Secondary? No thanks!

But my personal dramas and the fact that im navigating through new territory and perhaps haven't handled things the best way. doesn't mean im not allowed to have an opinion . I'm growing into a co primary situation when it was only going to be a secondary situation. It's hard and confusing navigating through all this
 
I find most married/cohabitating poly people can't find balance in their multiple relationships.

I find most married/cohabitating non-poly people can't find balance in their single relationships. I wouldn't hold poly relationships to a higher standard.

The excuse of well we have history, responsibilities, etc are usual thrown out as an excuse. How are you supposed to build a bond in your other relationship if they are not given the importance of the other.

This feels like putting the cart before the horse. You build the bond first, then you share the history/responsibilities/etc as they happen, THEN the relationship has gained a certain level of importance. You don't assign a level of importance and then shove stuff at it until it "fits".

Who in their right kind wants to be treated as less than.[?]

Umm...someone who is comfortable not being "more than" (or "equal to")? I have friends that I am closer to than others - does this mean that there is no point in being friends with someone who doesn't consider me their "best" (or "co-best") friend? I feel that I am happier appreciating what people bring to my life and not lamenting what they can't.

Being poly to me gives me the freedom to appreciate people at whatever level they intersect my life and not be confined by how relationships "should" go. I have secondary relationships that have lasted longer (by decades) than my "co-primary" relationship with Dude...because that is what they are (and where they are likely to remain). My relationships with women have, historically, all been destined to be "secondary" type relationships (in that they have been with bisexual women with male primaries - as am I). Does this mean that they have no value? NO! (Although I have been told that this means that I am "not really bisexual" - which I find amusing.)

.... I married nate because I found him suitable as a life partner. Now if I started dating Joe, we might have fun and I might care about him but that doesnt mean that he automatically is going to be someone that i would consider as a life partner.... there were plenty of people along that way that I had fun with but would never consider to be more than that to me. Of course you have to date people to discover if you feel that way for someone. If I'm open to that level of a commitment doesnt mean that someone is going to get it just because they are dating me. Co-primary status isn't something I would just give anyone.

Agree. Just because I am willing to allow relationships to proceed to the "co-primary" status doesn't mean that every relationship MUST automagically start there.

I touched on this in my post here about what commitment in poly means to me.

How do people think primaries happen, anyway? ... I don't mind jumping in...but with most people? I'd want some time to date before making that kind of commitment.

I agree with this - although my history might indicate otherwise. I don't really date, both of my boys went from friendly fucking to cohabitation to LTR. (I've "jumped in" twice - it's worked out all both times.)

That said, there is a really big difference between BEING secondary (for a time) and being TOLD that I could only EVER be secondary. I'm ok with our relationship being secondary while that is its natural shape, but at some point it's natural shape may be different than this.

This is the difference between using hierarchical terms "proscriptively" (i.e. you can only ever be secondary) vs. "descriptively" (i.e. I have less investment in this relationship currently but lets see where it goes - and it is ok if it stays here, grows, fades, or waxes and wanes).

******

No matter how long Dude and I are together, I will always have been with MrS longer. That is an objective fact. MrS knew me through times and transitions that Dude will only know as stories (realizing that I was bisexual, my first experiences with women, my first failed pregnancy, etc). The longer Dude and I are together the more of these experiences will involve him (my second failed pregnancy, my first experience as a metamour, etc.)

Fact is, I learned from my experiences in my relationship with MrS (how to trust, how to feel love, how to be in a relationship) and Dude benefits in that I am more open to relationship/emotional stuff than I was 20+ years ago. So he doesn't need to "break down the walls" that MrS did.

It is unfair to expect Dude to understand all the nuances about me that MrS does - when MrS has two decades of experiences to draw on. It is also unfair to expect me and MrS to put OUR relationship on some kind of "hold" so that Dude can catch up and be "equal". Each relationship needs to stand and flourish on its own merits - not in comparison to the other.

JaneQ
 
Last edited:
I'm with Jane Q on this. In my current incarnation, I have no inherent issue with primary/secondary. I wouldn't choose to not date someone I liked just because they already have a live-in life-partner, nor would I presume to start out as "equal" to someone who had been around for a decade sharing finances and pet-rearing and whatever else.

I don't think the "primary" model necessary means you're being treated as "less than" the "secondary." To me, it just means you don't necessarily share in life decisions, child-rearing, home-sharing, etc.. And perhaps you never would. But then, there are single, solo folks who have no interest in eventual cohabitation, etc.. Doesn't mean you can't have something meaningful and wonderful with them.

I'm a hardcore introvert, and have a hard time seeing myself in "family-style" poly, living with two or three partners in one house, all spending time together. I also like very intense, intimate connections, so I can't see myself forever living alone. So I can see the logic, for me, in having one primary life-partner I cohabitate with, and a secondary partner or two who I don't live with or share life-decisions with.
 
I don't think the "primary" model necessary means you're being treated as "less than" the "secondary." To me, it just means you don't necessarily share in life decisions, child-rearing, home-sharing, etc.. And perhaps you never would. But then, there are single, solo folks who have no interest in eventual cohabitation, etc.. Doesn't mean you can't have something meaningful and wonderful with them.
This. To me, the only difference between primary and non-primary (I hate the term "secondary") relationships is the level of life entanglement, which has nothing to do with the level of emotional intimacy or the significance of the relationship. For me, relationships are about the intellectual and mental connections more than anything else, so the significance of my relationships doesn't depend on how much time we spend together or whether we share a life together. My two long-distance SOs (who probably will never be my primary partners) are no less important to me than my husband.

Like LoveBunny, I'm not interested in family-style poly. Plus, what's the odds that my husband and I both want to live with a certain third person? I may consider splitting my time between two homes should a right local partner come along, but as an independent person who prefers low-maintenance relationships, I seem to get along better with solo poly folks anyway.
 
No offense Inyourendo but I read your blog.

You allow Nate to put poor Sam through the ringer. Your relationship has been nothing but drama. That man is either a saint or a glutton for punishment.

Why would anyone want to deal with that BS even in the early dating stages? I wouldn't.

Thank you for your empathy Dagferi though it hasn't been the most easy relationship I have stayed with Sue because she is an amazing woman (most of the time). She may exaggerate some about who would accept my quirks though she embraces my unique nature and the same can be said for her uniqueness not being everyone's spot o tea. Thus I think our true connection comes from loving the mutual weirdness if the other.

That being said I would not remain in the relationship at this point if she treated me as a secondary. I have certainly earned my stripes and she's everything I desire in a woman.

Also I'm far from a saint sooo...
 
Re (from OP):
"I'd be curious about other folks' thoughts on their process on deciding if secondary could work for you or not. Or if a primary type thing was just too much and solo poly is the way to go. Basically I'm curious how people sorted out what they wanted."

I think a lot of the discussion in this thread revolves around how we define words like "primary" and "secondary." To some, secondary means "second-class citizen;" to others, it means "casual relationship" or, "We're only just beginning to date and we don't if it'll get serious."

I'm a rather lazy and dependent person, so I guess I need a "primary" partner. And I'm lucky enough to have that, as well as an agreeable metamour who is my partner's other primary partner. I suppose in theory I wouldn't object to being a secondary to an additional partner, though our polycule is designed to have primary partners only.

I think it is hard to define which partner is higher (or highest) priority. Somebody could be a mere acquaintance or someone you'd just dated once or twice, yet if they had a medical emergency and needed a ride to the hospital, you might interrupt your evening of watching TV with your primary partner to go and help that other non-primary person. It can be rather complicated, the way we divvy out our time and resources. Primary and secondary status are just one variable in that equation.

Anyway, I haven't had to make many intentional decisions about what kind of relationship structure I was going to seek. The relationship structure I now have essentially presented itself to me, and I just happily went along with it. I did try OKCupid for awhile, feeling an interest in meeting someone new, but that didn't go that great for me and I eventually lost all interest in that. If someday I should happen to meet someone who's interested in me, I probably won't mind dating and seeing where it goes. But I'm not interested enough to go out looking. Polyamory has been kind to me for the most part, and I'm comfortable with what I have.
 
I'm a rather lazy and dependent person, so I guess I need a "primary" partner.

Yo, Kevin - stop negging yourself to explain your desire for a primary partner. It's a perfectly fine thing to want in a relationship, just as other folks' desires for different relationship types are fine too. :)

That said, I'm mono. I *want* a primary relationship. I want someone to entwine my life with (family, social circle, etc.). I want a home with my partner (even if he's not here all the time). I want to be considered a partner. I want that sense of "walking through life" with someone, even if we do our own independent things from time to time. I want to share the good, bad, and everything in between with someone (and want them to share the same with me). I wanted all that open to me when we started our relationship. I did *not* want the survival (or existence) of our relationship to be based *at all* on the whims of his other partner (on a related note, I would also not want to be in a relationship with him if he and Xena were married - too much inequity right off the bat for me to feel comfortable in that position). I wanted our relationship to be as autonomous as it could be and to grow as it would whether or not he had other relationships on his end. That's what "not being a secondary" means to me.

Now, we do have compromises - Xena and I pretty much treat Chops' time with the other person as sacred, for the most part, and try not to interrupt, so communication doesn't happen as much on the days he's with her as it would on the days he's here with me. Still, it goes both ways, so I'm okay with that. If it were, "No calling/texting/talking while he's here with me, but I get to interrupt any time I want," I'd be in a full-on snit.

Anyway, I think this thread highlights just how different poly relationships are for everyone. It's a biiiiiiig umbrella. :)
 
Having read some of the posts on this thread, I've realized that I don't care for the label of "secondary" much, but depending on its practice, would be fine with it. My "plan" ( :rolleyes: ) is to be a solo poly who doesn't share finances, live with, or really share in major life decisions with a partner. I prefer the idea of having several fwb which to me feels... how to say this... looser? Rather than depend on one to a few partners for time and affection, I'd rather have a wider community where each lover is equal and not so entwined in my life. So in that way, I wouldn't have a problem if they wanted to call me their secondary because I have no desire to have or be a primary. That's based on OUR relationship's specific time and affection allotment.

If someone wanted to refer to me as a secondary because their primary would have decision-making power over how I interact in my relationships - That'd be a problem. I originally didn't want to become involved with anyone already involved in a partnership to avoid the potential drama of them protecting their relationship at my cost. :rolleyes: Of course then I had to fall for someone with a live-in gf and revise my stance on the idea.

So for me, hierarchy-based terminology really depends on context. If it's used between myself and my lovers to describe our relationship, fine. If it's used to describe the power of another's primary over me, not cool.
 
Re (from YouAreHere):
"Yo, Kevin -- stop negging yourself to explain your desire for a primary partner."

But negging myself is so fun, and I'm so good at it. ;)
 
This is my issue, as well. At least in the poly circles I've been in, secondary hasn't meant "new" or "casual," it's a status to which someone is relegated that means it can never evolve beyond a certain point of comfort for the (almost always) metamour, and is used to protect couple privilege, control the "secondary" partner, and keep veto power in play. It generally means "less important than," which I've seen translated into "a sex toy/subhuman that will be cast aside at the metamours whim" so many times it's almost a given at this point.

So, for me, the term has really negative connotations. But, if had been used in another way, such as a casual relationship or a new one, it would be totally reasonable.

Having read some of the posts on this thread, I've realized that I don't care for the label of "secondary" much, but depending on its practice, would be fine with it. My "plan" ( :rolleyes: ) is to be a solo poly who doesn't share finances, live with, or really share in major life decisions with a partner. I prefer the idea of having several fwb which to me feels... how to say this... looser? Rather than depend on one to a few partners for time and affection, I'd rather have a wider community where each lover is equal and not so entwined in my life. So in that way, I wouldn't have a problem if they wanted to call me their secondary because I have no desire to have or be a primary. That's based on OUR relationship's specific time and affection allotment.

If someone wanted to refer to me as a secondary because their primary would have decision-making power over how I interact in my relationships - That'd be a problem. I originally didn't want to become involved with anyone already involved in a partnership to avoid the potential drama of them protecting their relationship at my cost. :rolleyes: Of course then I had to fall for someone with a live-in gf and revise my stance on the idea.

So for me, hierarchy-based terminology really depends on context. If it's used between myself and my lovers to describe our relationship, fine. If it's used to describe the power of another's primary over me, not cool.
 
I suppose technically I am a 'secondary' in my relationship with Wayland - but from the very beginning we have all known that it is a 'play' relationship, a FWB thing. None of us want it to go anywhere but where it is, lots of fun between friends. So even though I *am* a secondary, I have never *felt* like secondary with them....

I like how Greenacres puts it - used to protect couple privilege, control the "secondary" partner, and keep veto power in play. In most cases I have seen it used, this is exactly how it comes across. And I suppose with Wayland and Odette, she does have 'veto' power in that I check with her that she is okay with everything before our playdates and if she wasn't I wouldn't go ahead, but that is because I don't want to lose her as a friend. They don't do the 'control' thing, though, because that was discussed beforehand and I wouldn't have it... which is probably part of the reason why I don't feel secondary in that relationship.
 
Back
Top