Why are people calling these "rules"?? I took them as "understandings" between people in a relationship, and for some of them just a smart, decent way of doing relationships in general.
If I reworded #1 as "All the rules in the world won't matter if you're not committed to respecting your partner by not crossing agreed-upon boundaries without prior discussion" would anyone have a problem with it?
Or #6. I don't even have to reword that one much: "Respect your partner, communicate, act with kindness and compassion". How is that a bad thing??
#2: "Don't put up with a partner who disrespects you/your relationships/your other commitments" Haven't there been TONS of threads around here about standing up for what's important to you in a relationship and not letting another person dictate the terms? Isn't this alluding to that??
I think perhaps there's too much focus on the restrictive aspects of these statements and not enough on the meaning behind them
Originally Posted by nycindie
But for me it can't work if, for the long-term, it isn't just as important to my guy to consider my feelings, needs, and goals, as it is to consider his primary partner's, though of course our needs will naturally be different.
What if your feelings, needs, and goals are considered JUST as important, but he can't ACT on them because he's financially entangled with his primary, but not financially entangled with you? Are you going to dump him because he has to make decisions about money, for instance, like how much to spend for dates and vacations, jointly?? CONSIDERATION isn't the same as bringing things to fruition.
I couldn't be with someone with these kinds of rules with their spouse or primary partner because... I matter.
So, by this logic, because I agree with a lot of these (if not word for word, then at least the reasoning behind them) TGIB...doesn't matter? I'm sure he'd be amazed to learn that. It's one thing to say "it doesn't work for me". Fine, it doesn't work for you. No one's forcing you into it. But (and this does NOT apply just to nycindie) STOP with the condescending, judgmental, "if people have relationship hierarchies then they're automatically not treating their non-primary partners well" assumptions. Everyone matters. Everyone here is clear on that. I kind of thank Whoever that this couple has their understandings and expectations so clearly realized so they can be honest and upfront with potential partners and therefore respect the new person enough to give them the information they need to make the best decision for themselves about whether or not they want to get involved!
Annabel, what you said about "primary relationship communication" gave MC pause also, and he and I talked about it. I took the "if ever" as "depending on the type of secondary relationship" because there ARE differences. There's differences between the secondary you only talk to once or twice a week and the one who's only a shared bank account away from being a co-primary. And yes, I agree with what you said about "sacred". It's not a word I'd use for myself much, but I took the point to be "remember that you don't get to put your primary relationship aside for the fun of a new one, just because you've been together so long and know each other so well". There may be an awful lot of people who treat secondaries shoddily in favor of a primary, but there's a lot of people who treat their primaries poorly in favor of a secondary as well. I'm probably seeing the more positive aspects because those speak to the way I "practice" poly, while others might see the negative sides more because of their own experiences.