Primaries, secondaries and couple privelege
- Thread starter Shaya
- Start date
vinsanity0
Active member
Let's see if I can keep this short...
There is nothing wrong with having a primary partner. I prefer to refer to that as a nesting partner- one I live with, share finances with, etc. That is just something that has to be shared with potential partners. Some poly people like that arrangement, some don't.
The problem is when these nesting partners only think of themselves. That'll work if everybody else is just a casual partner. It does not work well when the relationships are more serious.
Put yourself in the shoes of the "secondary" in these examples:
The Couple always spends holidays together.
Your partner often breaks dates with you because their primary wants to do something that day.
Your partner's primary decides they don't like you, so you get dumped.
If the three of you go out together, it is The Couple plus one.
Get the picture? The secondary is actually a second class citizen. Who would want to subject themselves to that?
There is nothing wrong with having a primary partner. I prefer to refer to that as a nesting partner- one I live with, share finances with, etc. That is just something that has to be shared with potential partners. Some poly people like that arrangement, some don't.
The problem is when these nesting partners only think of themselves. That'll work if everybody else is just a casual partner. It does not work well when the relationships are more serious.
Put yourself in the shoes of the "secondary" in these examples:
The Couple always spends holidays together.
Your partner often breaks dates with you because their primary wants to do something that day.
Your partner's primary decides they don't like you, so you get dumped.
If the three of you go out together, it is The Couple plus one.
Get the picture? The secondary is actually a second class citizen. Who would want to subject themselves to that?
Shaya
New member
Thanks Vince.
Let me clarify my question. "What's the difference between hierarchy and couple privelige."
I hear use of the former quite frequently in poly circles, yet the second is met with distaste. What's the difference between the two philosophies or approaches and why do I get the sense that we feel differently about the two terms?
Let me clarify my question. "What's the difference between hierarchy and couple privelige."
I hear use of the former quite frequently in poly circles, yet the second is met with distaste. What's the difference between the two philosophies or approaches and why do I get the sense that we feel differently about the two terms?
Emm
Stealth Mod
Couple privilege includes hierarchy, but also the fact that society accepts and encourages mono-normative couple behaviour. A work function or family get-together will include a "+1" invitation for a spouse or partner, medical insurance benefits are available to a spouse or partner, inheritance laws work in favour of a spouse or partner, etc. When a unicorn hunting couple insists that "the third" they're "bringing into their relationship" will be equal in every way, they don't take these things into account, then resist any attempt by the unicorn to secure those benefits for themselves outside of the relationship. Often there's also an unspoken "unless it gets in the way of our existing relationship" clause as well.
In many cases there isn't a huge difference between poly hierarchy as practised and couple privilege, which is why people are so often told to go away and read up on it when they're trampling all over their non-primary partners. The main difference is that when it's done with care and attention to the people involved, hierarchy doesn't automatically discount the needs of the non-primary participants.
Couple privilege is prescriptive; it sets out a picture of How Things Are, and everyone is expected to accept it or get out, often without having the rules fully explained to them before they jump in because the couple assumes that their way is the right way and everyone else should just know what to do. The label shapes the relationship.
Hierarchy is often more descriptive; if people live together and share finances they might be described as primary partners because that's the shape their relationship has taken. The relationship shapes the label, not the other way around.
In many cases there isn't a huge difference between poly hierarchy as practised and couple privilege, which is why people are so often told to go away and read up on it when they're trampling all over their non-primary partners. The main difference is that when it's done with care and attention to the people involved, hierarchy doesn't automatically discount the needs of the non-primary participants.
Couple privilege is prescriptive; it sets out a picture of How Things Are, and everyone is expected to accept it or get out, often without having the rules fully explained to them before they jump in because the couple assumes that their way is the right way and everyone else should just know what to do. The label shapes the relationship.
Hierarchy is often more descriptive; if people live together and share finances they might be described as primary partners because that's the shape their relationship has taken. The relationship shapes the label, not the other way around.
There are good examples of couple privilege in vinsanity0's post, so I won't belabor that point. I think of couple privilege as being a subset of hierarchy. In couple privilege, there are two co-primary partners (usually husband and wife), all others are secondary, and secondary partners warrant second-class treatment. The core couple must be served and preserved at all costs.
Non-privilege hierarchies still have (a) primary and secondary partner/s, but secondaries are treated with fairness and respect. For a thorough description of this treatment, see Secondaries' Bill of Rights by Franklin Veaux.
Non-privilege hierarchies still have (a) primary and secondary partner/s, but secondaries are treated with fairness and respect. For a thorough description of this treatment, see Secondaries' Bill of Rights by Franklin Veaux.
vinsanity0
Active member
A healthy hierarchical relationship does not include couple's privilege (at least as far as how the other partners are treated by the primary couple.) I don't see couple's privilege as a philosophy. It's more of a bad behavior.
anamikanon
New member
The way I see it, most poly situations will have some kind of a hierarchy - whether formally stated or situational or the emotional investment. They may also be fluid. Sometimes, particularly with children involved, there may be a more explicit commitment to that relationship and so on. I don't think a hierarchy or having primaries and secondaries is the issue - it is just a way of explaining how a person organizes their relationships.
The problem with couple privilege is that it encroaches other relationships too. People have differing needs from the other outside the relationship and there are many instances of people being required to inform partners when they are with someone else - for example. But this is still a form of agreement about how the relationship is conducted. But couple privilege has the power to disrupt agreements in other relationships.
There will also be elements of encroachment in the natural give and take of living.
For example it is one thing to expect a date to be broken because of a medical emergency. Quite another to expect it be broken for disapproval. A partner may go through a phase when they need more support and thus time and attention than "agreed on". These are exceptional circumstances.
In my view, couple privilege is the misuse of hierarchy to manipulate other relationships for own preference or psychological comfort. There is a thin line. People's comfort levels vary. Different things cause them distress. I would look very much at what agreements are made and if someone has the power to unilaterally impose changes in them. Or if someone routinely causes disruptions in the other relationship. Or if there is a denial of recognition or dignity. And such. Where the couple being at the top of the hierarchy ends up forcing other relationships in ways they hadn't signed on for.
Alleycat
New member
Another aspect of couples privilege is the objective limiting of relationship aspects with "secondary" partners, be it "I can't do X Y Z with you", or "I can only do X Y Z with you" or "We can do X Y and A but not Z, and we certainly can't call it X Y A or Z."
In some cases this isn't limited to simply activities behaviors and titles, it is often extended to what considerations and situation dependent preferential treatment the secondary can expect (if any is extend), which is often strongly in deference to the "primary" or "coupled" partner and their relationship.
A lot of people who actively engage in "couples privilege" (sometimes without recognizing it themselves) try very hard to bury it with polyvocabulary and various spin-doctoring to explain away the situation or behavior, which doesn't actually change the practical application of the behavior and treatment that is occurring.
In some cases this isn't limited to simply activities behaviors and titles, it is often extended to what considerations and situation dependent preferential treatment the secondary can expect (if any is extend), which is often strongly in deference to the "primary" or "coupled" partner and their relationship.
A lot of people who actively engage in "couples privilege" (sometimes without recognizing it themselves) try very hard to bury it with polyvocabulary and various spin-doctoring to explain away the situation or behavior, which doesn't actually change the practical application of the behavior and treatment that is occurring.
Spork
Active member
I am finding it more useful as a mental exercise to imagine situations that involved some hierarchy, where couple privilege was either absent, or just not a problem or issue.
My former poly group:
I considered myself solo poly, practicing egalitarian with three men and one woman. My polycule was a four person quad with a married couple, a boyfriend, and me, and I also had the Zen Sadist all to myself external to that. The women in the quad were more romantic/sexual to one another than the men were to one another, but we were all very close.
The married couple was assumed in an easy sort of way to be primaries for one another. They were the only nesting couple, they went on trips together, they had ties to one another's families. No kids. As someone who WANTED to be "solo poly" during our time together, and did not seek a nesting partner at that point... I had just broke up a long marriage and wanted time to get my feet under me, so I was resisting getting "too serious" with anyone...
So any "privilege" they might have had was irrelevant because I was not envying it, seeking it, grasping at it. I never once had any illusions about becoming a lifetime romantic partner to any of the quad, really. I was not looking too far ahead. Fire and Hefe went to Acapulco. I was like, "Have a great time! Can't wait to see the pictures!" I wasn't bummed or unhappy at all.
A lot of whether you perceive that you're being treated in ways that are unfair or like a second class citizen will depend on what you want in life. There are people who have swimming pools in their backyards...I would rather not, I think they seem like a lot of work to maintain. Some people have seagoing boats. I live in the mountains. I don't need a seagoing boat.
If the elements that make up "couple privilege" are completely extraneous to what the "third" is wanting and seeking in life, then they aren't likely to fuss about it. Not everyone wants to jump on the relationship escalator, or is at a point in life where that makes sense.
But at the same time, when we were all together, being kind of rebellious spirits, we did not hide our relationships. I never felt like a shameful secret. We were all affectionate to one another (still are, in many ways, very PDA types.) I would not like being anyone's secret.
My former poly group:
I considered myself solo poly, practicing egalitarian with three men and one woman. My polycule was a four person quad with a married couple, a boyfriend, and me, and I also had the Zen Sadist all to myself external to that. The women in the quad were more romantic/sexual to one another than the men were to one another, but we were all very close.
The married couple was assumed in an easy sort of way to be primaries for one another. They were the only nesting couple, they went on trips together, they had ties to one another's families. No kids. As someone who WANTED to be "solo poly" during our time together, and did not seek a nesting partner at that point... I had just broke up a long marriage and wanted time to get my feet under me, so I was resisting getting "too serious" with anyone...
So any "privilege" they might have had was irrelevant because I was not envying it, seeking it, grasping at it. I never once had any illusions about becoming a lifetime romantic partner to any of the quad, really. I was not looking too far ahead. Fire and Hefe went to Acapulco. I was like, "Have a great time! Can't wait to see the pictures!" I wasn't bummed or unhappy at all.
A lot of whether you perceive that you're being treated in ways that are unfair or like a second class citizen will depend on what you want in life. There are people who have swimming pools in their backyards...I would rather not, I think they seem like a lot of work to maintain. Some people have seagoing boats. I live in the mountains. I don't need a seagoing boat.
If the elements that make up "couple privilege" are completely extraneous to what the "third" is wanting and seeking in life, then they aren't likely to fuss about it. Not everyone wants to jump on the relationship escalator, or is at a point in life where that makes sense.
But at the same time, when we were all together, being kind of rebellious spirits, we did not hide our relationships. I never felt like a shameful secret. We were all affectionate to one another (still are, in many ways, very PDA types.) I would not like being anyone's secret.
AutumnLeaves
New member
Like most phrases that include "privilege," I think couples privilege gets a bad rap from people who don't fully understand it. It's just the assumptions (societal and individual) that go along with the couplehood of the highest couple on the escalator. It's not bad or good in and of itself. And it exists in any couple relationship, regardless of whether you're practicing hierarchical poly or not.
If you're closeted about poly, it's probably because you want to maintain couples privileges. Things like... not being discriminated against because you're perceived as "normally" monogamous.
In a hierarchy model, it's generally accepted that the primary partner is allowed to maintain some or most couples privileges. Being perceived as a couple. Being jointly invited to things. Having first say in the schedule. Etc. You're actively working to maintain some privileges.
In a non-heirarchy model, you may have to actively work against it. Who gets invited first to family gatherings? Who gets scheduling priority? Who is most free time spent with? Is there an assumption that new partners will never move into the house of the couple? Use the bed of the couple? Do existing partners get a say in relationships with new partners? Etc, etc. You're probably actively working against a lot of privileges.
Couples privilege isn't inherently bad. How you treat people outside of the couple as a result of the privilege CAN BE though. In either model.
If you're closeted about poly, it's probably because you want to maintain couples privileges. Things like... not being discriminated against because you're perceived as "normally" monogamous.
In a hierarchy model, it's generally accepted that the primary partner is allowed to maintain some or most couples privileges. Being perceived as a couple. Being jointly invited to things. Having first say in the schedule. Etc. You're actively working to maintain some privileges.
In a non-heirarchy model, you may have to actively work against it. Who gets invited first to family gatherings? Who gets scheduling priority? Who is most free time spent with? Is there an assumption that new partners will never move into the house of the couple? Use the bed of the couple? Do existing partners get a say in relationships with new partners? Etc, etc. You're probably actively working against a lot of privileges.
Couples privilege isn't inherently bad. How you treat people outside of the couple as a result of the privilege CAN BE though. In either model.
opalescent
Active member
Privilege in general does not make one a 'bad' person. I think of privilege as an aspect of one's self that makes life easier through no effort or intent on your part. So for instance, I am white. In the US, that generally means if I interact with the police, I do not have to seriously worry that the police will shoot, harass or kill me. I was not taught by my parents techniques for dealing with the police that are meant to help me survive an encounter with the police because I do not need such advice. This privilege does not make me a bad person.
But it does make me a person who needs to understand the various privileges I walk around with. Unconscious privilege can lead to being an unintentional asshole. I've certainly done that. I need to understand that because of who they are people can have entirely different experiences than me. My life is not the template of every life (although being white, middle class and American, it can sometimes feel that way.)
But it does make me a person who needs to understand the various privileges I walk around with. Unconscious privilege can lead to being an unintentional asshole. I've certainly done that. I need to understand that because of who they are people can have entirely different experiences than me. My life is not the template of every life (although being white, middle class and American, it can sometimes feel that way.)
Ravenscroft
Banned
I have difficulty using the term "couple privilege," as it feels to be diluting a predecessor, "white privilege." (My age showing, I guess. 
) I generally use others like couple-front thinking, or just couplism.
I don't feel there's anything wrong with deciding that a preexisting dyad deserves some sort of exalted primacy, even if that status is granted ONLY because it was there first. Sure, the couple maybe ought to face up to their insecurities & maybe even actually FIX THEM... but of itself the need for rules is no more "bad" than any other garden-variety kink.
The problems come up when people make clear they're lying. For instance, "our girl will be equal with us in every way!" -- except having kids, sharing home ownership, bringing her dogs, sharing health insurance, publicly showing simple affection to her "equals," & like that.
The problems only increase if couplists get all angry when someone points up any such contradictions.
) I generally use others like couple-front thinking, or just couplism.I don't feel there's anything wrong with deciding that a preexisting dyad deserves some sort of exalted primacy, even if that status is granted ONLY because it was there first. Sure, the couple maybe ought to face up to their insecurities & maybe even actually FIX THEM... but of itself the need for rules is no more "bad" than any other garden-variety kink.
The problems come up when people make clear they're lying. For instance, "our girl will be equal with us in every way!" -- except having kids, sharing home ownership, bringing her dogs, sharing health insurance, publicly showing simple affection to her "equals," & like that.
The problems only increase if couplists get all angry when someone points up any such contradictions.