Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-20-2012, 07:46 AM
Anneintherain's Avatar
Anneintherain Anneintherain is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelie26 View Post
Is it even possible to love two different people equally?
yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
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.
I love that, and its simplicity.
__________________
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have.

Last edited by Anneintherain; 07-20-2012 at 07:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-20-2012, 03:36 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,288
Default Equality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelie26 View Post
Is it even possible to love two different people equally?
If they are indistinguishable as independent beings, they are exactly the same in every way, the experiences you've shared with them are exactly the same in every way - yes.

If they are people who have differing impacts on your life, bring different things to the table, have had varied experiences with you - no.

Though that is my opinion of this idea of "loving equally". It comes up among siblings too, which is where I believe the insistence upon accepting the idea of equal love comes from. We clearly see that every relationship each person has with each other person is unique. They relate to each other differently, share things differently, show affection and concern in different ways, etc. We intuitively know that the relationships aren't equal on an emotional level, how could they be?

However, we have grown up with this idea of "I love you exactly the same as your brother", because that's what solved the problem of competitiveness as children. The honest answer to this "do you love me as much as so and so?" question would resemble more closely "I love you, regardless of my feelings for so and so, and that is what is important". Placing an artificial sense of equality on emotions like this feels good - but it isn't reality, it's just a pacifier.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-20-2012, 03:39 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,288
Default Old Topics

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneQSmythe View Post
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).
Well put. It is the habit of older members on a forum like this to put down the resurfacing of topics well covered. I know that it has been my instinct in the past on other forums and I am grateful to be humbled by your clarification of why we should resist the urge to brow beat people for bringing up topics long since covered.

For newer members, do check out the old thread on this topic linked by ny; it is actually quite a healthy discussion. (thanks again ny)
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-20-2012, 03:58 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelie26 View Post
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.
I would never say that anything is impossible, because just when i start thinking something is, someone proves me wrong.

For me, each relationship I have is unique. Trying to measure them on some sort of scale is impossible, or at least contrived. It's like comparing apples to tornadoes.

Given that basis, I can't start creating hierarchies based on feeling. I am no fan of relationship hierarchies, either - they each are what they are, and I'm not going to rank them.

I never refer to either of my partners directly as "my primary" or "my secondary", because I find that rather insulting on a multitude of levels. That doesn't negate the fact that I have a primary relationship and a secondary relationship - it describes the practical nature of the respective relationships, rather than their relative importance. Also, it can be fluid, based on the needs and circumstances.

Trying to compare relationships, than than just celebrating the individual nature of each, can lead into some rather dark places, including competitiveness, which in my opinion, should never be a part of a relationship.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-20-2012, 04:15 PM
newtoday's Avatar
newtoday newtoday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
For me, each relationship I have is unique. Trying to measure them on some sort of scale is impossible, or at least contrived. It's like comparing apples to tornadoes.

Given that basis, I can't start creating hierarchies based on feeling. I am no fan of relationship hierarchies, either - they each are what they are, and I'm not going to rank them.

I never refer to either of my partners directly as "my primary" or "my secondary", because I find that rather insulting on a multitude of levels. That doesn't negate the fact that I have a primary relationship and a secondary relationship - it describes the practical nature of the respective relationships, rather than their relative importance. Also, it can be fluid, based on the needs and circumstances.

Trying to compare relationships, than than just celebrating the individual nature of each, can lead into some rather dark places, including competitiveness, which in my opinion, should never be a part of a relationship.
Very well said.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-20-2012, 05:39 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaGirl View Post
. . . what is a forum for if not looking for real life guidance/conversation with real people?
Yes, of course, and that is my point. Look first! Read what's been written and shared before. Yes, everyone thinks we're all so unique that no one could possibly understand our crazy unconventional situation, but one can still take advantage of the years of posts that have accumulated here. Then add your questions to an existing thread. If one's particular question or problem hasn't quite been addressed in any other threads they could find, then start a new one. I don't think anyone is being negative by directing people to old threads. I just don't want anyone to miss some of the gems we've got here. And I really liked how NeonKaos used to merge these similar discussions into a "Master Thread" for reference. And, yes, I believe she usually waited a few days before doing that.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 07-20-2012 at 05:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-20-2012, 07:12 PM
PolyLinguist's Avatar
PolyLinguist PolyLinguist is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 49
Default

As a relatively new member, I don't mind if old issues are re-discussed on this Forum. It may be old hat to you guys, it's all new to me. And new members may have new perspectives to add.

I am also a linguist, not just a PolyLinguist. I spend a lot of time thinking about words and what they mean. In my view, it is highly useful to have words like "Primary" and "Secondary". They refer to real-life roles - roles that I have seen enacted by real people. Giving another name to these concepts, just because they may sound troublesome to some people, would not serve a useful purpose. Once the new terms gained acceptance, their meaning would start to bother those who were bothered the first time around.

Saying that all relationships are unique, or that we should all love our various poly-amours equally, is not very useful. People can't go through life constantly explaining and defining situations anew as if similar situations have never existed before. The kind of polyamory I can envision for myself has existed in human societies from time immemorial, under one word or another. I would like a lover who won't destroy my marriage - it's that simple (and good luck to me...). In parallel, I may become the lover of a woman without destroying her marriage. If the operative word is a "secondary", so be it. I see nothing insulting or derogatory about it, for myself or anyone else.

The fact is, it is easy for people without strong attachments to dismiss hierarchies. But some of us have strong attachments - it's just that sexual fidelity is not an absolute requirement for them. As long as I am open about this, no-one can be surprised if they sign up to being a "secondary" (call it whatever you want), and they end up sometimes in a secondary role. Yes, my dear, I love you dearly, but I have a household to run, (grown-up) children to spend time with and shared holidays with my wife. If this is the kind of thing you want for yourself, maybe you should find a primary of your own...

Last edited by PolyLinguist; 07-20-2012 at 07:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-21-2012, 03:50 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,374
Default

I wasn't trying to dismiss hierarchy or replace the words altogether. I think they work fine in a hierachy-type relationship, but when the relationship has no hierarchy and these words are still used, I find that many people assume it is a hierarchy-based network... And so since these are different situations, I think using different terms make sense.
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 03:49 PM.