Break-ups and transitioning roles

I'm sorry you (and he) are going through this.

I have no great insight but I think you were right to bring it up and put it out there - since it arose naturally out of conversation. BUT I don't think that he could possibly in a place where he has actually sorted out who and what he wants out of his life in the long-term. He just broke up 2 weeks ago - he is still in a period of grief and adjustment - and probably will be for quite some time. He may withdrawal from getting close to ANYBODY during this time period - because allowing someone to be THAT close opens you up to vulnerability and pain - which he has just suffered through.

I'm sorry you are feeling rejected, but my (amateur) advise is to just wait and see. Be the supportive friend that he needs - without pushing him too fast to commit to anything or make him make rash decisions in the face of his tumultuous feelings in this "freshly broken up" state. That what he can give, give what you feel comfortable giving and just ... breathe.

I may have missed it but, how long was he with this person? How long have the two of you been together in your current state?

JaneQ
 
Girlfriend material

Thank you for the positive outlook bookbug. I think in this case though, he just does not find me girlfriend material. Accepting that is very difficult for me and has wrecked havoc on my self worth.

Thanks for sharing and I am sure you will get a lot of good feedback here!

I would encourage you to answer these questins.

What do you consider to be the qualities of a secondary girlfriend?
What do you consider to be the qualities of a primary girlfriend?

What would the process look like in transitioning from secondary girlfriend to primary girlfriend?

Everyone would answer these questions differently. I can't answer for you, but I can share a few of my experiences as a primary. I am also a secondary in a few relationships and it is very different for me.

For me, a primary is more like a spouse. As a primary (we do not live together) I am the one that is there for him when he is tired, sick, depressed or anything like that. And he is there for me also during times when i am struggling. When he is working extra hours, I will do things like help around the house, wash and organize his clothes etc.

We plan and work on large projects together (like re-modeling projects- landscaping projects). We might support each other in making large purchases like automobiles, household appliances, etc.

I attend weddings and funerals with him and he does with me.

We help each other around our houses.

We are planning a future together.

As a secondary- my role is different. I may do some of the things that I do as a primary, but not nearly as much.

If I were wanting to try out a more primary role in someone's life, I would simply start doing some of the things that a primary does. And I might ask him to do a few things for me that I might ask a primary to do.

A friend of mine was starting a long distance relationship when he was hospitalized. She asked me if I thought she should go over there to "nurse him back to health". I said that she could make a decision based in where the relationship was at the time which was still casual and in a getting to know each other phase, or she could make a decision as if they were already in an established committed relationship. That is what she decided to do and they were eventually married!
 
Last edited:
I do not play the whole primary secondary BS game.

Murf means just as much to me as my husband. The only persons who come above him are the kids and that is just for now. When they are old enough to care for themselves then they will handle their own business.

I take care of BOTH Murf and Butch when they are sick. I help Murf with important life decisions as I do Butch. We attend important events together weddings, funeral, kid events, holidays and etc. I make sure he has home cooked meals just as Butch does.. I do yard work at both homes, clean, and etc.

We consult each other on life.. I can have just as much of a future with him as my husband. I can do forever with both. Just because he doesn't have a piece of paper from the government doesn't mean he is any less important in my life.
 
I do not play the whole primary secondary BS game.

You don't play the whole primary secondary BS game because you don't have a secondary. I play the primary secondary bullsh*t game because I choose to play it. I choose to have a primary and I choose to have secondaries and the relationships are very different. My relationships are sacred to me and I don't consider it to be a game.
 
If those relationships are so sacred then why are they treat as less important than your other relationship.

Why not call it what it is FWB or a casual relationship.
 
If those relationships are so sacred then why are they treat as less important than your other relationship.

Why not call it what it is FWB or a casual relationship.

Secondaries are not less important to me. We just have different roles in each others lives. My point to you is - don't judge. The good thing about poly is everyone gets to do it the way they want to do it.

If you don't want to classify your relationships that way- it's fine, but don't trash people who choose to classify their relationships that way......it's basic forum etiquette.
 
My point to you is - don't judge. The good thing about poly is everyone gets to do it the way they want to do it.

I don't think Dag was trashing anyone. She seemed to be trashing the concept of hierarchical classifications of people (primary, secondary, meaningless-ary).

There is a difference between being free from oppression and being free from judgment. This is just criticism of an idea which you personally are in favor of. Criticism in this format is healthy and can promote intellectual growth for all of us. Attempting to discourage someone from calling an idea BS is counter productive.

If my ideas are BS I encourage people to say as much. Granted, I then try to get them to clarify the basis of their opinion so I can decide if I agree with it or not.

Secondaries are not less important to me. We just have different roles in each others lives.

All relationships are viewed by the types of encumbrance, pleasures, amount of time shared, etc. If some kind of distinction needs to be made between these relationships it seems to me that it would be better to use words which actually convey this meaning.

If all of your relationships are just as important to you as the others and there is no inherent hierarchical ranking to them - why use hierarchical rankings for them? If the distinction is that you live with one partner, raise kids, etc and see the other one as an intimate loved one (but don't 'partner up' with them) then why rank them? It would seem to be more clear to call one a "life partner" and the other a "boyfriend" or some similar kind of label.

I'm not a big fan of using labels to begin with but I *do* think that if I'm using one it might as well be descriptive of the role they play in my life. At the very least I should avoid using hierarchical terms for them because that just seems cruel.
 
If all of your relationships are just as important to you as the others and there is no inherent hierarchical ranking to them - why use hierarchical rankings for them?.

I do not have an aversion to labels and I do not consider them as cruel as long as the people I am labeling do not object to them. I use the labels of secondary and primary simply because I chose to use these labels. I like the labels. They work for me.

To me- calling it bullshit was judgmental and offensive. We all have our opinions here and when I post I try not to judge. I try to state my opinions without judging. Marcus- you know I love reading your posts and I respect your opinion. However I hold the position that if me and my partners choose to classify and label ourselves as primary and secondary then that is perfectly okay and there is no need for anyone to find that offensive. I'm not labeling any of you. This is between me and my partners and it works for us.
 
I use the labels of secondary and primary simply because I chose to use these labels. I like the labels. They work for me.

I'm glad you have found something that works for you; I expect that is what all of us are looking for to some degree or another. However, within the context of a discussion forum I fully understand that whatever personal information I provide or ideals (which someone else has provided) that I choose to endorse are fair game for discussion.

To me- calling it bullshit was judgmental and offensive.

I can objectively state that calling hierarchical labels "bullshit" is a judgment. It is a value judgment based on a personal assessment of the details available to the person stating it.

Is calling an idea "bullshit" offensive? That's a purely subjective decision. I guess it would irritate me for someone to tell me that independence is "bullshit", though they would quickly get the business end of my "Really? Please, do explain in detail exactly why you make this rather interesting assertion" blaster!!

Marcus- you know I love reading your posts and I respect your opinion. However I hold the position that if me and my partners choose to classify and label ourselves as primary and secondary then that is perfectly okay and there is no need for anyone to find that offensive. I'm not labeling any of you. This is between me and my partners and it works for us.

Labels have a different 'volume level' for some people than others. I see folks using labels simply because that's the first one that they heard and they are sticking with it... just because. Others find the concise use of labels to be important because accidentally attributing assumptions to their lives is something important to avoid.

I personally *do* find hierarchical terms for loved ones to be offensive. It doesn't necessarily offend me that other people use them for their loved ones, but I still make a general judgment call on the use. Just because an act isn't perpetrated upon me personally doesn't mean that I am not entitled to make a judgment call on that act being perpetrated on other people - right?
 
I personally *do* find hierarchical terms for loved ones to be offensive. It doesn't necessarily offend me that other people use them for their loved ones, but I still make a general judgment call on the use. Just because an act isn't perpetrated upon me personally doesn't mean that I am not entitled to make a judgment call on that act being perpetrated on other people - right?

Okay- I guess I would agree. It is certainly your right to make a judgement call if that is what you feel like you need to do.

i'm trying to think of something that offends me in terms of something that someone else is choosing to do and I can't really think of anything. Maybe it's my age. Or- my therapist finally got through to me. She told me "live and let live". Also- I am a trained Life Coach. It was an 18 month training. As a life coach it is not my job to judge others. I can help them decide if they are "using terms that really work for them" or if they are just basically making decisions that are in line with what they are trying to create in their life.

One of the most powerful questions I can ask someone- after they have shared where they are and what they have created is "so how is that working out for you?"

If it is working for them- then I will support that.

In the 80's I was an outspoken feminist. I saw so many things that offended me because I saw a lot of things (including the bible) as an attempt to oppress women.

When I got sober and drug free, I was offended by people who pursued anything that created a mood change.

When I got into an intense spiritual practice, I was offended by anything that I didn't consider to be spiritual.

When I started my own business, I was offended by any client who asked for a discount.

I guess I can honestly say that today, I am not easily offended by anything that someone else is choosing to do in their life.

And- in my opinion- when person A is offended by something person B and C are doing within their own relationship- it means that person A is projecting their own unresolved issues onto the couple......but that's just psyche 101.
 
Last edited:
And- in my opinion- when person A is offended by something person B and C are doing within their own relationship- it means that person A is projecting their own unresolved issues onto the couple......but that's just psyche 101.

I don't agree with the modern aversion to the idea of judgment. I don't know when it turned into something bad, but I missed that meeting. We interpret our environment, weigh the details we have access to, and make assessments. We judge whether something is "good or bad" or "indulge or avoid" or whatever. We make judgment calls... I don't see how that has become synonymous with intolerance or oppression.

I also don't agree with the "coexist" assertion that all ideas are equal and that they should all be treated with dignity. I couldn't disagree with this more. When I see what appears to be bunk ideology I judge it accordingly. If someone can explain their support of the bunk ideology then maybe at some point I will change my stance and stop calling it bunk... I will have made a new judgment call. However, my recognizing that hierarchical terms are indeed a ranking system and that ranking our loved ones is both unnecessary and restrictive is perfectly reasonable. Now that doesn't mean that *you* can't or shouldn't use hierarchical terms for your loved ones but *I* reserve the right to call them like I see them.

You can call that projection if it makes you feel better. You can judge me in that fashion.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using those sorts of terms at all. In a polyamorous relationship in which the people involved don't believe in privileging relationships, there is nothing wrong with using those terms providing they refer to levels of practical entanglement rather than how much you love/respect/cater for each person.

I really wouldn't pay too much attention about this subject to someone who was coerced into believing it's okay for his live in partner of nine years to basically say that he is her friend with benefits.

I think what the OP meant in this thread is that she wanted to be the person he starts to plan a future with (house, kids, other joint stuff) and he doesn't think they are compatible for that sort of thing.
 
For me, it's more about layers of intimacy. I don't have good words to describe my relationship to other people, so hierarchical terms seem easiest.

Fly is a primary. Moonlight and I just aren't at that level yet. Every day she becomes closer to what I think of as a primary partner - someone you make plans for a long-term future with, someone you enter into commitments with (like buying a house, raising a child), but I'm just not there yet. And I don't think it's appropriate or authentic of me to try to force equality, just for the sake of "everything's fair." Some of it is time-related. I've been with Fly for 7.5 years, Moonlight only a little more than 1. Fly and I have been through shit and come out the other side, and that has created a greater trust and closeness. Do I think Moonlight will become a primary partner? Definitely. But not yet.

Punk and I are secondary to each other, because that's how we choose to structure the relationship. Both of us have a lot going on, and we like having something loving but uncomplicated with each other.

To be clear, it's not as if this is how I describe or introduce my lovers. Fly is boyfriend, Moonlight is girlfriend, Punk is friend. It's just how I try to organize things in my head when I think about it, which is not very often. This also isn't about loving someone more or less than someone else, because I don't even understand how people measure love anyway. They're just words that try to encapsulate degrees of intimacy.

For the OP - if Fly and I broke up, Moonlight would not automatically become a primary partner for me, simply because that's not where our relationship is at currently. That doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, but I don't view my primary relationships as job positions that must be filled, especially not as a promotion. :rolleyes: If I were you, I'd hang back, give it some time, and see what happens naturally.
 
I don't agree with the modern aversion to the idea of judgment. I don't know when it turned into something bad, but I missed that meeting. We interpret our environment, weigh the details we have access to, and make assessments. We judge whether something is "good or bad" or "indulge or avoid" or whatever. We make judgment calls... I don't see how that has become synonymous with intolerance or oppression.

I also don't agree with the "coexist" assertion that all ideas are equal and that they should all be treated with dignity. I couldn't disagree with this more. When I see what appears to be bunk ideology I judge it accordingly. If someone can explain their support of the bunk ideology then maybe at some point I will change my stance and stop calling it bunk... I will have made a new judgment call. However, my recognizing that hierarchical terms are indeed a ranking system and that ranking our loved ones is both unnecessary and restrictive is perfectly reasonable. Now that doesn't mean that *you* can't or shouldn't use hierarchical terms for your loved ones but *I* reserve the right to call them like I see them.

You can call that projection if it makes you feel better. You can judge me in that fashion.

Perhaps at one point "judgement" and "assessment" meant the same thing, but currently "judgement" is the more more emotionally charged of the two and carries the implication that someone is putting forth an opinion that has little basis in fact. For example the religious person who tells the atheist that s/he is immoral because of the lack of belief in a god - as if actual behavior was irrelevant.

Judgement also seems to emotionally carry the implication that the judger actually has the right to make judgements about others. I personally, try to make the least amount of judgements possible. I often do assess and analyze for cause and effect, and often note that people embrace behavior that leads to outcomes that are bad for them. The only time I make a judgement, however, is when someone or something affects me personally or goes against societal tenets like killing, assault, etc.

Like you I would not use a hierarchical system for defining relationships, because by *my* definition, it would indicate importance of said relationship. However, by idealist's definition, it seems to denote the degree of entanglement. The definition is different. Realizing this, while I still would not use hierarchy because of the emotional response it engenders in me, I logically understand that her definition is different, so I do not judge the rightness or wrongness of the system in her life.
 
Okay- I guess I would agree. It is certainly your right to make a judgement call if that is what you feel like you need to do.

It's also everyone's right to choose whether to express oneself politely or not. The term "bullshit" is, in many English speaking cultures, a rather impolite term.

Others use it frequently in their normal discourse. It's always difficult to know exactly what someone is saying without having access to the non-verbal cues such as tone, expression etc.

Personally I try hard to assume the best when I find myself reacting to someone expressing themself in a way that I find difficult, but it's not always easy.

As for judgement - in many philosophical traditions judgement is something to be avoided. In fact for many someone who is quick to judge is often a person to be avoided or discounted.
 
It's a matter of respect

Respecting others autonomy to live according to any dynamic that they choose to be right for them, even if it appears wrong to you. One can easily speak of any dynamic in completely unflattering terms, and when somebody chooses to do that, why?

Is it out of concern to make sure that people are educated about the many flavors of non-monogamy or especially polyamory and you genuinely desire for them to have the necessary "tools" in their arsenal so that they can discern what will be necessary in their lives so that they feel content?

In other words, do you want to help others and not hinder?

If that is anywhere near your goal, and you regularly take time to reflect on your behavior to ensure that's what you are doing, and you are honest with yourself then it will not be likely that your words will cause harm.

It is important to keep in mind that the specific details will vary from one person to the next. That for many those details will be polar opposites

The "coexist" philosophy is about respecting others autonomy to decide for themselves exact what those details are and what they mean. Coexisting does NOT mean that every ideology must be given equal weight in a person's life. The philosophy is about ensuring that YOU have the right to have the dynamic of your relationships to mean everything and another to be meaningless in your life.

Labels must be given so that people can communicate in ways that are coherent and understandable to people not familiar with the experience. Each label comes with "assumptions" as that is in essence the very meaning/definition of words. Words need to have definitions as that is what gives them the power to communicate

and this is exactly why attempts to marginalize or debunk any labels that are assigned to polyships, must be based in truth, and the furthest away from biased opinion the better, lest these debates inadvertently do "poly" a great disservice because the focus was on making sure you appeared "right" in relation to another person's opinion.

People have felt the need to hide who they are for far too long, poly has already been marginalized too much. There is nothing wrong with desiring to keep your private life hidden, but it is a problem when people don't get a choice, which is why some of these "debates" are deleterious to everyones' freedom to be who they are, unless we are mindful to be consciously speaking the Truth
 
Last edited:
The idea of classifying loved ones by hierarchy was called "bullshit"... that's all that happened. While some find that a tad harsh, there was no insistence that a person is morally damaged for using the hierarchical terms or that they must cease and desist immediately. There was no insistence of action of any kind given nor implied by the statement. It was merely an observation that classifying loved ones by their rank is backwards and counter productive. We are discussing it and I think that hiding behind "don't judge me because that's bad" is also "bullshit". This is an INCREDIBLY civil conversation and if the word "bullshit" really causes people to lock up because they feel so deeply attacked then I don't know what to tell you

:rolleyes:

As for judgement - in many philosophical traditions judgement is something to be avoided. In fact for many someone who is quick to judge is often a person to be avoided or discounted.

All ideas are not created equally.
 
Last edited:
I like to be challenged. Especially if the argument is good enough to make me change my mind. But we are far from that in this case.

I didn’t say “don’t Judge” because I think judging is “bad”. Quite the contrary. I don’t believe in labeling things as “good” and “Bad” hence there is no need to judge them as such. I find “labeling” things as “good” or “bad” to be a futile endeavor. However- we as humans love to do just that.

Where would we be without the villain and the hero? But at the end of the play- they stand side by side on stage and the audience applauds them both equally.

*********************
There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "We’ll see" the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful- it’s good," the neighbors exclaimed. "We’ll see" replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune saying “it’s bad”.

"We’ll see" answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "We’ll see" said the farmer…..
**********

It’s the yen and the yang. The diamond looks ever so much beautiful against the black cloth.

This physical existence is held together by the polarities. Can’t have one without the other. So again- why judge?
 
Civil discussions aren't offensive

It's the subtle and indirect ways that imply that any member's relationship dynamic describes your very negative opinion of the label you're adversed to. To be blunt, it comes off as manipulative and controlling -- even if you think you are being clear by adding clauses of plausible denial -- from my perspective, it wasn't the use of "BS" or later "bullshit" that's offensive.

It's not disagreeing or stating that a one person's dynamic wouldn't work for them, it's the subtle indirect ways you choose to discuss (read debate) and the plausible denial that detracts from a legitimate discussion.
 
Last edited:
Projection

I also wanted to share something about projection. The best way for me to do that is to share something that I have experienced- in the last few weeks.

For me- saying that someone is "projecting" is not a judgment call. We all do it- all the time.

Here is what I've been going through.

My Dad is very ill and possible dying. At first I was seeing that he is scared. But his words were to the contrary.

Then I realized I was projecting my own fear of death onto my Dad. I spent about a week taking time in the evenings- laying very still and thinking about death. I did a lot of crying, breathing, talking to friends etc. When I finally broke through my own aversion to death and I looked at my Dad again, I didn't see fear in him any more.

Now- that is not to say that the fear of death will never take hold of me again. But- for today- I have looked at it directly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top