Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

ladyjools

ladyjools

New member
Personally, I do not use these labels in regards to my own relationships. However, that does not mean that I believe it’s wrong to do so, or that I cannot see the advantages of having that kind of structure in a polyamorous set-up.

When I first entered into polyamory, we discussed this mode of being, but I felt that at the time OUR reasons for wanting to be the primary relationship and all others secondary were more because of our insecurities, rather than any practical or rational reason. When we deliberated the issue more, we decided to drop these labels completely and let each relationship develop organically and in its own unique way. I felt strongly that I wanted to be free to allow love to grow without restraint, and so, if that meant I ended up with 2 or 3 people in my life that I was completely committed to, I would be happy with that. And if my other relationships developed in a way that was more informal, as long as it felt right, then that was okay, too. The only restriction I have is time, because there are only so many hours in the day to devote myself to my many lovers.

Starting out in polyamory, there is often a lot of insecurity. Being polyamorous does not mean that we are immune to the same jealousy and insecurity that monogamous people often struggle with. An example of one of those insecurities is often the fear that your partner will like or love the other person more, or that they are better, or will become more important than you. Having the concept of "I am the primary partner, and therefore, I am more important and my needs will always come first" can often be a way of containing this insecurity. That is one way to deal with it.

But I felt that there must be another way. Rather than just contain the issue, I wanted to get to the root of it. So there was a lot of talking and reassuring, and gradually we were able to find other ways to deal with these feelings. Yes, they do still come up. I am the first to confess I do get jealous. However, rather than feeling a need to start putting labels and restrictions on my partners' other relationships, I have decided to keep working at our relationship and making it stronger so that I cannot just let go of those feelings, but learn something from them.

The fact is that a primary/secondary label is not about who is more important or loved. It isn’t about who will always come first. It is just about the dynamic of the relationship. For example, a married couple with children might define their relationship as primary because they live together and are raising a child together. Perhaps the husband has a girlfriend who does not live with them and who does not have the same commitments. That does not mean that the girlfriend is of any less value, even though she may be classed in that dynamic as being the secondary partner.

I can see how in this situation the primary/secondary label could apply. I see no problems with this at all, as long as the secondary partner is respected and valued in her own right.

Other reasons one might use the secondary label:

• Not having enough time to dedicate to the relationship to meet enough needs to warrant it a primary relationship (In this instance, sometimes it might seem fair to the secondary partner to be open about what is expected in the relationship so that they can make an informed choice if they feel that their needs can be met in this dynamic, and using the primary/secondary structure is one way of doing this.)
• The relationship being long distance
• Wanting a different level of relationship that will not involve the commitment and other issues that would usually arise from having a primary relationship
• All parties being happy to keep the relationship only on a casual level (There are some relationships that work best on this level and can be extremely fulfilling for the people involved.)


I could add more, but these are the main ones. I can see in all these circumstances why these labels can and do exist. I will continue, for the time being, not to use these labels, because I feel like it is far too easy to fall into the drawbacks. I want all 3 of my partners to know that they are equally important to me, no matter what the unique circumstances of our relationships. Nobody’s needs come first and nobody comes second in each situation that arises. I simply look at what is best for us in that situation. Sometimes one might need me around more, and that is perfectly okay, as long as they understand and respect my commitments and love for the other 2. Nobody has veto power to end any of my other relationships, and likewise, I would never accept or want veto power over any of my lover’s relationships (but that is a whole different topic).

It would be interesting to see what other people's opinions are on this subject and find out what you do, or would do, in your situations. I hope this is at least some food for thought.

Jools
 
I couldn't agree more with you! Being rather new to this, insecurity and jealousy are still areas we are working on. I view my husband as my primary. He is the one that I have made a commitment to. I have felt that, in time, I will feel the same level of commitment to my boyfriend. We have been together for about 6 months and are still growing and learning about each other. We are certainly dedicated to our relationship now and talk a lot about 'right now.' It is awkward to discuss our future sometimes. He can never be my 'husband' in the same way and he is okay with that.

I believe that labels of 'primary' and 'secondary' can be helpful in addressing initial insecurities. But, in my case, at least, over time they will fade from our vocabulary. Those terms imply an almost 'mathematical' way of looking at a relationship that seems rather cold and clinical. Primary implies 'majority,' and I don't believe that's indicative of the love and respect needed for any relationship.
 
I don't care for labels in general, and have no liking for those specifically (in my life), for much the same reason you lay out, about it "hiding" an insecurity.

I love both Maca and GG deeply, passionately and am committed to both of them. They are both intricately woven into my life, my heart, my soul. To remove either would be destructive. Therefore, they are both "primary." The fact that one is my husband and the other is my boyfriend doesn't make the boyfriend secondary. We all live together, raising the kids. In fact, it's annoying to me in many ways and in many instances to refer to GG as my "boyfriend," because it does not describe the depth of our relationship or our commitment. But I don't see any current resolution to that issue.
 
Part of the reason I will never marry, in the traditional legal sense, is because I don't want that imbalance. So if I ever do decide to have some kind of wedding, it won't be legal. It will be more spiritual. And I will commit myself to them both. Far off in the future, though.

Jools
 
Amen, ladyjools. Those terms can be pretty prescriptive and confining for me.

Lately, I've preferred to use terms that are more descriptive than hierarchical, like SO (significant other), lover, sweetie, etc. I've always been dissatisfied with relationships that lay out my role ahead of time. I've been very lucky to have the chance to explore a relationship that is about what's right for both of us and for the other partners, not what's right for the structure.
 
Hi Jools,

Yeah, I'm one who dislikes labels too, except for the most simple of concepts. As we all know, there's nothing remotely simple about the whole poly equation. I often wonder if some of the grabbing at labels isn't just the mechanism some people are trying to use to get some type of handle on this complexity. It's kind of reminiscent of the way people build value systems. In a complex world, we need some tools to guide us to make quick, shoot-from-the-hip decisions when we don't have time for a proper analysis.

The "secondary" term I see as being absolutely applicable in SOME situations/times (as Booklady explained) and not in others. The fact that it carries a negative tone is unfortunate, but education CAN overcome that. It kind of reminds me of a term I've heard a lot, "third wheel." Argh! How many times have I heard people say, "I'm not being anyone's third wheel"? Have you guys heard that? It's so negative! That third wheel is a critical component of a tricycle.

But, in any case, it seems to me that the full and equal role of everyone in a relationship is kind of the holy grail that everyone would strive for, if the conditions permitted. Sometimes they don't, and someone plays a "secondary" role, but like the tricycle, that role can be critical and so should not be demonized.

GS
 
Labelling

Labels work well on food packaging, but do we want to assign labels to ourselves and other people? How do you label someone who is in flux? Habits, behaviours, thoughts, feelings and ideas are in constant movement and interconnecting in people's minds. What someone thought even five minutes ago may have become drastically altered.

Labels, like ideology, as I suggested on another thread, are dangerous. They are a by-product of fear of the 'others,' the different, to be fought, to be cast out. They suggest dogmatism and are a product themselves of ideology.
 
I don't know if labels are a good idea in the long term, but when starting up a new relationship when you already have established relationship(s), it can be a good idea to use the labels so that everyone has the same understanding of what's going on. This isn't to say that the primary/secondary relationship structure is written in stone, but it does allow for a starting point from which the relationships can grow and develop.

-Derby
 
Derbylicious said:
I don't know if the labels are a good idea in the long term, but when starting up a new relationship when you already have established relationship(s), it can be a good idea to use the labels so that everyone has the same understanding of what's going on. This isn't to say that the primary/secondary relationship structure is written in ston0,e but it does allow for a starting point from which the relationships can grow and develop.
Click to expand...

If I felt I needed a label to understand what's going on in my relationships, I would re-examine my understanding of my relationships in general.
 
Okay, that's not what I meant. I was trying to say that the labels have definitions that come along with them that can make expectations of the people involved in the relationship clearer to everyone.
 
Labels are adjectives. They describe what a person is in broad ways. They are useful only so far - to get a broad-brush approach of a person. But that is all they will do. If you want to get to know someone, I believe you absolutely need to dig beneath the meanings of the labels.

Not having a label (or series of labels) that describes you is also Just Fine, IMO.
 
ladyjools said:
I will never marry in the traditional legal sense because I don't want that imbalance. So if I ever do decide to have some kind of wedding, it won't be legal. It will be more spiritual and I will commit myself to both.
Click to expand...
That is true for me for the future, too. If something ever happened to Maca (god forbid), I wouldn't remarry in the legal sense, unless the kids were still little. Then I would, because it would give GG the ability to add them to his medical insurance at work. But generally speaking, I think the technicality is a pain in the ass.
 
GroundedSpirit said:
The "secondary" term I see as being absolutely applicable in some situations/times (as Booklady explained) and not in others. The fact that it carries a negative tone is unfortunate, but education CAN overcome that. It kind of reminds me of a term I've heard a lot, "third wheel." Argh! How many times have I heard people say "I'm not being anyone's third wheel"! Have you guys heard that? It's so negative! The third wheel is a critical component of a tricycle!

The full and equal role of everyone in a relationship is kind of the holy grail that everyone would strive for, if the conditions permitted. Sometimes they don't, and someone plays a "secondary" role. But like the tricycle, that role can be critical and should not be demonized.
Click to expand...
GS, I agree. I DO have secondary relationships. They don't happen to be sexual at this time in my life. Nonetheless, they exist. It's frustrating to have others consider someone who is primary in my life my "secondary" simply because he's not my husband. I don't have an issue with having secondaries; I have an issue with having my two primaries not being acknowledged for the level of responsibility they both take in our family. It's not really about the "me" part of it. It's the family. They both put all of their time, money, priority, and commitment into this family and household. They both take full responsibility for the kids, the bills, the chores, the health crises.

I do very much dislike labels. For me it's a defensive "don't try to put me in a box" thing. (I spent a LOT of my life in someone else's box, trying to get out.) But they certainly have their place, especially when talking to people who aren't "close enough" to you to motivate you to give them detailed explanations. :)
 
I think the problem is not with the terms and more with peoples perceptions of those terms.

Originally Posted by Derbylicious
I don't know if labels are a good idea in the long term, but when starting up a new relationship when you already have established relationship(s), it can be a good idea to use labels so that everyone has the same understanding of what's going on.

This isn't to say that the primary/secondary relationship structure is written in stone, but it does allow for a starting point from which the relationships can grow and develop.

I actually disagree and think that primary/secondary labels are bad way to start out. We almost did this and I am glad we didn't. The point is, not everyone has the same understanding of what those labels mean anyway, and so it has to be explained regardless, and it is so easy to fall into the pitfalls of what those labels could mean. When starting out in a new relationship I would rather explain what I am looking and what I hope to develop before informing someone that they will be my secondary partner. And I am even more wary of telling people who are not polyamorous that one of my partners is a secondary because, guaranteed, many monogamous people will presume that means the secondary partner will always come second and be valued less.

I truly believe we can make our expectations clearer if we avoid those labels.

LovingRadiance
That is true for me for future. IF something ever happened to Maca, I wouldn't remarry in the legal sense, unless the kids were still little. Then I would, because it would give GG the ability to add them to his medical insurance at work. But generally speaking, I think the technicality is a pain in the ass.

It is having kids that makes me worry about the legalities, because here in the UK, only a married couple has same rights when raising a child. We are already exploring ways around this, so that when I do have a child, both partners will have equal parental rights, and there are safeguards in place in case something happens to one of us.

I object the idea of legal marriage anyway, because I do not feel it necessary at all that the state give me a piece of paper to tell me that I am in a relationship. Marriage will be purely a spiritual commitment between me and my partners and will have nothing to do with the law.

Jools
 
Just to stir things up a bit:

For me, primary and secondary labels are merely a way to describe the impact of relationships. Some people may contribute emotionally and physically to a relationship, and others may contribute emotionally/physically/financially/parentally/and everyday chore-ly. To think that one will not have a greater impact than the other is naive. Therefore, I have no problem identifying one as primary and one as secondary. I identify as secondary in this way, and am secure enough to recognize why and the limits of my contribution. I have less impact across a broader spectrum of actually day-to-day functioning.

Love and connection are extremely important in a deep relationship. But it takes a lot more than that to raise children and run a home. If people are dedicated to performing the day-to-day functions of life as a team, no matter how many are involved, than that is the primary structure, in my opinion. Those that contribute on fewer levels will not impact the overall structure as severely, and therefore, are secondary.

Contribution = commitment
Commitment = impact
Impact = importance
Importance determines primary or secondary

Here's a quick exercise-- imagine what would happen if you removed each of your relationships from your life one at a time. Which one would affect your life and the lives of those around you most? Which one would cause you the most stress across a broad spectrum? Which one might cause you to lose your house? Which one might disrupt the lives of your family members? Which one might make maintaining your property a greater burden? Which one would cause your children distress?

Emotional impact is one thing, but it is hardly the only thing. That is how I see the determination of primary and secondary relationships.
 
Last edited:
Derbylicious said:
Labels have definitions that come along with them that can make expectations of the people involved in the relationship clearer to everyone.
Click to expand...

Why not just lay out what each person is looking for and hoping for and what boundaries there are around that? Why the need for a label to provide a definition in order to make expectations?
 
It's a discussion of pros and cons. I was just offering up my view. My feeling is that sometimes it's easier to use labels for things to have a common language to fall back on. Of course there has to be more discussion on what the relationship expectations are for everyone involved. But if you are clearly looking for someone to have the occasional date with, due to time constraints, etc., why not be upfront when meeting people saying that you are looking for a secondary? Seems to me that it's a good way to avoid crushing people's expectations if they are looking for more from you than you are able to provide.

-Derby
 
MonoVCPHG said:
Contribution = commitment
Commitment = impact
Impact = importance
Importance determines primary or secondary

Imagine what would happen if you removed each of your relationships from your life one at a time.
Which one would affect your life and the life of those around you most? Which one would cause you the most stress across a broad spectrum? Which one might cause you to lose your house. Which one might disrupt the lives of your family members? Which one might make maintaining your property a greater burden? Which one would cause your children distress?
Click to expand...

I get what you mean by this, but this exercise would severely fall down in my life, as it stands. Aside from the fact that I don't like to measure my relationships in terms of negative impact, if any of my flatmates decided to leave or change something in our terms, my life would be severely disrupted. In some cases, they could disrupt my family. That would most certainly have a huge impact on my finances, my living situation and my ability to maintain my living space. Yet I am not in any kind of primary relationship with them.

Emotional impact is one thing, but it is hardly the only thing. That is how I see the determination of primary and secondary relationships.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the point for people who don't want to use hierarchical models of relationships. If it's a descriptor for how the relationship naturally exists, and those words feel right for you, then great. Other people would probably use words that don't imply rank because they don't feel the need to rank, but rather fit people into their lives as they will fit. That doesn't mean they are applying some naive view that they are all equal. It means they are applying a system by which each relationship is measured on its own merit, rather than being compared to one another. Personally, I prefer the latter to the former.

Derbylicious said:
My feeling is that sometimes it's easier to use labels for things to have a common language to fall back on. Of course, there has to be more discussion on what the relationship expectations are for everyone involved. But if you are clearly looking for someone to have the occasional date with, due to time constraints, etc., why not be upfront when meeting people saying that you are looking for a secondary? Seems to me that it's a good way to avoid crushing people's expectations if they are looking for more from you than you are able to provide.
Click to expand...
It makes sense to have common language, and if those terms work to describe the dynamic for some people, then there's nothing wrong with it. However, to answer your question from my personal perspective about why not just say that you're looking for a secondary? From my point of view, if I were approaching a relationship and the person said to me that they were looking for a secondary, what that says to me is that they will be measuring the relationship we have against his or her primary relationship. It also tells me that terms have been set about the dynamic that directly impact the relationship I'd be in, that I'd never get to have a say in. While that may work for some people, that has absolutely zero appeal for me.

If a person approached me for a relationship, but was clear about what other relationships they had at the time, what those relationships meant, what boundaries were in place for them, but also with the idea that building a relationship with me was important to them, I'd be much more interested.

I recognize that there are plenty of people out there that have no problem with the label secondary or primary, and that there are plenty of people who have no problem entering into a relationship that carries the label "secondary." I'm just not one of them. However, one thing I would ask those people who are in primary partnerships and looking for "secondary" partners: if you didn't have that primary relationship, and your only choice in partnerships was to be someone else's secondary, would that be satisfying to you?

Just to address the first couple of sentences: yes, this is a discussion of pros and cons, and you were just offering up your views. My questioning of the views you offered was not a questioning of your right to offer them or the validity of those views. My questioning was a continuation of the discussion of the pros and cons, which also involves examining the views that are offered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mono, that is why I say that Maca and GG are both primary in my life. If either of them left/died it would have a major impact on our family. I could very seriously lose our home. The kids would definitely lose their education system. We'd likely have a great struggle trying to rebuild our lives.
 
Ceoli said:
One thing I would ask those people who are in primary partnerships and looking for "secondary" partners: if you didn't have that primary relationship, and your only choice was to be someone else's secondary, would that be satisfying to you?
Click to expand...
I can only answer this question in the theoretical sense, as I've never been in this position. I think if I did not have a 'primary' relationship, I might enjoy being a secondary to 2 or 3 people (at least for a while). It seems to me that in that role, when I was with my SOs, it would be all about 'us,' without all the day-to-day stuff that gets in the way of truly focusing on being together.

-Derby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top