Originally Posted by AnnabelMore
To me, secondary means a relationship where you're serious and an important part of each other's lives but probably not formally committed and not making life decisions in a building-our-lives-as-a-unit type way.
Are you really saying you'd never be in such a relationship? Or that we shouldn't have a way to talk about the issues and questions that naturally come with such a relationship?
Note the fact that I personalized my comment by saying I, personally, would never wish to be anyone's "secondary," so defined. Not if I'm in love with them, I'd not. I'd be hurt and offended if someone I loved -- am in love with -- called me "secondary". It's the word I despise. But I'd despise it only if directed at me. And maybe I'd feel compassion toward another who has had it directed at them. But I'm not going so far as to say that the word is morally wrong. If all persons invloved are happy with that word, great. Let them have it.
Let's say X is my Dear Sweetheart-lover-partner, and she meets another man and they decide to live together, with me not sharing a house with them. That would be FINE with me! Let's say they share finances, share in important decisions about livlihood, location, etc.... All of that would be fine with me. I'd love her no less and feel no less loved. But if she described me as her "secondary" to this other man, and I was fully in love with her and partnered..., I'd have my heart utterly broken and would have to call it all off with her. It's the concept and word that would sting me to my core and break my heart. So I guess I'm saying that I'm only interested in "primary" relationships. However, the term "primary" is redundant and meaningless to me, because I'd never consider entering a loverly relationship as a "secondary".
So, any Sweetie of mine, even if we don't live together
, must think of me and treat me as an equal to any and all of her other loves. Otherwise, forget it!