Are the labels "primary" and "secondary" more hurtful than than helpful?

[sunbuckus 3,567]

Back when we dipped our pinky toe 1/8th of a way into the poly pool, we used the term "primary" as a way to show that someone took first priority over any other boyfriend/girlfriend. While I like to have things organized and feel comforted in the knowledge that certain people are important to me...it chafes me to think that I may have used this terminology in a way that may have made others feel like a second-class human being. We also used "primary" as a way to protect our marriage. But as More Than Two's page states--protect it from what?

 

Quote

What I mean by that is that many people start their polyamorous relationships from the perspective that polyamory itself is inherently destructive, you can't reasonably expect your poly relationships to be healthy and positive, and if you don't ride herd on them all the time and manage your relationships and your partner's behavior strictly, all that will happen is you'll lose everything.

 

You see this in the language that people use to describe their relationships. "Well, we do primary/secondary in order to protect the primary relationship." Protect the primary relationship? Protect it from what? The basic premise is that if you DON'T do primary/secondary, then you'll automatically find yourself in a situation that destroys the primary relationship; after all, if that were not the case, why would you need these structures to "protect" the existing relationship in the first place? If you believe that you need these rules in order to make sure your needs are met, then what is it that makes you think that another person's needs must automatically come at the expense of your own?

 

So is the use of primary/secondary more destructive and/or negative than it is helpful?

[cplnuswing 4,713]

I think that would depend on the person(s). One thing all swingers/poly have is we can exist outside of the vanilla box. How far we get outside the box before we start to get uncomfortable depends on the individual. For some, using that sort of terminology is probably what gives them the comfort to be open to exploring poly. They have it clear in their mind that they can always retreat back to what they consider the most important to them, their primary. For others, they are comfortable to get out of the box and then just walk away with nary a thought. People with that level of comfort probably would find those terms less necessary and in fact more of a negative than a positive.

 

I think the swinging corollary would be rules like no kissing, always finish with each other, etc. Some people are more comfortable using some mechanism, whether it be a term or some limitation, to keep a hierarchy or as you put it, keep things organized. It's just something they need to get the necessary comfort level.

[sunbuckus 3,567]

Great points, cplnuswing! I hadn't thought about it in that way! I guess I was focusing more on how the others that aren't in the primary relationship would feel being called/treated a secondary.

[couplers 4,614]

sunbuckus said:

So is the use of primary/secondary more destructive and/or negative than it is helpful?

 

We never use primary/secondary. It is loaded terminology that often confuses.

 

Our relationships are what they are. Although David and I are married, we don't consider Red and Clair "secondaries," and if it were up to me, we would be in some other sort of social/legal arrangement. We previously discussed doing all sorts of crazy things within the existing legal framework, e.g. David and I divorce, then Clair and I marry where it is legal, then David/Clair marry and Red/I marry where Clair and my same sex marriages is not recognized, etc. With the children now we've just set up guardianships and trusts the best we can. It gets complicated quickly, and will become more so when we have more children and mine is with Red. According to our lawyers, the biggest problem is that regardless of how well thought out and funded a plan for the children is, if something happens to a natural parent (or worse the natural parents), the judge doesn't have to follow the wishes of the dead parents.

[Lionheart72 2,190]

Great points, cplnuswing! I hadn't thought about it in that way! I guess I was focusing more on how the others that aren't in the primary relationship would feel being called/treated a secondary.

 

Language is a tricky thing. Words carry meanings that we don't always intend and even carry different meanings to different people.

 

In my current sort of/maybe poly relationship, I would classify myself as a "secondary." However, my poly partner has never, that I can recall, actually used that term. She has referred to us as "play partners" or "friends with benefits", while she also has a wife and a boyfriend (as well as a full time job which demands extensive overtime). The implication remains, when allocating her limited time among her various partners there is a hierarchy of sorts. I actually keep meaning to talk to her about this, just to get a better handle on her feelings about it (and about me), but when I do have time with her I can find any number of more pleasant things to discuss.

 

As you know Sunbuckus, I do sometimes feel envious of being "secondary" (regardless of the term used) but at the same time I try to accept it as a fact of life. There are only so many days in a month and one person's attention can only be divided so many different ways within that limited span.

 

We used words like friend, family, lover, colleague, acquaintance, etc to describe and define our relationships with people, but reality is always so much more complex than mere language.

[SwingSetWife 444]

If we were ever in a poly type situation, I don't think I would use those words. However, I think it would be understood where my priority lies. As far as the quoted information- I can completely understand the instinct to "protect" the "primary" relationship. My "primary" relationship would get the majority of my time. I would take sides with my husband (even if I didn't agree with him) in any instance where a choice needed to be made.

 

All of that being said mainly because if we were in a poly relationship I don't think we all would live as a family. The situation with Petra and company is different IMO. You live as a family and make choices as a family. You all spend time as a family. I would never (never say never!) do that. So our time would have to be split between family and gf/bf.

 

And that is why poly is just too complicated for me I am not social. I hate talking on the phone. I hate dating. I'm selfish and like things comfortable. I can be that way with SSH so there isn't much, if any, room for anyone else.

[D&D 362]

I have a problem with blogs like, "More than Two", because they idealise what poly should be. It's just being ignorant to think that every relationship is equal or can ever be equal. People put way too much emphasis on a word and not enough on real life situations. It's as though the poly people write like poly relationships are one way or another and completely set aside the fact that no generalization is good. Just like every marriage is different so to is every poly relationship. Just as what works in my marriage may not work in yours, the same is true for Poly relationships. Over generalization does one no favors here.

 

Take my experience as an illustration: I have been married for 21 years next week to my college sweet heart. I also have a girlfriend I've had the pleasure of learning to love deeply over the past 2 years. It would be silly to compare the love I have for my wife with the love I have for my girlfriend. Not because I love my girlfriend less but because I simply don't have the vested life experience with her that I have withy wife. In that sense my wife is my primary and my girlfriend is my secondary. It has nothing to do with protecting the primary but just is rooted

In the fact that I've loved one and built a life with her and not the other yet! This isn't putting the secondary down, it isn't making her any less important. Any more than having a second child makes the first less important. It's just a statement of fact re the depth of the first vs the second relationship.

 

If the way you understand primary and secondary poly relationships is in the sense of one relationship is secondary to other because the primary has to be protected then I would say the secondary relationship is bound to fail. Not because there isnt any love or commitment, but because the secondary in that sense, is not being allowed to progress.

 

But I don't think most poly people understand primary and secondary in that way. Putting that sense up as why primary and secondary are bound to fail is putting up a straw man argument. And it certainly completely ignores the facts on the ground in the vast majority of poly relationships. Those facts being that except for rare cases one relationship is always newer and less developed than the other.

 

There isn't a "true kind of poly" any more than there is "true kind of monogamy" or "true kind of swinging".

[sunbuckus 3,567]

Just like every marriage is different so to is every poly relationship. Just as what works in my marriage may not work in yours, the same is true for Poly relationships. Over generalization does one no favors here.

 

 

While I agree that generalizations don't work for everyone, I think that some overall generalizations are beneficial. For example, if anyone who comes to Swingersboard.com, if they walk away with anything, it's that we hold in high regard that communication is very important in order for swinging to work. If we didn't work very well, we wouldn't harp on it so often.

 

For me, and this can differ for everyone else, but there is a difference between assigning a "primary" and "secondary" to relationships and designating first/second/third/etc. to children. With relationships, "primary" and "secondary" seem to hold the connotation that one is more important or has higher priority. While this may not be true for some poly relationships, it can be for others and in doing so, I can see how assigning relationships in that manner can be a way of setting them up to fail. With children, society just normally designates that multiple children in one family be called first, second, third, fourth, etc. Now, in some societies, birth order can mean more importance (for example, the first born male is most important because they inherit the family house/business/country/whatever) but I would think that here in the US, the order of one's birth doesn't matter.

 

I know, I know...children psychologists and sociologists will argue that we treat our children differently depending on their birth order (strict with the first, spoil the youngest, etc.) but I don't see one child as being more important than another. However, even though I don't see them as differing in importance, the children might feel it. How often do we hear of siblings being jealous of another sibling because they get more attention, more toys, or were born first/second/third? Perhaps it is natural to feel these types of feelings...we just have to learn how to address them and come to terms with them.

[M1F2KTJ 473]

I think it is useful to organize everyone involved so they know their place in the relationship. It is not disrespectful at all. It is VERY respectful.

[Lionheart72 2,190]

To quote my poly friend, it's not that anyone is less important. It's that there are only so many hours in a day and having shared expectations helps prevent conflicts.