Originally Posted by Mohegan
This is why I don't buy into using secondary and primary labels. If using them at all, it is in reference to the fact that they haven't had the time to build what we have over 9 yrs.
For me, the labels *are* useful, but with reference to the future not the past, and refer to a primary committment.
When I was in a vee shaped relationship with one of a married couple, it was clear to me that they were lifebonded. Not only that, I'd been to their wedding some years before (where the lifelong promises had been made, but not promises of exclusivity), I had taken Communion in celebration of the promises they had made. I was clear that I did not want to do anything to break their bond - as a matter of my own integrity.
In contrast, there were no long term committments between myself and my lover. We did not anticipate our love developing into a lifebond, nor were we working towards that as a possible goal.
In those circumstances, 'primary' for the married relationship was exactly the right term.
Had it happened that our relationship had surprised all three of us by becoming lifelong, I guess we would have called that 'primary' too, so there would have been two primary relationships (and other secondaries, still)
But even at that, She's not less than me nor is she more than me. She's Cookie and I'm Mo and that's how it is.
Exactly. I was not secondary as a person. It was my relationship that was secondary to the other one, and that was a comment about future plans more than anything.
Does that make sense?
Mo and I are coming from different places, so we do not see things the same. Please, mix and match the bits of what we each say that is good for you, because you are not in my place nor Mo's.