Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-19-2012, 02:33 PM
GalaGirl GalaGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,156
Default

Quote:
Ironically people say poly is freedom to build whatever relationship that all parties agree to ....except if there is a hierarchy....hierarchies are wrong. And which ever side you fall on it alway seems to boil down to one side trying to convince the other that they are wrong. And it usually breaks into a semantic game or argument.
Did I come off sounding that way?

If so, not my intent to get into semantics or be argumentative. My intent was just to share my preference for myself and how some of my experience played out because IME? There was no vocab.

I don't think it is wrong to have a heirarchy structure. It's just not MY thing.

So a general debate/discussion on "polyship structure style and resulting vocab use" with people not in your polyship? Makes no sense to me. There just isn't a one size fits all model for polyship. There isn't even a one size fits all model for monoship.

If it is the people's thing, yay. If it isn't, yay. The point it -- it's THEIR thing. *shrug*

I often sit around wondering... why is this so hard for people?

Know what you want your thing to be... then go FIND the like minded people to go have it with. There.

All happy for the most part and agree to what they signed up for? Yay. Carry on.

GG

Last edited by GalaGirl; 07-19-2012 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-19-2012, 03:28 PM
dingedheart dingedheart is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaGirl View Post
Did I come off sounding that way?

If so, not my intent to get into semantics or be argumentative. My intent was just to share my preference for myself and how some of my experience played out because IME? There was no vocab.

GG
No you didn't. And I thought your posting was good. I was speaking in the general sense. And Nycindie hinted at the reason .....there are many thread that have discussed this......from many angles Labeling...changing the titles like garbageman to sanitation engineer ....to the concept of love having a status ...to hierarchies being similar to a cult like mentality.

The problem is with a lifestyle that has a thousand shades of grey these differences are going to be inherent. Then factor in the truly enlighten ...the advocates and how they view things and that's why we see so many of these threads.


Newtoday.......crap today's thursday ....I missed it ..how did I lose a day...now I am having bad week

Last edited by dingedheart; 07-19-2012 at 07:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-19-2012, 05:41 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dingedheart View Post
Being new you might not be aware of how many threads ...from how many angles this topic has been beaten.....that's all. It seems to come up indirectly in lots of threads too. Every other day....I thought I was being kind with once a week
This is why I miss NeonKaos's practice of merging threads on similar topics into one general "Master Thread" when she was moderator here. It cleaned up the forum from the gazillion-and-one threads that always pop up about the same thing over and over. Primary/Secondary, Jealousy/Envy, etc. Add it to the Master Thread, keep it as reference and interesting reading if one wants to go back in history a little. A moderator could probably spend whole days merging all the threads that repeat the same crap. Most new people don't seem to bother to do a search or read the stickies before posting, but pretty much the same things are stated again and again.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

Last edited by nycindie; 07-19-2012 at 05:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-19-2012, 08:10 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,395
Default

No time to read right this second-but definitely want to expand on this thread!

Did want to toss out there, that to me, I figured out just this week,

Secondary=extended family
Primary=immediate family

That doesn't mean that they are more or less important to me emotionally.
It simply means that they are more or less involved in the day to day decision making in my life.

__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-19-2012, 09:35 PM
GalaGirl GalaGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,156
Default

Thanks for the feedback, dinged! I know I tend to wax and wane when I post late at night. Not always sure I write the tone I think in my head because... well, too close to sleepies!

Quote:
Most new people don't seem to bother to do a search or read the stickies before posting, but pretty much the same things are stated again and again.
But it IS new. For them.

Nothing new under the sun in the spectrum of human experience or the human condition.

But in the individual experiences? Many new things come ALL THE TIME, as individual people traverse on through their life's development. In the mind, body, heart, and soul buckets -- each one on a different wavelength of growth.

If olders/more experienced/BTDT people get too jaded on it, the newer/less experienced/never BTDT people are left without guidance, and what is a forum for if not looking for real life guidance/conversation with real people?

I mean, I could Google this stuff now, read to my heart's content. But that's not having a "live" discussion, is it? I think most people writing in forums want to share or "think out loud" or "process live" with anon "safe" people who can give feedback in real(ish) time.

It's the craving for human connection. More like "seek peer helper" than "seek bonding with my dictionary/encylopedia set." On the flip side -- and I'm not saying I'm GREAT in all my buckets -- there's the need of BTDT people to help new people with a leg up. That's what is attractive to forums for that side of the coin. Here's one small area where I think I do ok, so I'm up for sharing.

I LOVE this exists. I WISH it existed when I was a young poly woman with no access to resources! On Maslow's need scale, it's the transendance place -- need or wish to help give another the leg up. I have friend's way older than me, some older than my own parents -- giving me the heads up, leg up on Life Things. I have friends much younger than me in the late teens and 20's who wear me plumb out with their energy but bring me great joy in my mind as I get to see them go through things I've already been at. I try to give them the leg up if they ask me and I get to relive memories long forgotten but reperked by their situations. It's neat when I'm fortunate enough to be in some intergenerational powwow conversation. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" is very comforting to us all then.

The feeling of "Hooray! I am NOT crazy! I am just HUMAN! Whee!"

Just random thoughts. (Still waxy, waney -- my apologies. Jet lag is killing me here as I try to readjust from recent travels.)

HTH!
GalaGirl

Last edited by GalaGirl; 07-19-2012 at 09:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-20-2012, 12:39 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dingedheart View Post

Ps ...right now I'm cover in coconut oil .....
LMAO!

By the way-there is also a thread (I'm sure it's still in the golden nuggets, but I haven't looked in years), started by me, with common terms and definitions.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:06 AM
Aurelie26 Aurelie26 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London
Posts: 95
Default

What makes my bf my primary is the fact that we live together, and he takes care of me and my Son. Also, I care about him more than my lover. Is it even possible to love two different people equally?

Although sexually, my lover is my primary, especially now.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-20-2012, 03:04 AM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,180
Default

I love that this forum doesn't object to resurrecting old threads but it does bother me a bit that starting a new thread on an old topic generally generates some negativity. I think that both approaches have value. When reading old threads on the topic I hear what those posters (who often are not active anymore - although sometimes they are) thought about the topic at that point in their journeys. But I don't really know those posters, I haven't been reading their day-to-day struggles...I like to hear what my current online friends are thinking.

If people are interested in discussing a topic with the current group of active posters they can start a new thread or resurrect an old one. I, personally, think either approach can be valid - some folks may not want to feel they have to read 200+ posts before they can express something they have been thinking about (which may not be new or exciting to the oldsters but is clearly new and exciting to them - and has been to many people or it wouldn't get brought up so often). What's wrong with letting the current conversation run it's course and then merging it with the old thread later? (personal preferences at play here, obviously).


*******************

On to the topic at hand...

For me - when I use the terms "primary" and "secondary" with regard to my relationships it is in a purely descriptive manner - it describes where we are now, not where things can go later if that is how it turns out. In my case it mainly hinges on chronology. MrS was my first boy (we've been together 20 years) and Dude is my second boy (we've been together for a little over one). My first boy also happens to be my husband - he gets the dubious distinction of being the one that "society" sees as my partner. He gets the oh-so-exciting privilege of going with me to family/ company events. The law affords him certain "rights"...etc.

But "secondary" doesn't define my feelings for Dude. Our relationship is much closer than my relationship with MrS was at the same "timeframe" of our relationship (just over a year together). Apparently I am quicker at closeness the second time through - practice (all both of them) makes perfect. 19 years ago I would have defined MrS as my "primary" because he was the person I was closest to (closer than I had ever been to anyone before) - I didn't know that I could let someone closer to me than that, now I do. I guess I view my relationship with Dude as "heading toward co-primary" but not there yet - we need more time (he says he plans on being here for a long time, so we will see how that works out). He lives with us. He does chores. I pay our mutual bills. He is a resident, not a guest, in the home we all share - but if I dropped dead tomorrow he would have only the "privileges" of my widowers best friend from a societal/financial/legal standpoint (i.e. MrS could cancel his joint credit card if he wanted to).

My other relationships have maintained the same "tertiary" (FWB) status for 6-19 years - they haven't evolved to that level of closeness - which is fine and happy-making for those relationships. Not every relationship needs to evolve to primary (or even secondary status) - some relationships find their niche and are happy where they are. Letting relationships be free to be what they are also means letting them NOT be what they aren't. There is no "goal" - there is only what "is".


****************

On being "out" - due to my profession this is not possible in the general sense. We are out to our closest friends. Our families know that Dude lives with us (they may be confused but that is THEIR problem). Dude comes up in casual conversation with acquaintances/coworkers without defining the relationship - he is "MrS's coach-surfer friend" if it comes to that.

5-10-15 years down the road our families will probably figure it out. >shrug< Mom has already decided that his role is MrS's adopted "brother-in-law" - which is close enough to "family" for her - he gets invited to T-giving dinner. MrS told his folks that Dude is "officially" living with us - whatever that means to them. Once I retire (10-15 years if everything goes according to plan) then I can acknowledge Dude as my "other partner" publically (assuming he is still here) and get involved in some poly-activism. Dude knew this from the beginning...it was part of what he signed up for. If our relationship gets to the point where it feels right to try to get him "co-primary" (i.e. husband-like) rights legally then we will do so to the extent that I can unravel the legal issues (took me 4 years to get there with MrS - we got married to do it...)

What to make of all this rambling? No clue. Relationships are what they are, they go the way they go. People are people. We use imperfect language to try to communicate with others to share our experiences.

JaneQ

PS. apropos of this thread - Dude teasingly accused me of being "Boy-One-Centric" today because when I got home they both asked for hugs at practically the same time...MrS got his first (this is even funnier because MrS NEVER asks for hugs/physical affection and Dude ALWAYS does - gotta love those "love languages")

PPS. Have I mentioned lately that I am seriously the luckiest girl in the world?

PPPS. Dude maintains the right to stay friends with MrS if we ever break up - does that mean that he is MrS's "primary" best friend? Does that trump his "secondary" romantic/sexual relationship with me?
__________________
Me: poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" Vee-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (21+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (3+ yrs) and MrS's best friend
Lotus: poly bi female, "it's complicated" relationships with Dude/JaneQ/MrS (1+ years)
TT: poly bi male, married to Lotus, FB with JaneQ
VV and MsJ: bi-women with male primaries, LTR LDR FWBs to JaneQ


My poly blogs here:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe

Last edited by JaneQSmythe; 07-20-2012 at 03:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-20-2012, 03:15 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,383
Default

Just wanted to note that I love the idea of using the term "immediate" vs "extended". I think there is no judgment here, I know I like my immediate family (parents, siblings) way less than my extended family (aunt, in-laws).
I'd probably not use the term "family" for romantic relationships to avoid confusion, but I do like the adjectives. I might use "network" or "relationships". On top of that, it has the advantage of including metamours too.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-20-2012, 03:15 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,395
Default

Jane-that was a fun and funny read.

In the past, we've discussed this topic and it was brought up that it could be defined by
time together
or
financial obligation
or
children shared
or...

I left everyone in a quandary.

My husband and I have been together 14 years.
My boyfriend and I have 19 years.

I have one bio child with each and one from before either of them.

They both have their payroll auto-deposited into my bank account-cause I pay the bills.

They both live here.

I spend evenings with one, mornings with the other.


So, I consider them co-primaries.
However, THEY consider Maca primary and GG secondary and always have..........
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
definition, description, primary, primary/secondary, secondary, terminology

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:25 PM.