I've been thinking about my own definition of promariness. While in practicality, i like to live all relationships to their limits, the concept still hold validity to me. I've felt over-committed at times when I feel I'm giving a semi-permanent commitment of time and energy, which I consider a primary perk, to a situation where I'm not getting the same kind of commitment.
To me, primariness means that something available to one partner is open to another. It may take time, but equality or opportunity is on the table.
If the assumption is that if balancing the relationship gets rough, you'd end it with me no matter who was causing the conflict and difficulty,
If you are only open to living with me if I live with your other partner
If you are going to let the other impose limits on our relationship, based on his/her needs, without asking about mine,
If you're not open to occasional balancing where I get a larger share of energy and attention when I need it, that a 60/40 split, or even 70/30 split can happen in my favor as well as against,
I'm not going to feel very primary.
I know my feelings are valid, and how I define primariness is valid. But is it universal? Do other people see it differently?
To me, primariness means that something available to one partner is open to another. It may take time, but equality or opportunity is on the table.
If the assumption is that if balancing the relationship gets rough, you'd end it with me no matter who was causing the conflict and difficulty,
If you are only open to living with me if I live with your other partner
If you are going to let the other impose limits on our relationship, based on his/her needs, without asking about mine,
If you're not open to occasional balancing where I get a larger share of energy and attention when I need it, that a 60/40 split, or even 70/30 split can happen in my favor as well as against,
I'm not going to feel very primary.
I know my feelings are valid, and how I define primariness is valid. But is it universal? Do other people see it differently?
