Survey of couple priority

Everyone has their own definitions for various words, especially poly words. To let you know, we often see situations where there is a married couple (who are primary partners to each other), and a third person (who is a secondary partner to one or both of the spouses). Couple priority -- better known as couple privilege -- means that the married couple's needs get priority over the third person's needs. Fortunately that's not how everyone does things. Sometimes "secondary" merely means less time/material commitment on the part of the secondary partner.

But as I said, everyone has their own definitions for various words, so all you can draw from this post is a sketch of how some people define things, and hopefully that could clear up some of the confusion. (I am sort of speaking of the whole thread here, not just CherryBlossomGirl's recent post.)
 
I think "couple privilege" gets a lot of undue flack. I think a lot of people who aren't in that situation believe it works like this: "I prioritize my spouse/primary because they're my spouse/primary." Not: "This person is my spouse/primary because we've been through so much together and we've both invested a lot of time and energy into this relationship. I prioritize them because of this investment."

Like... yeah... when someone's been there to clean up your puke during a really bad stomach flu, and someone new shows up holding some really nice flowers... sorry, but flowers don't equal cleaning up my puke.

This is where poly relationships greatly diverge from the "love your kids the same" analogy. Your new baby is just as much your child as the first one, so yeah, you're going to aim not to give one privilege over the other. But partners aren't children, we're not beholden to them by their mere presence in our lives, and it's completely reasonable to expect them to earn their place at the dinner table.
 
I prefer earned privilege, myself.
 
How long?

I get that new relationship can't be equal to existing relationship from the start but how long before they are, 1 year or 3 years or 5 years. At what point can a secondary relationship expect not be have to endure couple privilege ?
 
Like others have said, it's more a question of "what have you done?" Have you brought me tea when I'm sick? Taken care of my kitties when I'm out of town? Woken up at 4 a.m. to drive me to the airport? Have you sat down with me to discuss the issue and found out what I'm looking for in a co-primary relationship?

Auto and I have been together about 28 months, and we still prioritize our marriages and households. It's not a matter of relationship duration but rather a choice we've both consciously made and agreed upon. For us, it's mostly a priority of time. And that has absolutely no bearing on my feelings for her. I don't love her less than I would if we lived together. Actually, probably more, because cohabiting harmoniously with people isn't really in my skillset.

It's important to realize that not everyone in a so-called secondary position actually wants to move to equal footing. If they do, then they'll make choices towards that goal. And even then, there needs to be discussion about what your goals are for the relationship. Maybe the person isn't in a position to grant you the status you desire, and then you have a choice to make about staying in a less prioritized position or moving on to a new relationship.
 
westVan said:
I get that new relationship can't be equal to existing relationship from the start but how long before they are, 1 year or 3 years or 5 years. At what point can a secondary relationship expect not be have to endure couple privilege ?
Click to expand...

We are talking about couple privilege as "sweat equity" as well as a "hierarchical rule-set". I think "couple privilege" is appropriate for both of these concepts but it is a little bit confusing to talk about them simultaneously as if they are the same thing.

Hierarchical rule-sets which enforce couple privilege is probably what you are talking about having to "endure". It's this concept that "we are the married couple, and you are the other thing". It suggests that there is an inherent purity in being the original relationship which can't or won't be duplicated. Essentially, it's an immovable barrier to entry. I find it highly unlikely that a relationship started under this kind of structure is likely to change. So my answer to your question would be "until you break up with them".

Sweat equity is a different concept all together, though from the outside I see how it could be confused for this hierarchical restriction. As with any relationship, a couple or group who have shared a lot, spent time together, endured hardship, and come out stronger for it is likely to be a pretty strong bond. It's like finding a new group of friends who all have inside jokes and tell stories from the good old days... it can be tough to feel like you're being included and it can be tough to find your place of comfort within their relationships.

However, sweat equity privilege has to be earned... there's just no way to get around it. Holding a cold rag on someones neck when they are hunched over the toilet with a fever builds intimacy, sky diving together builds intimacy, sexual sharing over years builds intimacy... if we want to make our way into a couple or group with this kind of privilege it's going to take some work.

Further, if time and experience proves to not let us feel that we are a part of then we may just need to realize that there just isn't a similar chemistry between us and them. Perhaps I will never be as close to a woman as her husband is because our personalities just don't line up like that. While this might look like a hierarchical tyranny... it might just be a personality issue.
 
Marcus said:
Sweat equity is a different concept all together, though from the outside I see how it could be confused for this hierarchical restriction.
Click to expand...

Well said Marcus. "Sweat equity" is as close to perfect an analogy as I've seen to describe the phenomenon of relationship building. It doesn't really matter what kind of interpersonal relationship one is entering into, one really does have to "earn" a place through their own efforts. Although each person added to the equation adds a level of complexity to the process, it's still essentially the same process.

When it comes to romantic/sexual relationships, it doesn't really matter if we're talking about two people, five, or ten in the relationship. When two single people meet they both earn standing in the eyes of the other. They "earn a place" in the mind, heart, and perhaps undergarments of the other person. As the relationship progresses, each person achieves a higher place in the structure of the other person's overall life.

People new to an existing poly arrangement should remember that they are indeed "outsiders" to a point. In a healthy poly relationship, the newbie can indeed progress to a point of equity to the other members of the relationship, it just takes time. Just don't expect this to happen overnight. There's no according-to-Hoyle time frame anyone can legitimately quote. It's all about the individuals involved, and that can include many factors indeed.

There's a big difference between handing your car keys to someone you just met in a bar and handing them to someone you've known for 10 years. This shouldn't be perceived necessarily as a slight against the person from the bar, it's simply an indication that the relationship just isn't at that point yet.

Relationships are an investment of love, time, energy and many other things. Don't expect big dividends right off the bat, enjoy the smaller daily payouts while you watch your personal investment grow.
 
westVan said:
At what point can a secondary relationship expect not be have to endure couple privilege ?
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't tolerate it from the start.

Personally, if I find myself "enduring" something shitty in a relationship and can't wait for the day I no longer have to keep on enduring it - then, that relationship isn't working. Sounds soul-sucking to me.

That doesn't mean I expect all things to be "equal" if I'm involved with a partnered person. What the hell would equal look like, anyway? "You hugged your wife 46 times this week, so now you owe me 46 hugs?" It's not about symmetry.

There is always a "getting to know you" phase of a newly blossoming relationship, and I am not saying that after a few dates I would expect to be on equal standing as a wife of 20 years. However, my being a new lover should not mean that I am automatically less important or less worthy of one's time, respect, and energy than an already-established partner. In my relationships, I want to feel respected, valued, and know that my concerns matter. I want a voice and need to be heard. If I'm seeing a guy, he can consider me a secondary if he needs to use that term, but don't ever let me feel treated like a secondary!

An existing relationship doesn't have to be "downgraded" for a new relationship to be treated equally in consideration and respect. And that equality doesn't mean that everyone will get everything (time, attention, sex, and so on) in exactly the same amounts. It just means that the needs of any partner or lover are prioritized like triage in an emergency room, with more flexible decision-making and an openness/willingness to flow with life's changes and uncertainties, and not automatically based on which partner has the most longevity.

If someone I'm seeing respectfully tells me they can't see me because of an existing work or family commitment, fine. I may be disappointed if I have my heart set on it, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal. We all have calendars and commitments to abide by, so it's not really a problem to have to work out scheduling issues and have limited time with someone. I also have no problem with designating certain times with one person as private and not to be interrupted by another except for emergencies. However, if I ask for someone's time I do not want to be set aside tentatively "in case" another (more important) partner might need to see him, nor will I tolerate being asked to reschedule to accommodate another partner's preferences more often than is reasonable.

An egalitarian approach doesn't mean that everything is always equally balanced, but it does mean that I strive to never let anyone I'm involved with ever feel that they've been treated as less important to me than anyone else. I would not date people who did not also strive for that in their relationships. So, that means that if someone I'm seeing tells me I'm "not allowed" to do some activity with him, express certain feelings, or make decisions about my relationship with him based on his wife/partner's insecurities or need to feel more important to him than I am, or because she wants only certain things he does to be reserved only for her, that would never work for me.

I run my own relationships and will not submit to a predetermined pecking order established by someone I'm not in relationship with.

For me, each relationship I am in is managed on its own merits, each person's autonomy and agency are equally respected and honored. All my lovers are special to me in their own unique ways, but not in comparison to whoever or whatever else is in my life.

The couple-centric model, with two people clinging desperately onto this idea that their relationship is more "sacred," more privileged, and more important than any others they have, is distasteful to me. I never understand how anyone can allow themselves to get involved with someone who treats them like an appendage to their Holy Dyad, an add-on, "extra," or a satellite orbiting around them. Couple privilege goes hand in hand with OPPs, and leads to all sorts of disrespectful treatment, like one dyad setting rules about how another dyad can conduct their relationship, reading a metamour's emails, or monitoring a partner's communications and activities with their other lovers. It's all about making sure that the couple at center holds the #1 place in each other's priorities and hearts. However, if that is what a couple wants, better to be Open and have casual flings with people who aren't interested in letting their hearts get involved, than to be Poly.

Thank goodness there are couples out there who are not so couple-centric to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, and well-put (re: above 3.5 posts).

It comes down to personal preference, and what behaviours can you abide in your partners?

If you want to have your needs taken as equally important as those of other partners, then choose your partners appropriately. Don't date people with a hierarchical rule-set. It's pretty easy to identify these people, and staying away from them is simply a matter of asking the right questions during the "getting to know you" phase.

There's no point "looking down" on couples with hierarchical rule-sets. They're just trying to meet their own needs and protect something they value. There's nothing wrong with that. People who get involved in these relationships and expect to be treated as equals are just as responsible for things not working out as the people in the primary couple.

In other words, take responsibility for your own needs. They're your needs: own them. Don't blame it on other people when your needs don't get met. Just accept it and move on to people more likely to meet your needs.
 
SchrodingersCat said:
staying away from them is simply a matter of asking the right questions during the "getting to know you" phase.
Click to expand...

What would you ask to find out if a couple has a hierarchical rule-sets?

SchrodingersCat said:
There's no point "looking down" on couples with hierarchical rule-sets. They're just trying to meet their own needs and protect something they value. There's nothing wrong with that. People who get involved in these relationships and expect to be treated as equals are just as responsible for things not working out as the people in the primary couple.
Click to expand...

I agree and like the way you phrased this.
 
I always ask whether they are allowed to have (another) girlfriend. That always seems to either give a "yes", "we haven't talked about that..." or a "no, something closer to a FWB". If they say the last one, we can start to chat about what differentiates a girlfriend from a FWB and I cam assess if their boundaries will allow me to get any needs met.
 
copperhead said:
What would you ask to find out if a couple has a hierarchical rule-sets?
Click to expand...

Some questions are direct and obvious. "What kind of relationship agreements do you have with your spouse? Do any of these agreements limit your behaviours with other people?"

But they might not have that awareness, or they might not have made actual spoken agreements, assuming that these things will be obvious to each other when the situations arise. Those are the dangerous ones.

So there are probably some sneaky questions you can ask, like "so what do you and your spouse do to protect your marriage?" Their reaction to that could tell you a lot. e.g.
  • "We communicate, we respect each other's needs, we treat each other with care and compassion" would be a good sign -- it shows awareness that relationships are nourished from within, not by excluding others.
  • Red flags would be more like "We don't need protecting. We're rock-solid, nothing could tear us apart." Any relationship can be torn apart by inner neglect, and being unaware of that simple fact is a sign that you're already heading down that road.
  • If they focus on things more in-line with "armour" for "protecting" then you're well past red flags and right into the danger zone.


Come to think of it, I guess it's not always possible to find out early on, either. Some couples might think they're egalitarian and totally open, and then only put up walls when insecurities rear their heads. My intuition is that you would start to get a feel for these couples after going through a few of them, but obviously that means a few hard lessons.
 
LovingRadiance said:
Loved Marcus's answer.

"sweat equity".
I like it. I'm going to remember that. :)
Click to expand...

For the sake of impressing you I will agree that the phrase was entirely of my design :)
 
LOL! Marcus, sometimes you are just hilarious.
At any rate, I think it's a valuable way of explaining things.

People are forever wondering about "when" and "how" someone reaches a point where they have the same privileges as someone else.

Which frustrates me at times, because it is a VERY VERY different concept than being treated equally.

Being treated equally means-you go through the same basic steps to earn your privileges.
Thus-if person A has been here earning said privileges for the last 10 years, it stands to reason that you have some years to put in IF and when you are ever going to "catch up".
Which does NOT mean that you aren't going to be treated with the same level of respect and consideration.
But it does mean that there are differences.

And-I don't think that is so different from raising kids. I have 5 kids. Just because the oldest earned the privilege to drive in xx year, does not mean that the same year they ALL earn that privilege. They can't earn it without A) being the right age B) having the standard of behavior required C) having the ability to pass the tests required
The same with how late they can stay up at night or how late they can be away from the house or how far they can go from the house.

Currently we have a 14 year old and a 7 year old at home. One has the privilege of being out past 9pm on certain evenings, for certain events. The other does NOT.
One has the privilege of taking a 4-wheeler to go places, the other does NOT.
One has a driving permit, one does NOT.
One has cell phone privileges, the other does NOT.

That doesn't mean that we don't love both equally. It doesn't mean we don't treat them fairly. It doesn't mean that we favor one over the other. It doesn't mean that the older one has "I came first privilege" over the other.

It means that the time required to show a level of responsibility that earns said privileges has been met by one, but not the other.

Likewise in my romances (and friendships for that matter) there is a similar process.

BUT-there are also things no one else will ever be able to do.
Maca was by my side to deliver two babies. My sister was by my side for one. I won't be having ANY MORE ever again. So no one else will be able to prove their ability in that venue. There are privileges that go along with that and no one else can earn them.

There are always going to be differences in relationships, for a variety of reasons. Those differences do affect what level of depth, trust, comfort, etc can be/will be established.

In some areas I am closer to Maca than anyone else. In other ways I am closer to my brother than anyone else. In still other ways I am closer to my oldest daughter than anyone else.
The things I have shared with each of them individually are things no one else can ever share with me. Having babies, growing up where we had to take care of ourselves, being a single parent/child together for 6 years.
These are experiences that aren't going to happen again. The closeness we share, the glances that we can give to each other in topics that remind us of those moments, the ways we can look at each other and know what the other is thinking-when something comes up that is a reminder of those moments;no one else will have those privileges.

But-they can have other privileges all their own which won't be shared by those people. My oldest daughter will never have the experiences my son and I share. Because she moved out first-and it left him and I to share experiences together that she missed. She never got to go to college classes with me, he did. He and I can discuss statistics and psychology in depth-where she has no clue.

GG and I share a number of experiences that Maca doesn't, can't. Because he wasn't there and they aren't repeatable.

It's a part of life.

But how far in you can get-that is all about your sweat equity. If you put little in, you get little out.

(and yes, I realize some people are different-but that's why I appreciate your post so much-because it differentiates between heirachy/effort&time)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top