Tell me about your experience being or having a secondary?

O

olive

New member
Hi all,
I am my partner's secondary partner, and I am struggling with the designation.
Can you tell me about your experience being a secondary partner and what you've done (along with your partner) to feel secure? What rules and expectations do you have? How did you go about establishing those?
If you have a secondary partner, can you tell me about your experience too?
Thanks in advance!
 
You might find this resource helpful: https://www.morethantwo.com/polyforsecondaries.html

Personally, I just don’t think of my boyfriend as a “secondary” partner - my relationship with him does not feel secondary to my relationship with my husband at all. But there are differences that are impossible to ignore — like the fact that I live with my husband, share finances, make decisions about where we will live/travel/send the kids to school, etc. So I know that there are times when he feels like he is secondary to my husband and the best that I can do is to remind him how much I love him even though we are less entwined. I also look for opportunities to do some of those special things with my boyfriend — like traveling together.
 
I was a secondary for a while, in every sense of the word. It sucked big time.
My current partner and his primary had a 3 page list of rules about how they could interact with other partners. Mostly it entailed treating the secondary as a sex partner and not allowing a real relationship to grow. No birthdays, no vacations, no communication over weekends, the couple got first dibs on everything.

I was in a relationship with a married man that was a DADT. No birthdays, no vacations, no communication after 5pm. Seeing a pattern? It got to the point where all I wanted in a relationship was someone I could call in an emergency and they would respond. How low of a bar is that?

I won't do it again. I am self-described solo poly and I imagine myself to be pretty independent and not demanding of too much attention or too much time. I don't mind what my partners do when I am not around but I am very much done with being "secondary" . No more rules, no more limits. Either it functions within levels that I am comfortable with or it is not worth my time. I am not "secondary" or "a secondary". The lower caps is entirely intentional.

Be clear on what you want, the amount of time, the amount of communication, the type of sex, are you banned from their special places, do they have veto? Is your partner married, in a nesting relationship? What are your life goals? Will your partner support them or are you on your own? There are many questions.

Have a look at solopoly.net. Aggie has a secondaries Bill of Rights on the site.
 
I have never been, nor will I ever accept being somebody's "secondary" partner. Feeling equal in importance and "special" to my partner/s is too important to me. Even though I am the poly hinge in my current V set-up, both my partners are co-primaries though they've each chosen to be monogamous with me.

In the beginning of my poly journey, I had been dating only Jester (after he'd broken off his fwb relationship with Boho). Jester and I had some issues in our relationship, including communication and his substance use, and he really wasn't meeting my needs in many ways.

Eventually Boho and I - who were already close friends - developed feelings for each other. We share a lot of goals in common and have similar communication styles, so it just worked... and Jester readily agreed to us dating (separately).

However, it was Boho herself who initially "self designated" her position in my life as a secondary partner, saying she had no intention of taking Jester's place and would never attempt it. But that just didn't sit right with me somehow, especially as she and I grew closer.

It was actually Jester who stated what I'd been thinking, i.e. that acting on some perceived hierarchy wasn't a great idea... and that it would eventually cause feelings of being excluded, jealousy/envy and hurt. It took a while for my heart and my mindset to move from a monogamous outlook (in which Jester was "the One") to include Boho in equal place there, in an authentic way... but it did happen, and I'm glad I was able to make the shift.

We are all LD however, so nobody is currently in a nesting partner dynamic, which makes things easier. But that will soon change, if all goes to plan.

I DO think a primary/secondary model works for SOME people, if everyone is on board and actually WANTS that. Perhaps the "secondary" has other partners with whom they spend the majority of their time (NP + children, and maybe other partners also)... or their job may take them away for weeks at a time, so they can't devote enough time to a relationship and prefer to be a secondary.

However, if said secondary is mono, and has no other relationships, I think it would be really difficult NOT to feel "less than" or excluded from many parts of one's partner's life.
 
I do not practice relationship hierarchy.

Neither of my partners are secondary to the other.
 
Ok. Although I understand the pitfalls, I do have a secondary partner now.

I asked my Friend out because I wanted to practice my skills in bondage (a few weeks ago) seems to be one of a secondary relationship where I mostly feel care and tenderness, but I don't want to spend as much time or be as committed to him as I'm to my primary.

I know Friend would likely want more, so I'm struggling to find an arrangement that is not unfair to him, yet I don't know if it's possible or if I'll have to end it soon. Mostly I believe he has to find a primary relationship for himself, so I'm trying not to block that spot, while at the same time not withholding support.


Generally, being a secondary sucks if what you want to find is primary. I do know that. Nevertheless if primary is not your goal, then there is a number of things you CAN do to gain security. The most important one imho is CONSISTENCY. Your partner should consistently want to see you (at a stable frequency whatever that frequency is), listen to your concerns, be available for communication, know and show that they want to maintain a relationship with you in whatever form the two of you have chosen. That's my take.
 
Last edited:
Hello olive,

I am in an all-primary V. I am a primary, yet there were times in our early years when I felt like a secondary. It was not a good feeling. That being said, there are situations where everyone agrees on someone being a secondary, and that can work. You just have to treat the secondary fairly, see Secondaries' Bill of Rights for more details.

I can answer more questions about my own experience on request. I hope this post, and thread, prove helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
I dated a married poly man and was his GF - wouldn't call myself secondary and I doubt he would, either, but I suppose I was indeed his secondary. It was beautiful and loving. What made it go so well was that we were very compatible, loved spending time together and had really satisfying sex. I was the one who was most mindful of putting his wife first, since my approach is that generosity invites generosity. I recognized her as his wife and she appreciated that I showed respect to her. She, in turn, showed me the same and she really encouraged her husband to enjoy my being in his life. It was a beautiful time. Even though I'm not his GF anymore, the wife and I and he still hang out either in duos or in a family kind of way. We didn't work to make this good situation, other that trying our best to be vulnerable and honest as feelings arose, it just was the chemistry of the three of us. Each of us had a role and nobody had the desire to go beyond the agreement. I dunno how helpful this is, but I just wanted to chime in and say that being the GF of this particular married poly man was fulfilling and lovely.

What made it secure? One, he is a wonderful man and emotionally mature and available. Two, they are an emotionally secure couple and are very clear about their poly agreement. I never once felt like I was part of someone's marital experiment, like I often read about here. There was no hornet's nest to wander into. Three, the wife is emotionally mature and willing to explore her feelings, so whenever she had difficult feelings they would not be hidden. There were no sand traps, just three emotionally open adults who trusted the others to be the same. She would periodically write me lovely texts about how happy she was to see him to happy with me and she reminded me that it was fine for me to call or text him (or her) at any time. Four, he made it very clear to me at the outset that I was a top priority for him and that our relationship was ours, not dependent on anyone else. The veto power nonsense never entered their minds. I felt secure because of all of this, but mostly because my BF made it clear to me quite a bit that I was extremely important to him. My BF was always available to me and I suppose knowing that enabled me to feel secure and not worry when we were apart. I felt appreciated by them both.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get into a long argument about descriptive versus prescriptive hierarchy, but I don't honestly think it's so terrible if everyone is ethical about it and up front about their wants and needs and boundaries.

I'm married. My husband and I chose to get married as poly people, as an affirmation that we plan to build our lives together. We have financial entanglements and a family together- so to us, it's simple reality that the majority of our emotional energy goes into our relationship.

When we date, anyone else is going to be a secondary partner since we just don't have the time and physical or emotional resources to build a relationship to the co-primary level. We are not looking to entangle lives with anyone else, nor am I looking for another partner to have children with.

So to us, secondary doesn't mean that there are limits on days together or physical acts or feelings anything like that- it's a simple acknowledgement of the fact that my husband and I have made a lifetime commitment to each other with entanglements. If there are times in my life where prioritizing is necessary, he's going to come first.

We don't really do "rules". My husband and I discussed our personal boundaries around safe sex, and how out we wanted to be, etc, but we both acknowledged that when one of us started dating a new partner, that we'd have to sit down with that person and listen to their wants, needs, and boundaries as well. We don't believe in presenting a partner with a list of rules :p And we did have that conversation when I started dating Charles.

We discussed how often we wanted to see each other, safe sex protocols, what we were looking for in a relationship, etc. And in our case, a long questionnaire about BDSM and D/s.
 
It might be helpful for anyone who is in a GF/BF/secondary position to keep in mind that poly is inclusive in spirit. The thinking that one person rates above another is really monogamous thinking. "Who takes priority?" is an either-or question and it assumes that two or more cannot be equally important to someone. The very notion of a "secondary" taking a back seat in priority to a "primary" is spill over from monogamous thinking that someone must be top dog in a person's heart and life. When we make friends with someone new, we don't worry and establish agreements about how much this new friend values us compared to his other friends, we usually just enjoy the new friendship. We don't fret over the question of "Who takes priority?" because we have confidence that our new friend will value us simply for who we are and things will work out if and when there's ever an emergency or whatever. Nobody can swan into our lives and make us feel less than, this is a feeling that only we can heap on ourselves when we worry about things like who takes priority. The more we see ourselves as different but equally special and cherished, the less those dramatic "Who takes priority?" situations even come up.
 
Re:

FallenAngelina said:
It might be helpful for anyone who is in a GF/BF/secondary position to keep in mind that poly is inclusive in spirit. The thinking that one person rates above another is really monogamous thinking. "Who takes priority?" is an either-or question and it assumes that two or more cannot be equally important to someone.

This is a key philosophy I'd like to adopt.
Thanks for your insight.
Click to expand...
 
FallenAngelina said:
It might be helpful for anyone who is in a GF/BF/secondary position to keep in mind that poly is inclusive in spirit. The thinking that one person rates above another is really monogamous thinking. "Who takes priority?" is an either-or question and it assumes that two or more cannot be equally important to someone. The very notion of a "secondary" taking a back seat in priority to a "primary" is spill over from monogamous thinking that someone must be top dog in a person's heart and life. When we make friends with someone new, we don't worry and establish agreements about how much this new friend values us compared to his other friends, we usually just enjoy the new friendship. We don't fret over the question of "Who takes priority?" because we have confidence that our new friend will value us simply for who we are and things will work out if and when there's ever an emergency or whatever. Nobody can swan into our lives and make us feel less than, this is a feeling that only we can heap on ourselves when we worry about things like who takes priority. The more we see ourselves as different but equally special and cherished, the less those dramatic "Who takes priority?" situations even come up.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Even as a parent with children, you love your children equally but there are times one takes priority over the other. I think that it's a simple acknowledgement of the way life can work.

Even little children fall into the idea of "best friends" without being taught, even with active discouragement to do so. I don't think it is necessarily a societal construct in terms of monogamy but instead perhaps has other reasons behind it.
 
I've wanted and about been a secondary up until recently; done it for about four now.

#1 was great until the meta vetoed--lots of flames ensued.

#2 should have died long before it did. but him telling me his wife wasn't okay with us hanging out without her, when she asked me point blank to take him out of the house didn't help. (Me and former meta are still friends, and being able to check in with each other about comfort helped.)

#3 was secure because it was very clear I could provide something the primary couldn't, and she was grateful that I was there.

#4 my longest relationship, I'm not even sure I can call it that. It's thrived because we've always under promised and over delivered.
 
Vicki82 said:
I'm not sure I can agree with this. Even as a parent with children, you love your children equally but there are times one takes priority over the other. I think that it's a simple acknowledgement of the way life can work.
Click to expand...
The difference between this ("situational prioritisation") and the kind of prioritisation often found in a strictly hierarchical, prescriptive Primary/Secondary set-up ("automatic prioritisation") is that it isn't always the same child who takes priority. In strict prescriptive hierarchy, it doesn't matter if Kid#2 has fallen off the climbing frame and hit their head, it's time for Kid#1 to get their apple juice, so Kid#2 will just have to wait.

Edit: The one time I found myself in Kid#2's position I left the relationship. I'm happy with a secondary relationship shape, but I won't tolerate being treated as an eternal afterthought.
 
Emm said:
The difference between this ("situational prioritisation") and the kind of prioritisation often found in a strictly hierarchical, prescriptive Primary/Secondary set-up ("automatic prioritisation") is that it isn't always the same child who takes priority. In strict prescriptive hierarchy, it doesn't matter if Kid#2 has fallen off the climbing frame and hit their head, it's time for Kid#1 to get their apple juice, so Kid#2 will just have to wait.

Edit: The one time I found myself in Kid#2's position I left the relationship. I'm happy with a secondary relationship shape, but I won't tolerate being treated as an eternal afterthought.
Click to expand...

Right, but my point is that hierarchy gets a bad rap, IMO. It doesn't have to be like that. But if you want to broaden the example a little, if you have a newborn and a preschooler, that newborn is going to take priority most of the time.

I think that with reasonable agreements, that it's very difficult to come up with specific examples of where a primary will take precedence over a secondary partner without exaggerating things, or else being things that involve life entwinement. I would not consult a secondary partner on whether or not I was accepting a new job in a different city, or how to spend an inheritance, or on what improvements I wanted to make to my home. In terms of day to day stuff, I really can't say in what instance my primary partner would take precedence where a secondary in the same situation would not because it would all be pretty manufactured. Although if both had emergencies, I'd be there for my husband first (especially since I'm sure I'd be needed to look after Kiddo).

If you're talking about examples where one partner cancels a date or something because their co-primary had a bad day and didn't want to be left alone, so the secondary partner gets screwed? I think that's similar to the kid example you gave and it's beyond shitty. But I don't think it is a function of hierarchy itself and instead poor agreements or jerk people.
 
Vicki82 said:
If you're talking about examples where one partner cancels a date or something because their co-primary had a bad day and didn't want to be left alone, so the secondary partner gets screwed? I think that's similar to the kid example you gave and it's beyond shitty. But I don't think it is a function of hierarchy itself and instead poor agreements or jerk people.
Click to expand...
That, and "we need to take a break for a couple of weeks, Spouse's other partner just broke up with them" are exactly the sort of examples I was thinking of, and to judge by the number of posts made here on the subject they're not at all rare. Avoiding people who pull that sort of trick is one way to make sure your non-primary relationship has a chance to thrive.
 
I would never choose to use the terms "primary" and "secondary" in a loverly relationship for the same reason I'd not do so in a loving, platonic friendship. I see no need for ranking or hierarchy whatsoever.

We don't rank our friends -- our real, true, loving friends -- as 'primary,' secondary,' 'tertiary'. And I'd be rather offended if someone introduced me as their 'tertiary friend'.

In practice, of course, we can prioritize family over non-family relationships (spouses, children), ... even without resort to the terms in question. People will generally understand this prioritization without need for explicit ranking. It's the words that I find most objectionable. But I also object to the very idea that ranking is helpful or necessary.
 
River said:
I would never choose to use the terms "primary" and "secondary" in a loverly relationship for the same reason I'd not do so in a loving, platonic friendship. I see no need for ranking or hierarchy whatsoever.

We don't rank our friends -- our real, true, loving friends -- as 'primary,' secondary,' 'tertiary'. And I'd be rather offended if someone introduced me as their 'tertiary friend'.

In practice, of course, we can prioritize family over non-family relationships (spouses, children), ... even without resort to the terms in question. People will generally understand this prioritization without need for explicit ranking. It's the words that I find most objectionable. But I also object to the very idea that ranking is helpful or necessary.
Click to expand...

I dunno- if it's about the words, then it feels to me like not calling a spade a spade. But to each their own, right?

We have "best friends", "friends", and "acquaintances" already. Sounds pretty similar to me that people tend to use words to describe their level of connection to someone.
 
Vicki82 said:
I dunno- if it's about the words, then it feels to me like not calling a spade a spade. But to each their own, right?

We have "best friends", "friends", and "acquaintances" already. Sounds pretty similar to me that people tend to use words to describe their level of connection to someone.
Click to expand...

Once, one of my closest friends called one of her old friends "my best friend," and I wondered (though I didn't ask or mention it) whether she ranked me lower than this other person as a friend. I vaguely wondered if she had just one "best friend" or whether she could have several "best friends". I remember feeling vaguely less than, somehow. As if I were being compared and fell short. But I didn't ask any of those questions. I just let it go.

All of my truly close friends are ... just that. I don't feel the need to rank them at all. And I'd rather that they didn't rank me among their true friends, either.
 
People accept secondary status all the time without labelling it...

Anyone in a relationship with a single mom is secondary to her kids. Anyone married to a farmer is secondary to planting and harvest. Anyone in a relationship with an activist is secondary to the cause. Anyone in a relationship with an entrepreneur is secondary to their business. Anyone in a relationship with a PhD candidate is secondary to their dissertation.

Some people make a distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" labels of primary/secondary.

"Prescriptive" is rule-based and starts with the label and then imposes behaviour on that label. "You are my secondary, which means you can do this, this, this but not that, that, that."

"Descriptive" is more like "we share finances and a home, so sometimes there will be urgent issues that require me to prioritize certain aspects of that relationship in ways that other relationships don't require."

I find that people who use primary/secondary labels tend to fall too easily into the prescriptive use. People who want to use them descriptively can find better ways to describe the situation without using words that are potentially hurtful.

That being said, I'm married and I've been in a 4-year relationship with another married woman. We considered that relationship as secondary, and we specifically enjoyed the secondary-ness of it... We had someone we could talk to, confide in, spend time with, cuddle... and then go home and not have to deal with all the bullshit that comes from trying to maintain a domestic partnership. If we got busy, we simply saw each other less often and kept ourselves busy with other things. Until we broke up, we never had to deal with any "real life" issues together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top