Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

http://cdn3.libsyn.com/polyweekly/P...25&nva=20100311053325&t=029db68b9ddf62a2f2b3e

I just listened to this. Good to hear your voice, Joreth (if you are still among us).

It seems that there is no debate between primary/secondary descriptions of relationships and describing relationships as not being of a primary/secondary nature. There are just differing experiences and things for newcomers, and sometimes us poly veterans need to think about that. What there is to think about is in terms of prescribing rules/boundaries for new relationships coming into our lives so as to not hurt and/or damage a new person in our sense of self, ego and worth.

There were several points made in this podcast that I wanted to point out.

1. There is a struggle sometimes for people in several poly relationships, where there was no established relationship to start with, to vie for top dog relationship. These folks want to have claim to the primary positions and that can be hurtful and dangerous to all the other relationships.

2. A person entering an established relationship that has been looking for a "unicorn" of sorts, sometimes has prescribed rules/boundaries to follow whereby the "unicorn (or other)" must fit these rules/boundaries in order to fit. This can be unappealing for a person entering an established relationship. It can be hurtful and damaging to that person to find out they are investing in a relationship of this nature.

3. Some relationships that are established, and looking for other partners are compassionate and respectful (two words I love oh so much :) it made me so happy to hear them!) to new partners and do their best to not have fear attached to the newcomer, but welcome them and are warm to them in order to make them feel they are wanted and worthy of as much attention as anyone else involved in that relationship's life.

4. This fear that some couples have when opening their relationship is often based in their "fear of losing" the partner they have. It is very common, in my opinion, and seems to be a first step when a couple open up their relationship, as is the assumption that a new partner will meld into the relationship that already exists and will somehow become some version of the fantasy that the couple had in mind.

5. It is important to go with changes in relationships and morph into a future with one's partner and newly-established partners. There needs to be respect for established relationships, but not to the detriment of those who have not been around as long. Those people and those relationships are just as valid and vital, just different.

So, that's what I got from this. Anything else to add that I might've missed? Any thoughts on how this affects your view of primary/secondary?

It makes me feel confident that anyone that enters our relationship can feel welcomed and accepted for who they are and what they may bring to our lives.

I still have a primary established relationship that, for me, means that I take my son as my primary concern. Therefore, who parents him with me is my primary partner. That does not mean that anyone else will be kept separate or be loved any less because of that commitment to raising him. There will be time restraints, but that is it. I can respect that every relationship I have is different from the next and just as valid.

My love may be deeper for someone over another because that love is more established, but there is no secondary love for me. In fact, I would prefer to say that in light of this new discovery for me I would never have a secondary, only primaries and possible primaries, going by my own definition of my son being my primary responsibility and commitment, that is. (Does that make sense?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This primary/secondary thing seems to have taken me a huge amount of time to understand. I think I get it now. This isn't about labels, this is about treatment. There is an immense difference between referring to someone descriptively as secondary and treating them as such. This is about treatment, not labels. This is about treating people as commodities, I think. That I get!

I may call myself a secondary within our relationship, but I am certainly not being treated as a secondary.
 
I am a little confused about why these things are suddenly obvious after many people have said them over and over in writing on this forum.

Why is it that suddenly that the things she says make sense, when she said the same things already on here (as did other people) and got all kinds of rebuttal?

However, this is wherein the glitch lies:

redpepper said:
For me it makes me feel confident that anyone that enters our relationship can feel welcomed and accepted for who they are and what they may bring to our lives.
Click to expand...

Wording a new relationship as "entering OUR relationship" implies that the new person is of a second-class status. They are not "entering your relationship" they are "starting or having a relationship with you and/or whoever". That's the kind of language construction indicating the subconscious thought-process that leads to "prescriptive" expectations.

I could go on for 10000 characters like Joreth, but I don't see how more words will help if those few sentences cannot be understood.
 
Last edited:
YGirl said:
I am a little confused about why these things are suddenly obvious after many people have said them over and over in writing on this forum.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually listen to anything or read anything new. People were confusing me by rejecting the word "secondary" as a label. That is what I found so incomprehensible. A spade is a spade. A secondary is a secondary, meaning they impact less in a broader sense. That's just my definition.

I still internally recognize people with labels just to keep relationships straight in my mind. That doesn't mean I see them as less important as people, just less impacting on the relationship.
 
MonoVCPHG said:
I didn't actually listen to anything or read anything new. People were confusing me by rejecting the word "secondary" as a label. That is what I found so incomprehensible. A spade is a spade, a secondary is a secondary meaning they impact less in a broader sense. That's just my definition.

I still internaly recognize people with labels just to keep relationships straight in my mind. That doesn't mean I see them as less important as people, just less impacting on the relationship.
Click to expand...

I was actually responding to what redpepper, who is the OP of this thread, wrote. :cool:

Your position on this matter, Mono, has always been crystal clear to me.
 
YGirl said:
I am a little confused about why these things are suddenly obvious after many people have said them over and over in writing on this forum. Why is it that suddenly that the things she says make sense, when she said the same things already on here (as did other people) and got all kinds of rebuttal?

However, this is wherein the glitch lies:
Wording a new relationship as "entering OUR relationship" implies that the new person is of a second-class status. They are not "entering your relationship" they are "starting or having a relationship with you and/or whoever". That's the kind of language construction indicating the subconscious thought-process that leads to "prescriptive" expectations.

I could go on for 10,000 characters like Joreth, but I don't see how more words will help if those few sentences cannot be understood.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Y-girl. "Entering" is not a good word in the context of what you are saying. I was thinking of it in terms of when people say they are "entering" into a new relationship. We would all be "entering" into the relationship, because, in actual fact, the relationship all around changes when someone comes into it or leaves it.

As to why I didn't get it before? All I heard from others writing about this before was their frustration and anger, not what they were trying to get across. I also found that there was an assumption around understanding some key words and concepts I was not familiar with. Like every human that feels judged and threatened, I struggled to understand, and when frustration and judgement towards me came in it was near impossible to. It took taking myself out of feeling that way and finding another route to be able to understand.

Or, maybe I'm an idiot, and we should remove this thread, as everyone got it and I didn't.
 
redpepper said:
Fair enough ygirl, "entering" is not a good word in the context of what you are saying. I was thinking of it in terms of when people say they are "entering" into a new relationship. We would all be "entering" into the relationship, because in actual fact the relationship all around changes when someone comes into it or leaves it.

As to why I didn't get it before? All I heard from others writing about this before was their frustration and anger. Not what they were trying to get across. I also found that there was an assumption around undertanding some key words and concepts that I was not familiar with. Like every human that feels judged and threatened, I struggled to understand and when frustration and judgement towards me came in it was near impossible to. It took taking myself out of feeling that way and finding another route to be able to understand.

Or, maybe I'm an idiot and we should remove this thread as everyone got it and I didn't.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation.
 
Sometimes I can be told the same thing over and over again in different ways and I just don't get it - then, whether it's the mindset I am in at the time, the wording that's used, the phase of the moon, or whether beings on Planet 10 are influencing it - all of a sudden it clicks.

The main thing is that it clicks.
 
The most impressive thing right now is that it is possible to have this very conversation without devolving to angry personal insults.
 
YGirl said:
The most impressive thing right now is that it is possible to have this very conversation without devolving to angry personal insults.
Click to expand...
How DARE you say that to me! I take that personally!

Too soon?
 
redpepper said:
As to why I didn't get it before? All I heard from others writing about this before was their frustration and anger, not what they were trying to get across.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that perception has more to do with who was writing the words, rather than what was actually written. I wonder if some of that frustration and anger was assumed in the reading of it before it was read. In going back and re-reading the thread, people were endeavoring to clearly explain why prescriptive relationships can be damaging. There wasn't "frustration and anger." The frustration came after there were continual rebuttals to points that weren't actually being made.

redpepper said:
I also found there was an assumption around understanding some key words and concepts that I was not familiar with.
Click to expand...

What terms were those?

redpepper said:
Like every human that feels judged and threatened, I struggled to understand, and when frustration and judgement towards me came in it was near impossible to. It took taking myself out of feeling that way and finding another route to be able to understand.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, too. It was repeatedly stated in that particular thread that people were not referring to you when the issues were brought up.

Either way, glad you came to an understanding of what we were talking about, though Joreth used many of the exact same words and phrases in that podcast that she wrote in her posts about it. Perhaps you're more of a verbal than visual learner.
 
YGirl said:
The most impressive thing right now is that it is possible to have this very conversation without devolving to angry personal insults.
Click to expand...

CielDuMatin said:
How DARE you say that to me! I take that personally!

Too soon?
Click to expand...


HA! What makes you think I was referring to YOU, then? If you don't do that, then I am not talking about YOU! :p




Ceoli said:
I wonder if that perception has more to do with who was writing the words rather than what was actually written.
Click to expand...

If this were true, then hearing the podcast wouldn't have made a difference.

I wonder if some of that frustration and anger was assumed in the reading of it before it was read.
Click to expand...

This can be a function of the medium, such as not being able to hear someone's tone of voice or facial expression. Still, it is unfortunate that people tend to assign the worst intentions to something someone else says when it can be taken in more than one way.


Ceoli said:
Perhaps you're more of a verbal than visual learner.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking too, regarding redpepper.
 
Last edited:
My perception had nothing to do with who was writing. And I think we all take things the wrong way, sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I think learning style may be a huge factor, not only on this board, but in life. I know that we come across a number of communication issues in our relationship due to that.

I am primarily a visual learner, with a strong ability to learn kinesthetically, and great difficulty learning from things I hear.

GG is TOTALLY a kinesthetic learner, and seeing or hearing it is damn near to impossible for him (which, I might add, makes for a NIGHTMARE in helping him understand new things).

Maca is strong in all three, except he has a much smaller vocabulary then I do, and a strong tendency to misuse words. Ugh.

So I think that it makes perfect sense that you "got it" when you could hear it instead of reading it. You've already been quite clear about your difficulty with reading/writing, and you've also been very clear about your difficulty with understanding the definitions of some of the terms that were used on this topic (so there with ya on that one!) And it was a different atmosphere and circumstance too.

Glad you could get it and lay it out here to share! I know the whole concept is one Maca is still struggling with significantly.
 
I hope Maca gets something out of it, LR, as that was my intent in starting this thread.

I really hope it is helpful. Otherwise I will feel marginalized for having dyslexia. Lol :D I read that apparently I am not able to grasp English at one point, didn't I? Or maybe that wasn't directed towards me.

It's a good thing I have a sense of humour and can brush things off... :p hahaha... Ooo.

I got it. Is that not enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top