the relative merits of the primary/secondary model of polyamorous relationships

[wordygirl]

At a recent poly gathering the topic of primaries vs. secondaries came up, and while people were talking about their various configurations and what they like and don't like about them, I pondered the extent to which these labels work for me

Comments

[stateofwonder]

I saw your post on the polyamory group, and really enjoyed reading your other entries as well. Do you mind if I add you?

In response to your question, I personally don't use the primary/secondary model because I don't feel that these terms are particularly applicable to my situation. If I had a very long-term relationship, or decided that for some reason I wanted to get married (which is not likely), the term 'primary' might be useful just to alert people of the relative seriousness of the relationship. As it stands, however, I like to think of my relationships as having different qualities, none being more important than another. I guess that was part of the whole appeal of polyamory to me... relating to people as individuals instead of people through roles.

[wordygirl]

Do you mind if I add you?

No, not at all.

I like the idea of "relating to people as individuals instead of people through roles." I tend to see each relationship in my life in terms of what I bring to it and what it gives to me, instead of in terms of which is more important than the other. Just because I live with a person that doesn't make her inherently more important than someone I'm emotionally involved with, although there are, of course, some considerations that are present in the live-in relationship that aren't in "commuting" relationship (such as making sure I keep up on my end of the chores).

I've sometimes used "primary partner" as a kind of shorthand to describe my live-in relationship, but I'm always conscious of how the word just doesn't convey the full truth of the situation. The truths of our lives are always more complicated than the labels we use to talk about them.

[lilairen]

I like the idea of "relating to people as individuals instead of people through roles."

This is, entertainingly enough, exactly why I do primary/secondary. Not recognising the differences between relationship types meant in my case that I was not dealing with people as they deserved rather than as 'person with whom I have a relationship'.

[stickyambition]

I am not sure that I follow any specific guidelines on the primary/secondary basis. The woman I have chosen to make my home with requests that I make it known that she is my primary with other possible lovers. For all intents and purposes we share many things such as emotional and physical love. We tackle bills,family issues and other more personal affairs together. She is definitely my partner at this time in my life. Though I don't care for the terminology of it this dynamic seems to work best for me. I get to have freedom of possibility and exploration with others while still having someone by my side that compliments me. So while I don't plan on introducing her as my primary(severe ownership issues)that seems to be the path that we are following.

[pogodragon]

I've been trying to articulate my ideas on this for a while lately, as it seems to have become more important to me over the last few months than it ever has before

[parallelgirl]

Hi there...
I'm another one who's wandered over from the poly post, and really enjoyed reading what you have to say on this and other topics.
Mind if I add you?

[wordygirl]

Mind if I add you?

Not at all.

N-dimensional relationship space

[jeremy_m]

Apart from the impoliteness of the primary/secondary terminology, it's wrong in the mathematical sense of presenting the difference in relationships as one dimensional. It implies that all relationships are essentially the same, but that they can be graded by how strong/intense/significant (choose your own word while avoiding "good") they are