Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

LovingRadiance said:
I found this... I think it makes the point quite clearly.
Click to expand...

HAHA! Surely this is a joke? This card is not related to any form of relationship that I hope anyone would invest in, on any level. It is ironically funny because I believe there are some people who would subscribe to this approach for building sexual networks.

Again though, this card has to be a joke. :D
 
Having read the post, it wasn't his point to make a joke, but to make it a consideration that this is no position to put someone in. It should be so impossibly ridiculous that a person would ever encounter such a possibility as to be laughable. But the truth is, it's not. That's one of the complaints of a number of secondaries I've read over the last year on here-- the variety of ways they are treated as disposable.
 
Okay, absolutely not funny. Seconds after I posted this on my blog, I got a heartbroken comment from someone about how their stomach turned reading it, because they've been treated that way, and seen others treated that way, as secondaries. That heartbroken person is the reason I posted the card. There are many of us who say "no way," but there are too many out there who ARE subjecting their metamours and/or secondaries to this type of shit.

I fully believe that education changes attitudes, which I why I posted it. It needs to be considered in much more clear-cut terms, like that card, so that people can understand that the way they are treating these secondaries is wrong. Just flat wrong. If you can't handle treating the other person with the same respect and dignity you do yourself, then get OUT of polyamorous relationships.
 
I realize that primary/secondary can be really complicated and fluid. But it seems to this newbie that it boils down to:

1. Know yourself as well as you can;
2. Treat others as you want to be treated;
and the golden rule's corollary--
3. Don't be an asshole.
 
Hi to you all,

It turns out that on top of my relationship issues, I have pneumonia, so I've been a little out of my head, but I wanted to say thanks to everyone who responded.

I had a conversation with my SO and his wife, and I think we made a good start towards working things out. There was, however, a lot of... I'm not sure how to put it, actually. They both described this glowing, rosy picture of How Things Will Be, but with no real plan on how to get there. I was dismayed at how much time they spent on telling me, over and over (4 times), how they were married and how they'd committed in front of their friends and community, and that kind of relationship commitment takes time. I think they were trying to be reassuring? I hope so, anyway. The end result is that they both agreed to work with me and the three of us will try to come to some sort of relationship equilibrium.

My life is really upside down at the moment, and spinning out of control. I am really glad I found this site, and worked up the courage to ask a question. I'm sure I'll have more as time goes on. Thanks again to you all. It's nice to know I'm not the only one...

-Cat
 
I will be dumped if I become inconvenient
I will be dumped if I ask to be treated with the same respect as your other partner
I will be dumped if another partner requests it, regardless of the reason
I will be dumped if I am seen as a threat by anyone else.
Click to expand...

These all happened to me, in my attempts to ethically form relationships with poly married men. Oh, and this:

"My wife left me when I started a relationship with you, even though she was fine with my previous gf of three years. Fuck me now. Oh, it's only our third date? No, I don't want a BJ."
Click to expand...

One week later:

"No, I can't see you anymore. All I can think about is group sex."
Click to expand...

And from another guy I was attempting to date:

"I know I told you I was poly, and I know I told you my wife and I were breaking up, but we are back together now and she'll only let me have casual sex with other guys, no women."
Click to expand...
 
Magdlyn said:
Those all happened to me, in my attempts to ethically form relationships with poly married men.
Click to expand...

And that would be precisely why I bring it up. "We" (a collective someone) like to think that this shit doesn't happen, but it does.

I've seen Maca try to put into place rules that would have caused GG to be treated this way, when Maca was struggling.

It's something we all need to think about. When we're defining our relationships, what works, what doesn't work, we need to remember we're talking about people, ALL of the people, not just "the two of us."

I have to commend Mono for starting a thread inquiring as to whether the limits/suggestions/offers he was making in his dynamic with RP were reasonable/functional/acceptable. He was opening up the view to see that it's important for ALL of us to do this.
 
I'm reposting the below here. It was originally posted in another thread, but I think it is a useful contribution to this one.

===

I'm one of those poly folks for whom casual sex has very, very, very little attraction. On a scale of one to ten, I think my interest in casual sex is a -2 (minus two). However, although I despise relationship ranking systems (e.g., "primary, secondary, tertiary), I'm quite curious about the possibility of forming a loving relationship which includes sexual intimacy, while being, in some respects, less involved than others. I think I can do this without ranking simply by not using a ranking system, and by just allowing things to unfold naturally and honestly.

For me, when there is sexual/physical intimacy, my heart is always involved. And I'm glad for this and think this is as it should be. I'm still in the "figuring it out" phase of exploration about how my needs and commitments are shaped. I feel as though I can have two, or at max three, full-on partners. Two seems plenty! But I might like to share deep intimacy (with sexual possibilities) outside of my full-on partner arrangement/s. And I want to have this freedom without having to rank people-- which I can do simply by not ranking them. (And, of course, I'd only engage in these other relations when it was safe and good and healthy for me AND my partner/s.)

I don't like ranking systems because they tend to rank people in terms of value, or subtly imply value ranking, and I find this unloving.

I don't need to simply reframe ranking systems (e.g., primary, secondary, tertiary) from a value-ranking system to some other frame (e.g., level of: commitment, involvement, etc.), because the whole thing can be handled simply by being honest, direct and clear with whomever I'm involved. Let's say I have two full-on partners, and two feels like a max for me, but I have a very dear friend/companion with whom I'd like to share physical intimacy. I can just say so. It would be loving intimacy. I'd not be ranking people, I'd be loving all of us.
 
Last edited:
bumping this thread

While I would never want someone who is not a primary to be seen as "less" (and yes, the questions on that card are all kinds of wrong, especially the pregnancy one), for me, there are just some things that apply to what I consider to be my "primary" relationship that don't apply to my other relationship. Does that mean I have a hierarchy? Well, yeah, sorta. Besides the fact that Monochrome (hubby) and I live together, have children together, own property together, etc., while TGIB (partner) and I don't and do not plan to, there's also:

- Looking for a job. I would expect Monochrome to discuss it with me if he wanted to job hunt outside our current location. While it would be nice if TGIB let me know before he did something similar, it would just be a heads-up. I would not expect to have any input, or for him to consider me or my family in his decision-making process.
- Similarly, moving. Monochrome and I decide together where we live and if we want to try living somewhere else. While I would be thrilled if TGIB was willing/able to move also, I wouldn't expect it.

TGIB and I were talking about this recently. The thing is, I DO consider him a primary, as far as my commitment and emotions go, but it's a different kind of primary. I certainly don't consider him less of a human being or respect his wishes any less. I want him around all the time and a as major part of my life, but because of the ways we specifically are NOT blending our lives (at least for the foreseeable future) I don't (can't?) consider him a co-primary.

Do the labels matter? No, probably not, as long as everyone involved is on the same page. But if it were to ever come right down to it, assuming I still loved them both, and I had to choose for some god-unknown reason, well, it would suck beyond words. Like people who live together for a long time and then break up, just because you never technically got married doesn't mean the break up hurts any less than a divorce. But the plan is for both of my relationships to be for the rest of my life, so ohdearlord I HOPE I never have to face that choice!

(This post was triggered by a comment someone made elsewhere about it seeming like there's still a tendency to preserve/protect the marriage by putting it first, implying that this maybe wasn't "true" poly. Well, maybe it's not, but my commitment to my husband was made first, and as long as I still love him I intend to uphold the promises I made to him. I never planned or expected to be in long-term relationships with 2 people at the same time, so I think we're all doing an ok job of figuring out what works for us as we go, and this thread seemed to be the most appropriate place to put my thoughts.)

(Also, writing this gave me a headache. I don't like thinking about this aspect, but it's part of our reality.)
 
Last edited:
While it's quite possible this quote came from this thread to start with, I came across it in the Definitions thread and wanted to add it to my previous post.
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat:

"Prescriptive" secondary basically means you're "not allowed" to ever become more than a secondary, you'll never be as valued as the primary, and if your relationship ever becomes "too threatening" to the primary relationship, you're out the door.

Compare to "descriptive" secondary, where it's more like you just happen to have your life not as entangled (i.e., your partner has a wife with kids together, shared bills, and a joint mortgage), so the "secondary" status just describes the nature of your current relationship, without forcing it in a box that says it will never be allowed to become something more.
Click to expand...
Huge distinction there. Helps my headache a lot!
 
In our quad, right now my GF is my secondary, because I share a house with my wife. However, there has been talk about the four of us moving in together. If we did, I would no longer consider her a secondary. All three of them would become my primaries.
 
Thoughts on this included that it reduces the risk of hierarchical thinking and could reduce the emotional impact of that hierarchical thinking.
 
Hmmm... when one person is given a designation that makes them special in some way, how is that not a hierarchy?

Central and primary would seem to be pretty much the same thing to me. Anchor a little less so, though it gives the impression of being tied to whomever is the anchor person in a way that one is not tied to other people.

I'm not sure if many people are able to wrap their brains around the idea of "separate but equal" in poly relationships, especially when they are married and feel like their spouse should be considered before all others. It seems like very few people really take an egalitarian approach to poly, no matter how much they might say they don't like hierarchies. My guess is that comes with experience.
 
I have no problem with hierarchy, or saying hubby is #1. Anything else is a fringe benefit, so I think it looks like a fluffy term to cover up shit with poop.

A few will use it correctly, and the rest will use it as a catch-phrase to sound more appealing and get what they want in the short-term.

However, if you like it, and feel inclined, use it! I just wouldn't use it expecting it to change how people interact.
 
Primary is to central as secondary is to _____________?

I've always been opposed to the idea of hierarchy, but when you're living with partner(s) and have responsibilities around money and basic survival, it's necessarily more involved than a partner you don't share those things with. I'd really like to see labels built around those differences instead...

"Hi, new friend! This is my partner, Jack, and my partner, Jill, who is also my _______________ because we own a house together (or raise kids together, etc.)."

Primary
Central
Homebuilder
Home plate (methinks poly baseball analogies are fertile ground)
Checkmate
Money-Honey
 
Money-Honey!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top