Primary and Secondary: could there be other terms?

Tonberry

New member
I realise the primary/secondary issue has been discussed a lot, but I saw this in another thread:

The whole "primary/secondary" classification is not something I've really thought about until I came onto these boards. I have been acquainted with a couple of triads and folks in open relationships and have heard these terms but I hadn't put much thought into it. It seems that everyone gets a rank in the hierarchy, primary is the relationship that matters and secondary is the relationship that doesn't. Sugar coat it all you want, but that is the truth of the matter as far as I can tell (if it isn't, you guys might really consider using language that is not explicitly hierarchical).

I have no problem with people being in relationships that make them happy, but if these boards have a story to tell it is that these "secondary" relationships tend to have some real frustration. I can't blame them, I wouldn't enjoy being classified as secondary (or primary, for that matter) and would see myself to the door if I found that's how I was being thought of. This idea of assigning rank to relationships seems very dogmatic to me, archaic even. Why would I ever tell someone that I loved "I love you, but your life and feelings are not as important as my primary, get used to it"? That just seems cruel to me.

To find out how it feels to be a secondary partner you need only read through these boards. The general consensus, as far as I can tell, is that it feels about the way that it sounds... like being secondary.

And I wanted to talk more about it.

First, for me "primary" and "secondary" are badly worded descriptions of stages. You can have several primary relationships, or you can have none. Same with secondary relationships. To me a primary relationship is the kind where you live together or share responsibilities in raising a child, or share finances, etc. Secondary relationships are less involved into each other's lives. Some people also talk about tertiary partners, which as far as I can tell means casual and/or very rare (once a year or less) encounters.
To me, these are different stages, and I wouldn't expect anyone I date to start at a primary level. But I understand how the root and numbers (one, two, three) are misleading. It sounds like a ranking system.
Sure, I know you can have two secondary partners and no primaries, or two primaries and no secondaries, for instance, and so all partners are at the same "stage". It's not like you can only have one of each.

While I don't like the idea of stages that much, either (it gives the impression that a secondary relationship is less evolved, or that every relationship ends up being primary at some point), I feel like it makes it more apparent that it's something that can evolve and change, and not something fixed. I'm all for people keeping the words "primary" and "secondary" when they have rules in place about who can be what - as much as I think it's pointless to try and decide how relationships are going to turn out rather than let them develop on their own - but I definitely like the idea of other terms for when it's a description.

We have many people on these boards. Maybe we can come up with something. It doesn't matter if it's only used on the boards, I think it could still have its benefits. Of course, nobody is required to use any labels to begin with, and sometimes just describing each relationship, although it takes more time, might be the best way to go.

I think what is typically considered a primary relationship has as a major factor a commitment outside the relationship. That is, if the relationship was to suddenly end, there would be something left to deal with: a child to raise together, a place that is still being shared, a joint account, a marriage in place. So I think we could use a term that reflects that, although I can't think of any.
For secondary relationships, I can't think of any way to describe them except saying it's "in the dating stage", but I'm worried it sounds less important than it might be.

Of course using this previous description, we could say "relationship with outside commitment" and "relationship with no outside commitment" but that's kind of a mouthful.

I realise it's often pointless to try and find new terms or redefine existing terms. But this specific issue has been there for a long time. There are lots of misunderstandings about what primary/secondary might mean, and it can be off-putting for someone to know they'll be "secondary", when if it was described as "You don't have to move in with me or help raise my kids", the partner would be happy about it rather than feel inferior because of it.

Going back to the idea of stages, I guess we could define Stage A, Stage B, Stage C or something (with letters rather than numbers, because they don't necessarily come one after the other), but that would not explain much I'm afraid.

Personally I also find the "boyfriend" or "husband" distinction useful for that purpose, but the problem is that people give you weird looks when you talk about husbands in plural, and that many people seem not to want to say "husband" (or wife) about someone they're not legally married to.
 
Mindset

It is my opinion that over-fixating on the terminology "primary" and "secondary" puts the actual point of the discussion on a back burner.

At least for me the issue is the view that with encumbrance comes greater value. If someone has kids with one person, that person is by default of higher value than someone they don't have kids with. If someone shares a mortgage with one person they are somehow "closer" than someone who they don't share a mortgage with. If someone has been with one person for 10 years the relationship takes higher priority than the relationship that has been around for 1 year.

Relationships are all different, they all have their good points and limitations. My relationship with my friends are highly valuable to me, as are my relationships with my lovers, for example. But if one of my close people gets sick, is hurt, calls me in need of help, you can bet that I'm going to ditch whoever I am with (friend or lover) to go to their aid. You bet your sweet ass. Their "rank" is irrelevant. I love my people, my friends and lovers, and I treat them with dignity. When they need me I go to them, when they are in trouble I fight for them, and I don't feel the need to place one over the other. Doing so devalues the relationships.

I wouldn't have you guys redefine your terminology (which I've had to Google not shy of a dozen freaking times btw), I only hoped to bring up the question, to shake the bees nest and get people considering. That's really all we can ask of each other, right? To try and keep growing.
 
Marcus, the terms are common in poly circles, not just here on this board (it sounds like you're saying it is "our" terminology here). Personally, I eschew the whole idea of such hierarchies in love relationships. Read some of SchrodingersCat's posts on the subject - I like her outlook. She calls her approach "relationship triage," meaning that there is no automatic hierarchy in her relationships, as she responds to who needs her attention and time the most (I hope I got that right).

We have a long "Master Thread" on this topic. Maybe you will find some good, interesting info in this one:

Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads, General Discussion / Debate

(If you set your viewing preferences in your user CP to 40 posts per page, this long thread is only 6 pages. Much easier to read longer threads this way!)
 
Last edited:
Marcus, I don't see why you think it's saying the relationship is more important. I see it as a descriptive that because of other factors, more time is spent together. Surely, it's normal to spend a lot of time with somebody when you're living together. Similarly if you are raising a child, doing so makes you spend time together. If you're sharing finances, you'll have finance-related discussions.
I think all it means is that time is spent between the partners outside of dates due to the type of relationship. It's neither a good nor a bad thing, and doesn't make the relationship better or worse, more or less important. It just leads to different dynamics.
 
Marcus, the terms are common in poly circles, not just here on this board (it sounds like you're saying it is "our" terminology here). Personally, I eschew the whole idea of such hierarchies in love relationships. Read some of SchrodingersCat's posts on the subject - I like her outlook. She calls her approach "relationship triage," meaning that there is no automatic hierarchy in her relationships, as she responds to who needs her attention and time the most (I hope I got that right).

We have a long "Master Thread" on this topic. Maybe you will find some good, interesting info in this one:

Primary/Secondary: Merged Threads, General Discussion / Debate

(If you set your viewing preferences in your user CP to 40 posts per page, this long thread is only 6 pages. Much easier to read longer threads this way!)

Will do ny, I'll check out the debate.

When I refer to it as "your" terminology I mean the poly community, so we're solid on that front :)
 
First, for me "primary" and "secondary" are badly worded descriptions of stages. You can have several primary relationships, or you can have none. Same with secondary relationships. To me a primary relationship is the kind where you live together or share responsibilities in raising a child, or share finances, etc. Secondary relationships are less involved into each other's lives. Some people also talk about tertiary partners, which as far as I can tell means casual and/or very rare (once a year or less) encounters.
To me, these are different stages, and I wouldn't expect anyone I date to start at a primary level.

That's the ballpark I'm at with it for using those words.

I think it's moot though because for who it MATTERS? It's the people I'm involved with and what OUR vocab preferences are.

But this specific issue has been there for a long time. There are lots of misunderstandings about what primary/secondary might mean, and it can be off-putting for someone to know they'll be "secondary", when if it was described as "You don't have to move in with me or help raise my kids", the partner would be happy about it rather than feel inferior because of it.

This does not compute in my world. Why would anyone sit around feeling inferior instead of going simple and speaking up to clarify? Get the word so you can let go of the emotion that is ugh. You don't pick what to feel when you feel it. You get to choose how to respond to the feeling -- manage it, process it, clear the air. REACT to emotion or ACT WITH INTENT? I prefer to act.

"When you SAY ____, does that mean ______? Clarify, verify please." (sit with feedback, come to conclusion, report.)
"Ok, I see how you mean it. I am ok with it. You can call me that." OR "I do not like the word ___. Please call me ____ instead. Thanks."

When I was open, I didn't have a huge poly vocab. I didn't even know the word "polyamourous" til after I was living it. I was young, the world wide web was barely getting moving. I had few to little sources, and by the time the first edition of "Ethical Slut" hit the bookstores and I finally met another poly person to friend it was like -"I want to be closing down to marriage space time now. Where was all this when I could have used it better when I wanted to be in open space?"

I used to call my then BF/ now DH "my lover" or "my boyfriend."

"Lover" was a clear vocabulary word for what he was to me to anyone else. This is a person I have sex with, this is a person I date. "My boyfriend" was clear about the dating, ambivalent about lover but after a certain amount of time people assume.

To him, because he was in our inner circle of 2, our initial agreement was "sweetness and light for a year. Friends with benefits, lover, boyfriend person. No past, no future. Just enjoy the now for a year. Then we see what we see."

I had decided my wants, needs, and limits and just put it out there in my dating life. He signed up. A few others did, one other made it to long term rship. The rest decided it wasn't their scene after all. Fair enough. There was ugh moments, but nobody could say I hadn't been honest.

  • Do not lie to me. It's a deal breaker. Hard truth it to me. I can take it.
  • I am not exclusive right now. No interest.
  • I am ok with you seeing other people. I expect to see others too, so fair is fair. Don't date me if that's not your scene. We can be friends.
  • Just keep it clean and give me the heads up if it will go loverly so I can make an informed decision about my health BEFORE you go there. No unplanned babies or cooties. I feel this is reasonable expectation. Do not play with me if you can't hack that. Lies of omission are LIES.
  • If one of yours is changing, I can check out and we can be friends or we can see about renegotiating with the new person if this is going to be some overlappy thing. But just TELL me the news. I will tell you mine.
  • I do not need to know every little thing. I only get excited when it is time to get excited. Just tell me someone new is in the picture. After that tell me when there's something to get excited about like it is looking to go lover. All the rest I don't need to know if you don't want to tell and some of it I don't want or even need to know. I figure you on same page unless you tell me otherwise on my others. We can fine tune specifics there.
  • Repeat -- do not LIE. That's the quickest way to get me all excited in way you DO NOT WANT. Hard truth it to me or don't even bother to play here.

Over the years it's become this. But it is much the same style.

A framework, adaptable. Our conflict resolution style is another thing, but really? He became husband over the years because we fly well together.

My other boyfriend (and back then he went by NAME, because I had no idea of the word "Secondary" and I articulated only to then BF/Now DH that there was this person in the picture and it was functioning on LDR basis) also flew well despite some bumps. But he was not destined to be rship of a lifetime. He was a long season -- spanning a few years and it was lovely, and I have good memories. When the season ended, unknown to me he contact my then BF/now DH to look after me well because I was precious. DH agreed and they left it knowledge to themselves for a long, long time.

DH told me about it years later. I was stunned. It was touching compersion moment even at the end of a season. (Didn't know the word "compersion" then but there were many other compersion-y moments like it).


I had no expectation of them to interact at all much less go THERE -- regular evidence of compersion-y. I just thought I was lucky that the metas (who didn't even have that word to describe each other) played so well without too much jealousy FLAK going on -- they knew the other existed, they knew how to get in touch, I figured I did my job and what they made of it was on them. Maybe it was because I was clear in my wants, needs, limits? And pushed them to articulate theirs? We had stormy weather but most of it? Was the sweetness and light.

And we did it with no "official poly vocab."

So to me it isn't about vocab. It's more about the willingness of the person to speak their truth to their people and be in right relationship with each other.

GG
 
Last edited:
Oh look the weekly round table on hierarchies. Anything new ....Didn't think so. Better luck next week. Suggestion for next week...tertiary or fuck buddy which has a higher rank?......or non primaries treated like rental cars....ridden hard and left for others to clean up.
 
Dingedheart, are you having a bad week or have you been on the forums for too long? ;)
 
My week is going fine....it was a little hot weather wise earlier but has cooled off now.:D Here too long maybe .....

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:D

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 that seem harsh :D


Ps ...right now I'm cover in coconut oil .....
 
Last edited:
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? :confused:

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:
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 :eek:
 
Last edited:
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:D

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

:)
 
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! ;)

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:
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 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:D). 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:eek:) 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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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..........:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top