?

This essay may also help. I especially think the part called Secondary's Bill of Rights may answer your questions about "how to talk about it," if you detect couple privilege.

http://www.morethantwo.com/polyforsecondaries.html

How do you bring it up? Just look for an opportune time and start talking! I'd say, if you're in relationship with one part of a couple, bring it up with your actual partner first. Get real familiar with the concepts clearly set out in this essay. Maybe have your partner also look at these articles and give him/her time to digest the information.

If you are actually attracted and drawn to both members of a couple, you could all sit down and talk about this, or you could address it separately with each, it's up to you.

As a "secondary," you are not being "added as a third" to an existing relationship. Try to stop thinking of it that way. You are IN relationship with one person. Or, if you are in relationship with both (you, X and Y), there are multiple relationships going on.

You and X
You and Y
X and Y
You and X and Y

You can insist on being treated as a whole person with rights and privileges of her own. You aren't a toy being used to spice up an existing relationship (unless there is some kind of Dom/sub thing going on, and you know going in, you will be considered a slave or pet, and that is something you want).
 
Incredible articles. Very enlightening- not only for dynamics within the triad, but how I can make my relationship with my other boyfriend better for and on him. I've been guilty of "triad" privilege in my dealings with him.

I've been think the secondary bill of rights didn't apply in the triad as we were attempting to be primaries- but I think it is also a newcomer bill of rights.
 
Last edited:
Examine your thinking and even the way in which you worded your question in this thread. Three people in a relationship together are not a "couple with their third." They are three people in a relationship together!

Why is a person who chooses to be in relationship with two people already partnered only considered an add-on to the two partners, and not an additional partner with an equal say about her/his relationships with both of them? "Their third?" That sounds like something they possess (and will discard when no longer convenient).

A triad is 1+1+1, NOT 2+1. Seeing it as 2+1 is a perfect illustration of an attitude that causes a lot of hurt and problems in triads. It is known as couple privilege.
 
You three are not doing solopoly but you might find solopoly.net interesting. http://http://solopoly.net Their different take on how to 'do' poly has been useful to me even if I don't agree or take to heart their entire approach. And the site addresses couple privilege quite often.
 
Last edited:
I like solopoly.net's definition.

The presumption that socially sanctioned pair-bond relationships involving only two people (such as marriage, long-term boyfriend/girlfriend, or other forms of conventional intimate/life partnerships) are inherently more important, “real” and valid than other types of intimate, romantic or sexual relationships.

Such primary couples (or partnerships that are clearly riding society’s standard relationship escalator toward that goal) are widely presumed — even within many nonmonogamous communities — to warrant more recognition and support than other types of intimate relationships.

For example I see it on here are the time that the original partners deserve more consideration than newer partners because they have more time and "sweat equity". My reaction is often BS and Why?

Why would any sane person who is looking for long term relationship want to be pushed to the backburner and be told sorry you come second to so and so because they are here longer? The other partner will always have that advantage as long as the longer couple stays together.

Murf, who has been in my life 3 years, sure as hell would not still be in my life his wants and needs were put second to Butch's.
 
For example I see it on here are the time that the original partners deserve more consideration than newer partners because they have more time and "sweat equity". My reaction is often BS and Why?

Why would any sane person who is looking for long term relationship want to be pushed to the backburner and be told sorry you come second to so and so because they are here longer? The other partner will always have that advantage as long as the longer couple stays together.

Now now, I have to admit, eons ago, in 1999, when my ex h and I opened our marriage, we were stupid unicorn hunters. I was bi, he was straight, and he had always resented me being bi. At that point, we'd been together 25 years, had a house, 3 kids who were adolescents. 5 cats, a dog, etc etc.

Finally he somehow came to accept me being bi at that time. He had low self esteem and always felt confused and threatened by it. But things suddenly changed.

We decided, like many noobs, that finding a "third" would be perfect. However, when we found a woman who seemed right for us, it soon became apparent she wasn't interested in me, just him.

So yeah, I felt shortchanged. I was the bisexual one! I was "supposed" to get some female nookie, he wasn't supposed to get a mono gf! You can be damn sure I was highly resentful he was all gaga over her, NRE up the wazoo, talking on the phone, emailing her (before IMs or texts were invented or used much) throughout the day, spending money traveling to see her, wining and dining her, all kinds of romantic dates, while I tended to the kids, taxiing them around, feeding them, homeschooling them, attending their events alone, doing all the housework and pet care, etc. I did feel I'd put in sweat equity. And here comes the new and shiny getting all the goodies while I get-- basically nothing.

I can remember helping him pack his suitcase and car for a trip to go see her, knowing they'd be having NRE sex, and I'd be home making food for the kids and doing dishes. Something was wrong with that picture! I eventually used my veto but that didnt help, they kept yearning for each other and emailing and and meeting on the sly (I found that out years later).

I ended up so depressed I needed a year of Zoloft and 3 years of therapy.

Of course, I know better now. I have learned much in the 15 years since and have been in a couple for 6 years with a full understanding of how to handle my partner's NRE, and why unicorn hunting is bad, etc. But I can advise newbies because I have BTDT.
 
I like solopoly.net's definition.



For example I see it on here are the time that the original partners deserve more consideration than newer partners because they have more time and "sweat equity".

If im casually dating someone for a few months they aren't on the same level as someone I've been committed to for several years.
 
Mags..

I am going to put it bluntly. No offense meant here. Your ex sucked as a hinge and your marriage was the perfect example of what not to do when you're opening a marriage and people who had no business doing so.

I have been blessed in my life with a man (actually now men) who shoulders his share of parenting. He always has. Even when my children were tiny and breast feeding. That man would come home from working 12 hours and give me a break.

Today my kids are older 21, 12 and 8. We still split the work. After 6 months of dating Murf I knew he was a keeper and he was slowly worked into the younger two's lives.
 
It's called managing your NRE.. Not acting like a love drunk fool.

Even when I was monogamous I did not drop my life, friends, etc when I started dating someone. I still had pets, household, school, a toddler, and a job to see too.

I am not saying move someone in right away or write them into your will don't be daft. But who in the hell will want to develop something long term and meaningful if they come last on the list. Or have someone wreck you plans at the last minute. Or dictate your schedule.
 
Asparagus, to me?

It is a con to a "primary-secondary" model whether the "primaries" are 2 people like a couple or another grouping.

It is also the polymath thing.

These people in the theoretical grouping have to agree on how they want to be together while practicing the open model they want to practice. Then each mini relationship inside the polyship has to be healthy for the whole thing to be healthy. If one layer is messed up, there's a ripple effect. How much that affects the others depends on how they arranged themselves in the system.

For instance, if A has issues in the

A <--> A​

layer because they are not secure? Need more coping skills? Are fearful? (Or entitled or whatever it is... for this example I will use fearful)

Then could lead to couple privilege going on in the layer of

(A + B) <---> C​

with A doing everything possible to avoid feeling yucky rather than allowing it to be, and sorting out within where this is coming from.

Maybe A has not come to accept the fact that even when it was just (A + B) alone that B owns their willingness to participate. And B could decide at any time to stop participating. So the risk has always been there. Rather than act out their fear at others, it could be better to work on their inner world and learn to self reassure/validate. Cultivate coping skills rather than cultivate fear.

If A is obsessed with this fear of losing B to C?
  • Trying to make rules to control the outside world so the fear never comes up to be felt on the inside world?
  • Trying to control other people so the fear can never touch them?
  • More willing to lean away from it than lean into it and work through it?
  • Acting out fearfulness stuff rather than experiencing and clearing it away?
  • To the point where it ignores the health of all the other mini relationships? Tunnel vision?
  • Acting like that (A+B) layer is the only relationship in the system that needs to be healthy, but not seeing this is not healthy but actually dysfunctional?

Then this collection of behaviors not being realistic or being healthy. There's a good chance there's going to be a ripple effect felt through the whole system.... and likely all the drama that comes with it. BIG drama.

Any place A appears in the layers of relationship in this system will have problems if A is so fearful about losing B to C that it leaks all over the place with controlling behaviors, rules designed to protect the FEAR, etc.

SOLOS

Are they honest with their own selves? Do their self care? Deal with their emotions appropriately? Cultivate coping skills rather than fear avoidance?

  • A <---> A
  • B <---> B
  • C<--->C

DUOS

Are they honest in their dealings with others?

  • A <--->B
    [*]A <---> C
  • B <---> C

TRIOS
Respect other dyads need for time on their own and need to develop at their own pace?

  • (A+B) <-->C
    [*](A+C) <---> B
    [*](B+C) <--> A

GROUP

Speak their truth? Willing to listen to others? Avoid triangulation?
  • (A+B+C)


That's 10 layers of relationship, with 7 potentially messed up if A is busy running away from fear and acting out in various ways. Give it enough time even the other layers will become strained. Agreeing to participate in a system like this is going to be a sucky thing for A (from stress and low energy -- it takes a lot to keep running away from fears. Resentful t B for "letting the drama go on and on" rather than owning it themselves and walking away), for B (from being tug-o-war suffering hinge), and for C (who can get resentful not of just A, but B for "letting the drama go on" rather than owning themselves and walking away.) It can become a stew pot of complicated feelings.

If it is not just A having issues, but B having other issues like "sloppy hinge" or C having issues with "people pleaser" you can see how this theoretical grouping could ratchet up even higher in intensity. If these people do not have solid personal boundaries and a willingness to speak their truth and change objectionable behaviors? It can turn into a mess.

I think all partners in there could be considered so they can be healthy. I wouldn't put someone I was dating for 1 week on my will, but I would listen and consider their wants and needs for their present well being and thoughts for a shared future. (The will stuff can happen over time if it becomes serious. )

I think people could enter it being clear on what they say "yes" to.

I also think that people could enter this willing to say "no" much earlier on.

Enter it willing to end it too. Even if it means accepting it was a good potential but after some talk turns out not a runner.

Enter it willing to NOT accept things they do not want just to gain "access" being in polyship secretly hoping the things will go away by magic.

Enter it willing for everyone breaking up even down to everyone single. And talk about it ahead of time. "How do we want this to end if it has to?"
If you cannot talk about it while things are good? Sure don't want to be figuring it out when it is going to crap!

People who are SOOOOO fearful about (A+B) breaking up? Or even talking about it? They are not secure people. I don't think they make solid poly partners. They could sort that out within themselves first before agreeing to polydate. So they become more solid partners first.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
I get the "sweat equity" thing, but I also think there needs to be some ability for that to no longer matter, because the partner that was there first will always have been there longer. At some point, that has to not matter anymore. Not in the first couple of months, etc., but at some point.

Relationships aren't a race. Just because two people met before two other people doesn't mean the first two are any more "meaningful" in the long run, but I see "sweat equity" used to mean that a lot. "But I was here first!" And yes, there are commitments that need to be honored, but that would be true of any relationship. Of course, I don't believe in "fate," or "soul mates," which means for me it's simply statistics and chance that someone meets someone before meeting someone else. My view of relationships mirrors Tim Minchin's pretty closely:
 
Last edited:
Relationships aren't a race. Just because two people met before someone two other people doesn't mean the first two are any more "meaningful" in the long run, but I see "sweat equity" used to mean that a lot. "But I was here first!"[/URL]:

I agree. At some point the "new" partner isn't really new anymore. Like a "new baby" will always be the youngest, but at some point is just "one of the kids".
 
Mags..

I am going to put it bluntly. No offense meant here. Your ex sucked as a hinge and your marriage was the perfect example of what not to do when you're opening a marriage and people who had no business doing so.

LOLing here. My ex sucked in a lot of ways, that is why he is now my ex! That woman is still his gf and she is welcome to him!

But yeah, we had no idea what we were doing. There was nothing on the net about polyamory back then, and the only book out was The Ethical Slut. We were flying blind.

I have been blessed in my life with a man (actually now men) who shoulders his share of parenting. He always has. Even when my children were tiny and breast feeding. That man would come home from working 12 hours and give me a break.

Yes, well, my ex was pretty good with the kids (the NRE adventure that caused him to neglect doing his share was shortlived-- I saw to that!). It was housework he was allergic to. And after I vetoed the r'ship he was so blithely carrying on with new and shiny girl, he also went on strike and quit doing normal guy home, yard and car maintenance as well! :eek: Look up passive aggressive in a dictionary, find a picture of my ex.



It's called managing your NRE.. Not acting like a love drunk fool.

Right. I am adamant to this day, for myself, my partner, and our partners, to manage the old devil NRE. And as you may recall, I broke up with Ginger (after 2 1/2 years) last summer, because his NRE for a married newbie poly couple was making him act like the biggest douchecanoe ever.

I am not saying move someone in right away or write them into your will, don't be daft. But who in the hell will want to develop something long term and meaningful if they come last on the list? Or have someone wreck your plans at the last minute, or dictate your schedule?

Well OK, thanks for clarifying. That is not what you implied at first.
 
Back
Top