Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

Why is it eerie, Raven? It's a theory that lots of human services workers use to describe how relationships and other systems affect an individual when considering planned change. It doesn't surprise me that it has passed from there into general use. You can wiki Ecological Systems Perspective to see the "original" idea.
 
Cool, Seasnail. I might check it out. I'm not a human services worker. It was eerie because I'd never encountered the concept before outside of myself. And I've been describing my relationships in terms of concentric circles for a long time.

But it is said that no idea is really new. :p

~Raven~
 
This is what I do, how about you?

I've taken to referring to both of my 'primaries' (live-in, functionally married relationships) as partners (and husbands soon, as we're planning weddings). The term 'boyfriend' slips in occasionally, and it's often how I hear both my partners self-identify. I would only ever call them 'primaries' in situations that necessitate shorthand (like forums on the internet, or maybe highly enlightened cocktail parties). It's certainly not what we call each other over breakfast!

Everyone else I'm involved with in any way, I just call a friend (and there are a few where the sexual line is blurry right now). There's no one else I'm close enough to romantically these days to necessitate the boyfriend/girlfriend label, though I'd be pleased if that changed.
 
Experience Changed my Views

I learned about polyamory and began to desire being in a poly relationship back in 2005. I didn't get involved in one until fall 2009. Before being in that relationship, I always felt that I'd prefer to have one primary, and then one or two secondaries. Now that I've fallen in love with a married woman, I don't like the terms primary and secondary as much as I used to.

On our first two dates, she told me that she doesn't like the term secondary. She said that she preferred to refer to the boyfriend she already has as one of her partners, or her boyfriend. She pointed out that she lives with her husband, shares finances, etc., and that she had no desire to change that, but that she doesn't love her boyfriend any less.

Since then, our relationship has really deepened. We have fallen in love. At one point, I mentioned that I feel like she is a primary to me, even though she doesn't view me as her primary. She said that she wondered about that. She didn't disagree with me that night.

Then, two weeks later, while I was being very emotional, I mentioned that I desired that she be my primary "emotionally." She said, "I told you at the beginning that I couldn't be a primary partner to you." We both froze after she said that. We were silent and stared at each other for 10 seconds, at least. She broke the silence and said, "Well, at least you don't have to provide for me." I agreed, and said that I could not afford a live-in primary. My mind was reeling, though. I didn't mean a live-in situation. I just meant to be a primary to me "emotionally."

I didn't bring up that subject again.

Now, I just cling to what she first told me about how she doesn't like the terms primary and secondary, and that she lives with her husband and has no desire to change that. I do like that outlook on her relationships.
 
Vexxed,

Ouch! Yeah... I feel ya on that one.

I've noticed that it can be difficult navigating the world of polyamory if you're not part of a strong pair-bond to begin with. As a single poly person, I've often encountered people who say that they don't like the words "primary" and "secondary," yet still have something that resembles that in practice. That's fair enough, but when the majority of poly people that are available for relationships are not available for the kind of pair-bonding that involves living together or building a home and family together, it can feel a bit daunting.

So I just go on, keeping my heart open to the relationships that come my way and intentionally building my life to be one that I want to live.

But yeah, it can be achy at times, huh?

I should add that not everybody is necessarily looking for a live-in pair-bond, or the like. I just know that it's something I would like.
 
Last edited:
Ceoli said:
So I just go on, keeping my heart open to the relationships that come my way and intentionally building my life to be one that I want to live.
It can be achy at times.
Click to expand...

Ceoli, it sounds like you have a great outlook on dating when most people around you have primaries.

Yes, it can hurt. She is very sensitive to my feelings, though. It could be because she is very well educated on matters that involve the mind.

I actually live in the same home as her other boyfriend. A little off subject, but it makes my poly situation a little tougher. He doesn't desire a live-in primary. Certainly I do desire one, but I didn't intend for my mentioning the word "primary" to sound like I was suggesting a living arrangement. I just desire to feel like "a primary" to her emotionally, and not "the primary." I totally respect her marriage and her husband. We all get along well.
 
Vexxed said:
Cetainly I do desire one, but I didn't intend for my mentioning the word "primary" to sound like I was suggesting a living arrangement. I just desire to feel like "a primary" to her emotionally, and not "the primary." I totally respect her marriage and her husband. We all get along well.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. My new partner considers primary connections to be emotional connections, not necessarily a function of who he's living with. He does live with one of his partners, but lives across the country from another partner with whom he has a strong "primary" connection (he would say "strongly pair-bonded"). That connection has nothing to do with living arrangements or shared finances. But what I love most about his outlook is that each of his relationships can develop to what level of connection is right for them, not necessarily to a level that must fit in a hierarchy of already established relationships. That way, there can easily be more than one primary in his life. I tend to see it that way too.
 
My wife and I have discussed this a good bit. Although we've barely waded into the poly-waters, the idea of primaries and secondaries just isn't appealing. In some ways, we don't even like referring to ourselves as "husband and wife" in the context of polyamory, because that seems to automatically erect a barrier to any external partners. Certainly they're useful labels in our social/legal frameworks, but frankly we want to stay away from any self-induced hierarchies.

My personal preference is "my sweeties" or "my lovers," FWIW.
 
Ceoli said:
I see what you mean. My new partner considers primary connections to be emotional connections, not necessarily a function of who he's living with. He does live with one of his partners, but lives across the country from another partner with whom he has a strong "primary" connection (he would say "strongly pair-bonded"). That connection has nothing to do with living arrangements or shared finances. But what I love most about his outlook is that each of his relationships can develop to what level of connection is right for them, not necessarily to a level that must fit in a hierarchy of already established relationships. That way, there can easily be more than one primary in his life. I tend to see it that way too.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the way she explained it to me the first time. She pointed out that she didn't like the labels, but that she did live with and share finances with her hubby. I'm not sure if she still holds 100% to that view now. It may have been easier when she only had two lovers. Including me she has 3 lovers now.
 
Last edited:
Ceoli said:
My new partner considers primary connections to be emotional connections, not necessarily a function of who he's living with. He does live with one of his partners, but lives across the country from another partner with whom he has a strong "primary" connection (he would say "strongly pair-bonded"). That connection has nothing to do with living arrangements or shared finances. But what I love most about his outlook is that each of his relationships can develop to what level of connection is right for them, not necessarily to a level that must fit in a hierarchy of already established relationships. That way, there can easily be more than one primary in his life. I tend to see it that way too.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. This is how I live my poly life, also. I see no need for terms unless I am explaining something. I don't feel I need to categorize anymore, but it was helpful when I needed to sort it all out in my head at the beginning.
 
Ceoli said:
My new partner considers primary connections to be emotional connections, not necessarily a function of who he's living with....But what I love most about his outlook is that each of his relationships can develop to what level of connection is right for them, not necessarily to a level that must fit in a hierarchy of already established relationships. That way, there can easily be more than one primary in his life. I tend to see it that way too.
Click to expand...
I think that is awesome. That is my preferred lifestyle. (Is lifestyle the right word? I hope you get what I mean.)

One of the most primary relationships in my life is completely non-sexual. MANY people who live in my day-to-day life have believed he was more tertiary, in regards to the depth/importance of our relationship, right up unto the point where it looked like was going to die, and they saw the toll that took on me (and my oldest daughter, as well). Now they are seeing that my relationships are just too complicated to fit in those little "label" boxes cleanly. :)

When I love someone, I love them deeply and fully. When I have sex, who knows? It may or may not be related. Looking back over the years, I can see many examples when it was and many when it was not, even within individual relationships.

darthsabbath said:
... the idea of primaries and secondaries just isn't appealing. In some ways, we don't even like referring to ourselves as "husband and wife" in the context of polyamory, because that seems to automatically erect a barrier to any external partners...
Click to expand...
This too! I really don't have an issue with it in context of acknowledging Maca's importance to me. He's very important to me, and I want people to know that. I don't regret marrying him. I'd do it again. I love him and I know we belong together.

I do have an issue with it in context of introducing Maca and GG together, or introducing GG to someone who knows Maca and me, because it leads to the belief that GG is somehow less than Maca to me. But that isn't true.

If poly-marriage were an option, I would marry them both, no ifs, ands or buts. I love them both equally, though differently, and just as deeply. I believe that, if one were to use the term soulmate, they are both soulmates to me.

I have 17 years of history with GG. I have 10 years as Maca's wife, and I met him 21 years ago (though he was out of the picture for 10 years as we had lost contact with one another). So, how can I say that one relationship is MORE than the other? If the day comes where Maca and GG are more comfortable with one another and with our family, I will call them both my "term they choose together." Because they are both my beloveds.

redpepper said:
I agree entirely. This is how I live my poly life also. I see no need for terms unless I am explaining something. I don't feel I need to categorize anymore, but it was helpful when I needed to sort it all out in my head at the beginning.
Click to expand...

I loathe the terms, and so far, find it only serves to frustrate me if I use them. I say I have two primaries, and everyone here seems to get that, but in "rl" they ask questions about how that is possible, and seem to WANT to classify GG as a secondary, regardless of how one chooses to define it (emotional attachment or living arrangement). The truth is that he doesn't fit the definition either way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
primary/secondary link

http://tacit.livejournal.com/323210.html

I read this today and wanted to pass it along. I usually like what Franklin writes, but his skepticism and suspicion about poly people who think it's a better thing for them to have a hierarchy of relationships is, I think, a tad arrogant. I don't recall him once suggesting that perhaps for some people it works better. He makes a whole bunch of assumptions based on how his nature is, it seems to me.

What of people who have kids? I am not about to see just any partner as equal to my boy and his dad, whom I both love dearly. I'm sorry, but they have to take the role of secondary to them. They have to take a role as secondary to Mono too, as he is a part of our family now, for the long term. Would I appreciate them less and slough them off if I didn't have time because my family needed me? Of course I would be respectful, but I would make sure they knew that my first concern above my own needs is them. Actually, my boy's needs are above mine, even.

I understand that change is necessary, as Franklin makes his point later, and it is necessary to teach children about change, too. But if a "game changer" relationship comes along that is not going to work in a family situation, then I think that the primary/secondary arrangement might want to hold fast and might want to assert some kind of control over the situation.

What do you think about this?
 
Ummm

Hey RP,

Well, I'm not sure if I interpreted the overall point of that article the same way you did. What I came away with was summed up by these lines. (I hope there's no copyright infringement here.)

Change is the one essential feature of life; what I have now I will cherish, and what we build tomorrow I will also cherish, and I will do so without fear.

Like I said, it takes courage. Letting go of the idea that the way things are now is the way they should always be is gutsy.
Click to expand...

I think he was speaking in a more general manner of the problems caused by fear of change in general. People ARE fearful of change. Many of us spend significant amounts of time & effort trying to build walls around things in our lives that can be affected by change. I think he was trying to point out that that can be a largely self-defeating way of life.

Change WILL come. Better to focus skills on learning to deal with and accept change, and keep it in proper perspective than the masonry skills of building walls.

In your case & example (kids, etc.), that has always been one large debate, i.e., stay together 'for the kids,' even under what can be negative circumstances or upset their stability in a quest for a better environment. There's never been a single 'correct' answer to this question. The only answer I ever saw was 'don't have kids!' at least until it's literally certain from years of practice that the environment you are bringing them into will be the best & most supportive we believe humans capable of constructing. And even that is no guarantee against change.

We do the best we can with what we have to work with (our world). But preparing for change seems to be a prudent part of that.

GS
 
I'm afraid I'm with you on this post RP. Particularly the second paragraph in which he voices his 'suspicions' about couples that maintain hierarchies, and the third para where he mentions it being 'cruel' to thirds. I find it gives the article a tone of 'this is the right way, and that is the wrong way to practice poly'. I found that distracted me from the rest of the article, and what was probably the actual point, the futility of trying to control change.

As it concerns hierarchies, I've heard people talk about non-hierarchal formats both in person, as well as other threads on the forum. Anecdotally from what I've been able to observe there are trends I've noticed between those who advocate for non-hierarchal, and those who lean towards hierarchies or primary/secondary arrangements. Some of these factors do seem to involve things like kids, previously established relationships/marriages or lack thereof, and time/experience in living poly.

For myself, I'm not at the point where I could adapt a non-hierarchal model to my situation and existing marriage. I can see how it might work for some people, and I have a certain amount of admiration for those who are able to manage it. But for me, I find myself restricted to hierarchies for several reasons, and I won't apologize for it.

The short list for me: I have kids. I have a wife with whom I've shared almost half my life. I have not as yet won the lottery. Poly is new territory for us. We have priorities. And I summarily reject the notion that having a secondary would be 'cruel' to them. For me it's a matter of managing expectations. Love may not be finite, but time and resources are...and a lot of both is already committed. There's a lot I could say to expand on these, but the gist I think could be fairly well understood.

The rest of the article about change...I can understand his point of view and the line of thinking. Again, it doesn't entirely jive with mine, but that may have something to do with being required to take control of things that are theoretically uncontrollable.
There is a reason I think why certain constructs tend to show up repeatedly ... vetoes, hierarchies, labels, and why they often accompany efforts to control relationships. They are tools that can be used for such control, and relationships can be controlled to some extent. I think at some level most people are aware of this, or we wouldn't see the very same tools show up so frequently by so many different people.

Again there's a lot more I could say about these things, but for now I'll suffice to say that I can understand Franklin's point of the article. It does spell out his point of view and the reasons why certain things do and don't work for him, and I certainly respect that. However, for some other people, other situations, I don't think anything in the article would invalidate either the reasons that people would look to control their destiny, nor the effectiveness of the tools that people regularly turn to.
 
I think that this "veto" power that Franklin and others speak against is often implemented because one partner has "convinced" the other to "try" poly and veto/primary/secondary/etc. is supposed to function as some sort of free-floating life-raft for when the "weaker" (I use that term very loosely and not to imply that one partner is a weaker person than the other, but more to describe the partner who is less sure about "being poly") partner feels out of their depth. In practice, this kind of parameter can give rise to its own demons because it creates a false sense of security that an externally-defined boundary can protect one from having to deal with reality.

Having said that, I agree with those who believe that where children are involved, it is a good thing to do when it comes to providing a stable environment. However, that sort of thing is not limited to "love" or "poly" relationships. If a father of a family had male platonic friends that were unhealthy for the kids (let's say they were always drinking when they were around), it would be perfectly understandable for the other parent to say "I don't want that person around unless they clean up their act" or "I don't want you hanging out with him because I think he's a bad influence on you and I don't like the person you become when you are around him".

But no one seems to acknowledge that in the comments, Franklin does address some concerns that have been brought up here. In particular, he does clarify the difference between "description" and "prescription". I'm going to leave it there because anyone who wants to can click the link and read it themselves.
 
Part of my thing was getting through the first part in order to read the second part. I had to normalize for myself the first part, that made me frustrated. in order to get to the "game changer" part, which I essentially agreed with.

I get what he is saying. I think that anyone who has the luxury of leaving it all up in the air and just accepting change is very fortunate. I think that some people just don't have that luxury for many different reasons, raising kids, finances tied up in another, disabilities, etc.

I like what he is saying, but I would like it more if he took more consideration for those that are not in his situation. It would have taken a bit of editing to at least be respectful of the fact that we are not all living poly the way he is and that that is okay. More inclusivity would have helped me read his blog without getting frustrated with the seeming arrogance behind it. I dunno, perhaps he was frustrated when he wrote it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top