is there a better word?
- Thread starter AnnabelMore
- Start date
tigrrrlily
New member
If the right word doesn't exist yet, is it maybe better to use a descriptively accurate sentence? Such as, this is Jon. We live together. This is Bob. We started dating lately.'?
ray
New member
@tigrrrlily, I'm sure that many people do introduce it this way. That is certainly effective and polite.
this is also a question about identity. Human like labels. We have man, woman, gay, Asian, teenager, teacher, American, bad, artist, etc... We tend to get upset when things defy or don't have labels. We also use them to define ourselves. The problem with secondary is that sometimes it is not only a descriptor but it can come to be a part of our identity. Like the whole thing with an introduction. I'm not ok being labeled something that I wouldn't be ok being introduced by. That's the problem with secondary. As a descriptor it may occasionally be accurate but as an identity, it's shitty. Many of us do form important parts of our identity around our relationships. It's difficult not to. In that sense, its difficult for me to accept secondary.
this is also a question about identity. Human like labels. We have man, woman, gay, Asian, teenager, teacher, American, bad, artist, etc... We tend to get upset when things defy or don't have labels. We also use them to define ourselves. The problem with secondary is that sometimes it is not only a descriptor but it can come to be a part of our identity. Like the whole thing with an introduction. I'm not ok being labeled something that I wouldn't be ok being introduced by. That's the problem with secondary. As a descriptor it may occasionally be accurate but as an identity, it's shitty. Many of us do form important parts of our identity around our relationships. It's difficult not to. In that sense, its difficult for me to accept secondary.
nycindie
Active member
To be fair, perhaps those of us who don't like the word may have expressed our objections in a way sounded like we wanted the folks who do like and use it to feel badly about it. I hope I didn't sound that way and I apologize for doing that. I am still trying to figure out what I want in my life, how I want polyamory to work in my life, and what kind of situations I would like to find myself in.
I think if someone I cared about asked me, "Would you be my secondary?" I wouldn't immediately reject the possibility (though that's an odd question, but I use it just as an example). First, I would have to ask what that means to him. Heck, the words "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" -- and even "relationship" -- are loaded with meaning for lots of people. So, what it comes down to is asking how someone views the relationship, I guess, moreso than what they call it.
I just don't like the idea of feeling like a secondary, if that makes sense. I don't mind having parameters to a relationship, as in amount of time spent, frequency, etc., but I never ever want to feel like, within the structure of my relationship with someone, that my opinions, feelings, right to make my own choices, how I want to spend my time with that person, etc., simply do not matter as much as anyone else's do. And I certainly never want to be in a situation where the physical aspects of my relationship are dictated by someone else not in the relationship, just because I'm considered a secondary. Ugh.
The article that Annabel linked to in her blog is rather brilliant:
It illustrates a few ways that someone designated a secondary should not be treated, and surely we have read similar stories from people who come here and post their tales of woe. I think, in that article, this paragraph says it best, especially the last sentence (IMHO):
"Because secondary relationships are often treated as disposable, secondaries may develop a sense of insecurity. They may fear that their lover's primary may at any time "veto" the relationship. This is an understandable fear in the current climate of polyamorous relationships, but I think that this can change. Secondary relationships, in their own way, are every bit as important as primary ones. They should involve just as much commitment and devotion as a primary relationship. The difference lay in the ground rules. Secondary relationships may be limited to one weekend a month, or perhaps it merely means a non-live-in relationship. But this does not limit the emotional connection or physical attraction that the secondary partners feel for each other. Whatever the rules are, once that relationship is established, it should not be so easily cast aside. Further, I think the only one who should make the decision to end the relationship is the person directly involved in it. "
Last edited:
I dislike "primary" and "secondary" because they are comparison words... and I try to avoid comparing lovers, who are unique and wonderful people. Suppose you were single and then hooked up with someone... you'd never call that person your "secondary" partner if you had no "primary." The words themselves imply a pecking order.
No, the girl I hooked up with might be my "girlfriend" or "FWB"... or... whatever. I don't see how that changes if I have other lovers as well.
"This is my wife Alice, my girlfriend Betty, and our special friend Charlie." Noncomparitive and more descriptive.
No, the girl I hooked up with might be my "girlfriend" or "FWB"... or... whatever. I don't see how that changes if I have other lovers as well.
"This is my wife Alice, my girlfriend Betty, and our special friend Charlie." Noncomparitive and more descriptive.
DrunkenPorcupine
New member
There's a lot of input here by people who seem to find the word "secondary" to be negative.
Perhaps those people should really evaluate themselves and their relationships before attempting to put a term to it.
I have, willingly, been a secondary. We used that term among ourselves. I don't think it was a negative thing at all. That is, of course, because I WANTED to be the non-primary partner in that relationship. "Below priority of the primary" was what my role in that relationship was, and it's the role I wanted at the time.
There's the inverse of this discussion. If the term "secondary" implies "less affection" or "lacking" then perhaps the people who want equality should stop venerating (and of course, HAVING) primaries. You can't have it both ways. Either you elevate one (your primary) or you treat them as equals, in which case nobody is primary or secondary.
I think secondary is a good term. It can be a great place to be as well. The term is descriptive of the situation. If the term applies, and causes discomfort, people shouldn't change the term. They should strike at the root and fix the discomfort.
Perhaps those people should really evaluate themselves and their relationships before attempting to put a term to it.
I have, willingly, been a secondary. We used that term among ourselves. I don't think it was a negative thing at all. That is, of course, because I WANTED to be the non-primary partner in that relationship. "Below priority of the primary" was what my role in that relationship was, and it's the role I wanted at the time.
There's the inverse of this discussion. If the term "secondary" implies "less affection" or "lacking" then perhaps the people who want equality should stop venerating (and of course, HAVING) primaries. You can't have it both ways. Either you elevate one (your primary) or you treat them as equals, in which case nobody is primary or secondary.
I think secondary is a good term. It can be a great place to be as well. The term is descriptive of the situation. If the term applies, and causes discomfort, people shouldn't change the term. They should strike at the root and fix the discomfort.
River
Well-known member
This is precisely the same point I made. One cannot have only "primary" relationships, any more than one can have North without South or a one-sided coin. I choose not to define any of my relationships under this rubric.
But if anyone else consciously and willingly uses these terms, that's fine with me. I think we should all have the freedom and power to define our relationships as we choose. The term "secondary" only seems offensive to me when the individual under that title feels slighted by it.
ray
New member
I have no issue if some one likes using the word secondary to describe THEIR relationship. I don't want to use it to describe MY relationships. In addition, I am fully aware that I have a difficult time with loverly relationships of a non-primary nature. I have decided not to engage in them for the time being. I like to throw myself in whole-heartedly and that can be problematic in that role. Why is it so terrible for some of us to want a new, less-loaded term? I mean, seriously.... I feel like those of you who like the term are being a bit condescending in telling us that we just have problems and there's nothing wrong with the word period. There ARE legit concerns with this word that extend beyond a few people's "issues." If the word works for you, awesome! But let the rest of us ponder how we might find a solution that is good for us. We are all being responsible adults recognizing something that doesn't do it for us. Let us go about finding a solution both in dealing with our own issues and exploring the terminology.
Hierarchy is not natural. There is variation within both the human species (across time and space -- in the archaeological record as well as anthropological record) and within other non-human species. Some have been/are organized in a more egalitarian or horizontal fashion, others are what we would see as hierarchical and "natural" to our current US society. So, of course, since that system is ours and also hegemonic at this point in history, we see it as natural.
If you choose to live your life that way, fine. I don't really care.
But don't try to claim it is natural and don't try to say that this is all just some baggage. I think others have covered the importance of language nicely already.
This also signals one of the main issues in our society -- how do we deal with difference. Unfortunately, our practice is to categorize it and rank it, rather than seeing it as variation and diversity. We also often understand "equal" as meaning something that has to be exactly the same, rather than something that is qualitatively similar.
Thanks River and Ray for your comments. I also don't believe that just because 2 relationships are different, that they have to be ranked. I see relationships as distinct certainly, but am not going to rank my love and caring. Thus, the need for a word or words that can capture differences and not carry negative connotations.
Again, if you like these words and they work for you, use them. I'd much rather pursue ideas of how to create more egalitarian ways of relating instead of replicating systems I see as harmful.
And, on that note -- one of my sweeties likes the phrase "part-time partner" since it points to our committed relationship, but acknowledges that we can only spend limited time together. I often just say my "sweeties."
opalescent
Active member
I have found primary and secondary to be useful terms to describe my relationships. That may not be always true. I also get that many people find these terms offensive and not descriptive of their lives and loves at all. A new word may be helpful.
However, I don't see a new term bridging different viewpoints on relationships. These include, among others, relationships where where hierarchy is recognized and acknowledged or where relationships are organized in more egalitarian lines.
However, I don't see a new term bridging different viewpoints on relationships. These include, among others, relationships where where hierarchy is recognized and acknowledged or where relationships are organized in more egalitarian lines.
SourGirl
Member
Let the rest of you ponder,....
Uhhhh,..you ARE more then able to do as you please. This was a thread started with questions for ALL thoughts, not just yours and any cheerleading squad.
The question posed a 'we as the community', and other options. The objections have been solely on the concept of EVERYONE (community) having to change.
I dont think even ONE poster wrote anything to the effect that people can't do what they want in their own relationships. No one said anything as terrible.
What you have heard is various view points.
- Why people are not ok with the word,
- Why people won`t use it,
- Why people are ok with the word,
- Why they don't have a problem,
- and from me: On maybe stretching the brain a little, and seeing why it is such a touchy subject. Possibly dealing with the hurt, not the word.
That was offered as a option. We all have words that affect us negatively sometimes. It can do a lot of good to look deeper.
If you dont want to look deeper, thats fine. If you or anyone doesn`t agree, well,..don`t agree.
Debate and consensus come from all avenues, not just the ones you want to see.Also try and remember there are a LOT of people who not only are fine with that label, but who DO NOT desire to be loved as a primary, or in a primary role. Many times, things going on in their own lives ( raising children, demanding career, etc.) cause them to decide that they have time for a secondary role, not a primary one.
I had a very social weekend, and asked anyone I could what they thought of that word. I was around single people, married people, a real mix, and most were strangers.
Genneral consensus was :' It`s not what people say, it`s what people do.'
If a new label truly makes you feel better, go for it. Most people are objecting to the proposed thought, of the 'community' needing to change based on some planned movement. If a word really is a problem, majority will rule naturally and the tides will shift, due solely to the volume of people exhibiting a problem.
ray
New member
I see where you're coming from, sourgirl but some of the comments, whether intended that way or not, came across as 'shut up, quit your whining, you've got issues. you're imagining a problem.
I am happy to read about the possible upsides of secondary. I do not, however, want to be told that the problem I'm discussing is imaginary and not worth talking about. That is what I kept hearing.
I think that this particular issue is a chicken/egg thing. Does the label encourage poor treatment of secondaries or did the treatment give rise to the label? Are they even correlated? Labels are powerful and they can influence us more than we know. I suspect that it is a complex issue with a complex answer. I think it is possible that the term secondary can unintentionally promote some patterns of behavior that are less than desirable. Think about a label like community college. It is an institution that fills a distinct and beneficial role. Yet, it can often be seen as a negative label. Even more so, the term, junior college. That is probably why they mostly go by community colleges now. Never underestimate the power of a word.
I am happy to read about the possible upsides of secondary. I do not, however, want to be told that the problem I'm discussing is imaginary and not worth talking about. That is what I kept hearing.
I think that this particular issue is a chicken/egg thing. Does the label encourage poor treatment of secondaries or did the treatment give rise to the label? Are they even correlated? Labels are powerful and they can influence us more than we know. I suspect that it is a complex issue with a complex answer. I think it is possible that the term secondary can unintentionally promote some patterns of behavior that are less than desirable. Think about a label like community college. It is an institution that fills a distinct and beneficial role. Yet, it can often be seen as a negative label. Even more so, the term, junior college. That is probably why they mostly go by community colleges now. Never underestimate the power of a word.
Bahalana
New member
I'm getting dizzy from reading this thread. How many circles can we talk in at once? I think almost everyone who has replied has said essentially the same thing (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I do what I want for my own reasons, and everyone else is of course entitled to do the same". At least we all agree on that, unfortunately nobody asked anyone if they used the term secondary and why. The original post had four questions and almost nobody has even attempted to answer them.
1. After having read through all of this I would have to say no. It seems to be too emotional of an issue on both sides.
2. Yes, I think it's inevitable that even if just a few people continue to make mistakes with new partners it will taint any word, because everyone always remembers your screw ups but quickly forgets your successes.
3. Not that I know of, but since no one has attempted to answer this I'll guess, no.
4. It seems that it already is unique to every set of relationships, and isn't likely to change anytime soon.
1. After having read through all of this I would have to say no. It seems to be too emotional of an issue on both sides.
2. Yes, I think it's inevitable that even if just a few people continue to make mistakes with new partners it will taint any word, because everyone always remembers your screw ups but quickly forgets your successes.
3. Not that I know of, but since no one has attempted to answer this I'll guess, no.
4. It seems that it already is unique to every set of relationships, and isn't likely to change anytime soon.
TruckerPete
New member
Hahahaha ... Welcome to the forum.
There seems to be another issue at play here. Some want a different word to describe the different relationship with a (different) second person, yet still want everything to be absolutely, perfectly equal between those different partners. Not possible. Different people means different relationships, means sometimes one partner gets more or less of any given thing in the relationship.
Everyone should be treated fairly, not equally.
To get back to Annabel's questions (as numbered by Bahalana):
1. Yes. Sweetie, BF/GF, partner, OSO, lover ... the list goes on and on and on.
2. Absolutely inevitable. People are morons. They're also awesome, but it only takes 1 "aw shit" to cancel out 1000 "attaboys".
3. Perhaps those using the terms described above? Or those who decide not to use Primary/Secondary labels??
4. Yes. We get to do what we want in our own lives, for better or worse. Perhaps "the community" can give examples of times when they haven't used the secondary label, and what was used in its place so that those who object to its use IN THEIR LIVES have ideas for what they would like to call their relationships.
So, keeping #4 in mind, I call my second partner my boyfriend. But, we've been together for a while now, the three of us live together, and boyfriend is starting to feel like a juvenile label. TO ME, "boyfriend" does not describe the depth of our relationship. I imagine at some point in the nearish future, I will want to make the switch to partner or (other) significant other, and of course, this will only happen after talking to Mr. A.
marksbabygirl
Member
Sourgirl's description/analogy of a step-father is one that works for me.
My children's "secondary" father is more important in their lives than their "primary" father ever was.
He's not less than though.
Just as a "secondary" partner would not be less than my primary partner.
I understand that many people have been treated badly by others who have denoted them *secondary* and *disposable* but I think that rather than just rejecting out of hand a term, find out what the term means to the people involved, and whether the parameters of that term are fixed or fluid.
IE: I don't have a lot of time right now. I don't want another live in lover. So I am quite happy with someone who has/wants someone similar - who's looking for a secondary. But that may change... my life isn't stuck on one path.
My children's "secondary" father is more important in their lives than their "primary" father ever was.
He's not less than though.
Just as a "secondary" partner would not be less than my primary partner.
I understand that many people have been treated badly by others who have denoted them *secondary* and *disposable* but I think that rather than just rejecting out of hand a term, find out what the term means to the people involved, and whether the parameters of that term are fixed or fluid.
IE: I don't have a lot of time right now. I don't want another live in lover. So I am quite happy with someone who has/wants someone similar - who's looking for a secondary. But that may change... my life isn't stuck on one path.
Last edited:
SourGirl
Member
dingedheart
Well-known member
.....but based on height....built in handicap for short people. Hey I'm looking out for the vertically challenged. Now I'm singing that Randy Newman song ...damn I hate when that happens .
River
Well-known member
Seems to me when I consider very particular situations, fairness itself generally boils down to equal treatment. But what does this mean?
Let's say the pie is being sliced, and there are a bunch of folks sharing it. Strict adherence to "equality" could mean measuring out equally sized pieces. But what if some of the people present are tiny and others giant? What if some have eaten glutonously and others are starving? What if some want a smaller piece than the average?
Equal treatment means differt things in different contexts, as does fairness.
Some folks here personally object to terms primary/secondary/tertiary (which have been popularized in the poly discourse) because they can easily be taken to rank people in importance, or because they can easily be taken to rank people in love, or in value, or in decision-making power, or... or.... What we were exploring is whether we can find words that don't come pre-laden with the baggage (connotations) which primary/secondary/tertiary come laden with. We were not attempting to enforce alternative words/labels..., to impose them on "the community" (what community?).
In my case, when I take on a lover, our hearts are connected such that I'm with and for them utterly. This will be so if one of my partners can't spend as much time with me as the other/s. It's just how I love. I love equally. I really do.