Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

[Ceoli]

I get what he is saying and think that anyone who has the luxury of leaving it all up in the air and just accepting change is very fortunate. I think that some people just don't have that luxury for many different reasons, raising kids, finances tied up in another, disabilities, etc.

I think the point is that change will often descend upon a person whether they have the "luxury" of accepting it or not. In most of these cases there isn't really a choice in the matter, even if kids, finances, disabilities or any other number of things are involved. It's not about leaving things up in the air to invite change, it's about understanding that trying to build a life structure designed to prevent change doesn't actually have that much ability to prevent it.

It's a life skill to learn to roll with such changes when they happen.

 

[NeonKaos]

Well I sure wish my mother had given me veto power over her colon cancer.

I would have USED it, let me tell you.

That is all.

 

[Joreth]

If a "game-changer" relationship comes along that is not going to work in a family situation, then I think that the primary/secondary arrangement might want to hold fast and might want to assert some kind of control over the situation.

What do you think about this?

I think that's some pretty awesome magic you have to be able to prescript your family so that absolutely nothing can come along and change things. I'd love to be able to stop that speeding semi-truck that killed a friend of mine on the way to Disneyland for his birthday. Pretty fucked up game-changer, if you ask me.

The point Franklin was making in his post was not that all primary-defined relationships are bad, but that it's folly to expect that any rules you make under this arrangement will still be held when a game-changer comes along.

You can make all the rules you want about how your spouse will come home every night, but if he gets killed, he's going to be unlikely to continue to follow the rules. Getting killed is a game-changer.

The problem with game-changers is that they change the game, by definition. That means that any rules you make for your current "game" (i.e., relationship) are CHANGED. Franklin points out that we understand this about all other game-changers except relationships. For some reason, other relationships get held up to a totally unrealistic expectation that they are completely controllable, when no other force in the world is. We seem to want to think that we are able to control other people's thoughts, feelings, and actions, to keep our own lives from ever changing, even when we don't know if that change will ultimately work out for the better or not.

The more restrictive rules one makes to prohibit change, the more likely it is that one's "game" will break under the strain when the inevitable change comes along. It is far better to create a relationship that can withstand a job-offer-you-can't-refuse that changes something big, like where you live, than to build a relationship that collapses if the family merely changes location, especially when that move brings with it more money and personal satisfaction. That's a big change; it will completely change how the relationship looks, but it might be a change for the better, if you allow it to happen.

Franklin's post is merely pointing out that other relationships should be factored in the same way as all other game-changers.

If you meet another person, and he doesn't click with your existing arrangement, and you have decided that your existing arrangement is preferable, then that person is not a game-changer, by definition, because the game has not changed. But if you meet someone who manages to throw you so completely for a loop that all your existing arrangements no longer hold you in check, no longer dictate your actions, and you've decided that this new person is more preferable to your existing arrangement, THAT'S a game-changer.

You can't predict when this is going to happen, and you can't predict in what ways it will happen. This happens to people all the time, and none of them ever thought, "Well, I love my life as it is now, but one day, I'm going to fall head over heels in love with someone else that will negate my current relationship status." If we could predict it, we could prepare for it, and they wouldn't be game-changers, because we'd write that into the game. So it's better to build relationships that can accommodate and flex to meet this change, so that it does not become an either/or choice, rather than a set of rules so rigid that the relationship itself dissolves under the weight of the change. It's better to build a relationship where we don't have to choose between our spouse and our dream job in another state, rather than forcing our relationship to exist exactly in the manner it is today, for the next 50 years.

Being polyamorous in the first place is an example of this. Discovering that we are polyamorous, especially those who did so while in a then-monogamous relationship, can be a game changer. Now, of course there are some people who can exist happily in either poly or mono relationships, and those are not the people I'm speaking about because, by definition, discovering polyamory was not a game-changer for them.

But when someone in a monogamous couple discovers that they are polyamorous, and it's a game-changer, it's something that cannot be turned off, and it's something that the person absolutely must follow through on, that changes the rules of the game, those rules being monogamy. The strongest relationships are the ones that can flex, that can look at that change and say, "My relationship with you is strong enough to encompass other lovers." A transitioning couple can either break under the strain of polyamory, or it can bend and flex with change; it can either put away the Parcheesi board and play some Monopoly when one of the partners suddenly discovers Monopoly and really can't stand playing Parcheesi anymore, or the couple can throw the little pieces up in the air and toss the pressboard into the fire.

Franklin's point is that the more flexible the "rules" (meaning the more accommodating the relationship is to change), the stronger the relationship is, and the more likely it will be to morph into a *new* relationship under those new circumstances, and that might actually be a good thing.

But a relationship that rigidly defines the structure, and here is the important part, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING ITS STRUCTURE AGAINST CHANGE OUT OF FEAR OF CHANGE, since change is inevitable, that relationship has no room, no backup, no stretch to handle the change WHEN IT COMES. Because it will.

**continued**

 

[Joreth]

**continued**

This is not the same topic as defining boundaries and priorities.

For example, when two monogamous people begin dating each other, they do not hand each other keys to their houses on the first date. They do not exchange bank routing numbers, they do not give each other full and equal voting rights on things like where they live, what job they do, how to raise pre-existing children, etc. The relationship is too new and the necessary level of intimacy required for these kinds of decisions has not yet been reached.

These are reasonable and practical boundaries. People often also don't go on a first date and let go of all their emotional boundaries either, like sharing embarrassing stories, letting their date watch them poop or see them with whatever it is one feels embarrassed or vulnerable in. This is a new person, and it is yet unknown whether this person is worth that kind of risk, or if the relationship *wants* to move in that direction.

But part of the dating process in monogamous culture is the expectation that the relationship has the POTENTIAL to move in that direction (even while a vast majority never do). When 2 single people begin dating, they do not usually sit down with each other and one person says "OK, so dating me means that you only get to see me on Thursday nights, regardless of your own schedule, we will have sleepovers once every other week, you are allowed to call me by these pet names, and you can't come over to my home. Those are the rules to dating me and your input is not allowed. I have decreed this because I like my life exactly as it is and don't want any change, so therefore you are not allowed to impact my life in any meaningful way." Because if that's the way that person feels, he shouldn't be dating. Even casual sex has the potential to be a game-changer, with STDs and pregnancy an option (and the occasional stalker-psycho). Life IS change.

No, when two single people date, they say "so, I like you and I'd like to see you again, when are you free? Saturday? Well, I'm already booked on Saturday, but how about Sunday?" and the negotiation begins WITH INPUT FROM THE OTHER PERSON. It's a mutual negotiation between the two people who are IN THE RELATIONSHIP. Each person's wants and needs are taken into account and a mutual compromise is reached.

Take note, because I'm about to say something almost unheard of for me ... in this case, the monogamous people do it better than some poly people. Already-partnered poly people who begin dating someone new should wait until a new person is already in the picture before coming up with the laundry-list of rules, and consult that person so that everyone who is affected by this new relationship has some say in how the relationship looks.

And I'll repeat it because I'm sure someone will ask me "but what if we have kids? A new girlfriend shouldn't be able to dictate what I do with my kids, & they are my priority": Consulting the new partner & giving him a say in how his relationship looks does NOT mean making him an equal player with all the same rights and privileges as a spouse. It means asking him what he wants & negotiating with him directly.

OF COURSE you don't give a brand new dating partner parental rights, NO ONE would. But before you restrict them from the possibility, why don't you ask them if they even *want* to be a parental-figure sometime in the future? Someone who wants to move in right away and start parenting your kids? Probably not a good partner for you and a rule is unnecessary because you won't be dating them for long. Someone who wants you to neglect your kids for the new dating partner? Probably not a good partner for you and a rule is unnecessary because you won't be dating them for long. Someone who understands how important children are and your relationship with them and a stable home for them? Probably a good partner for you and a rule is unnecessary because they would naturally not want to do anything too fast or too pushy because they ALSO have the best interests of the children at heart and a mismatch on a particular detail can be cleared up with communication, not dictating a rule to control someone else's behaviour.

The kind of relationship that Franklin is talking about here is not people who have an obligation on Wednesdays so that night is just not available for a date. The kind of relationship that Franklin is talking about here is 2 (or more) people deciding FOR SOMEONE ELSE what that person's relationship will look like, without that person's input. And the reason for those decisions are to give the people making the decisions an illusory sense of control over the randomness and scary change that life brings.

IF YOU ARE NOT THIS PERSON THEN HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU.

When a person makes a blog post about a particular type of person found in a particular subset of the population, it does not necessarily follow that the blog poster is claiming that all people in that population are therefore this particular type of person.

Franklin has stated, repeatedly, that he is not opposed to boundaries, or even rules. He is often suspicious about people's motivations for their rules, and IF THEIR MOTIVATION IS X, then Z blog post is why he thinks that's bad.

It doesn't mean that he thinks all rules or boundaries are bad, or that he thinks everyone who makes rules or boundaries have X motivation. It means that THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE who have Motivation X that are manifested in Behaviours Y (that sometimes other people do but with Motivation C), are unhealthy, in his opinion. It doesn't mean that he thinks the word "primary" is always bad in all cases. He is specifying a particularly unhealthy and destructive motivation for PRESCRIPTIVE primary/secondary relationships, which is different from healthy motivations for describing one's relationship as "primary" or "secondary".

I think the question here ought to be why you read a blog post aimed at a specific type of person, as an attack on how you do things, if you don't think you do them the way he was saying. Reading oneself in other people's words when those people did not refer to one specifically and one can claim differences between one's situation and the other one being described, is awfully suggestive of, as Miss Poly Manners would say, something deeper going on.

 

[geminigirl]

I like what Franklin has to say, in a general sense.

Having been through more than a few radical game-changers in my own life (death, separation, partner falling in love with someone else to the exclusion of myself, illness), I think I can speak from a position of some experience when I say that it's BEST to be prepared for the fact that change both can and *will* occur in relationships. Creating a relationship structure in one's own mind that is so rigid that it won't allow for some change is a recipe for disappointment and possibly disaster.

On the other hand, creating a strong relationship that can flow with change is a desirable and wonderful goal. As with most things in my life, I start from my relationship with myself. If I know *I* can adapt to and withstand change, chances are my relationships can, too. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when, change will occur. Be ready for it.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

I liked the main theory behind the article. Where I felt it missed the mark is in trying to assume the reasons for protecting some "primary" relationships. Protecting households, financial arrangements and children, above all else, are a huge consideration that can only be appreciated if you have them yourself. I think of it like going to the funeral of a friend's mother when yours is still alive; you don't really get it.

Good article with good points, though. Great starting point for anyone looking at the possibilities and pitfalls.

 

[redpepper]

I think the point is that change will often descend upon a person whether they have the "luxury" of accepting it or not. In most of these cases there isn't really a choice in the matter, even if kids, finances, disabilities or any other number of things is involved. It's not about leaving things up in the air to invite change. It's about understanding that trying to build a life structure designed to prevent change doesn't actually have that much ability to prevent it.

It's a life skill to learn to roll with such changes when they happen.

Yes, I can agree with that. Change happens regardless. I guess it is hard to tell sometimes, when you get into something, where it will end up. It is always important to be ready to take care of things for yourself in case everything blows up in your face. I have preached that many a time, when people come on here who have given their entire lives over to others to take care of, rather than looking after themselves, for instance. I guess it's more in my nature to back right away if I see a "game-changing" situation arising that is going to be more of a hurricane mess to clean up after than legitimate useful change.

 

[Ceoli]

Protecting households, financial arrangements and children. above all else, are a huge consideration that can only be appreciated if you have them yourself. I think of it like going to the funeral of a friend's mother when yours is still alive; you don't really get it.

I'm going to disagree with that. I've mentioned this in other threads. We all have households and financial arrangements, whether we are single or partnered. It always amazes me when people think that single people don't have such things to consider in their lives because they have free-flying fancy-free lives. I have financial obligations. It just so happens that I don't have a partner who helps me with those. I have obligations and financial commitments to my family. Simply because I don't have a partner who is involved in that doesn't mean that I don't have things to protect or maintain.

I don't have kids. However, I don't think the fact that I don't have kids prevents me from being able to appreciate the issues that arise when children are involved. I find that argument to slightly offensive (though I don't think any offense was intended) whenever issues like these arise, because it is simply implying, "You couldn't possibly know and you would probably agree with me if you did have kids." Yes, I don't know the *exact* feelings involved were it *my* child involved, but there are children in my life for whom I care deeply enough that I would give my life so that they could live. I have worked with children for most of my professional life and it is possible to understand the issues that family and kids can bring into the mix without having had any kids yourself.

If I'm going to the funeral of my friend's mother, I do get it. Simply because I don't have the same emotional reaction to it as my friend doesn't mean that I can't understand the depth of my friend's grief. Both sympathy and empathy are applied in such situations.

I guess it's more in my nature to back right away if I see a "game changing" situation arising that is going to be more of a hurricane mess to clean up after than legitimate useful change.

I think if it were a real game-changer, backing away would be an option that would cause you more pain than shifting with it.

And I summarily reject the notion that having a secondary would be 'cruel' to them. For me it's a matter of managing expectations. Love may not be finite, but time and resources are, and a lot of both are already committed. There's a lot I could say to expand on these, but the gist, I think, could be fairly well understood.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "secondary." If you mean you will never ever ever allow yourself to love your secondary as much as your wife, or that you will never ever allow your secondary to be as important to you as your wife, well... some people who would take on a "secondary" role in a relationship would agree with you that it's not cruel. However, I know several people who would consider that cruel, indeed.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

I'm going to disagree with that.

I respect your right to disagree. I stand by my belief. I agree to disagree.

 

[Joreth]

The fact is that some relationships/households really DO have those motivations, therefore, it's not off the mark. If he said everyone who ever took a new partner while already partnered always did this for these reasons, he'd be wrong. But he didn't say that, he addressed those relationships that DO. A person can address a specific type of person without addressing other types of people. It doesn't mean he missed the mark by not talking about those other types of people, it means that he wrote efficiently for the available space.

People who do it that way exist. Many poly people who have ever been single while being poly have met them. Most of us have been burned by them. This belief that their households, their obligations, their children, their careers, their homes, are more important than ours simply because there is two of them sharing it is selfish and cruel. It places all the weight on their own lives and choices and gives no consideration for the new person.

I have my own home and my own life and my own career. It's not a job, it's a career. I went to school for it and I've worked for the last 15 years to build it up to where it is currently. I love my career, it's all I've ever wanted to do. Moving to another state would require me to start all over from scratch because of the nature of my career. If I were to get involved with someone who was partnered and in another location, not only is there no legitimate reason to assume that I should be the one to move, but in many cases, it would cause less upheaval for them to move to me, in certain circumstances.

Even with children. Non-poly folk with children move all the time. "Stability" does not mean no change ever. In fact, I think children are done a disservice when protected from all change ever. Children handle moves just fine when the parents do their job of parenting the children. It might even be an advantageous move for the children if there are better schools or more opportunity for them in the new location. I moved when I was a kid and it wasn't traumatic. My friends moved when they were kids and they got over it just fine. One of my friends moved a lot with a single mother who didn't pay her any attention and had boyfriend after boyfriend after husband after new husband come and go. That friend has issues, not because there was change in her life, but because her mother wasn't a good parent, in a variety of ways. And it had absolutely nothing to do with being poly and having "secondaries" not know their place - her mother was monogamous.

And, don't forget, not everyone has children, or children young enough to require full-time caregivers. I have never heard anyone who takes the position that a new partner should have a say in their relationship, claim that the new partner gets to override what's best for the children. So stop jumping in with "but what about the children?" because that has ALWAYS been an acceptable caveat.

But couples without children do this same sort of "protect the primary at the expense of the newcomer" thing too, and it's hurtful and cruel to the newcomer to be solipsistic and make rules to "protect the primary" without even giving the new person a chance to show that he has no intention of hurting the primary, or that his life and his wants are important too.

It is a little bit insulting (even if no insult was intended) to assume that someone who does not have any children currently doesn't understand what it's like to raise children. It's yet another example of not having any empathy for other people and for thinking the world revolves around you because NO ONE could possibly know what YOU're going through as if you've cornered the market on how to care for children.

Starting with the assumption that your future new partner won't have a clue about how to adequately care for children and will demand a relationship with you that completely steamrolls over your current obligations, and so therefore requires a rule in place to keep her in line is both offensive and futile. If you do happen to meet someone like that, I propose that she won't make it to "new partner" status because of her insensitivity towards you and your family, and that, if she really IS that insensitive, then a rule isn't going to stop her from behaving insensitively anyway because, well, she's insensitive. If she doesn't care about the best outcome for your family, your rules have no hold over her, no power to make her behave. If she does care about you and your family, you won't need a rule to keep her in line because she will WANT to do what's best for everyone, including the children, and the details can be sorted out by communication with her, not telling her how she will behave because you have decreed it so.

I helped raise my nephew, so I DO know what goes into raising a child. My sister was a single mother and lived with me. I was there, up all night when he had colic, I stayed home with him when his circumcision surgery got botched, I helped him with his homework, I fed him when he wouldn't latch on to his mother, and I was there for my sister when her milk dried up because she wasn't feeding. I was there, in the hospital room when he was born. To say that I don't understand the obligations a family with children has and that I will automatically make demands on my partners with children that would be harmful or less-than optimal for them because I don't have children of my own is just rude.

Plus, I have a background in family counseling, with a specialization on the children in the family. Many currently-childless people have exposure to children, and a lot of them are currently childless precisely because we understand the effort it takes to raise them and are waiting until our lives are in a position to give them what they need to be raised well.

We know people with children, we might work in jobs dealing with children (some single people I know are better prepared for how to deal with children than new parents are simply because they have training and experience with kids where the new parents don't), and we have the ability to feel empathy for other humans, to put ourselves in their position, to feel compassion, and to look at a situation and see the best outcome possible. Which seems to be a great deal more considerate than some of those families who assume that their family is more important than a single person and so therefore pass rules to make the single person behave respectfully towards their own family without considering how disrespectful it is towards the single person.

**continued**

 

[Joreth]

**continued**

You can't make a person be more respectful or make someone love you. If a person is disrespectful or doesn't love you, your rules mean nothing to them because they are disrespectful or don't love you. If someone is respectful or loves you, your rules are unnecessary because they already ARE respectful or love you. A respectful person who loves you will have it in his best interests to behave respectfully or lovingly, even if it requires a little communication to sort out the details of what that means. A disrespectful person or someone who doesn't love you has no reason to follow your rules so you can make all the rules you want and it won't stop them from doing exactly what you are trying to prevent.

And if I have to qualify my statement one more time with "I am talking about a certain type of person who does this, not all people, and, by definition, those people who do this are people who do this", then I'm going to have to assume the person requiring the qualification has a reading comprehension problem and I'll suggest going back to school.

It's just amazing to me that someone can write "I'm going to talk about a specific type of person who does X right now" and people can read it and get all pissy. It seems as though they read it and assume he's talking about them, so when they don't do X as he writes, they get offended as if he said that THEY do X when they don't. Or when he doesn't talk about every single other type of person that exists, they get offended that he *didn't* talk about them (because they don't see themselves as that type of person).

You wrote about people who go cliff-diving as a subconscious desire to commit suicide. I like cliff diving, but I don't want to die. Therefore you're wrong in saying the reason some people cliff-dive is to commit suicide and I'm offended that you would lump me into that category.

You wrote about people who go cliff-diving as a subconscious desire to commit suicide. But you didn't talk about people who go cliff diving for the adrenaline rush, or the people who commit suicide by driving recklessly or slitting their throats. You didn't talk about all these other people, therefore you're wrong in saying that some people go cliff-diving as a subconscious desire to die because not everyone does and I'm offended that you left out every single other person on the planet in your blog post about cliff-diving suicide jumpers.

Not everything is about "you" (writing in the second person, not any particular person reading this). Some of us talk about people who are not "you". If "you" don't fit the description of the person being talked about, chances are, it's not "you" and that's OK because we're allowed to talk about people who aren't "you".

Other people are important and deserve consideration for their wants and needs too. When a single poly person complains about their treatment from *some* partnered poly people, those criticism are valid and deserve to be heard because single poly people are just as important in their relationships as already-partnered poly people, and talking about their experiences with poly are a valuable source for the community even if their experiences don't match "yours". The response should not go "I've never done it that way, therefore you should stop complaining about it." The response could go "that's interesting, I've never experienced that, perhaps if you don't like that experience, you should try dating someone who doesn't do it that way because there are others out there who don't do that." but it should not then tack on "and since there are those who don't do that, you are wrong to say that anyone does."

Since a newcomer is a person too with needs and wants of their own and a right to be considered, the balance of needs should not go "Original Couple vs. New Single", the balance should go "Person A + Person B + Person C = Best For The Whole Group" where each individual has their own chance to be heard and considered with equal weight. Notice I said "considered with equal weight", not that everyone's position is exactly equal to the others. The *outcome* might result in something favoring the original couple, but that should be because it's best for the group as a whole, not because the original couple's situation is automatically more important by default without even considering how it affects the newcomer. Not all outcomes that initially appear to favor the original couple are actually best for the group as a whole, or even the original couple in the long run.

 

[NeonKaos]

Not everything is about "you" (writing in the third person, not any particular person reading this). Some of us talk about people who are not "you". If "you" don't fit the description of the person being talked about, chances are, it's not "you" and that's OK because we're allowed to talk about people who aren't "you".

I happen to think that some people who call themselves "poly" do so because they want to sleep around and have it be considered a noble thing.

If that is not "you", then I am not referring to "you".

 

[Ceoli]

I have my own home and my own life and my own career. It's not a job, it's a career. I went to school for it and I've worked for the last 15 years to build it up to where it is currently. I love my career, it's all I've ever wanted to do. Moving to another state would require me to start all over from scratch because of the nature of my career. If I were to get involved with someone who was partnered and in another location, not only is there no legitimate reason to assume that I should be the one to move, but in many cases, it would cause less upheaval for them to move to me, in certain circumstances.

This is something that I've always wondered about. I've often come across this thing in conversations and in various forums. I've often heard about how single people have less responsibility than married people. Married people have homes to consider, careers, etc. Single people have less to consider and more freedom.

I'm single and I still have to keep a roof over my head. In fact, I have to do that on my own, without the support of a partner and sharing finances. I still have to do all the same things we do to survive that married people have to do, except that I have to do it by myself. In some ways that makes transitions a hell of a lot harder because there is far less of a safety net in place.

It is a little bit insulting (even if no insult was intended) to assume that someone who does not have any children currently doesn't understand what it's like to raise children. It's yet another example of not having any empathy for other people and for thinking the world revolves around you because NO ONE could possibly know what YOU're going through as if you've cornered the market on how to care for children.

Yep, it is a little bit insulting. I do not presume to speak for or know what's best for other people with children. However, that does not mean that I am unable to understand the issues that are faced by people with children in relationships. Hell, if people weren't capable of understanding the needs of kids without having them, we would have no teachers and no counsellors and family-service workers, because how could they possibly understand if they don't have kids, or if they're dealing with kids that aren't their own?

Starting with the assumption that your future new partner won't have a clue about how to adequately care for children and will demand a relationship with you that completely steamrolls over your current obligations, and so therefore requires a rule in place to keep her in line is both offensive and futile.

Yep. And it really does come down to what kinds of assumptions you make about the people you choose to get involved with. Why would I get involved with someone if I was assuming they were a threat? If I'm going to get involved with someone, I'm going to assume that they're a pretty decent person based on the little clues I get. Now, they may prove my assumptions wrong later, down the road, and at that point, I'd probably break up with that person. But why would I want to get involved with someone I'm assuming is a bad person, and just wait for them to prove me wrong, that they're actually a good person? It seems that a lot of partnered poly people treat a new person in a relationship with just this kind of probation. No, thanks. I'm interested in dating people, not probation.

 

[LovingRadiance]

I liked the article. I didn't take it the same way as some did, I guess.

My impression was more that the beginning was an acknowledgement of how he generally feels, sort of an, "Okay, just so you know before you go on, this is my general take on this stuff, so if it seems to color my 'argument,' please be aware that it is me writing, not someone else for me."

I adore Maca. I love him deeply, madly. I can't imagine a life without him in it and I don't foresee that ever changing. In fact, this weekend I was explaining to him that HIM leaving me (if that were to occur) wouldn't change this fact for me. Part of how this came up is that I tattooed his name on my body (something I've wanted to do for years). He believes a person should never tattoo someone else's name to their body, as many people do, "Because you never know what might change." I personally disagree. I don't know what will happen in regards to us being together. I can't predict the future. But in all of my life I've never believed or experienced love "stopping." And even if it did, history wouldn't be deleted. Therefore, I'd have no reason to regret documenting it.

That said, GG is not secondary to me. He might feel secondary. Maca might consider him secondary. I don't know for sure how they feel. But I do know how I feel, and my next tattoo will be his name opposite Maca's, because likewise, I love him, and will love him no matter the direction our relationship takes.

While I do understand the theory behind primary/secondary, I've concluded that I'm not willing to have sexual relationships with people who aren't primary to my life.

I have kids, and they are well aware of my "lifestyle." I don't believe in disrupting their security, which is why I limit my lovers to those I have good reasons to believe will be permanent fixtures in my life and the kids' lives.

 

[SchrodingersCat]

If I'm going to the funeral of my friend's mother, I do get it. Simply because I don't have the same emotional reaction to it as my friend doesn't mean that I can't understand the depth of my friend's grief. Both sympathy and empathy are applied in such situations.

I have to call bullshit. There's no comparison between "understanding the depth of my friend's grief" and "feeling the depth of my friend's grief." I fully grant that yes, you can understand, sympathize, and empathize with your friend. You might "get it" in an intellectual and empathic sense, but that's not the same as "getting it" in the sense of actually having those feelings. That's not "simply because you don't have the same emotional reaction," because even two siblings losing the same mother will not have the same emotional reaction. You can understand THAT it's extremely difficult, but you can not understand HOW difficult until you live it. There is no substitute for first-hand experience.

Non-poly folk with children move all the time. "Stability" does not mean no change ever. In fact, I think children are done a disservice when protected from all change ever. Children handle moves just fine when the parents do their job of parenting the children. It might even be an advantageous move for the children if there are better schools or more opportunity for them in the new location. I moved when I was a kid and it wasn't traumatic. My friends moved when they were kids and they got over it just fine. One of my friends moved a lot with a single mother who didn't pay her any attention and had boyfriend after boyfriend after husband after new husband come and go. That friend has issues, not because there was change in her life, but because her mother wasn't a good parent, in a variety of ways. And it had absolutely nothing to do with being poly and having "secondaries" not know their place - her mother was monogamous.

To me, this is so much more relevant than "you don't know what it's like unless you have kids." The point is, no reasonable parent is going to choose partners who might harm their children, whether they're poly or mono. In fact, a poly couple with transient partners provides much more stability than a monogamous single parent who always has different boyfriends living with her.

Kids are so much more resilient than we give them credit for. The most important thing is to show them unconditional love and acceptance, and keep an open channel of communication. If you have that, you can get away with a whole lot of mistakes and bad decisions, and most kids will still turn out basically alright.

Stability is not the magic bullet to raising kids to be healthy adults. Neglect can be "stable." You can send them to the best school, give them the best nannies, predictable unchanging environments with two parents who miss all of their baseball games, school concerts, and basically their whole lives... and guess what? You'll fuck them up. But one thing those kids do have is "stability": they can predict with utter certainty that come opening night when they get the lead role in a production 4 years from now, Daddy will be away on business and Mummy will be out drinking with her friends. Sure, Nana will be there, in the front row, waving and smiling, because that's what Daddy pays her to do. Stable doesn't necessarily mean happy & healthy.

Heck, my parents made a lot of mistakes. They let me see things that kids shouldn't see, do things that kids shouldn't do... but I always knew that I was loved and accepted for who I was, that who I was as a person was more important than what I accomplished at school or on the soccer field. And I think I turned out pretty alright. I'm happy and successful -- what more could you ask for?

 

[Ceoli]

I have to call bullshit. There's no comparison between "understanding the depth of my friend's grief" and "feeling the depth of my friend's grief." I fully grant that yes, you can understand, sympathize, and empathize with your friend. You might "get it" in an intellectual and empathic sense, but that's not the same as "getting it" in the sense of actually having those feelings. That's not "simply because you don't have the same emotional reaction," because even two siblings losing the same mother will not have the same emotional reaction. You can understand THAT it's extremely difficult, but you can not understand HOW difficult until you live it. There is no substitute for first-hand experience.

First, I've repeatedly said that there is indeed a difference between understanding such experiences and feeling such experiences. I've never claimed that I can feel such things so I'm not sure where the bullshit is that you're calling.

Second, yes there is a difference, but as I said, that does not limit me being able to UNDERSTAND the issues that can be faced by parents and children in situations. To claim that having not had the experience of having kids renders me incapable of understanding the issues that can surround the experiences of being a parent is bullshit. If that were the case, I might as well quit my job because I work closely with parents and kids and rely on such understanding to do what I do. I have never claimed that this is the same thing as being able to feel the same things that parents feel. I'm just saying that simply because I don't feel the same things, that still does not make my perspective irrelevant.

 

[Derbylicious]

There's a lot about kids on here so I just want to clarify something from my point of view of the discussion here. It's not so much that someone without children can't understand what it's like to raise a child, it's that until you have a child it's hard to truly get that this little person's needs come before anyone else's (including your own). I am talking about this from my own perspective, however. Maybe other people really can get what it's like to have a child without having had one themselves. Before having my kids, though, I never knew someone could be that important to me.

I may not be able to say that for sure, forever, any partner will be the number-one person in my life, but I can say that about my kids. Therefore, it is important to put time and energy into the relationship I have with their father. Maybe down the line there will be a 'game-changer' relationship. We've been through enough together and have enough respect for one another that we will work out what our relationship will look like down the road.

I think that giving a new partner's needs the same weight right off the bat is cruel to those already involved in the relationship. I would never presume that someone I have just started dating should make their schedule fit my own. I have not earned that level of consideration. As things develop and you become more important to one another, that may change (or it may never change). But I think those already invested in the relationship can and should have more of a say in how anyone new added to the dynamic will fit it.

-Derby

 

[NeonKaos]

It's not so much that someone without children can't understand what it's like to raise a child ect it's that until you have a child it's hard to truly get that this little person's needs come before anyone else's (including your own).

Um, no. I don't have kids, don't want them, and I CAN understand that and I have said so many many times, and so have others on this forum who don't have them.

What was said above is very insulting to me because I have made a choice not to be a parent for the very reason that I do not want to put some "little person's needs" before my own. I also have a very low threshold for handling stress and I do not think that creating a new human being to add to the world would be a wise thing for me to do. How is it that that is NOT understanding that my (hypothetical) child's needs come before my own? I'd say it's a pretty damn good understanding, combined with an understanding of my own weaknesses and limitations. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who do create children who don't have a CLUE that the child comes first, and they act like it. There is no magic switch that can only be flipped by a baby crossing a birth canal that causes someone to become a responsible adult.



If that's your perspective, try using the pronoun "me" or "I" instead of "you". I realize that it's the general "you" not "you" as in a particular individual on this board, but when describing something about oneself, the first-person tense is proper, not the second-person tense.

 

[Derbylicious]

It wasn't a personal attack. Y Girl was right I should have used 'me' instead of 'you'. As I said in my original post I was talking from my perspective as I didn't really 'get' it until after I had children.

-Derby

 

[NeonKaos]

This thread has been locked and some posts have been sent to the moderation queue in order to give people a chance to cool off.