Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads/General Discussion/Debate

[Pretzels]

Remember when we bought used, instead of pre-owned, cars?

I think (without going into any personal details, so as to keep this completely an intellectual exercise ) that the people who hate the word/term/idea of primary are going to also hate it by any other name.

Lipstick on a pig and whatnot...

 

[Norwegianpoly]

Primary is an all right term for discussions. It helps you structure your thoughts. I am a bit ambivalent about the usefulness in common conversation. For one thing, it is a very poly-made term. No one outside of the community would know what I was talking about if I said that my two men are my primaries, or if I said I had a primary, and a secondary-turning-primary.

Right now, I think referring to them as my husband and my boyfriend works just fine. Those are terms everybody knows the meaning of. My husband is the one I am legally married to, and we own our appartment together. My boyfriend is a new relationship and he lives in another part of the world. I sometimes refer to them as "my boys," which I think is cute, especially since I don't have any children yet.

We are considering relocating my boyfriend to my city and have him live close by, if possible. I know I can not marry my boyfriend too, but if things work out and we are still together in a few years, I would consider calling him my husband, as well. Then the two of them would be equal, in my eyes.

The issue is still whether he will share an apartment/house with me and my husband. There is also the issue of what will happen with children in the next few years. Should my husband have an extra vote due to our long relationship? What about agreements made before my boyfriend entered the picture? But that is material for years of discussions with everybody involved.

 

[PolyinPractice]

Central and primary sound the same to me. What about saying "John is a primary partner of mine, " instead of "John is my primary partner"?

 

[Norwegianpoly]

I guess the words "primary," etc., being English also has something to do with my ambivalence towards them. And saying it in Norwegian sounds even worse. It would sound like they are agricultural products.

 

[LovingRadiance]

I say I have two primary partners. Because I do. Somewhere here, some years ago, Mono wrote a pretty good description of his idea of primary and it really clicked with me. Not sure if I can find it though. Search features loathe me.

 

[LovingRadiance]

For me, primary and secondary labels are merely a way to describe the impact of relationships. Some people may contribute emotionally and physically to a relationship and others may contribute emotionally/physically/financially/parentally/every day chore-ly. To think that one will not have a greater impact than the other is naive. Therefore, I have no problem identifying one as primary and one as secondary. I identify as secondary in this way and am secure enough to recognize why, and the limits of my contribution. I have less impact across a broader spectrum of actually day-to-day functioning.
Love and connection are extremely important in a deep relationship, but it takes a lot more than those to raise children and run a home. If people are dedicated to performing the day-to-day functions of life as a team, no matter how many are involved, than that is the primary structure, in my opinion. Those that contribute on fewer levels will not impact the overall structure as severely and therefore are secondary.


Contribution = commitment
Commitment = impact
Impact = importance
Importance determines primary or secondary

Here's a quick exercise-- imagine what would happen if you removed each of your relationships from your life one at a time.
Which one would affect your life and the life of those around you most? Which one would cause you the most stress across a broad spectrum? Which one might cause you to lose your house? Which one might disrupt the lives of your family members? Which one might make maintaining your property a greater burden? Would one would cause your children distress, if you have them?

Emotional impact is one thing, but it is hardly the only thing. That is how I see the determination of primary and secondary relationships.

Thank God for NYCindie merging threads and making my life so much easier!

 

[Marcus]

I see the same type of fear-mongering in these threads.

- Don`t let him call you this, or let her call you that.
- Don`t arrange your relationships this or that way, etc., etc., because then you won`t be respected.
Why buy the poly relationship for the long-term, when you can get the short-term for free, right?

Here is the difference, and where the slippery-slope begins: it's one thing to choose your own words for yourself; it's another thing to put those words on people in your life, and those you meet. It very much becomes, 'You can`t use those words around me.'
The hiding and hoop-jumping snowballs. Then it becomes some type of quest to banish the word from popular use.
Are you on a mission to dismantle the use of polyamory or anchors? LOL Probably not. What you are evoking is personal choice. Whereas with most of these type of 'word' threads, there is an agenda starting to take place.

It's unfortunate to see this kind of reaction to a discussion about a topic. When a poster is firmly against using hierarchical terms for their own associations and chooses to express it here, this is not remotely the same as telling someone ELSE what to do. Hell, even when a poster strongly recommends against using certain terms in YOUR relationship, that still isn't an attempt to limit your choices.

This is a discussion board. On discussion boards there are different opinions expressed. That is THE POINT of a discussion board like this. I have to say, if someone is tender and defensive about their viewpoints that the mere expression of a differing view makes them feel put upon, then perhaps they should stay away from an online forum whose express purpose is to openly discuss these topics.

Statements like the one quoted above stink of anti-thought, to me. It is grouping people who disagree with using hierarchical terms with "fear mongers" or trying to preach an "agenda" that is the enemy of growth. What is so wrong with learning that not everyone in the world agrees with you? Why try to shut it down?

I am not swayed by these anti-discussion posts, but I wanted to make sure and respond to this for the sake of any lurkers who might be. Dismiss that kind of thing as bullshit and speak your mind.

I thought the purpose of the thread was simply to discuss terminology, not behavior, our own terminology preferences, and/or responses to the article RP posted. Am I missing something?

I'm always surprised when I hear the "Don't tell me how to live my life" responses. I've heard it a number of times since I've been on this board and I always roll my eyes. Having an opinion and being an oppressor are two different things, folks.

 

[LovingRadiance]

We should start an eye rolling group! We could have conventions and the works. LOL (I roll my eyes far too often.)