Limits

E

Emmy37

New member
I've been reading threads, following links, bookmarking blogs etc. and I see a common theme in many of them about setting limits within the relationships. I also see the relationships being referred to as primary and secondary. Something about these things doesn't sit well with me but they seem so important in every other poly relationship so maybe I'm wrong? I've also had discussions with my husband about these things in an attempt to sort out my thoughts. So here they are if anyone would be willing to give me some outside perspective.

1) Limits within the new relationship being set by me or my having a say in them.

My question is why would I want to or even need to? The relationship between them is their business. Whatever limits work for them are the right ones. I have no business telling them how to "run" their relationship. Especially since I would not appreciate the same thing being done to me.

2) Primary and secondary labels sit really badly with me. Just thinking about S as a "secondary" puts this horrible pit in the bottom of my stomach. She's a human being, same as me, so my mind tells me she deserves just as much love, time and devotion as I do in our relationship with B. Perhaps more because their relationship is newer. I've had more than 13 years to get to know B on an intimate level, she has not had that time.

Thoughts? Am I missing something important that should be considered?
 
I think when you start off in a marriage or a committed relationship where you have financial or family entanglements the relationship is the "primary" or the dominant relationship. That relationship naturally takes priority over someone that you're dating. There are people that prefer to be in secondary style of relationships and if that intention going in I think it's fine.

As far as limits go I think every relationship has certain limits whether it be sexual health limits or time limits if there are children involved.

I think both things can be taken too far but neither is a deal breaker.
 
Not all polyamorous relationships have a huge set of limits and rules in them. My husband and I have been open for about 5 1/2 years. We have two rules, one is just common sense, the other one revolves around our relationship, not limiting other relationships.

Our first rule is practice safer sex. That one is just common sense. If you're having sex with more than one person, having regular STI testing and using protection just makes sense to protect the health of everyone in the configuration.

Our second rule is that we need to make sure that we are making time and effort to maintain our relationship. We need to spend time together, talking, having fun, having sex, in order to keep our relationship strong. If we aren't doing these things, our relationship is going to suffer, and that is going to affect all the other relationships either of us have, because if you aren't happy, it affects everyone you know.

I'm having some issues with anxiety and depression right now, totally unrelated to poly, and it's affecting my work friends, my family, my friends, and any romantic partners both of us have. That's just the way humans work.

When I read about these long laundry lists of rules and limits some couples have, they confuse me. I don't think I could function in a relationship like that and I'm glad that I don't have to.
 
WhatToDo said:
I think when you start off in a marriage or a committed relationship where you have financial or family entanglements the relationship is the "primary" or the dominant relationship. That relationship naturally takes priority over someone that you're dating. There are people that prefer to be in secondary style of relationships and if that intention going in I think it's fine.

As far as limits go I think every relationship has certain limits whether it be sexual health limits or time limits if there are children involved.

I think both things can be taken too far but neither is a deal breaker.
Click to expand...

I disagree I have been married to Butch for 14 yrs. We have 3 kids 2 of who which still live at home. It is NOT the dominant relationship. Neither is the marriage I have with Murf. I have entanglements with both financial, family, emotional.

No one is given a priority based upon some stupid piece of paper issued by the government. Unfortunately for Butch to cover me or when I carried the insurance him we have to have it. I n MY will both men get equal standing.
 
Dagferi said:
I disagree I have been married to Butch for 14 yrs. We have 3 kids 2 of who which still live at home. It is NOT the dominant relationship. Neither is the marriage I have with Murf. I have entanglements with both financial, family, emotional.

No one is given a priority based upon some stupid piece of paper issued by the government. Unfortunately for Butch to cover me or when I carried the insurance him we have to have it. I n MY will both men get equal standing.
Click to expand...

Right, but surely you can see that in a lot relationships that wouldn't be the case. That doesn't mean that those people aren't "doing it right" just that one or all parties involved don't want it to go there.
 
Emmy37, I agree with you.

A lot of people who come from a monogamous mindset tend to put rules in place in hopes of easing themselves into polyamory slowly and comfortably. Unfortunately, the rules are often unrealistic for the situation, and set people up to fail.

The Philosopher and I have just one rule: safe sex. That's it.

I have never used the term primary and secondary because of the connotation. However, some people really are just referring to the relationship that came first, and / or the one with whom they have financial entanglements and perhaps children, and those that came after, not intending to denote that the other person or persons are not as important.
 
We have a safe sex rule, but nothing else, really.

My husband made his own rule - he doesn't want to see any of my partners' private parts. My boyfriend readily agreed to that.

My husband is primary in that we are married and have a longevity that my boyfriend and I do not yet. We also have raised children together. That said, in shared time, in love and in sex, neither of my guys is treated as a secondary. I make sure of that. I check in often with both, to be sure there are no complaints. So far, so good. :)
 
Last edited:
Poly situations are as unique as the people involved, and in my opinion, the only "right" or "wrong" way to do it is what's right and wrong *for the people involved* in each specific situation.

Hubby and I have agreements and limits that impact our relationships with others. For example: No overnights. Ending contact if emotions get stronger than friendship. (Which we've obviously already made one exception to). No other partners coming to our home. Those aren't the only ones.

Other than safe sex and no other partners in our home, all the agreements we've set up are negotiable. And we set those up when we were operating on an open marriage level, where the interaction with other partners was intended to be friendship and sex, not love. Things changed a bit when I came out to Hubby as polyamorous and he told me he already knew, and was not only okay with but happy about me having a relationship with Guy.

In my relationship with Guy, the only "rule" is that he not try to break up the marriage. Which is something he has no intention of doing anyway, and he said as much before we even reached the relationship stage, so the "rule" is more of a joke between Hubby and him. If Hubby were to ever enter a romantic relationship with another woman, there would be a similar deal with her, but he's pretty much decided he's monogamous at this point.

As for "primary" and "secondary"... I understand why those terms and a hierarchy work for some. In my situation, I sometimes refer to my marriage to Hubby as my primary *relationship* because it's the one in which the majority of my time is invested, and the one in which I share a household, finances, child-raising, etc. And Hubby is the one with whom I'm physically present, because of the geographic distance between us and Guy.

But I don't consider either Hubby or Guy my "primary" as in the more important person in my life. They hold equal places in my life, mind, and heart, and they're both aware of this.
 
While some non-monogamous families have limits and hierarchies, others don't. In fact we have some relationship anarchists here on Polyamory.com -- people for whom the only "rule" is complete respect for each other's autonomy.

I'm in a poly-fi V and all three of us consider the others to be primary partners. If one of us started dating a fourth person, I suppose that fourth person would be like a secondary partner unless/until they were adopted into our V (making it a Z). And unless/until then, we wouldn't have sex with that fourth person, so that's a limit. Also Snowbunny would want to be kept in the loop about how things were going with the fourth person.

But those rules in theory haven't been rules in practice for a long time, as none of us three is looking for anyone to date, and I have a feeling we'll continue that way from here on in. And like I said, those are our limits. Other poly units have completely different limits, or no limits at all.

Safe sex is a common limit but some poly folks simply trust each other to use common sense. It's really an individual thing. Limits and hierarchies are absolutely optional and not at all musts for a healthy poly/open relationship. The key here is just deciding what's right (and what works) for you.
 
Hierarchy and rules definitely ARE NOT necessary to polyamorous relationships, and in my opinion (based in my personal experience and philosophical ideas of poly) they are much more damaging than anything else.

Rules are only for people you don't trust to behave properly - and if you don't trust them to listen to your needs and treat you with respect, what makes you think they would follow rules anyway?

Definitely look into non-hierarchal poly and/or relationship anarchy since I think you'll find there are a lot of like-minded people who don't want to place restrictions on their partners or their relationships.
 
I think it's key to understand what these "limits" really pertain to.

Before I was married I had roommates.
We had "house rules".
These weren't attempts to micromanage each others relationships-but sometimes they did have an impact on other people's relationships.
There were time constraints for "company" because we all had hours we needed to be able to get sleep and to be able to go to work and we had children in the home.
There were constraints on drinking/drugs/partying/noise etc.
There were constraints on finances-by defacto-household bills came first. If you don't pay your rent-you are out on your ass. Which meant a lot of times people didn't have $$ to go play with dates.

Likewise; in my household now we have "house rules" and those impact any additional partners in our poly world.

We have joint responsibility for kids. We have people who are up at 6am for work and people who work til 2am. We have shared sleeping spaces.We have joint financial obligations.
So we have limits on time frames for visitors. We have limits on overnights IN THE HOME. We have limits on who can be gone on which days, because we have to coordinate kid care around work schedules FIRST-social scheduling has to come after both of those are covered for the entire household. We have limits on the amount of money available to fuck off with because we have a mortgage, car payment, bike payment, insurance payments, medical payments etc.

So-yeah-there are limits on other partners immediate options in our life. That doesn't mean that they couldn't become a part of the household and share in those responsibilities if they so choose-which would diminish the limitations on them from within.
But it does mean that there are limits because we have prior obligations and those obligations come first.

It also doesn't mean the "marriage" is primary. It means that obligations are handled in the order that they are made. New obligations aren't made if they infringe on our abilities to uphold prior obligations.

It's one thing to say "you can't be THAT in love until x time with my partner". It's completely another to say "I can't devote more than x amount of time to building a new relationship because I don't HAVE more than x amount of time available due to my already existing relationship(s) (of any type) and other responsibilities.

Also-it's one thing to say "i don't want you to bring your partner in YOUR home". It's entirely another thing to say "Im an introvert and I don't want extra people in MY home".

Once two or more people choose to share a home-then EVERYONE's needs come into play. I am an extrovert. My partners are introverts. I CHOOSE to live here. But in doing so-I also choose to live in an environment where for their well-being it's necessary for me to LIMIT how many people I have over and how often.
If I were to date someone new-I wouldn't be bringing them home regularly. I would find somewhere else to spend time. Because this is not ONLY my sanctuary. It is also Maca's and GG's and Sweetpea's and Sourpea's. Three of whom are introverts and NEED their privacy and quiet spaces.

It's much much simpler to live by a "keep it separated" and "mind my own business" prototype when you already live a separated life.
But when you live in a home that you share with other people, the space itself is not your own to do with whatever you please. It's a shared space and who is welcome or not, when people are welcome or not, these are a group choice.
Just because I am madly in love with jane doe does NOT mean that my housemates are. They may not want to see her every day and why should they? Hell-she may not want to see them every day and why should she?
But that does put a constraint and limit on our relationship.
Because this is where I LIVE.

Likewise; I choose to be in relationship with two men who are straight and currently mono to me. They have concerns for their health and well being. My choices sexually DO impact them and therefore they do have a right to voice a preference for what level of "safer sex" I practice. It's my FINAL CHOICE-but they have a right to voice a preference.

We coparent. I am not a sole legal guardian who can make choices free of their preferences. Nor are they. We have a JOINT obligation to work together. That means if ONE person isn't ok with another person meeting our kids-no one meets the kids until we work out an AGREEMENT. Co parenting means working TOGETHER it does not mean "I'm the mom I can do what I want" or "I'm the dad and I can do what I want". etc. It means none of us is free to make those choices on our own. We are obligated to do it together.
Again-this impacts potential new partners in poly. Because if they can't spend time around the kids-they won't get a lot of time with one of us. Which means-this obligation we've chosen to do take on together can negatively impact our dating options-but that doesn't mean either or another of the three of us is manipulating things to "control" the other persons other relationships. We chose to coparent-and THAT affects our dating opportunities.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter to me what other people have as rules, or that they have no rules. Perhaps I'll learn something from their ideas, but that does not mean that their ideas are right for me or my relationship(s). I also don't care what philosophical basis anyone has, nor do I feel that one view is necessarily superior or inferior to any other. I an suspcious of anyone who wants to promote their way as the only right or ideal way - much as I'm suspicious and skeptical of political or religious zealots.

The only thing that matters to me is that the people IN a relationship are in agreement with any rules and ideas that affect how they conduct themselves and the relationship. Personally, my wife and I are primary because we have a long history of trust, togetherness, and financial interdependence that anyone joining our relationship does not have and would have to earn over a period of time - if ever. They will inevitably be secondary in these aspects, even if they are not secondary - that is, they may be equal - in terms of love and time and caring. Some have also wanted to be secondary in those terms as well, because it fits their needs and goals. If it works, that's all that matters. So, our "rules" are fairly flexible and can change at need, depending on who we are with.
 
Thank you Galagirl for that link. After reading it I think we probably fit into Multiple Primary Partners. There doesn't seem to be one of us that's more important than the other as far as time, commitment level, love etc. Although I do try to encourage S and B to take alone time in order to strengthen their relationship and bond. Which brings up another question I have but that's probably for another thread.
 
central said:
It doesn't matter to me what other people have as rules, or that they have no rules. Perhaps I'll learn something from their ideas, but that does not mean that their ideas are right for me or my relationship(s). I also don't care what philosophical basis anyone has, nor do I feel that one view is necessarily superior or inferior to any other. I an suspcious of anyone who wants to promote their way as the only right or ideal way - much as I'm suspicious and skeptical of political or religious zealots.

The only thing that matters to me is that the people IN a relationship are in agreement with any rules and ideas that affect how they conduct themselves and the relationship. Personally, my wife and I are primary because we have a long history of trust, togetherness, and financial interdependence that anyone joining our relationship does not have and would have to earn over a period of time - if ever. They will inevitably be secondary in these aspects, even if they are not secondary - that is, they may be equal - in terms of love and time and caring. Some have also wanted to be secondary in those terms as well, because it fits their needs and goals. If it works, that's all that matters. So, our "rules" are fairly flexible and can change at need, depending on who we are with.
Click to expand...
Ditto
 
I can't say "husband and I are primaries..."
We are, but so are GG and I.

I have actually been with GG longer than Maca. We operate primarily as triad in terms of equal responsibility within the household-not sexually. Sexually we are a V.
At any rate, with 21 years between GG and I and 16 between Maca and I; we have high levels of trust in our multi-primary situation and an UNBELIEVABLY LARGE amount of combined and intertwined responsibilities.
New people can (and have) come in and joined the group. But it does take time to earn the level of trust, camaraderie and general companionship and intertwined responsiblities we have. Not because "you have to do x work or y work" but because it takes time to DO the things that build those types of interdependencies.

We've raised 3 kids together, 2 more on their way. We've owned businesses together, worked together, purchased cars and homes and have credit cards. We have completely intertwined financial obligations.
Our extended families are intertwined. GG has taken the kids to NY to visit Maca's parents for example.
It takes time to meet all of these extended family people, much less build relationships with me. It takes time to work with someone enough that you can interpret their facial expression to mean "I think I need a hammer". That doesn't just happen and being in love or sexually involved doesn't make it happen either.

So yeah-there's some primary relationship stuff there that others have to get to over time.

In fact, we actually operate that way on a quad level not a triad. My sister is part of the quad and we all function together like a well-oiled machine to a large degree. Not that we don't sometimes "run out of gas" or get a "flat tire". But generally we have so much time in together running a household, raising kids, running a shop, etc that we operate well together. Others sometimes find it surprising that my sister has a say-so in the raising of the kids, whereas a new partner does not. But she's put her time and dirt work in. That we aren't sexual with her is ARBITRARY. She's a major part of the dynamic. Major enough in fact that if a potential partner couldn't get along with her for some reason-they wouldn't become a partner-we all feel that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top