Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

Little different take

Although I have repeatedly explained the idea of "impact" as a way to determine if a person such as myself is secondary. I consider myself exactly that, secondary, because my absence would have less overall impact on Redpepper's life.

Just now I also realized that there is a hidden beauty in being a secondary to her relationship in the way that I am. I am not tied to Redpepper in the traditional sense, or the logistical sense. I am not the father of her child; I have no legal obligation for his care (paperwork to follow which will change that). I don't have any financial entanglement with her, such as mortgages, loans or even a shared budget. Essentially, I have zero external influences which keep me in the relationship, and yet I remain, even though we struggled so hard for the better part of a year with the whole mono/poly thing and accusations of child abuse from her parents.

I am in my relationship as a secondary because I want to be in a relationship with her. Full stop. I want this.

So despite my ability to simply walk away, I chose wholeheartedly to share my life with her and her family as an extension of my love.

I am free, self sufficient, healthy and in her life because of who she is and the belief that I am a positive to her husband and son.

Being a secondary means loving her for being herself, for who she is, and the family that surrounds her.
 
I've tried explaining this to some lately. I even wrote a blog post on this.

Gator is my primary and Tech is my secondary, not that I'm unwilling to have them both as primary, it's mostly a situation thing that they both aren't my primaries.

Primary doesn't really mean to me that I love one of them more than the other. If Tech and I felt free to let our relationship reach its potential, or if he took steps to ensure we could, things would be different.

But as for definitions, I feel a primary is someone who has not only committed to love me, but to build a life with me, someone I have meshed all aspects of my life with. Finances and living together are major components of that.

I have that with Gator and I do not with Tech.

I'm not sure I explained this well, but hopefully you get at least a glimpse of what I mean.
 
Mon, I do so love the way you write. ;)

Ourquad, makes sense to me. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ourquad said:
Primary to me is someone who has not only committed to love me but to build a life with me, someone I have meshed all aspects of my life with. Finances and living together are major components of that.
Click to expand...

That seems like a really good way to put it. Outside of my marriage, I don't have any desire to combine finances, living arrangements, or child care with anyone. And I'm quite sure the person with whom I share a joint account would not be willing to open that account to another person, or share the house whose mortgage he pays. And considering he got a vasectomy three weeks ago, I'm quite sure he has no desire to become involved with anyone else's kids!

So anyone else I become involved with will not receive the level of commitment required to maintain those kinds of living arrangements. That seems to make them "secondary," but I don't think it makes them second-class.

To me, it seems that secondary refers more to what I'm able to give them than their inherent status as person. Second-class sounds like a personal status.
 
Being that I am a neophyte, my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But the way I define my relationships and the reasons I do so are as follows: P and I are primaries because our relationship is longer, time/crisis tested, we share all domestic trappings and he is the father of my 4 children; 2R and I are secondaries to each other because of the above reasons.

My love for 2R is a different story. I am definitely more emotionally, intellectually and sexually connected to 2R. Maybe this is NRE talking, but he hit me like lightening and I turned my life upside down to make this relationship work. I never had that feeling before, EVER! I have no doubt we would have children together if our timing were a bit better, but alas, not in the cards.

My relationship with KT is that we are secondaries, in a platonic but significant friendship. We are learning to care for each other. Trust is still an issue, but I have no doubt this is moving towards a sisterly vibe. I appreciate her courage in letting me into her life, and I hope with sincere optimism that the friction will ease.

2R always says we should each move a step toward each other when it comes to relating. We'll see how it all plays out and how the labels and definitions evolve.
 
For me, it's become very simple. Whoever I spend more time with is my primary. They are kind of my primary concern. Anyone else is not a primary, unless I am with them in the moment. Then they are my primary. I really like to make sure my attention is on whom I am with as much as I can. I have no use for secondaries, I don't think.
 
SchrodingersCat said:
Outside of my marriage, I don't have any desire to combine finances, living arrangements, or child care with anyone.
Click to expand...

I don't have any desire to combine finances, living arrangements or child care with anyone at all, and because of that, I don't really consider myself as having a primary. My status is single, but with 4 lovers. I am either the primary or secondary for each of them.

Charles has Holland. I consider her to be his primary and me to be his secondary. Charles and Holland have begun to combine their finances and they have more of a co-dependent approach to one another.

This is another way I would view a primary. When a minor crisis happens, and you need help, who do you call first, assuming that all of your lovers are equally capable of assisting? That might be your primary.
 
I consider both M and GG primaries. We all share finances. We are all on the bank account for bills and for savings. We do all have our own savings accounts, too, but they are all empty at the moment. We all share parenting duties to the four children who are all ours in one way or another. We all share responsibility to the house, though only Maca and I own it legally.

I also love both of them from the depths of my soul. I don't see how love can be measured, the more I think on it. So I can't say "equally" or "unequally," because the truth is, I just love them. No idea what the measurement for love would be.
 
LovingRadiance said:
I also love both of them from the depths of my soul. I don't see how love can be MEASURED-the more I think on it. So I can't say "equally" or "unequally" because the truth is-I just LOVE them-no idea what the measurement for love would be.
Click to expand...

Very true. I hate the terms personally but if I had to use them my above explanation covers it I think.
 
What's a neophyte? Maca says, "I've heard of that," and my sister says, "I don't know how to explain it."
 
Primary Relationships vs. Secondary Relationships

Can these two relationships be possibly equal to each other, I wonder? My assumption is that there will be a split in people's opinions depending on which group they belong to, the primary couple or the new person entering an existing relationship. This is called the secondary, which is technically where I am today. However, I personally disapprove this term, as it implies inferiority by its definition. What do you think?
 
I don't like the terms, but haven't found another way to classify them that works for me YET.

You missed a type-- those that are in both types of relationships.

I live with my primary, and generally get a couple of hours a week with my secondary, not the ideal situation for me yet, but with work schedules being what they are, it's all Possibility and I can usually manage.
 
Equal in what way?

I personally don't feel that any two relationships, whatever their form can ever be "equal" - i.e. the same.

So I presume you mean something more specific...

Could you say more, please?
 
primaries and secondaries

Are there certain things that mark out a primary relationship from a secondary one? I mean, like, generic things, so you can easily see, "Oh yeah, she cares about that guy more than the other guy. He is the primary."

At first thought, I would have said wedding rings and children would mark out a primary, but on second thought, these are things (for want of a better word) that just have been accrued over time spent together. People HAVE been known to throw those away to start again with someone new.

Any thoughts?
 
Have you seen this thread yet? I believe there is some discussion about these things in here. We do have a lot of new members since this thread was last active, so perhaps we can get some new perspectives.
 
What is Reasonable?

Hi,

I'm in a six-month old poly relationship, and found out quite by chance that it's a secondary relationship. I don't have a problem with the relationship being secondary, for several reasons (foremost being distance-- we're 3000 miles apart); the problem is that there are apparently rules and restrictions governing how much "relationship" I can have. When the relationship first started, my SO explained that there was no such thing as "primary" and "secondary," but last week, explained that, "Yeah, actually there is," and I'm the secondary. I'm supposed to be having a discussion today to let the primary couple know what I want/need from the relationship. I'm a little unclear as to what happens then.

The gist is that I have no idea what is reasonable. I want to not be forgotten or ignored. I want to be included in tribal activities when I'm visiting. I want to be comforted when I'm hurt or sick (even if it's just an email). I want to know that plans we've made will be kept, if at all possible.

I've been reading up on secondary relationships, and it's pretty depressing stuff. If I'm interpreting it correctly, I should just be happy with whatever I can get, and should be grateful that the primary couple is letting me in at all. I'll admit that most of my ideas on poly come from Lazarus Long, so they're pretty idealized, but do all secondary relationships have to be shallow and, well, less? What is reasonable?

Thanks,
Cat
 
Your relationship should be what you negotiate it to be. You shouldn't be setteling for crumbs. Ask for what you need. The way you outlined your needs in your post don't seem at all unreasonable. The only rules and restrictions on primary vs secondary relationships are those that are agreed upon with the people involved. If you feel that you are having rules forced upon you that you are not happy with it is your responsibilty to speak up and make your needs and expectations known. Good luck.
 
Some people hate labels. That said, do you have your own primary?

Primary can simply imply a lifestyle. It doesn't explain the level of love. If this is your primary relationship and you are his secondary, then there are bound to be problems.

Your requests aren't unreasonable, on paper. If, in those requests, you are putting a lot of pressure on time requested, to the point where you are bridging into primary time, then you may find pushback.

As a secondary, at times I was putting requests in for time and energy in a primary way. Learning to be a secondary was hard, but worth it. I couldn't imagine trying to do it without my own primary, though. There is a time and energy involved in being a primary that is just awesome.

Again, not everyone follows these descriptive terms. Some people hate them. I don't. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top