Survey of couple priority

V

vanquish

New member
I know that volumes have been written about couple preference/priority. I've recently become curious about how others approach the issue.

Depending on your poly philosophy, priority can or cannot be unfair. Someone's previous history may necessitate partners who can enthusiastically agree to priority for the original person's emotional health. But that has to be good for all involved.

If I'm 110% logical, priority seems unfair to me. It's a crutch to lean on when you can't ween yourself totally off monogamy. Your partner should get to spend time with whomever they want in what ever way they want.

With that said...I'm wondering if anyone has any justifications for couple priority that don't involve children. Or stark reactions against couple priority, even if the secondary/sublimated person is happy with or on-board with it enthusiastically.
 
What do you mean by couple priority, exactly?

My basic views on this topic are that we shouldn't be forming relationships with expectations that exceed the amount of resources we have avaliable. This cuts down on the need for rigid hierarchical rules and regulations. The reason people tend to have those when it isn't merely insecurity is because one or both parties struggle to grasp this concept. That's when you see a partner actively neglecting one relationship to fuel another.

What you can do is renegotiate the expectations in one or more of your relationships to allow you the possibility of keeping them and pursuing a new relationship that requires resources that you cannot spare. I wouldn't recommend that you risk this unless you really feel some of your needs aren't being met.

When you're that partner who feels neglected, all I can suggest is that you communicate your feelings. I found it helped to quantify how I was being neglected. I eventually stopped talking about my feelings when that didn't work and simply pointed out physical things like dates, things he said in messages, pointing out things he said as he said them. I did try setting these stupid rules at first, to manage their relationship, I did, but it just completely backfired. So, I set things up to manage our relationship. We agreed on how often we would spend time together based on how much time we spent together before he met her and I set dates a month in advance.

Now, to be honest, time is something I expect to change slightly when a new relationship develops, it wasn't the sort of dealbreaker for me that it was for him. He insisted that was the only thing that really mattered. It was only when I actually set the dates and then he looked at the calender, he realised that it would be extremely difficult to maintain our relationship, fulfil the level of expectation of the new relationship and also allow each of us to meet the demands of our other commitments and responsibilities. All the talk about my feelings and particularly the rules I attempted to set in a panic just made him think "jealous and hypocritical especially since she brought me into this poly stuff".
 
Hubby and I have couple priority, partly because I have kids (his stepkids) and mostly because Guy lives 900 miles away, so my relationship with Guy is primarily phone calls and online messaging.

I don't know how it would be if Guy lived near us. When he was in our area last year, I hadn't admitted--even to myself--that I was polyamorous, so Guy and I both insisted and tried to convince ourselves that we had only a friends-with-benefits situation. Now that the three of us are on the same page about the place Guy actually holds in my life, things might be different if he were to come back to the area. But it's hard to guess at hypotheticals (at this point, he doesn't know if his employer will ever send him back out here, he has no intention of moving out here because his kids live in his home state, and so the most we're hoping for is that he'll be able to come for a short visit).
 
quote: "I'm wondering if anyone has any justifications for couple priority that don't involve children."

I thought about this for awhile... my current spouse is male, I am not sexually attracted to him. We have known each other for over 15 years.... he is so far the ONLY person I have known who accepts me total package, as is.... time has proven -- we work, to make it work.

Honesty-respect-love... in that order, there is no one else, who has come close. Now my situation is very different that what most people will ever even be aware of... I am transgender (of the Bigender subcategory, my gender is not a fixed awareness it changes), FtM, and dissociative... the combination is a type of 'perfect storm' of psychological need for balance and stability and acceptance.

Out of the loyalty I feel for his acceptance, protection and provision etc (the list would be very long) .. I will never choose someone else over him as long as he lives... she may be equal and beyond in every other way, I will not break the promise made to him.... but the truth is every one makes the choice to stay or not, each and every day.

I do believe there is a woman out there somewhere who will value that honesty.


quote: " It's a crutch to lean on when you can't ween yourself totally off monogamy."

This holds a suggestion that, unless you avoid monogamy based commitments... you are some how inferior as a polyamorus being.
That unless one is promiscuous, you are invalid as being poly.

quote: "Your partner should get to spend time with whomever they want in what ever way they want."

(shrug /nod) .. yeah, IF they want to.... and if the people make a commitment, because they want that commitment, --the agreement to not place the other at risk (what ever that risk may be) ... then they should keep the commitment or never enter in to the agreement to start with... there are times when a re- negotiation may be needed... growth happens... it does not make those who WANT commitments less valid as poly.
 
Last edited:
I have a husband/life-partner, so he and I share living expenses, pet care, housework, we are each other's next-of-kin, plus our families know each other, etc.. That's what makes him "primary" to me, we have built a life together, he is my family, he is forever.

We also haven't been open very long, so at this point, for his comfort, I have agreed to follow certain guidelines (no other partners in our home, no inviting my lovers out when I'm with my husband, etc.) However, to some of his requests, I have said no, absolutely not (I vetoed his One Penis Policy, and rule about no public displays of affection with lovers.) My husband rarely has nights off, so I tend to make our "date nights" a priority.

I can't imagine someone coming into my life and expecting to be on equal footing to my husband of 16 yrs. That sort of devotion has to be earned.
we shouldn't be forming relationships with expectations that exceed the amount of resources we have avaliable.
Click to expand...
I'm on board with this. I hate when someone I'm with puts less focus on me because they met someone newer and shinier.
 
Re (from OP):
"I'm wondering if anyone has any justifications for couple priority that don't involve children. Or stark reactions against couple priority, even if the secondary/sublimated person is happy with or on-board with it enthusiastically."
Click to expand...

I can think of one particular justification: It has to do with how long the couple has known the new (secondary) person. If they just met the new person last week, then they don't know much about the new person. They don't know how trustworthy the person is.

I guess the same could be said in reverse. If the new person has just met the couple, then that new person is also justified in laying down some precautionary rules that the couple has to follow. In short, everyone has to be cautious in the early stages of dating.

I tend to recommend getting to know someone as a tried-and-true (platonic) friend before getting involved with them in a dating capacity. That way everyone can have primary status right from the get-go (at least that's how I suppose it works in theory). It's all about trust. How much trust can each person extend (to the other two persons)?

My one stark reaction against couple priority is that a *lot* of people seem to be laboring under the impression that polyamory *always* means a couple "finding a third" (read: a hot bi babe -- female; single; no kids) to "complete" them (as a triad since the women are both *of course* bi and the man is hetero). I don't think there's enough hot bi babes in supply to sustain this widespread misconception but I could be wrong.
 
I remember writing (somewhat extensively - as I am prone to do :rolleyes:) on this in a few other threads. I'll see if I can dig them up as you may enjoy them.

ETA:

Here's one (although not the one I am thinking of):
Multi relationships (primary/implicit priorities) (I chime in at post #10).
 
Last edited:
The only place that we, as a triad, often have a hard time with couple privilege is when it comes to kids. Curls and I had kids for more than a decade before Freckles came around, and as such, we make a lot of parenting decisions that she's not a party to. She is very understanding about this, and has started to develop this sense of when to step back and let us deal with things of this nature.

Everything else... it's a totally even playing field. I hate the idea of the original couple having some kind of hierarchical control over the triad, regardless of whether or not they are married, or how long they have been together. The reasoning behind this is pretty simple... All parties to a relationship are human beings. They deserve to be respected and have as many of their needs seen to as humanly possible. We are very good at communicating with each other, and one huge fear we have uncovered is that Freckles is seriously afraid that one day we will tell her that we don't want her anymore, and that we have decided to move on as a monogamous couple. Curls and I both know this isn't going to happen, but we don't try to downplay her fears by just ignoring them either.

That's why we eliminated the veto from our relationship. Nobody has the power to hit the stop button and eliminate one of the other members of our triad. Should problems arise that we can't talk through, we are all in agreement that we immediately go to counseling. No problem has ever come even close to this serious, but I'm glad that we have committed to this strategy rather than just burying our heads in the sand and praying that it never comes up.
 
For me; both sides of this discussion baffle me.
I give priority based on situation and circumstance.
Today my oldest daughter and grandchildren were priority because she is working to take custody of her nephew who was born Saturday high on meth. Her husband is military and out of town. They need back-up.
Satuday my son was priority because it was his prom and he asked me to be his date. My dh was one of the chaperones. BUT my son was my date and my attention, affection and priority was him.
Friday my sister was priority. She's in an abusive relationship and needs help figuring out how to safely and sanely extricate herself from it.

Sometimes my husband is priority. Sometimes my boyfriend. Sometimes a friend. Sometimes just myself.

The idea that any one person or one relationship takes precedent always and only completely confuses me.
The idea that lovers take precendence completely confuses me.

One technicality to this in my life is; anyone who demands I remove another person from my life automatically loses. I don't give anyone, friend, family, lover etc the privilege of deciding who is or isn't a part of my life. That privilege is mine and mine alone.
 
I think you might mean "couple privilege in the context of a primary-secondary model." Is that what you mean? :confused:

If so, Labriola covers that stuff better than I could.

Pro/cons of primary-secondary model
Jealousy and core beliefs

I wouldn't phrase it as "can't wean off monogamy" myself though. That seems to belittle the persons engaged in changing core beliefs (which can be hard and take time) and/or belittling the structure (monogamy) as "infantile." I could be wrong though. Is that how you meant that? :confused:

How do I approach it?

Priorities shift to answer to greatest need at the time. Needs change. So priorities change.

If there are more than 2 players in the network? There is no "couple privilege" here where that gets "top priority" all the time because there is no "couple" here. With only "a couple's" needs to deal in and balance. (2 singles, 1 dyad).

With 3 people? Even if they all agree to practice a primary-secondary model together? There's the needs of 3 individuals, the needs of 3 dyads, and the needs of 1 triad.... plus a few other layers of relationship. Regardless of who is having sex with who... there's many tiers of relationship here.

It is not additive. It is geometric. Welcome to the polymath.

That is also my stark reaction to "couple priority." Unless you are in a 2 people thing, considering or prioritizing only the needs of one couple in the network is failing to consider the needs in other layers. That is not a recipe for successful relating to me. People get grumpy when their needs are going unmet and unconsidered.

People sometimes not understanding the extent of polymath they get themselves into along with being unaware of stages of change sometimes leaves them underprepared for how to weather it all out in their time management and in their emotional management.

With that said...I'm wondering if anyone has any justifications for couple priority that don't involve children.
Click to expand...

Prioritizing the kids is prioritizing the kids to me. Not prioritizing the couple. But here's a "couple" example...

Couple opens and each polydates. Healthy polyship is formed. Spouse health changes, is now dying. Hinge spouse wants to spend extra time with sick spouse before they die. Is this "couple priority" justified for a time? Or is this hinge spouse "getting to spend time with whomever they want in what ever way they want?" Maybe for this group, it is both?

I don't think you meant it like over the course of a polyshipping lifetime though. I think you might have meant "at first formation" of the polyship? Person X is "regular polypartner" now and no longer "dating potential partner." Is that what you meant? :confused:

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Interesting contrast between "priority" and "privilege." Instead of assuming a typo/misremembering, I'm going to assume that as a deliberate word choice.

Priority:
"Priority" means "What's important to me (right now? for the future? changing over time?)."

When Gralson is gone 10 out of every 14 days, and he finally comes home? Yeah... spending time with him is my priority... over school, errands, and yes, time with Auto.

Privilege:
To me, "privilege" means "you've done something to earn a certain status." Like, if you take Driver's Ed, log your hours, and pass your test, you earn the privilege of having a driver's license.

I can see how some people perceive they've invested so much into one relationship that they want to honour that investment by not treating a newcomer "exactly the same" without them having made the investment. Maybe that's privilege, but I don't see it as being a problem, so long as everyone's informed and consenting.

And really, how reasonable is it to come along to a well-established relationship and expect to instantly receive all the same treatment? Wouldn't that be like walking into an office and saying "I want to be paid the same as your most senior employee, with all the same vacations and benefits." Just because you're equally important as a human being in this world, doesn't mean you're entitled to have all your relationships start out like mortgage-free prefab furnished houses.

Fairness:
Eh. I can't really hear that word without thinking "No Fair! He took my toy! Make him give it back!" Fairness is a notion that I left behind on the playground. Life never was fair, why expect otherwise just because you started dating multiple people?

What's fairness, anyway? That's not a need. It's a strategy, and a vague one at that. How do you "do fairness?" Does it mean everyone gets the same amount of time? Same amount of love? Same amount of consideration for their needs? Or does it mean that time is doled out proportional to time invested in relationships? For every week/month/year together, you get one unit of time per week. Divide total time available by total number of units, and allocate time appropriately.
 
Last edited:
To me, "fairness" means dealing with each person based on their needs. It does NOT necessarily mean treating everyone equally.

Using my kids as examples, I have one child with mental health issues and another on the autism spectrum. If I treated them *equally*, that would mean both of them would have the same chores, would have to complete the same tasks, would be required to go with me to the same places, etc., but because of their vastly different tolerance levels and issues, that wouldn't be *fair*.

Likewise, in a poly relationship, being *fair* to one's partners doesn't necessarily mean being *equal*. That's a decision only the participants in the relationship can make. For me, being *fair* to Hubby and Guy means I don't take phone calls or answer texts from Guy if I'm spending time with Hubby or if Hubby and I are discussing something family-related. And if Guy and I are on the phone together, I shut myself in the bedroom and Hubby stays out so Guy and I can speak privately. Being *equal* in my situation would be pretty much impossible, since because of distance Guy and I can't see each other in person.
 
Thank you, SC, for giving me the benefit of the doubt about being intentional with my word choice. Usually I am hyper-intentional, but in this case did mean privilege.

Or did I? The situation im in at the moment has my companion with a nikew person shes dating. Im wondering if there are reasons why a year long relationship could/should be able to have priority...validly.

I didnt mean to denigrate monogamy. Sorry for the way that sounded. Im actually more comfortable with monogamy, but I cant force that on my partner.

Every relationship abides by the rules the people in them can live with. So far, Audrey has, without prodding from me, allowed me to choose whether I want to do something with her when shes been asked out casually (not set or standing plans for a definite activity), which feels great.

The weening off monogamy was more of an internal feeling of failure at my mono programming tugging at me. Ive been loving the faux monogamy I've gotten for the last 2 or 3 months. For me, asking for priority over more recent partners seems Iike a failing on my part.

So I come and ask for perspective and possible rationalizations for my cravings.
 
Thanks for clarifying.

Hrm. In your case then....

Im wondering if there are reasons why a year long relationship could/should be able to have priority...validly.
Click to expand...

To me? Because it is IN the polymath and all tiers need tending and care.

There to me it is "welcome to the polymath" stuff. The realization that (you + Audrey) is not the only layer in your current configuration. The realization that (Audrey + X) is not the only layer in the configuration. At different times, depending on need, which tier gets tended to first will shift about. Every tier will have some needs though. That's a given.

I didnt mean to denigrate monogamy. Sorry for the way that sounded. Im actually more comfortable with monogamy, but I cant force that on my partner.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with being more comfortable with it. Everyone has a comfort zone. Everyone has preferences for relationship models.

The weening off monogamy was more of an internal feeling of failure at my mono programming tugging at me. Ive been loving the faux monogamy I've gotten for the last 2 or 3 months. For me, asking for priority over more recent partners seems Iike a failing on my part.
Click to expand...

So you had it one way 3 mos ago and now it's a change. Stages of change can feel roller-coastery. When I look at 3 mos ish on the chart -- there it is. "Uncertainty."

What are you feeling? The stuff of "uncertainty." Your feelings are par for course. UGH to feel, but so far? Par for course. There could be comfort in that. Telling yourself "This is ugh to feel, but not unusual for where I'm at. I'm 3 mos into a big change" rather than beating up on you telling yourself you are a "failure" for having connection needs to the hinge person.

Asking Audrey for some reassurance and time together to reconnect as you all weather out big changes out isn't a horrible thing. (You + Audrey) isn't the ONLY layer in the polymath any more, but its still IN there. That layer needs time, care, and attention too. Go easier on yourself, dude. :eek:

Is this poly hell? Are your needs being met in that layer?

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
I try to remove the aspect of who is sexually involved from the equation when I think about these things.

So for me,

if a person has been in my life for any amount of time and earned my trust, they are automatically afforded privileges that a brand new person hasn't earned yet.

BUT-these privileges are always available to be earned by a new person, in the same time-frames, with the same obligations and restrictions that the other people have earned them. That doesn't change regardless of how many people there are in my life. The only thing that alters how close a person can get to me or how many privileges they may have in my life, is their behavior, their desire and my desire.

That said; I have 21 years with bf and 16 with dh. Bf didn't do the things to earn him a wedding/marriage/mortgage with me. (doesn't matter why-he didn't). Dh did.
So even though bf was in the picture several years before dh, he didn't progress to that level of privilege.
Simultaneously; just because Dh did progress to that level of privilege, doesn't mean that bf loses privileges he already earned or that he can't earn more (albeit marriage is out because of legality).

More specifically; it matters what it is you are hoping to "hold on to" as a privilege and why you think you might be losing it.
 
Clear communication.

My partners talk to each other as much as they do me when someone needs priority. My girlfriend Viveka was having a really challenging time a few weeks ago and asked for a weekend that I normally would have spent with my 'primary' partner Daith. She checked with me, checked with him and Daith stayed to have dinner and offer his support to her before he left us alone for the weekend. So even though she is my 'secondary' her needs were the priority in that situation, and everyone was fine with that. Alternatively, if we were having time together and Daith say, broke his ankle and needed me to take him to the hospital, she would likely just come along, or of course just let me go if I needed to. I think it's all about making sure that you check in with everyone and make sure that nobody is FEELING like a second priority. Hierarchy works for a lot of people without anyone feeling disrespected, but a lot of that lies in talking it out and hearing everyone's needs.
 
Priority? Primary?

We are new to this and I guess I am confused by the post. My boyfriend is my primary and K is my husband. D and I are partly primary because we live together but we all know there will be changes when K moves in, which we hope is soon.
One of things that confused me is the idea that anyone can sex with any one when ever they want to. We are in a closed relationship and all straight. So if I make a decision to sleep with one, it will automatically exclude the other. So priority means for me, making both me feel loved and wanted, and let the rest settle itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top