Secondary Relationship Card

Interesting and provocative. If we were to use labels, Wendigo and my relationship would be considered secondary (because we live with, pay bills with, and have kids with our spouses) and my relationship with Pretty Lady would be considered tertiary (because she does not have the time to invest in a secondary relationship). Of all of those things, our only expectation is that we have to keep our relationship secret from our family and 99% of our friends.

It's funny because about a month after we became involved we were at a fighter practice/pool party with our friends and Wendigo had to leave early to go to work. He pulled me aside and asked if we were so far on the DL that he couldn't even get a hug good bye. The following year at the same event, he let me climb on his back and pretend to try to drown him.... at first we were so full of NRE and desire, that we'd lock down our feelings; then we realized that was probably even more suspicious.
 
Oh man, so sad but so true sometimes. That was a lot of how my relationship was. It was definitely no fun. I know that in reality there are actual good secondary relationships but I just haven't witness one IRL and certainly not experienced it myself.
 
Yeah I really hate using the Primary/Secondary labels myself, even as a "quick and dirty" description of my circumstances.

I have a friend who recently referred to my husband in a sentence along the lines of "yeah, but, you have a primary, so it's different."

And this was someone who claims to be of the more progressive poly type.

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?
 
Last edited:
I have a friend who recently referred to my husband in a sentence along the lines of "yeah, but, you have a primary, so it's different."

And this was someone who claims to be of the more progressive poly type.

I have to say, SC, I am genuinely puzzled by your reaction.

Why would your friend's comment bother you? Having a primary really IS different.

It seems like a pretty innocuous comment. I doubt she meant to imply that your other relations are unimportant or disposable.

While I was amused by the Secondary Relationships Card, I also feel like...I don't quite get it somehow, or I have a totally different understanding of what it means to be a secondary.

If I were a secondary to a married man with kids, for example, I certainly would not expect (or want!) to join him for family vacations or holidays.

I have my own friends to go on vacation with, and my own family to spend holidays with.

I would expect my partner to prioritize his primary relationship. I would not, in fact, be comfortable in the relationship if he were NOT putting his wife's needs first.

(Even if I were in a monogamous relationship with a divorced man, I would expect him to prioritize his kids' needs, for example, and I would not expect to join him at holidays unless our relationship became VERY serious).

I would not enter into a secondary relationship if I were expecting or wanting to get pregnant. And anyone who dumps you if you get pregnant is an asshole, regardless of polyamory or primary/secondary relationships. So I don't see how that quite applies to secondary relationships in particular.

If my relationship caused drama or problems with the primary couple, I would WANT to remove myself from the situation. I would expect my partner to end things with me if I caused problems with his wife.

Of course I wouldn't want to be valued less or respected less--but it seems to me like the POINT of a secondary relationship is that it truly is of secondary importance.

And I think that's a good thing! Secondary relationships should enrich the lives of those in them, but shouldn't BE your life the same way a primary partner IS your life.

I'm speaking as someone who wants (or might want) to be a secondary or even a tertiary. I regard myself (or maybe my writing) as my own primary relationship and I have no interest in sharing my life with a primary boyfriend.

But, so far I've been reluctant to seek out poly relationships because I think I might be missing the point and might not really "get" poly the way poly people get it. I think I would make an ideal secondary, but maybe my guy wouldn't appreciate feeling like he's only secondary to my life as well.

And judging from the reaction I got when I mentioned to my own friends and one close family member that I might go on a date with a married poly man, I will probably be keeping it a secret for a while. The date never even came about, but, wow, was it hard to explain. So it's not unreasonable to have to keep a secondary relationship secret for a long while.

It just seems to me like if you are at the point where you go on family vacations, are public to everyone about your relationship, and are committed enough to go through with a pregnancy together, you're a co-primary, not a secondary.

Here's what seems odd to me about poly relationships (or with the way many poly people talk about relationships): it seems like the relationships are not allowed to pass through a non-serious phase before becoming serious.

In monogamous dating, it's (usually) okay for a relationship to take a long time to get serious, right? But in poly, if you don't immediately include your secondary on family vacations, you're disrespected him/her.

And going back to what I quoted above: I have observed this kind of thing a number of times in the various poly communities/forums I'm exploring. A poly person takes offense at some sort of comment which they perceive as non-poly-friendly, and then they scoff at how the person who made the comment thinks they are so open-minded.

I honestly don't get what bothered you about your friend's comment, SC? Is there more context you can explain?
 
Having a primary really IS different.

It seems like a pretty innocuous comment. I doubt she meant to imply that your other relations are unimportant or disposable.
Hope you don't mind my chiming in. It all depends on how the primary relationship is different from others. If it's simply a designation of shared households and parenting, or how much time can be spent together, sure it's different. But far too many people do feel that secondary relationships are disposable and less important when they say things like that.

Personally, I don't subscribe to hierarchical arrangements myself, because as a solo, I view all my love relationships as equally important. But I wouldn't mind, in fact I welcome, the opportunity to be a secondary to someone who has a partner - provided I do not feel like I'm being treated as a secondary in the ways that the term is often used. I was not amused by the card. I feel like it is a sad commentary on how to bungle a relationship.

While I was amused by the Secondary Relationships Card, I also feel like...I don't quite get it somehow, or I have a totally different understanding of what it means to be a secondary.

If I were a secondary to a married man with kids, for example, I certainly would not expect (or want!) to join him for family vacations or holidays.

I have my own friends to go on vacation with, and my own family to spend holidays with.
I wouldn't necessarily, either, at least not in the beginning stages. But if I were in a tight relationship with someone as his secondary and had befriended his primary, and built a friendly relationship with any kids he has, after a period of time, I think it would be nice to be able to vacation together, whether I act on that option or not. I mean, you spend 2, 5, or 10 years in relationship with someone, it shouldn't matter that he considers his spouse as a primary at that point. If you all get along and want to go somewhere together, my designation as a secondary should not automatically preclude me from that. I guess for some polyfolk, it does, at least often enough to be on that card.
If my relationship caused drama or problems with the primary couple, I would WANT to remove myself from the situation. I would expect my partner to end things with me if I caused problems with his wife.
How would you cause problems for the wife... by existing? I believe it is up to the guy you get involved with to manage all his relationships with each partner, not let one dictate the other.
Of course I wouldn't want to be valued less or respected less--but it seems to me like the POINT of a secondary relationship is that it truly is of secondary importance.
I couldn't accept that to be a secondary. I want to be valued, respected, AND acknowledged as just as important (if, and that is a big IF, the relationship reaches that "serious" point and we do have a commitment to each other). For me, being someone's secondary might just mean that he would not make decisions about my life, and there would be no mingling of funds, or co-managing a household (although there are possibilities for that as a secondary, too, I would imagine), but I couldn't stand to be considered less important. That doesn't mean I'd expect the same or equal amount of time as a spouse, but I want to be as important in terms of consideration for my feelings, mostly. I just posted this in another thread:
As I see it, married people who choose to have polyamorous relationships are also choosing a responsibility to all the people they are involved with, not just their spouses. If I get involved with someone who has a partner, my main boundary for myself is that no metamours can set rules for my relationships.
The above is very important to me.
Secondary relationships should enrich the lives of those in them, but shouldn't BE your life the same way a primary partner IS your life.

... It just seems to me like if you are at the point where you go on family vacations, are public to everyone about your relationship, and are committed enough to go through with a pregnancy together, you're a co-primary, not a secondary.
Well, this is how you view primary/secondary arrangements, and I am sure you will meet others who feel the same.

Here's what seems odd to me about poly relationships (or with the way many poly people talk about relationships): it seems like the relationships are not allowed to pass through a non-serious phase before becoming serious.

In monogamous dating, it's (usually) okay for a relationship to take a long time to get serious, right? But in poly, if you don't immediately include your secondary on family vacations, you're disrespected him/her.
Yes, I have seen that tendency as well, especially with those people who come here and say, "we want to find someone to move into our household and live with us." How silly. But yeah, I don't understand why it seems that you have to go from zero to 60 mph in an instant, just because you're poly. People seem to think that it's a serious relationship after four months, when I think I would still barely know the person at that point. I'm all for nurturing a relationship for at least a year before considering it "serious."

However, I think that card is directed at established secondary relationships, not really new ones.

I honestly don't get what bothered you about your friend's comment, SC? Is there more context you can explain?
I think SC explained it really well:
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?

And, I have to say, it warmed my heart to read it! I am so happy to see that someone feels this way. I didn't roll that way when I was single either. It is in keeping with how I approach poly as a solo. If I were married and pursuing poly relationships outside my marriage, I would see it the same way. This gives me hope that there are other married poly peeps out there whose philosophies are compatible with mine, so maybe I won't have to keep turning people down because they tell me their wife will always be their first priority.
 
Last edited:
Good thoughts MeeraReed !


From my own experience, this line of thinking,(Secondary relationship card) is why I say being poly is more then just the ability to love more then one person.
Love I can do.
The desire or motivation to have more then one person in a serious relationship context ?..I don`t have that. Zero desire. My primary I do more with, love more, and want to spend more time with them then anyone else. Not because of shared bills/children/home, or loyalty, or because it is expected,...but because ...I really do. Since I recognized that, life has been much better, and I generally attract more like-minded people to me. I still attract poly women, but being aware of how they operate, and them being aware of how I operate, has really worked much better then the demands/compromise scenario.

I`d rather be known as an honest open-person, who only has so much invested in outside people, then the jerk poly-person who treats a 'secondary' badly.
 
Last edited:
I think SC explained it really well:

And, I have to say, it warmed my heart to read it! I am so happy to see that someone feels this way. I didn't roll that way when I was single either. It is in keeping with how I approach poly as a solo. If I were married and pursuing poly relationships outside my marriage, I would see it the same way. This gives me hope that there are other married poly peeps out there whose philosophies are compatible with mine, so maybe I won't have to keep turning people down because they tell me their wife will always be their first priority.

No, I don't think SC explained it well, that's why I asked for more info.

I understand why SC is offended that people would assume her "secondary" relationships are less important than her relationship with her husband.

BUT there was nothing in her friend's comment to indicate that her friend was actually making those assumptions.
 
I think it's pretty obvious, Meera, that you and SC have different views on relationship hierarchy. Probably why the friend's comment didn't make you blink while it bothered SC.

Perhaps you could have phrased your question in a way that was a little less harsh. The way that you said it gave the impression to me that you found SC's view to be just silly and and unreasonable. I don't know if that's what you meant but the way you said it, made me want to defend SC.

Also, I know assumptions are tricky but I'm not sure that you can judge better than SC about what her friend's assumptions may or may not have been. You have no context and no knowledge of the person. In Critical Race studies there's this term called a 'micro-aggression.'

From Wikipedia:

Microaggression is the idea that specific interactions between those of different races, cultures, or genders can be interpreted as non-physical aggression. The term was first coined by American psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce[1] and described as, "brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of other races."

Microaggressions can take a number of different forms,[8] for example, questioning the existence of racial-cultural issues, making stereotypic assumptions, and cultural insensitivity.[8][9] Some other types of microaggressions that have been identified[8] include Colorblindness (e.g., "I don't think of you as Black. You are just a normal person"), Denial of personal bias (e.g., "I'm not homophobic; I even have gay friends."), and Minimization of racial-cultural issues (e.g., "Just because you feel alone in this group doesn't mean that there's a racial issue involved."). "Colorblindness" in particular has been associated with higher levels of racism[10] and lower levels of empathy.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

To me, this comment was sort of an example of that. Something unintentional that reflects a cultural, structural, or something influence or idea in place that is inherently discriminatory.

If some one sees the relationship hierarchy as discriminating (not everyone does) then this could feel that way to them.
 
I have to say, SC, I am genuinely puzzled by your reaction.

Why would your friend's comment bother you? Having a primary really IS different.

My friend's comment bothered me because I don't use primary/secondary labels for my relationships and I don't appreciate other people labelling me according to their own paradigms without asking me if their paradigms are consistent with how I view my own life.

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.

If my relationship caused drama or problems with the primary couple, I would WANT to remove myself from the situation. I would expect my partner to end things with me if I caused problems with his wife.

Life is dramatic. Shiiiit, my husband and I have had more than our share of drama, completely unrelated to polyamory or our relationship or anything at all within either of our controls. You just deal with it. That's what makes you grow as a person. Ejecting everything in your life that causes drama is classic avoidance and gets you stuck in life, usually miserable because guess what... everywhere you turn, there's more drama.

Secondary relationships should enrich the lives of those in them, but shouldn't BE your life the same way a primary partner IS your life. [...] I'm speaking as someone who wants (or might want) to be a secondary or even a tertiary. I regard myself (or maybe my writing) as my own primary relationship and I have no interest in sharing my life with a primary boyfriend.

No relationship should "be" your life. From the part of the quote, I think you already know this, at least intuitively. 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.

When I meet people who "share everything" I make a "yuck" face.

But, so far I've been reluctant to seek out poly relationships because I think I might be missing the point and might not really "get" poly the way poly people get it. I think I would make an ideal secondary, but maybe my guy wouldn't appreciate feeling like he's only secondary to my life as well.

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."

The fact that you put so much priority on your independence is AWESOME. And really, if you're determined not to rock your own boat for the sake of any romance (because trust me, my marriage has rocked my boat plenty), then a deliberately secondary role may be suitable for you.

Here's what seems odd to me about poly relationships (or with the way many poly people talk about relationships): it seems like the relationships are not allowed to pass through a non-serious phase before becoming serious.

In monogamous dating, it's (usually) okay for a relationship to take a long time to get serious, right? But in poly, if you don't immediately include your secondary on family vacations, you're disrespected him/her.

I'm not sure where you get that impression. We're saying that 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.

And going back to what I quoted above: I have observed this kind of thing a number of times in the various poly communities/forums I'm exploring. A poly person takes offense at some sort of comment which they perceive as non-poly-friendly, and then they scoff at how the person who made the comment thinks they are so open-minded.

I honestly don't get what bothered you about your friend's comment, SC? Is there more context you can explain?

I wouldn't so much call it non-poly-friendly so much as presumptuous. She (I'll call her Bev) made up her mind that I had chosen to use primary/secondary labels before I even said so. This is someone who, just last night, gave a 3 hour guest lecture about polyamory to a 2nd year psychology class, in which she emphasized that not everyone uses the primary/secondary labels, that she herself had chosen not to use them.

Some extra context that might help put Bev's contradiction into perspective: Bev has a partner who is "gender-fluid" but has a vagina and goes by a female name. Now, if I were to say to Bev, "I have my definition of woman, a person with a vagina is woman, so she's a woman" then Bev would get righteously indignant. She would swear up and down that her partner gets to decide what gender s/he is and demand to know right I have to say otherwise?

During her talk, she mentioned that she had one partner whom she considered a "life partner." She mentioned that she views marriage to be nothing more than a financial contract. Therefor, the fact that I've made a financial contract with someone is somehow the distinction between hierarchical poly and non-hierarchical poly, according to her assumptions about me.

Bev is also one of those "there is no one way to do poly. If it works for you, then you're doing it right" type of poly people. So the part that bothers me, I think, is that she just made an assumption about my life without asking me whether that was the case. She then used her assumption to predict my future behaviours.
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty obvious, Meera, that you and SC have different views on relationship hierarchy. Probably why the friend's comment didn't make you blink while it bothered SC.

Perhaps you could have phrased your question in a way that was a little less harsh. The way that you said it gave the impression to me that you found SC's view to be just silly and and unreasonable. I don't know if that's what you meant but the way you said it, made me want to defend SC.

I'm a tough cookie. The impression I got was more of confusion than any implication that I was being silly or unreasonable.
 
Well, we all take away different impressions and I still think that the way MR phrased her question was a bit exclusionary. I was merely sharing my reaction.
 
I'm a tough cookie. The impression I got was more of confusion than any implication that I was being silly or unreasonable.

Yes, that's the way I meant it.

Thanks for clarifying. The added context about your friend helped.

I do feel like there is a tendency to accuse people of making assumptions when they are just confused. (Without the added context, I was wondering if your friend was simply misunderstanding your situation).

Everyone does poly a little differently, and the same label can mean totally different things to different people. So assumptions will obviously happen-it's unavoidable.

And most of the time there's no reason to take offense at assumptions--it only creates situations where people feel they have to walk on eggshells to avoid making innocent assumptions.

Part of my issue is that I don't know for sure what my own views are since I am trying to figure that out...
 
I do feel like there is a tendency to accuse people of making assumptions when they are just confused. (Without the added context, I was wondering if your friend was simply misunderstanding your situation).

It's not inaccurate to say she's misunderstanding my situation, in that she believes my situation is "married = primary" and never bothered to consider alternatives. She seems to be one of those people with a very negative attitude towards marriage in general, sees it as nothing but a financial contract. She almost comes across like "not being married" makes her "above all that."
 
Last edited:
It really helps me to see how different people do things (differently!), since it helps me get perspective on what the heck I'm doing. (I sometimes feel like I have a good grasp on all of it, but sometimes feel like I'm making it up as I go.)

In any case, the card in the OP is amusing, and definitely helps me feel more secure in my situation. I think that in my secondary relationships, I'm not really at risk of getting dumped unless something breaks down fundamentally in the relationship itself. Outside factors could change the sexual nature of my relationships, I suppose, but not the personal/emotional connection and friendship.
 
Back
Top