Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

Everyone has valid points and I love the diversity of responses.

I just keep things simple. Frankly, I don't care what people use to describe their dynamic. Internally, I like to classify things, so in my mind, they get classified and placed in a hierarchal structure. I don't voice it, but I think it, so it makes sense to me.
 
Derbylicious said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, that there could be more of you, Derby!<chuckle> Can we clone you? <kidding>

I've always felt that it's a better way to strive for independence on an individual level (physical, emotional) and that if you can achieve that, then when someone else comes into your life it's just that much more of an addition, rather than a dependence. We're all successful at that, to varying degrees, but I feel we're better to continue working towards it, even within a relationship. There are enough outside factors that try to hinder that, as it is, without us contributing to that hindrance.
 
If you find a way to clone me, let me know. I could sure use a couple to fit everything in.
 
Primaries, secondaries, other terms....

Hi guys,

I was just wondering, does anyone else HATE terms like primary and secondary as much as I do? It partly stems, for me, from a bad past experience of essentially being told "You're only the secondary. I'll spend time with you when I can be bothered. Until then, clear off." To me, it just sounds like it means "less important."

So, do you like these terms? Do you use them to describe your relationships? If not, which words do you use?

These days I just refer to xmakina as "my fiance" and N as my "boyfriend/partner." People I see casually I usually just refer to as "my friend," or sometimes FWB, depending who I am talking to. I also rather like the phrase coined by my friend J, "friends... etc."

How do you define your relationships? How do you differentiate between them when explaining your situation, if at all?

Love xx
 
Oh, you so rock. I completely agree. I don't use these terms. I prefer a non-hierarchical approach to polyamory.

These words are steeped in negative connotations of gold medal, silver medal, first place, second place for me. I would not want to make anyone feel lesser than by using them. The claims that these terms make it easier don't gel for me. I've encountered many at different stages in their poly lives who don't use the words, or who use the words completely differently from how others think they should be used. An example is having primaries who do not share the household with you.

Descriptive terms about my relationships are what I prefer when it comes to differentiating. I like the words 'loves' and 'lovers.' I like sappy terms like 'nesting' to describe the living dynamic between me and my love, as well. Boyfriend and girlfriend are fine. FWB is fine. It all depends on what I feel. I had a conversation with someone yesterday evening about the term "beau" and its newer version "boo." I just cringe at both, to be honest.

In general, I prefer words that describe what we feel we are to each other and what we do together.

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
Ravenesque said:
.... These words are steeped in negative connotations of gold medal, silver medal, first place, second place for me.
Click to expand...

I agree totally with Raven here, and I think that if there were some way to do a poll, that the VAST majority of poly folk would agree that they wouldn't use these terms amongst their group because of the possible negative connotations. These terms only (or primarily) seem to surface in discussion groups, written essays, etc., and like so many other terms, are just labels used in pursuit of brevity. There are cases where they absolutely can be an accurate description of a current dynamic, but I suspect most would wish it otherwise, even if the description were accurate.

GS
 
You are going to find different opinions on this one, some quite heated and vigorous (you are seeing signs of this already in this thread).

Some object to the terms utterly and refuse to use them, and have issues with anybody using them. some are ok with them being used to describe the relationship configuration, but not prescribe it, and others are quite happy to use it to prescribe what should happen.

Personally, I fall in the middle camp - if it is used to describe the practicalities of a relationship configuration (primaries are people you live with, secondaries are people you don't live with) then it's ok - but as soon as it is used as "but you're my secondary, therefore you can't move in with us" then I have a major problem. I also don't believe in using it to come up with some "hierarchy of affection", either - that's horrible, in my opinion. Franlin wrote an article on this somewhere but I can't seem to find it.

I tend to avoid the terms completely, only using it when it is necessary to get very specific about describing a current relationship configuration. I won't refer to any of my partners as "my primary" or "my secondary" - just don't like the terms at all in that context.
 
I think I'm going to agree with CielDuMatin.

Whilst the actual wording is to be considered, the much more overriding factor is context and delivery.

Calling someone your primary/secondary makes for a quick and easy way to convey your set-up with two people. Most poly people know that a primary is usually someone you live with/are committed to in more ways than just dating (living arrangements, marriage, fluid bonded, etc.), whilst a secondary is usually someone you are only dating.

Using the terms in a degrading, hierarchical way, however, is pretty awful. As has been quoted already, "You're only a secondary" is, to me, a sentence that will get someone dumped faster than a sack of lead bricks.
 
Oh it's quite possible to have a fluid bond with a secondary - I know of several people that do it - especially in what is generally known as polifidelitous setups where they don't all live together.

Sorry - I know that was a bit nitpicky, but I have learned that just when you imagine how things are you meet a relationship that throws it all in the air again! I love poly for that reason - there's no one "right" way to do it, and those different ways are celebrated by the community at large.
 
CielDuMatin said:
Oh it's quite possible to have a fluid bond with a secondary - I know of several people that do it - especially in what is generally known as polifidelitous setups where they don't all live together.

Sorry - I know that was a bit nitpicky, but I have learned that just when you imagine how things are you meet a relationship that throws it all in the air again! I love poly for that reason - there's no one "right" way to do it, and those different ways are celebrated by the community at large.
Click to expand...

You missed the crucial usually that preceded those statements. :p
 
I will use them when speaking of no one specific, as in drawing a picture of what any given type of relationship is to me, but I don't have "secondary" sexual relationships. If I am sexual with someone they aren't secondary to me.

I HATE when people ask me about "my secondary." I answer, "I don't have one." In fact, I don't even like the word "boyfriend" (it doesn't bother me to be called GG's girlfriend, though), because it suggests that there is less importance to that relationship than there is with Maca, who is my husband. Can't stand the whole hierarchy b.s.
 
LovingRadiance said:
I in fact don't even like the word "boyfriend" because it suggests that there is less importance to that relationship than there is with Maca, who is my husband.
Click to expand...

I don't like the term boyfriend either, but maybe not for the same reason. I'm seeing someone new and I am grappling with to call him/think of him as. I don't like the terms primary, secondary, etc. Boyfriend doesn't seem right, but we haven't been seeing each other long enough for anything else.
 
amaranth said:
Does anyone else HATE terms like primary and secondary as much as I do? It partly stems, for me, from a bad past experience of essentially being told "you're only the secondary. I'll spend time with you when I can be bothered. Until then, clear off." To me, it just sounds like it means "less important."

I just refer to xmakina as "my fiance" and N as my "boyfriend/partner." People I see casually I usually just refer to as "my friend," or sometimes FWB, depending who I am talking to.
Click to expand...

I think that perhaps the one who called you their secondary was just not that into you, not that you were secondary. Not less important, just not as much desired. That's what I get from that.

I use the terms you describe and others to describe what my poly is to those who know nothing about it or me. Then I add on the end that our relationship style has become normalized to us. I don't need to use definitions anymore in everyday life.

If I were just meeting you, I would tell you that I have two primaries, a husband and a boyfriend. I am fluid bonded with my boyfriend, but not with my husband, because he is not fixed and has a boyfriend of his own, his "intimate friend," as he calls him. My boyfriend is mono and has no other loves but me. I have a tertiary that is an intimate friend to me, and I am looking for a girlfriend that would be an intimate friend also. After I said all that, I would ask that you let it all go, and take me and my family for who we are as individuals, not what we define ourselves as.
 
I personally do not associate any emotional response to the terms primary and secondary. I see them very clearly as a way to identify which relationships have greater impact in the sum total of a person's life. In other words, if one person were to suddenly disappear, who would affect your entire life the most?

I identify as a secondary. I have done this for over a year and see no insecurity or sense of less importance in this. I see a very clear understanding of what I bring to the relationship in broader areas beyond being a loving partner, e.g., child carer, household manager, financial contributor. The impact of my absence would be less than that of Polynerdist (the primary). Therefore, I see myself as secondary.

I understand resistance to something that may imply less importance, but I also accept that to look at both relationships in Redpepper's life logically from a "impact" standpoint, I am, in fact, less important. So what?
 
Exactly what I was trying to frame in my head, Mono. I resist the idea that my other partners are less important, but if the worst happened and I had to make a choice, of course I would have to pick my husband--my primary relationship. And I accept that my other partners would have to pick their marriages. We would all seek to keep the core of our families stable, at the very least to provide a good foundation for our children. I would hope we would all work hard to avoid that outcome, but the bottom line is that I am by necessity a secondary, as they are secondaries for me.
 
I see your point, Mono. But I wouldn't do it your way, Lemondrop. :) I know why most people would, but for me, I have a 17-year relationship with GG and an 11-year relationship with Maca, 10 years married.

I also share biological children with both of them, and the raising of 4 children. The oldest was with GG since she was 18 months. She's 18 years now. The 13-year old has been with all of us since he was 18 months old. The 10-year old has been with all of us his whole life, as has the baby.

If I were forced to say which one would have the greater impact, I wouldn't be able to. Different impacts, but both equally significant. I've spent hours of my time considering it, and I would say they are both definitely primary in my life.
 
MonoVCPHG said:
If one person were to all of a sudden disappear who would affect your entire life the most? I identify as a secondary. I have done this for over a year and see no insecurity or sense of less importance in this. I see a very clear understanding of what I bring to the relationship in broader areas beyond being a loving partner... The impact of my absence would be less than that of the primary. Therefore, I see myself as secondary.
I understand resistance to something that may imply less importance, but I also accept that to look at both relationships in Redpepper's life logically from a "impact" standpoint, I am in fact less important.
Click to expand...

Yeah! I would miss my BF if he left for a month or so, and I'd be happy to see him when he got back. But if my HB left for a month or so, nearly every aspect of my life would feel different, and I'd have to make just as large an adjustment when he got back.

BF isn't somehow less valuable as a person, but at this point in my life, the relationship between us is secondary. And you know what? Our relationship is secondary to him, too. It's not got any kind of emotionality to it, for me.

I guess, coming from a human services background, I see it more like systems theory, which can be represented by concentric circles. Innermost is myself. Then there's a ring of people who affect me majorly (spouse, kids). Then there's a ring of people who affect me minorly (BF, BFF, parents). Then there's a ring of communities I interact with (work, school, gym). Then there's a ring of local culture. Then politics... and so on.
 
Seasnail said:
Innermost is myself. Then there's a ring of people who affect me majorly (spouse, kids). Then there's a ring of people who affect me minorly (BF, BFF, parents). Then there's a ring of communities I interact with (work, school, gym). Then there's a ring of local culture. Then politics... and so on.
Click to expand...
Very nice!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top