How many?

[Ariakas]

Sometimes the designations are descriptions of the relationship model.. describing time invested, or the time allowance. It can mean other things too.

I know I don't use it as a descriptor of how much I love someone.

I don't believe I could time manage two primaries. I have a wife, we want kids, we have 11 years invested and a lot of things in our lives both planned and in the past.

If I had found someone at the same time as my wife, sure, maybe. Different time and place. But as it stands right now, I can't foresee having two primaries.. or having "all things created equal"..

I know I can love equally, I am doing it and have done it.. .. those designations will never describe the level of love I feel for someone.

[River]

Originally Posted by Ariakas

I know I can love equally, I am doing it and have done it.. .. those designations will never describe the level of love I feel for someone.

Nice!

[Tonberry]

Originally Posted by River

I don't want to love any of my partners any less and I don't want to rank them in any way.

Oh, to me it's not about amount of love, it's about the kind of relationship I guess. A tertiary would be someone that due to some constaints, you don't get to see often and or are more casual with, so a friend with benefits or a partner I only see once a year and don't have much contact with the rest of the time would both count as tertiaries for me.

A primary would be someone I want to share my life with, live with, make big projects with, plan finances together, share big expenses, and if I wanted kids or if they have them, the kids would be raised together.

A secondary is in the middle, someone who has other attachments, for instance a primary and children who live somewhere else, and who always will need that family (their children) to have a priority lane, meaning that if we're having a date and something happen to their kids, they ditch me and I go back home (vs a primary for whom we'd both go back home see what's going on, since it would concern both of us).

It wouldn't be about the amount of love, but more the time and energy that would be required for such a relationship. I'd never tell someone "hey, let's date, but you'll me my tertiary because that sounds good". However I may meet someone, and we'd realise we can't see each other often, or that our life plans are too different, or that we're friends more than lovers, and our relationship would be tertiary.

For me it's more of a description. It's like saying a childhood friend or a close friend or a distant friend, it's not something I decide and it's not about me deciding to love them more or less, it's about what life throws at us and how we end up in relation to one another.

[Xared]

It depends on a lot of factors, but the limit of primaries for any situation is eight. I can prove this with with a fairly simple equation...

Actually, I'm pretty terrible at math, and that was all bullshit. Well, except for the "many factors" part; that's probably true.

For me personally, I have no idea. At most, I've only dated two people at the same time, one could probably be called primary and the other secondary in the one situation I was in. With what I have going on now could be two tertiary relationships, or possibly secondary, but none of this is really an accurate description.

One of the reasons I started to identify as polyamorous in the first place is so I would stop trying to quantify everything. It's all friendship to me. Whether it takes on the form of a primary relationship, a "friends with benefits" thing, or even Platonic friendship; it's all the same. The intensity is different from person-to-person, and even varies in each individual relationship. I just enjoy the various connections I make with people, and try not to worry too much about where I want the relationships to go. In my experience, deciding what I want from a relationship before I know what's possible is the best way to assure it never gets to that point.

The magic number for me might be three, or ten, or one... possibly zero. Most of the time for me is is zero, and I'm perfectly happy with it.

[redpepper]

Gaud I hate that primary, secondary, tersiary thing... especially as I seem to be living it by the descriptions and definitions so far. The loves I have are all equal. I spend a certain amount of time with each one, but in my heart, if we were all on a desert island together, I would divide my time up equally. I don't half love Mono, or a third love Derby or a fourth Leo... and mostly love PN. I get that primary, secondary, tersiary is a way of describing, but it truly is not about love for me. Its about time.

I could love someone else too I suppose, but I am finding that with only seeing Leo once a month, and that isn't enough, that is it for me. I guess one cannot stop love, so who knows. I remain open and always ready to receive.

[lilac]

For me I think 2 is plenty. I think it really just depends on the people involved and what everyone can handle.

[just3]

After much discussion with hubby 2 is the limit. I have a primary and a secondary. But long term would like it to be 2 primary and thats it. S is mono and so is our new addition J. And No way could I deal with more LOLOL.
Chris

[evrchanging]

I have kids so I am taxed, and when I put into a relationship I put all. I hate being half assed. The two I got is working great. I want to put more time into the Lover and make him more primary too. I wouldn't mind having a female lover as well, or a younger male lover. That is stretching it, but I am evrchanging, so I can adapt. I would say 3 max. for me. If I found a candidate it would be major talking with Lover and Jewel as they are very mono, odd I know. A female I think would pass with both of them over another younger male. I too have thought this one over. My love cup is overflowing.

[AutumnalTone]

I am quite uncertain as to how many partners I can handle. I've always felt there's been "room" for more in my life, though I've never been in a situation where everybody was local and interacting on a daily basis. I can guess three or four because I can easily imagine that as workable; that's still very much a guess, however.

[BlackUnicorn]

If everyone were to live separately and in the same town with me, two is the maximum number I could fit in logistically at this point if I would want to see them on a weekly basis.