is there a better word?

For what it is worth, I realized through this discussion that I was in large part reacting to a thought: That some people choose the terms "primary, secondary, tertiary" in order to avoid telling their partner that they feel equally in love with, and committed to, another person -- who may not happen to live with the original couple (or grouping). This feels like a dishonest evasion of the honesty which is so crucial to polyamory.

In saying this, I don't have anyone here in mind. It's just a sort of gut reaction in myself at this time.

I've let my long term partner, with whom I live (and whom I love profoundly) know that I'm open to having other loves on equal footing with him. He's happy about this, and for me. We choose to be honest with one another even when doing so is risky territory.
 
The other thing I like about life-partner/love-partner, or some variation thereof, is that one of the most salient complaints I've heard about "secondary" is that if you were only dating one person and they were only dating you, you probably wouldn't call each other "secondary" even though the relationship could look *exactly* the same and if you were married to someone else *then* you would call the person you were dating "secondary". It's like secondary only has meaning in the context of primary, therefore making comparisons really hard to resist.

On the other hand, life-partner and love-partner retain their integrity in a variety of configurations.

Also, we know about co-primaries, yet the word "primary" sounds like "first" and in our society usually only one person can be first in anything. Only one gold medal, right? Whereas, having two life-partners sounds less counter intuitive than two primaries.

The problem with life-partner/love-partner? Sounds hella cheesy. Damn it.
 
. . . Anyone you're with for pleasure and/or affection is a "lovemate", anyone you're bonded to for life is a "lifemate". Too flowery?

What if you want your lovemates to be your lifemates as well?

Also, we know about co-primaries, yet the word "primary" sounds like "first" and in our society usually only one person can be first in anything . . . The problem with life-partner/love-partner? Sounds hella cheesy. Damn it.

And you know what else sounds cheesy and risqué in certain situations? When you use the word "lover." Isn't it funny that the word "lover" usually has more sexual connotations than love or partner connotations? I mean, someone could be called a lover when it's only sex with no love involved. I think that's weird. My problem is I like that term best because I feel if I have an intimate loving relationship with someone, who loves me, it makes sense to call him my lover. It just always seems risqué if you use it in social gatherings, like at work or something. It would make everyone at the water cooler uncomfortable to say "I just got back from a weekend with my lover," yet they'd be fine with "I just got back from a weekend with my boyfriend."

I guess I'm just gonna use the word "boyfriend" across the board for anyone I'm involved with. Some people feel silly about that at my age, but I don't.
 
Yeah, I totally feel you, Nyc. I like the word lover a lot too, but I'd never call Gia that to my parents or co-workers... girlfriend works totally fine for our relationship right now.

Maybe husband/wife/fiancee/live-in-partner/life-partner for primary versus boyfriend/girlfriend for secondary works fine. Do we need a general set of terms, or are these various more specific terms enough? I see the general terms as being helpful mainly in poly-community contexts, such as this board, where it makes things easier to have a common parlance. I mean, can you as easily have a "secondary's bill of rights", which is an awesome document, without a word that means "secondary"?

No, in the end I do continue to think that more general terms are necessary and good, whether they're primary/secondary or alternate terms, whichever we may invent.
 
I totally agree that the word "lover" got ruined by misuse! I love that word, but most people do now take it to mean "sex partner of the moment".
 
And you know what else sounds cheesy and risqué in certain situations? When you use the word "lover." Isn't it funny that the word "lover" usually has more sexual connotations than love or partner connotations? I mean, someone could be called a lover when it's only sex with no love involved. I think that's weird. My problem is I like that term best because I feel if I have an intimate loving relationship with someone, who loves me, it makes sense to call him my lover.

This is something I have been thinking about this week too.
I was thinking about the term lover, because of its misuse, much like the misuse of secondary.
I do not want to use the descriptor boyfriend again. Lover kept popping in my mind, but does not fit well either. I also thought of beau, but that does not work for me either.
I guess *guys I am dating* is boring, but works.
 
How about "juicy little piece on the side"? ;)
 
SG, love your new avatar - speaking as a procrastinator from way back!

I have also used "beau" and "paramour" in conversation. But, as with "lover" they don't sound like more than sexual partners, or do they? I know someone who has several partners and he just refers to them all as his "sweeties."
 
Last edited:
When W was involved with P and they started describing themselves as bf/gf - too me, that was too fast and too childish...

I suggested the term "sweetie"

Meh - its all good :) Right now I don't have anyone else but my husband so its a bridge I'll cross when I get there...
 
SG, love your new avatar - speaking as a procrastinator from way back!

I was going to change it to one of 'Hello Kitty' holding a chainsaw, but thought that might be the wrong kind of warm and fuzzy for this board. :cool:

I have also used "beau" and "paramour" in conversation. But, as with "lover" they don't sound like more than sexual partners, or do they? I know someone who has several partners and he just refers to them all as his "sweeties."

I am in a 'in-between' spot in life. I know what I do and do not want, but also know what I can logically have right now.
I would like to find that middle ground between 'boy-toy' and 'sweetie'
lol I hate the word sweetie. I think its because my 1st husband said it so patronizingly, when he wanted something his way. However, I don`t want to stop the world from using it. ;)

'Girlfriend' doesn`t bother me though. As females, we call female friends 'our girlfriends' all the time. Hmmmm, I`ll evaluate my sexism on that.

Haha,..maybe 'My harem',... owhhh I can feel the darts being shot at me, already,....:D
 
...

'Girlfriend' doesn`t bother me though. As females, we call female friends 'our girlfriends' all the time. Hmmmm, I`ll evaluate my sexism on that.

...

This is different as you cross the atlantic. In Britain a girlfriend suggests sexual/romantic involvement, both for a man's gf (ie hettie couple) or for a woman's gf (ie a lesbian couple). Likewise boyfriend means sexual/romantic involvement, and partner is used for gay and hettie relationships. Which is OK till you have a business partner.

River~~
 
This is different as you cross the atlantic. In Britain a girlfriend suggests sexual/romantic involvement, both for a man's gf (ie hettie couple) or for a woman's gf (ie a lesbian couple). Likewise boyfriend means sexual/romantic involvement, and partner is used for gay and hettie relationships. Which is OK till you have a business partner.

River~~

Funny, I am a 1st-born Canadian in my family. My family hails from various parts of England, ( that eliminates regional tongue) and Ireland, and all the women still refer to their female friends as their girlfriends. Even my grandmother does this. It can be shortened down to 'the girls,' but its not uncommon to hear any of them say it. Its all interchangeable with 'Hey love', 'Our Ann /your Ann',..whatever the case may be, but 'Going out with my girlfriends' is pretty standard language in my family.

Maybe it changes once you are around open or poly people ? Did you mean it in a 'hip' knowing kind of way ?

My reference point, was regarding what I was brought up with. So I am thinking from a vanilla side. :)
 
That figures, SourGirl. As recently as the 1970s that non sexual usage was still used here, but since then the word girlfriend has come to always imply sexual. Basically lesbian couples claimed it as a sexual word, as it is when a man uses it; and when that got recognised then straight women dropped it like a red hot penny :)

It feels funny to me when I read a US / Cdn novel, I keep thinking all the women are gay cos they keep meeting their girlfriends....

'The girls' is still non sexual. So going out with the girls is very different from going out with the girlfriends.
 
That's funny because I have always said I was going out with my girlfriends (referring to the female friends I had in high school). I don't call Pretty Lady my girlfriend. She is my and Runic Wolf's part time lover and my boyfriend's wife.
 
I dont like to use labels with either of my relationships.... its icky.

I choose not to do so because it invokes thoughts that one may be less important than the other.. that is just not the case in this triad.

When I have to refer to one or both, I prefer to refer to them by their names.. however, there have been times when talking w others I have had to define my relationship with both guys. So, when that comes up, I tell ppl I have a husband and a significant other.. and I do take the time to explain that calling Brandon my SO is not meaning that he is in any way less important to me than say Brian. I have gotten good responses out of everyone that I have told about our triad..and often times I get other silly questions, like "how do you have the energy.." etc.. but it is often times cut off by asking that same person how they have the energy for their loved one... :rolleyes:
 
This is unfair. I can imagine other situations where the imbalance was not an important part of the dynamic, yet where calling the two relationships both primary would also be misleading.

I don't think it's unfair at all, and I certainly didn't mean for my comment to convey lack of fairness.

Primary and secondary ARE (like it or not), sequential terms. If you use them at all, it implies hierarchy. I would never call two equal partners my "primaries". They're just "partners" or "lovers". Though, I'm usually more descriptive with that. I generally describe our relationship in the way it appeals to me most, but I usually don't even bother.

One complaint raised about the term is that OTHER poly folks apply it. The reason I say they should "take a look at themselves" is I can't actually imagine a situation where equal lovers would be classified by someone as a secondary or primary. If I actually saw an equal relationship, I'd not need to add in the modifier. If people ARE adding in the modifier frequently enough that 1.) You hear it 2.) It bothers you looking at the dynamic that has someone apply that label might be a healthy thing. You can then readjust your relationship to make it more equal or do the same thing you'd do to someone who called a regular, 4-sided polygon a "triangle"...

Move on because they're wrong. :p
 
... Primary and secondary ARE (like it or not), sequential terms.

agree so far

If you use them at all, it implies hierarchy.

This is where you are mistaken. Not all sequences imply a system ordered by degrees of power or importance. They may be ordered in other ways than that.

The primary and secondary coil in a car engine, for example, are both equally important in making the spark. The names represent different roles, but both are equally essential

In battery technology, a primary cell is one which cannot be recharged, whereas a secondary is one that can (so called because the energy in a secondary cell has been made elsewhere and is shipped into the cell by charging it). It is not obvious to me that one is more important than the other (except in save-the-planet terms, where secondary cells are if anything considered *more* important)

And sometimes when there *is* a hierarchy, the secondary is clearly the more important.

For example, in UK schools, primary and secondary refer to the order a child passes through the system, the changeover from primary to secondary usually being around age 11 (can vary according to the part of the UK). The secondary comes later so is involved with the more advanced levels of study. Secondary teachers tend to get paid more than primary teachers and have better career prospects (*) (given two teachers with equal service, etc etc.). Tertiary education means Universities and other education after age 18.

So I think all you can infer is that some poly people probably do mean a hierarchy some of the time when they use the terms, and that other poly people probably don't.

----
(*) whether the teaching of young children *shoulld* be regarded as less important is another question again: I do not think it should be, but the fact is that the 'primary' label does not imply more respect, more money, more power, or better prospects)
 
Last edited:
And sometimes when there *is* a hierarchy, the secondary is the more important (example, in UK schools, primary and secondary refer to the order a child passes through the system, and the secondary coming later is involved with the more advanced levels of study. Secondary teachers tend to get paid more than primary teachers (for equal service, etc etc.). Tertiary education means Universities and other education after age 18.

How is this relevant? I have never heard anyone using secondary meaning more important when it comes to poly relationships. You're just playing with words here. Sure, secondary can mean something else in other contexts, but I'm quite sure nobody uses it like that in the context of relationships.

I can see and understand that for some people secondary is just as important as primary but means they have a different role in their life. But I have to agree with DrunkenPorcupine that I think the term secondary implies some sort of hierarchy. So if I think there's no hierarchy in my relationships, I simply won't use the word. If someone else wanted to use that label on my relationships...

or do the same thing you'd do to someone who called a regular, 4-sided polygon a "triangle"...

Move on because they're wrong. :p

...I would do this. :)
 
I agree that sequential terms don't necessarily mean hierarchy, but in this case, they would. They are awful terms and definitely need to stop being used for a more fair naming system, if you're really someone who needs a name for everything.
 
Back
Top