"central" = "primary"

[redpepper]

Great article that suggests "central" partner over "primary." Thoughts?

http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpaxus.wordpress.com%2F2012%2 F02%2F10%2Fcentral-versus-primary%2F&h=wAQF0QCyF

I remember hearing the term "anchor partner" at one point too. Thoughts on that?

[nycindie]

Great article that suggests "central" partner over "primary." Thoughts?

http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpaxus.wordpress.com%2F2012%2 F02%2F10%2Fcentral-versus-primary%2F&h=wAQF0QCyF

I remember hearing the term "anchor partner" at one point too. Thoughts on that?

So, if one partner is central, that makes all the rest on the side or periphery. Not sure if that's better.

[redpepper]

Thoughts on this included that it reduces the risk of hierarchical thinking and could reduce the emotional impact of that hierarchical thinking.

[nycindie]

Hmmm... when one person is given a designation that makes them special in some way, how is that not a hierarchy?

Central and primary would seem to be pretty much the same thing to me. Anchor a little less so, though it gives the impression of being tied to whomever is the anchor person in a way that one is not tied to other people.

I'm not sure if many people are able to wrap their brains around the idea of "separate but equal" in poly relationships, especially when they are married and feel like their spouse should be considered before all others. It seems like very few people really take an egalitarian approach to poly, no matter how much they might say they don't like hierarchies. My guess is that comes with experience.

[SourGirl]

I have no problem with hierarchy, or saying hubby is #1. Anything else is a fringe benefit,....so,..even I think it looks like a fluffy term to cover up shit with poop.
A few will use it correctly, and the rest will use it as a catch-phrase to sound more appealing and get what they want in the short-term.

However if you like it, and feel inclined to it,..use it !
I just wouldn`t use it expecting it to change how people interact.

[drtalon]

Primary is to central as secondary is to _____________?

I've always been opposed to the idea of hierarchy, but when you're living with partner(s) and have responsibilities around money and basic survival, it's necessarily more involved than a partner you don't share those things with. I'd really like to see labels built around those differences instead...

"Hi, new friend! This is my partner, Jack, and my partner, Jill, who is also my _______________ because we own a house together." (or raise kids together, etc.)

Primary
Central
Homebuilder
Home plate (methinks poly baseball analogies are fertile ground)
Checkmate
Money-Honey

[AnnabelMore]

Money-Honey!!!

[nycindie]

...when you're living with partner(s) and have responsibilities around money and basic survival, it's necessarily more involved than a partner you don't share those things with. I'd really like to see labels built around those differences instead...

"Hi, new friend! This is my partner, Jack, and my partner, Jill, who is also my _______________ because we own a house together." (or raise kids together, etc.)

So, why can't they all simply be called partners or SOs? So, they all differ in what responsibilities you share with them, and the needs they meet for you. Why is it necessary to inform everyone you meet which one does what with you, unless someone specifically asks?

[drtalon]

Why is it necessary to inform everyone you meet which one does what with you

I don't think it's necessary, but some people believe they are, or do it because it's the example they've learned from. I think if some people need labels, then labels based on "which one does what with you" are better than labels based on hierarchy. :)

So, instead of "Hi, this is my primary, Jack, and my secondary, Jill," one could say, "Hi, this is my money-honey, Jack, and my girlfriend, Jill."

[RfromRMC]

My views on this are constantly evolving and changing.
I used to assume "primary/secondary" was THE way to handle it all. But the more I date and try to live a poly lifestyle that fits me, I don't think those phrases work anymore for me.

In fact, lately I don't even use the word "partner" any longer! :p
I'm saying "boyfriends" instead these days simply because it just feels better to me, as a poly who is actively dating but lives alone.
I say I have a "regular" boyfriend (i.e, "regular" as in we see each other on a regular basis), plus any semi-regular and/or occasional boyfriends.
Those phrases are working for me right now. The words do not designate a hierarchy necessarily, but they do reflect the amount of time that I spend with the person (which is a result of many varying factors).

I imagine eventually I will want to settle in and live with someone as a "primary" or whatever, but will probably not use that term, either. I will probably prefer "Domestic Partner". (Or maybe just husband. LOL)

[MonoVCPHG]

I always find the distress brought on by the term primary or secondary confusing. I also always say the same thing; not all relationships have the same impact on a persons life. In fact there is almost always one that has more. That is the primary or central relationship in my opinion."
There seems to be a lot of insecurity in being bothered by these terms. And that's coming from the mono guy who, in a poly environment, is riddled with apparent "insecuritues".

[redpepper]

I always find the distress brought on by the term primary or secondary confusing. I also always say the same thing; not all relationships have the same impact on a persons life. In fact there is lamost always one that has more. That is the primary or central relationship in my opinion."
There seems to be a lot of insecurity in being bothered by these terms. And that's coming from the mono guy who, in a poly environment, is riddled with apparent "insecuritues".you are not a secondary Mono... I treat all of you the same regardless of what you say... maybe that is why you feel no pain when it comes to being a secondary, because its in your eyes only. I could start treating you as less important, totally expendable and not worthy of boundaries and having your needs met. Then I would suggest you would see the difference.

I sound pissy, not meaning to sound so to you Mono, just having a hard time tonight and kind of frustrated with that. :o

I don't even have a central partner really. Other than myself. We operate as a team, all of us. There are some peripheral loves, but they are not secondary to me. Some of them aren't even partners. I just love them and they love me. No need to clarify the rest really.

[nouryia]

I don't really like the term secondary, but I'm not sure peripheral is any better. In fact, I don't like labels at all, I struggle with them...

Using such labels is one way to help differentiate those mates you live with from those you don't and can be helpful when explaining things to others but I find the term secondary sort of demeaning and I don't like to think of myself (or my boyfriend) as 'secondary'.

Such labels don't describe my feelings at all...my boyfriend does not feel like a secondary love. I love my husband AND I love my boyfriend. Logistics and life's circumstances do come in the way of being able to live together as mates, but it sure isn't for lack of love or want.

[dingedheart]

Central vs primary... a distinction without a difference. Same as all the other words before.

[Mya]

I will probably prefer "Domestic Partner".

From all the different suggestions to replace primary/secondary I think this is the only one I could see myself using if I had to start using some kind of distinction. If you're just trying to say you live with someone and not with someone else, the one you live with could be your domestic partner. I like it. It doesn't suggest hierarchy. And about "central partner"... That's no different than primary in my opinion. It still suggests that someone is more important than the others.

[nycindie]

Basically I see anyone I am with as lovers, so I've adopted a term after SourGirl suggested it to me: lover-friends. I really like that.

[Tonberry]

I like primary better. I feel it's easy to understand having more than one primary, or none and only secondaries, but the idea of someone being central seems more exclusive to me. And how do you have a periphery without a centre? Plus the only central person should be yourself.

[SourGirl]

Basically I see anyone I am with as lovers, so I've adopted a term after SourGirl suggested it to me: lover-friends. I really like that.

:)


These type of topics always make me feel like people are creating some parallel-universe to monogamy. It`s like the same thought-processes, and fears get carried over.

For instance, take marriage and some of the thoughts that go with it. There was long a theory that you shouldn`t live together before marriage,...he won`t 'respect you'.
Or, you should wait for sex,..... after all, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free, right ?
There were all these fears centered around the idea of 'making' someone respect you. That if hoops were jumped, you would live happily ever after.


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 ? ;)

Really,..respect, and feeling comfortable in a relationship comes from being with good people. People with integrity to be honest about who they are, and what they really want. If they are unsure of what they want, then they are honest about that.
You can`t 'design' that. The only thing all this designing leads to, is it taking longer to realize someone is NOT a good match for you. Much time is wasted, under false pretenses.

I have witnessed many secondary relationships that have a ton more respect and value then some primary ones. We all have witnessed that,..which is why divorce or break-ups happen on all levels, in all areas.
The more people start designing how poly people 'should' act, the more you will have the wrong kind of people learning the lingo, and learning to be what is expected, for all the wrong reasons.

' Oh SURE I like walks on the beach. Oh yes I LOVE chick-flicks. Yes I agree, you`ll never be a secondary to my wife and 3 other girlfriends of 5 years...oh yes I promise,...Now let me show you some primary lovin'....' :rolleyes:

So, I guess I would urge people to forget looking for words and pre-designed scenarios that make them feel better about their fears in the short-term, and just take a chance on letting people show their true colours from the get-go.

Odds are the type of people with some integrity, are NOT going to jump through hoops to prove themselves worthy. They are going to expect to be given a fair shake, and treated better then a dog performing tricks for approval.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

You can`t 'design' that. The only thing all this designing leads to, is it taking longer to realize someone is NOT a good match for you. Much time is wasted, under false pretenses.


After that post there's really not much I can add to it.

I've seen several of these threads around for a while, extolling the sins of hierarchical relationships and the word "secondary" as if slapping a different bandaid word on the problem would heal the wounds beneath.
Personally I don't buy it.

For myself, I don't really see the problem with either hierarchies, or primary/secondary labels in and of themselves. They allow for some people to communicate their intentions, capacity, or expectations to another partner, and if everyone is on the same page and consenting of that arrangement then there's really nothing anyone outside that arrangement should have to say about it.

But the words used don't automatically mean that the secondary partner is going to be treated as disposable or inhuman, as many of these threads have implied. It also doesn't mean that secondary partners aren't going to feel hurt and put off when the other partner is prioritizes the primary first. ...I don't think anyone likes being second, so how many who have been in that position, have truly managed their own expectations about how much their "secondary" will be there for them when the chips are down?

And for those who look at non-hierarchical models as the greener pastures to which it is all daffodils and soft puppy's, try to keep in mind that just because someone doesn't have any "primary's" or loves all their lovers equally, doesn't mean they can't still use, abuse, or otherwise treat you like shit from time to time.

Life is what happens when you're making other plans.

[nycindie]

I don't think that anyone trying to find terminology that offers a perspective other than hierarchical necessarily means they are afraid or trying to create something artificial in relationships. Obviously, some words or ideas seem like flimsy substitutes that don't mean anything different, but does that mean we have to settle for terms that don't sit well with us?

It's simply that some people don't like the idea of hierarchies in multiple relationships, and some people do. For some, a hierarchy works really well, and for others, it rankles. For my personal situation, it doesn't make sense to me.

No one is running screaming away from people who use the word "primary" and I'm sure we all know it's the work you put into a relationship, and things like compatibility, compassion, cooperation, and so on, that contribute to making it a success. But if someone doesn't like the terms primary and secondary or finds the prospect of being in a hierarchy distasteful, why shouldn't they seek alternatives? I don't think it's about trying to find a word that is then used to create some structure around; I think it's about finding a word for a structure one already knows resonates well with someone. And so what if we develop a new lingo? Someone once thought to use the word "primary" and others jumped on that, but it isn't a rule that we all must follow suit to take part in polyamorous relationships.

Lots of people have reclaimed or adopted the word "slut" and use it proudly, while many still find it offensive. Should those who dislike the word and wish to find some other option to describe their own sexual attitudes be told they are having silly or unrealistic expectations or that they are trying to make up some false rulebook for everyone else's behavior? Hell, I'm not even crazy about the word polyamory and very rarely use it when I meet people, unless I'm at a poly event. Recently I was doing a little online searching for methods of goal-setting, and found an article where someone suggested putting together a list of broad goals but she called them "anchors." I changed my list to "touchstones" just because that term worked better for me within that exercise than anchors or goals did.

To some of us, words are important and help us find a sense of direction or something to sink into as we create our own paths in life. If thinking about hierarchies and primaries doesn't work for someone, there's no harm in looking for words or approaches that more closely express what we are comfortable with in relationships.

[SourGirl]

I don't think that anyone trying to find terminology that offers a perspective other than hierarchical necessarily means they are afraid or trying to create something artificial in relationships. Obviously, some words or ideas seem like flimsy substitutes that don't mean anything different, but does that mean we have to settle for terms that don't sit well with us?


I sort-of disagree. :) You are looking at this specific thread. I am looking at the overall trend that happens. My default thinking, is people can pick and choose what words suit them. Customize their language, so to speak. Nothing wrong with that at all, like you mentioned.


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. Where as with most of these type of 'word' threads, there is an agenda starting to take place.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

It's simply that some people don't like the idea of hierarchies in multiple relationships, and some people do. For some, a hierarchy works really well, and for others, it rankles.
No worries nycindie, I'm totally with you on that. Whatever works for some, works and that's cool. And some people like certain terminology, and that's cool too. I'm in no way trying to disparage non-hierarchical models, or the terminologies that people use to communicate with others. It's all good.

The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the label, be it "primary" or "co-partner" or whatever, the people are still people and jerks will still be jerks, no matter what set of labels have been used. So the idea that changing labels like "central" vice "primary" will somehow cause some partners to be less jerky than they would be anyways, seems to me a little naive.

The important part of the equation in whether one is treated well by their partners is the people involved...not what they're called, or the set of vocabulary being used.

[rory]

I liked the alternative terms that were suggested by somebody (Annabel?): lifepartner and lovepartner.

[nllswing]

It doesn't matter how one calls it. Just like in the rest of life - the subject matter gives meaning to the words, not the other way around.

[Pretzels]

It doesn't matter how one calls it. Just like in the rest of life - the subject matter gives meaning to the words, not the other way around.

Amen to that.

Just from a pure definition, a central partner seems to me like the hub of a wagon wheel to which all other partners are attached.

We're not out to anyone, so, in our world, friend, boyfriend, roommate, my idiots, etc. serve us just fine.

And how you treat people really speaks more than words ever could. Right now, E (who would be considered a secondary) is struggling because I've been working a lot out of town during the week and people who recognize T and I as a couple have been camped out at our house on weekends. So, my "alone time" with E has been, more or less, "Hey baby, why don't you come a little zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz." (passes out asleep) So, basically, I'm going to explain the situation to T and hope that he understands that E and I have to work a little more on our relationship right now.

Is there a hierarchy? Sure, a bit, but mostly we just focus on talking with one another and not doing things behind backs that might cause a fuss.

[nycindie]

...how you treat people really speaks more than words ever could.

It doesn't matter how one calls it. Just like in the rest of life - the subject matter gives meaning to the words, not the other way around.

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.'... Where as with most of these type of 'word' threads, there is an agenda starting to take place.

But the words used don't automatically mean that the secondary partner is going to be treated as disposable or inhuman, as many of these threads have implied... just because someone doesn't have any "primary's" or loves all their lovers equally, doesn't mean they can't still use, abuse, or otherwise treat you like shit from time to time.

The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the label, be it "primary" or "co-partner" or whatever, the people are still people and jerks will still be jerks, no matter what set of labels have been used. So the idea that changing labels like "central" vice "primary" will somehow cause some partners to be less jerky than they would be anyways, seems to me a little naive.

I don't think anyone with a brain would argue against any of the above. However, I also don't think anyone here was making up rules for other people's relationships or saying that one word would determine someone's actions, just by giving an opinion on it. 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? :confused:

[ImaginaryIllusion]

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? :confused:
Not at all...I'd read this thread as a productive discussion of not only terminology but also some thoughts on what vocab choices can reasonably be expected to achieve, or not.

My particular points were in reference to the following:
Thoughts on this included that it reduces the risk of hierarchical thinking and could reduce the emotional impact of that hierarchical thinking.
In that I mostly disagree with the premise that changing the terminology would either reduce the type of thinking, or the impact of it; possibly quite the opposite.


I like discussion... But I'm also back home this week with friends from decades ago with whom I can debate with mercilessly. Some of that might leak out. :)

[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....

[nycindie]

Just wondering, RP: are long topical threads, like the Primary/Secondary general merged thread (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=119032) still meant for discussing general concepts like this or do they get retired? If it's too long, maybe it's time for a Primary/Secondary/Hierarchy merged thread, Part II. There have been so many threads about it lately, they can probably be blended into one interesting discussion so we're not all saying the same thing over and over again in a gazillion different places.

[redpepper]

Just wondering, RP: are long topical threads, like the Primary/Secondary general merged thread (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=119032) still meant for discussing general concepts like this or do they get retired?s.discuss away on that thread or start another. One of the mods liked merging threads. Hence the long thread. I prefer to tag threads, which is why so many seperate ones. Different ideas about what's more useful/helpful (and less work for mods), but it all comes around anyway so it hasn't seemed to of mattered.
There have been so many threads about it lately, they can probably be blended into one interesting discussion so we're not all saying the same thing over and over again in a gazillion different places.so what else is new. :p Everything gets repeated over and over again everytime someone needs to process anyway. I reckon that process will happen no matter what.