TruckerPete
New member
They're not awful terms. People make them awful with their own preferences/baggage/stupid choices.
Call yourself what you want; don't try to dictate what others call themselves.
is there a better word?
- Thread starter AnnabelMore
- Start date
They're not awful terms. People make them awful with their own preferences/baggage/stupid choices.
Call yourself what you want; don't try to dictate what others call themselves.
River
Well-known member
It just occurred to me that there is the common English (language) phrase, "second class citizen". A second class citizen is one which is treated as a "second," as one with less power, prestige, influence, value....
It is of course true that people are free to have relationships which are explicitly hierarchical in this way. As long as the "secondary" likes this role, I've no complaints. But I do think we're kidding ourselves if we think the term "secondary" doesn't come with this aura around it. It clearly does.
It is of course true that people are free to have relationships which are explicitly hierarchical in this way. As long as the "secondary" likes this role, I've no complaints. But I do think we're kidding ourselves if we think the term "secondary" doesn't come with this aura around it. It clearly does.
River
Well-known member
No one here wants to dictate to anyone what language they "must" choose on this matter. We're simply having a conversation. Some of us think there may be a kinder, gentler way to language these differing kinds of relationships. That's all.
Polyamory is both a lovestyle (as it is sometimes called) and a "discourse". It is, in part, the concepts and values and commitments which we create in conversation within "the poly discourse". In some sense, polyamory is a cultural work of art. We're all participants in its creation. It goes without saying that "the poly discourse" is free- and wide-ranging and neither centralized nor monolithic. It's a vast conversation with many different voices--just as it should be.
Last edited:
TruckerPete
New member
Sounded like dictating to me. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Either way, they don't "definitely need to stop being used". They are perfectly acceptable for some people. That's fine. They are unacceptable to others. Also fine. I take issue with the gross generalization of them being awful and everyone should stop using them.
River
Well-known member
There is no official or institutional authority ("Poly Police") within the poly discourse, so I took those words to mean something like, "I find it offensive; one should never wear a horizontally striped vest with a vertically striped shirt! Yuck!"
TruckerPete
New member
There is no official or institutional authority ("Poly Police") within the poly discourse, so I took those words to mean something like, "I find it offensive; one should never wear a horizontally striped vest with a vertically striped shirt! Yuck!"
Gotcha!
Mya
Member
I agree. If the secondary really is secondary in terms of something, wheather it's importance, time or whatever, then those terms are in place if someone wants to use them in their own relationships. They can represent the situation if it really is like that and for some people it is. Like I said before, I don't want to use the terms primary and secondary in my relationships, but I have no problem if other people use them in situations where they are appropriate terms.
Although I think we would need new terms for situations where primary and secondary don't seem appropriate (there's no hierarchy), but there still are differences in the relationships that one wants to emphasize. Like this for example:
I like this suggestion, but I still wouldn't use those either, because I feel like I'm 100 % committed and bonded for life with both my partners, even though I'm only married to one of them.
nycindie
Active member
"I find it offensive; one should never wear a horizontally striped vest with a vertically striped shirt! Yuck!"
You know what I hate? When someone tells me I should never wear my vertically striped shirt with my polka-dotted underwear and my checkered socks. That just irks me to no end!
River
Well-known member
Don't those damned fashionistas need to get a life!
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=189099917777348
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=189099917777348
Last edited:
You know what I hate? When someone tells me I should never wear my vertically striped shirt with my polka-dotted underwear and my checkered socks. That just irks me to no end!
If it's OK for Mondo, it's OK with me!
Um, back on topic: different strokes for different folks.
Last edited:
rory
New member
I agree with River in that while poly is a lovestyle it is also a discourse. Words are important, and they shape reality.
I think that primary and secondary imply hierarchy. It may be the connotations of the words themselves or it may be a cultural thing, whatever. It's there, if not for all, for many. That's why I don't think it's wise to use those words unless one wants to convey the message of the relationships being more and less important. Even if that's not the meaning the person using the words personally attaches to the words that is the meaning they convey to many.
I think it is problematic that many people in non-hierarchical relationships use primary and secondary labels. This is particularly when thinking about polyamory in relation to mainstream monogamous culture. I am sure that to many monogamists the terms primary and secondary refer to hierarchy (as they seem to do for many poly people, while not for many others, based on this discussion). Therefore, hearing those terms to be commonly used by many poly people, even in non-hierarchical relationships, gives the picture that poly relationships are most often hierarchical. Of course, even a poly structure where there actually is a more and a less important relationship still challenges the mainstream monogamous culture. But using hierarchical language in polyamorous relationships, even in ones that are equally important, enforces the so common belief that people really can't love equally, i.e. one must love one more than the other or polyamory involves no Real Love at all.
(Disclaimer: please note I'm not saying you must not use the terms primary/secondary, only voicing my opinion.)
I think that primary and secondary imply hierarchy. It may be the connotations of the words themselves or it may be a cultural thing, whatever. It's there, if not for all, for many. That's why I don't think it's wise to use those words unless one wants to convey the message of the relationships being more and less important. Even if that's not the meaning the person using the words personally attaches to the words that is the meaning they convey to many.
I think it is problematic that many people in non-hierarchical relationships use primary and secondary labels. This is particularly when thinking about polyamory in relation to mainstream monogamous culture. I am sure that to many monogamists the terms primary and secondary refer to hierarchy (as they seem to do for many poly people, while not for many others, based on this discussion). Therefore, hearing those terms to be commonly used by many poly people, even in non-hierarchical relationships, gives the picture that poly relationships are most often hierarchical. Of course, even a poly structure where there actually is a more and a less important relationship still challenges the mainstream monogamous culture. But using hierarchical language in polyamorous relationships, even in ones that are equally important, enforces the so common belief that people really can't love equally, i.e. one must love one more than the other or polyamory involves no Real Love at all.
(Disclaimer: please note I'm not saying you must not use the terms primary/secondary, only voicing my opinion.)
Greetings, Friends:
I've only read the first couple of pages of this thread. I hope I may throw in a couple of suggestions.
If you don't care for the terms primary and secondary, perhaps one or more of these may fit better.
For those who are married: husband, wife.
For lovers to whom you are not married: boyfriend, girlfriend, lover, sweetheart, benefriend (for FWB's).
In my tribe, most of us use husband, wife, bf and gf, but one of my bf's lovers doesn't like those terms. She just refers to each of us by our names.
I've only read the first couple of pages of this thread. I hope I may throw in a couple of suggestions.
If you don't care for the terms primary and secondary, perhaps one or more of these may fit better.
For those who are married: husband, wife.
For lovers to whom you are not married: boyfriend, girlfriend, lover, sweetheart, benefriend (for FWB's).
In my tribe, most of us use husband, wife, bf and gf, but one of my bf's lovers doesn't like those terms. She just refers to each of us by our names.
Somegeezer
New member
Sorry, no dictating meant. River was correct, I just can't PERSONALLY stand it being used. I should use my words more carefully sometimes.
I also think those photos are quite awful too... PERSONALLY.
I also think those photos are quite awful too... PERSONALLY.
River
Well-known member
I find this to be a brilliantly insightful post. Thanks so much, Rory! Brilliant.
Somegeezer
New member
That makes me think that you are stuck with that partner, whilst every realtionship around it would be free to move around, unless anchored themselves. I find that husband/wife, girlfriend/boyfriend, partner, etc. are all you really need. They are the simplest to understand. They shouldn't require any explaining to the average person. Until of course, it comes to the point where you mention you have 5 other ones. =P