A Primary Says...

Piroska

New member
A friend of mine recently posted something to summarize his definitions of primary/secondary/tertiary in polyamorous relationships.
I know most of you don't practice hierarchical poly, but for those who do, I was curious to discuss.

It was:
Imagine we've been in a relationship for a year then I tell you that I'm moving 1000 miles away for my dream job.

A primary says, "When do we move?"
A secondary says, "When can I visit?"
A tertiary says, "I'll miss you."

Thoughts?
Does this sound like a reasonable way to quantify each level of relationship?
 
My initial response was - of course.
But then, I don't have a particular tie to any particular geography or place, my career can be done from anywhere, and I've always been the submissive one in my long term relationships.

The more I thought about it though, I wondered how that would work in larger poly networks.

I can see such a thing working in a duo, but only if only one person has strong career aspirations that are tied to a specific company or job, or for whatever reason strong ties to a geographic area or location. What if one person gets their dream job 1000 miles away from where the other person gets their dream job? What if one person wants to stay in a particular area for family or cultural reasons?

Similarly, I can see it working in triad, but again, only if one person has the overriding reason they have to move, and the other two don't have any objection.

But as soon as you start having a network - what do you do? Uproot the whole network for one person?
What if there's a V relationship where all three are co-primaries raising children together, but the person wanting to move is not the hinge? (That's my definition of a primary relationship - living together and coparenting.) And what if the three have other relationships they don't want to leave? What if it's even more complex, like a W formation? Would objecting to moving mean that the relationship with the person who was moving for their career was secondary as opposed to primary?
 
To a large degree, you answered your own question.
It CAN work that way.

And then there are also those "game changers" in life;
where someone makes a decision or encounters something that completely changes everything-often unexpectedly and whatever existed before is knocked off it's rocker so to speak.

your example is a prime one.

I was in a situation with two primaries by the definition of two partners who lived with me, we all shared responsibilities and expenses.
But-I am moving. A major move. It's in the best interests of me and my children.
When it was hypothetical-both of my partners expressed that they would "of course" go anywhere I went.
Now that it's no longer hypothetical and they have had to face the reality of a major move away from the only place they have ever lived, leaving their jobs, friends, "home";
Both have backed out.
Decades long relationships, terminated.


In reality the idea of heirarchy is complicated. If you look at it as I did where it was simply a label to define how far enmeshed a partner was; not how important they were but how enmeshed in terms of intermingled responsibilities (finances, bills, property ownership, children etc)-it can look simple enough, because the more enmeshed a person is, the more individual obligations that they have WITH the other person.
But people tend to think of it as obligations TO the other person, when in fact that isn't true.

I am obligated to the mortgage company for my half of the house payments, the credit union for my half of the vehicle payments, the utility companies for my half of the utilities, the children for parenting etc.
I am not obligated to my PARTNER for each of those things, I am obligated WITH them.
Those obligations CAN be met by each of us even if we decide we are no longer partners. (which is being proven as I type because that is precisely what is happening).

To each other, partners still remain obligated only as partners to treat each other with respect and love etc. These obligations may be met via different methods in any given relationship, but the obligation is the same for any relationship.
Thus hierarchy concepts break down for me here, because functionally my obligation to treat each person as an autonomous individual, with respect, consideration and love doesn't change regardless of how frequently we hook up.
What changes is that I may SHARE more or less obligations with any given person-but this is true of people other than my partners AND it can be true with our without any level of romantic or sexual commitment or agreement.

SO-back to your example, my partners who were identified as "primary" reacted (in the end) to a move across the country with "um no. I will always love you but I can't". Whereas there are others who are not even sexually involved with me who reacted with "when can I visit" and "when do we leave". They would have been considered "less than tertiary" as they aren't romantic or sexual partners at all.....
 
Re: when do we move, when can I visit, and I'll miss you ... work well enough as simple examples, if we assume all else is equal and there are no complicating factors.

One thing to consider is that there's more than one way to define primary, secondary, and tertiary. They can be defined by how much romance is shared, or by how many life logistics (e.g. living together) are shared, or by what priority we give different people ... and I'm sure there's other ways to define those terms.

In my situation, a tertiary would be someone I'd just met and/or was dating for the first time. A secondary would be someone I'd been dating for a long time, and had become a real candidate for becoming a part of the poly-fi V I'm in. A primary would be the people actually in that V (or N if we added another primary partner). It's not an exact science. The words convey general ideas.
 
Decades long relationships, terminated.
Wow. Sorry to hear that!!

The rest of your reply is really interesting. That is a salient point about how being obligated WITH someone is not the same as being obligated TO them. I agree, I think most people conflate the two.

Out of curiosity, if you feel like answering, after your move, would you still consider the partners that were left behind as primary partners?

I can see how someone would consider a long distance partner as still primary, if the move had an ending date - like a tour of duty in the military, or going to grad school in a different state - but I wonder if an *indefinite* long distance move makes it impossible to continue a "primary" relationship with someone.

Re: when do we move, when can I visit, and I'll miss you ... work well enough as simple examples, if we assume all else is equal and there are no complicating factors.

One thing to consider is that there's more than one way to define primary, secondary, and tertiary. They can be defined by how much romance is shared, or by how many life logistics (e.g. living together) are shared, or by what priority we give different people ... and I'm sure there's other ways to define those terms.

In my situation, a tertiary would be someone I'd just met and/or was dating for the first time. A secondary would be someone I'd been dating for a long time, and had become a real candidate for becoming a part of the poly-fi V I'm in. A primary would be the people actually in that V (or N if we added another primary partner). It's not an exact science. The words convey general ideas.

That's a really good point also. I ran into that when discussing this subject with Guy, because I was curious where his relationship with Lee is going, if it was something he saw as becoming a co-primary situation in the future - and we found that there really wasn't a good way to nail down what exactly those levels were.

So I'm very curious what everyone's definitions are (and thanks for giving yours!) for primary/secondary/tertiary. (For those of you who use such things.)
 
I used to think I was a no-hierarchy type of a guy, but then I realized that when you've just barely met someone, they can hardly be a primary partner to you. Thus, we must all be hierarchical in that sense at least ... amirite?

I too am interested to hear how various people define primary/secondary/tertiary.
 
I don't think it's a good description. I don't practice hierarchical poly, but back when my husband and I were together -- and monogamous -- he had brought up the idea of relocating somewhere else for his job, if an opportunity came up (his employer had lots of positions that required a commitment of a year or two in a different place), and I told him I wouldn't want to move but would consider some kind of dual-city arrangement so he could take advantage of the opportunity but we could visit each other. I don't think a spouse should be required to uproot themselves just because their partner wants or would benefit from doing so. We were married, with our finances co-mingled (essentially primaries in that sense, though no kids), and I was terribly devoted to him and in love, but I just wouldn't have moved because I didn't want to.

Now, as a solo poly, if I get to a point where I have, say, three steady lovers with whom I am emotionally invested, and I told them all I wanted to move, I would not assume that their responses to that would indicate my importance in their lives. People gotta do what's right for themselves.

As far as how to define primary, secondary, etc.... it always bugs me when people say, in response to those of us who do not like heirarchies, "You wouldn't expect me to treat a new bf/gf the same as a spouse I've been with for 20 years!" Well, that's not what I see as the problem with hierarchies. Of course there is always a period of getting to know a new person before you entrust them some of the same things one would give a totally entangled partner - but non-hierarchical, egalitarian poly is more about treating each person with equal respect and consideration, not necessarily that they get the same "perks." It's about not making one dyad more important and expecting another partner to always and automatically defer to the primary's needs/wishes. Every person wants and needs different things, and so you use "Relationship Triage," which was described by SchrodingersCat here:

Yeah I really hate using the Primary/Secondary labels myself, even as a "quick and dirty" description of my circumstances . . .

Yes, I'm married. Yes, we share finances and a household. Yes, that means I have obligations and commitments to him. I also have obligations and commitments to school, to my parents, to my best friend and her son... And if I get into a serious relationship with someone else, I will have obligations and commitments to them. And triage will go thusly: who's having the bigger crisis right now and needs my time and attention most, at this moment?

It does not mean that I have already decided, a priori, that all my future relationships will be "less important." It does not mean that anyone will ever be considered disposable, simply by virtue of not being my spouse. I didn't roll that way when I was single, why would that change now?

I never claimed that primary and secondary relationships were not different. They are very much different. I have explicitly chosen to reject the implications of those differences by deliberately avoiding the labels of primary and secondary.

For example, suppose my "secondary" is having a major crisis like her mom just died, and my "primary" needs to talk about a bad day at work. The "primary/secondary" model implies that my primary's needs come before my secondary's needs, regardless of the severity or immediacy of those needs.

I prefer relationship triage. So: if you come into my hospital, I really don't give a hoot if you've sprained your ankle, Mr. President, I'm going to treat the homeless guy bleeding profusely from his 3" stab wound first.

. . . Sharing my finances and housing with a person does not, to me, constitute "my whole life." I still have my career, my friends, my alone-time, my hobbies, not to mention my other romances. These are all parts of "my whole life" and none of them include my husband . . . Really, the only "point" of poly relationships, and the only thing to "get" is: Can you be in love with more than one person, yes or no? Honestly, that's what it all boils down to. The rest is mechanics.

Like I said: primary/secondary is not *for me*... I certainly do not claim that they are not for anyone. Some people are extremely happy with those roles, and I'm a firm believer in "whatever works for you is fantabulous."

. . . every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. It is not respectful or kind to tell someone that their feelings are unimportant simply because they don't match up with the feelings of someone else.

I like to let every relationship grow in its own way. To me, using a label of "secondary" means that I'm putting limits on the way that relationship is allowed to grow. It's like keeping fish in a small tank: it will limit the size to which they can grow, even though they're biologically capable of growing much larger.
:
 
Last edited:
Agreed with nycindie. Not moving with a partner doesn't necessarily mean the relationship is less important, because not everyone needs regular face-to-face contact for a relationship to be significant, and maybe they don't want to move because of other priorities in their life.

I don't use "secondary" or "tertiary." I only use "primary" and "non-primary," the difference between which is the amount of practical life sharing and time spent together. All of my relationships are equal in terms of emotional significance and commitment. None of them gets privileges like veto power or has a say in my other relationships.

As a side note, the response of the "tertiary" in the OP's scenario doesn't make much sense to me (assuming only saying "I'll miss you" implies they don't intend to visit). If I move away from someone and neither of us bothers to visit the other, I have a hard time imagining calling them a partner. We're probably not even close friends. I guess a tertiary partner is like a casual dating partner for people who use the term, but since casual dating doesn't compute for me, nor does "tertiary partner."
 
Last edited:
Re (from SchrodingersCat):
"I prefer relationship triage. So: if you come into my hospital, I really don't give a hoot if you've sprained your ankle, Mr. President, I'm going to treat the homeless guy bleeding profusely from his three-inch stab wound first."

Amen.
 
Would I consider a ldr primary.
I wouldn't consider anyone primary at this point in my life.
In the case of the oartners in question-both relationships have been terminated. So no.

But additionally; I have chosen to alter my relationship style to a solo approach since.

Regardless; I personally am an extraordinarily touchy-feely person. Without physical touch, I lose connection. I am a sex several times a day type of person, with a preference for every day. I CAN and do maintain long ditance friendships. I would be more than willing to consider someone a fwb and be sexual as opportunity arises. But if they are far away, I am not going to regularly prioritize them over someone close by.
 
I think for me personally, I could not have a long distance relationship as a primary relationship.

I like the idea of relationship triage - I think that happens anyway, in hierarchical poly relationships, or I would hope it does. There was a time a few months back when I was processing a breakup and feeling very yucky - but one of Lee's best friends had just died from a car crash, and she was devastated. Guy naturally spent as much of his time as he could (barring work and childcare) at her place or on media with her, supporting her and helping her as much as he could, and less time with me (his primary).

Yes, my friend's definition of tertiary would be more a casual sex/play partner who would be unlikely to go out of their way to visit another state just for him.

That quote from SchrodingersCat, about how putting a label on a relationship can limit the ways it can grow like a fish in a small tank, is really interesting. It makes sense to me as a reason to consider not using those particular labels. But I wonder if that's kind of the point, some times. As a way to protect the existing primary relationship, any other relationships are relegated to secondary, so that they can't grow big enough and important enough to threaten the primary relationship?

I do wonder when people say that non hierarchical poly is about treating people with respect and consideration, if it necessarily means that hierarchies don't? Because I would think that would not be an ethical way to conduct polyamory, hierarchical or not. I see hierarchy as being less about who's more important, and more about being realistic as to the level of entanglement that can be offered. For example, I'm in a D/s relationship with my husband - it's unrealistic to say that I could be a full time submissive to another partner also, without some serious discussions, a lot of time, and negotiations between the three of us (at which point, I would consider that person a co-primary). So for me, I might submit to a secondary partner when I am in their presence, or in certain locations/times, or even have rules that I follow for them every day regardless; but they're rules that don't conflict with my existing D/s relationship, because I'm upfront that there are some things I cannot offer them.
 
I like the idea of relationship triage - I think that happens anyway, in hierarchical poly relationships, or I would hope it does. There was a time a few months back when I was processing a breakup and feeling very yucky - but one of Lee's best friends had just died from a car crash, and she was devastated. Guy naturally spent as much of his time as he could (barring work and childcare) at her place or on media with her, supporting her and helping her as much as he could, and less time with me (his primary).
Well that is impressive because most stories we read here where there is a primary and secondary, the primary is always set above the secondary, no matter what. I mean, the Secondary's Bill of Rights was written for a reason - and that is that blatant mistreatment and disrespect of secondaries is far too common.


That quote from SchrodingersCat, about how putting a label on a relationship can limit the ways it can grow like a fish in a small tank . . . I wonder if that's kind of the point, some times. As a way to protect the existing primary relationship, any other relationships are relegated to secondary, so that they can't grow big enough and important enough to threaten the primary relationship?
Of course that's the point. And exactly why it is unfair.

Why should the relationship my lover has with someone else be given more weight and consideration than the relationship he has with me? Because they've given themselves the title of Primary and I will never be that? Psh! I'm not chopped liver, I am a person who deserves just as much respect as anyone else he is involved with. I deserve to be valued just as much as anyone else he involved with, and I should be able to make my own choices about my relationship without getting permission from anyone. I deserve to be listened to and heard when I express myself, as much as anyone else he is involved with, and I should feel safe within my relationship without wondering whether his primary partner is going to pull some bullshit move -- such as a Veto that ends my relationship with him -- or some other manipulation or decree that attempts to limit my freedom or how I can share my affection with my lover, etc.

What the hell are these Primaries protecting their relationship from anyway, if you think about it? From anyone else mattering a great deal to their partner? Well, boo-hoo for them if a lowly secondary actually matters and is someone their freaking partner cares about, ugh. How selfish and stingy it is to have a couple-centric approach in poly. Perhaps it works in swinging, but in poly it sure seems like the secondary is often given the short end of the stick. If a couple's relationship is so fucking fragile that they need to be treat someone else as second-class in order to protect it, then they shouldn't get into polyamory in the first place.


I do wonder when people say that non hierarchical poly is about treating people with respect and consideration, if it necessarily means that hierarchies don't?
See above. Click on the link to the secondary's Bill of Rights, and read this Blog Post by AggieSez: http://solopoly.net/2012/11/30/why-i-say-non-primary-not-secondary/, as well as the one in my signature.

A hierarchy is a pecking order, and if I love someone and care about them, I do not designate a rank for them. I just love and care about them. In my view, hierarchies have no place in love relationships. I was never the kind of person to have a best friend, either -- all my friends are important and valuable to me, so I never saw the reason or purpose for choosing one as "best" above all others. It's the same thing. Couplecentrism and hierarchies usually mean one dyad matters more than any others, without exception. It's what I call "Holy Dyad" thinking, and why I won't get involved with a guy who views one of his partners as a Primary. It's Egalitarian Poly or forget it, I walk.
 
Last edited:
Well that is impressive
Thanks. I did read the linked articles and previously read the one in your signature. A lot of that stuff is, like it says in the first article, stuff that should be happening in any relationship, which is what I think too. I guess some of the things like that are what Lee was talking about when she said she 'doesn't *feel* like a secondary' to Guy.

A hierarchy is a pecking order, and if I love someone and care about them, I do not designate a rank for them. I just love and care about them. In my view, hierarchies have no place in love relationships. I was never the kind of person to have a best friend, either -- all my friends are important and valuable to me, so I never saw the reason or purpose for choosing one as "best" above all others. It's the same thing. Couplecentrism and hierarchies usually mean one dyad matters more than any others, without exception. It's what I call "Holy Dyad" thinking, and why I won't get involved with a guy who views one of his partners as a Primary. It's Egalitarian Poly or forget it, I walk.

I see where that definitely makes sense for a lot of people. I haven't quite figured out how D/s and poly reconcile really well yet, so discussions of how hierarchies can work or be terrible is really very interesting to me. Maybe I need to seek out some leather houses and see how they do it. :p
 
Putting on my tin hat and wading into Devil's advocate position:
Why should the relationship my lover has with someone else be given more weight and consideration than the relationship he has with me?

Perhaps because your lover gives it more weight and consideration? I think many people who take a hierarchical approach to poly do so because they actually love their primaries 'more' than their secondaries, in some sense. That might be all you need to know to get the hell out of dodge and DTMFA, but perhaps you might find that the level of your feelings for this lover are actually well matched. You find that you've reached an equilibrium, and that you're not wanting further connection. That as long as the primary relationship isn't disrupting the time you have with your lover, and that it all runs smoothly and without hysterics, that actually it can still be a relationship in which you want to invest, are able to invest, and feel works for you.

Because they've given themselves the title of Primary and I will never be that?

It takes two to tango. If this is not being imposed upon your lover by his primary, if this is what he wants too, then it seems like your issue is with him and not the other party. There is no 'decree from on high', only an upfront acknowledgement that he's not up for investing equally in both his relationships, because he's happiest that way.

Psh! I'm not chopped liver, I am a person who deserves just as much respect as anyone else he is involved with. I deserve to be valued just as much as anyone else he involved with, and I should be able to make my own choices about my relationship without getting permission from anyone. I deserve to be listened to and heard when I express myself, as much as anyone else he is involved with, and I should feel safe within my relationship without wondering whether his primary partner is going to pull some bullshit move.

Absolutely this. Not even a Devil's advocate could argue with that. ;) The only bit that I would jump on is the bit about his primary pulling some bullshit move. That kind of thing doesn't happen without your lover's consent. So really, if he agrees to that, then it's because he's making a choice to let your relationship go because other things are more important. Yes, that sounds crappy, but is that not always why break-ups happen? Because one or both parties decide that the relationship no longer works for us for some reason?

What the hell are these Primaries protecting their relationship from anyway, if you think about it? From anyone else mattering a great deal to their partner? Well, boo-hoo for them if a lowly secondary actually matters and is someone their freaking partner cares about, ugh. How selfish and stingy it is to have a couple-centric approach in poly.

I think my general point is that you'd only be dropped like yesterdays cold dinner if you actually didn't matter a great deal to them. Or else that being with you was causing such a strain that overall, the negatives were outweighing the positives. And again, I feel like those situations can arise anyway, even in non-hierarchical relationship dynamics. I've chosen to walk away from people I've cared about a lot, because in the greater scheme of my life, that relationship was holding me back in some way. I'm not sure it makes a difference what the cause of that is; just knowing that your lover is making a call for their own good. That might be selfish, but then, you could argue we are all being selfish anytime we have priorities.

The temptation when you are a secondary (and I know, I have been there) is to always think that the rules are coming from the primary partner - not your own. I call bullshit on that. Plenty of people put limits on themselves in order to not upset the balance of their own lives. I respect a person's right to have priorities and to conduct their life according to what makes them happiest. As long as they are not misleading me, and as long as they have the strength of character to speak up if their priorities change, then to me it's ok.

You may slay me now. :)
 
I see where that definitely makes sense for a lot of people. I haven't quite figured out how D/s and poly reconcile really well yet, so discussions of how hierarchies can work or be terrible is really very interesting to me. Maybe I need to seek out some leather houses and see how they do it. :p

I haven't posted much on this site since getting in my relationship with Tighearn. Partly because unlike my last relationship where I was a secondary without rights (and it was an unhealthy relationship) this one is egaltarian.

I chose to respond because my family is a leather family. And not everyone in the family are in relationships with the rest of the family. My family involves the poly family of myself, Tighearn, Woodsmith (my husband), ancilla, and N8. The poly family also has Elle in it but she isn't really Leather. In addition the rest of the Leather family includes two other couples (Holly and K; Logan and Arc) and a single trans woman (Ruby).

My husband and I have a vanilla relationship. Tighearn and I are in a leather D/s relationship (I currently have his training collar and our relationship is very Leather based. Ancilla is slave collared by both Tighearn and N8. Tighearn, N8, and ancilla all live together.

If you have any specific questions of how things work, feel free to message me.
 
Perhaps because your lover gives it more weight and consideration? I think many people who take a hierarchical approach to poly do so because they actually love their primaries 'more' than their secondaries, in some sense. That might be all you need to know to get the hell out of dodge and DTMFA, but perhaps you might find that the level of your feelings for this lover are actually well matched. You find that you've reached an equilibrium, and that you're not wanting further connection. That as long as the primary relationship isn't disrupting the time you have with your lover, and that it all runs smoothly and without hysterics, that actually it can still be a relationship in which you want to invest, are able to invest, and feel works for you.
Sure, but that is one big fat "if." It's a hell of a lot easier just not to get involved with someone who does hierarchy in the first place.

It takes two to tango. If this is not being imposed upon your lover by his primary, if this is what he wants too, then it seems like your issue is with him and not the other party. There is no 'decree from on high', only an upfront acknowledgement that he's not up for investing equally in both his relationships, because he's happiest that way.
Of course. Obviously, it is both people in a couple who are responsible for choosing to subscribe to a hierarchy.

Absolutely this. Not even a Devil's advocate could argue with that. ;) The only bit that I would jump on is the bit about his primary pulling some bullshit move. That kind of thing doesn't happen without your lover's consent.
Yes, of course. That's why I ask a lot of questions about a guy's agreements with his partner before even entertaining the idea of starting a relationship with him. If there is a hierarchical approach to how they do poly, I choose not to get involved, no matter how much I might like him. Hierarchies simply go against everything I want from relationships. It's a fundamental difference that I would not go along with. Consequently, I usually only date unpartnered men.

Note to anyone new here - I am straight, so that's why I am only talking about dating men.
 
I live with my husband who I consider primary. I also visit my boyfriend in another part of the world and consider him primary. I spend as much time and money as I possably can to be with him. I am willing to do that indefinetely (it can be done) but time, money and closeness wise I prefer that we at some point all can live in the same country. They are all equally important to me. Money is the only thing we don't all share, that is mainly because my boyfriend earns very little compared to us. But I always keep him in the loop.
 
unlike my last relationship where I was a secondary without rights (and it was an unhealthy relationship) this one is egaltarian.

I chose to respond because my family is a leather family.

If you don't mind me asking here, how do you reconcile the relationship being D/s with it being an egalitarian relationship? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems from your description that N8 and Tighearn are the masters/dominants of the family. Do either of them have any authority over the relationships that you or ancilla form, or your specific living situations? If they do, it seems that would be hierarchical poly, rather than egalitarian?

I live with my husband who I consider primary. I also visit my boyfriend in another part of the world and consider him primary. I spend as much time and money as I possably can to be with him. I am willing to do that indefinetely (it can be done) but time, money and closeness wise I prefer that we at some point all can live in the same country.
It seems that you would agree with the description my friend came up with - because you'd prefer to live together with the two people you consider primary in the future, even if it's not the current reality.
 
I used to think that I couldn't do long distance relationships because I am sexual and dependant on physical touch. We have developed scemes to make it work, though! And my boyfriend is a very, very special man that is always worth the wait.
 
If you don't mind me asking here, how do you reconcile the relationship being D/s with it being an egalitarian relationship? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems from your description that N8 and Tighearn are the masters/dominants of the family. Do either of them have any authority over the relationships that you or ancilla form, or your specific living situations? If they do, it seems that would be hierarchical poly, rather than egalitarian?
Nope. In fact in regards to relationships, anyone who is connected to a person would have to agree to it (so if Tighearn wanted a new relationship that either I or ancilla wasn't comfortable with he would not pull the dom card to make it work). We practice a family style semi-polyfi structure in our relationships so any additional ones would have to be ones that would fit with the family.

In regards to living arrangements, I have always wanted an arrangement in which I live with my partners or in homes within a ten minute walk. While Woodsmith prefers the second one he knows it's a harder one to look at so is comfortable with the idea of the first one as long as he would have some space that was just his.

At first in regards to relationships Tighearn wasn't comfortable with the idea of ancilla having a second D/s based relationship but considering N8 is her master just like Tighearn is that is a thing he isn't concerned with. I personally don't believe I'd want another D/s relationship but that's just because I don't think it would work for me.

So just as I would speak with Woodsmith and Tighearn before going on a date with someone (and each have different levels; Woodsmith only cares when I first want to date someone and when sex first gets put up, Tighearn is also wanting to know if emotions are forming) both of them would do the same for me (and ancilla in Tighearn's case). Also all of us would have to meet the person ultimately in order to determine if they would fit in with the family (other wise they may still be able to have a bit of dating time but sex and talks of long term plans would be off the table for all members involved).

Also N8 would have no discussion over my life/relationships because he is not my master. He's more of an annoying brother who I like to bother back.
 
Back
Top