Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-30-2011, 04:47 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Dang. I'm seeing a lot of rolling eyes.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-30-2011, 05:15 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Here's the thing: you've posited that the term/status "secondary" universally has negative connotations. I've pointed out instances wherein it has no such connotation (silver medals, secondary sources of income). That there are many instances where it has no such connotation, we can see that your claim isn't so.

The best you could then offer is that it has negative connotations in specific contexts, which is true. That means, however, that for this discussion we have to look at the context of using it with polyamorous relationships. Does it universally have negative connotations? Absolutely not! We've had folks post in this thread that point out the terms fits them just fine and that they find nothing negative about it.

That leaves us with the understanding that only *some* people think it has negative connotations when applied to their relationships within this context. Thus, arguing that polyfolk in general should stop using it seems kind of silly, as only some people attach a negative connotation to the term (and that connotation is entirely part of their baggage).

Now, I fully agree that some new terms could prove useful. Terms that describe relationships well and more people can use comfortably are always welcome--as those serve a real purpose. My position in this discussion is simple: bitching about the term "secondary" is quite useless--how about just focus on finding other terms that work?

I'm all for brainstorming on that front. I'll prolly sit down and hash out a bunch of prospective terms, myself, as part of the effort.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-30-2011, 09:12 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
.... Thus, arguing that polyfolk in general should stop using it seems kind of silly, as only some people attach a negative connotation to the term....
Most or all of us who have expressed dissatisfaction with the rubric of primary, secondary, and tertiary ... have not advocated for banning the terms from usage, and have explicitly indicated that we're fine with others using these terms where they prove useful to them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
Now, I fully agree that some new terms could prove useful. Terms that describe relationships well and more people can use comfortably are always welcome--as those serve a real purpose. My position in this discussion is simple: bitching about the term "secondary" is quite useless--how about just focus on finding other terms that work?
Sure, that's fine. However, if folks don't understand why the term "secondary" is impractical for some of us, how will they thereby be equipped to help conceive of other more useful terms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnalTone View Post
I'm all for brainstorming on that front. I'll prolly sit down and hash out a bunch of prospective terms, myself, as part of the effort.
Glad to have your help!
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-30-2011, 09:28 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,244
Default

It just occurred to me, the comic Elfquest (great, long-running, and very poly-friendly for those who aren't familiar) has a set of terminology for just what we're talking about. Anyone you're with for pleasure and/or affection is a "lovemate", anyone you're bonded to for life is a "lifemate". Too flowery?
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-30-2011, 09:42 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

What if you want your lovemates to be your lifemates as well? Sexual pleasure-affection is, for me, best when there is commitment. Of course, no one can be certain whether the commitment will last a whole lifetime. But that's another story. One can still wish it to do so.

Not that I'm 100% opposed to light and easy, temporary communions. I think they can be wonderful when both parties are clear with one another that this is the deal, as perceived at the moment.

===

EDIT:

Actually, I mainly think of "commitment" in terms of depth, not of duration. I like there to be commitment to duration with some, but with all I desire depth -- and depth usually involves some duration -- though not always a lifetime commitment.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by River; 08-30-2011 at 09:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-30-2011, 09:47 PM
bella123456 bella123456 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
light and easy, temporary communions
That's a handy term !
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-30-2011, 09:57 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,244
Default

I guess the twofold question could be, are you 1) in a commitment that's intended to be life-long (marriage, handfasting, etc) AND 2) are you engaged in building a life together (kids, house, etc)? If so, lifemate or life-partner (ooh, the latter of which is an actual term people use!). If you're involved, emotionally, romantically, sexually whatever but don't meet those criteria, lovemate or love-partner or something similar.

I'm actually really digging this. It takes the whole issue and skews it slightly in a way that feels better to me. They're both really positively-charged words that focus not on differences in importance or in feeling, but differences in role. And isn't that what we're trying to capture?
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-30-2011, 10:01 PM
lucky7's Avatar
lucky7 lucky7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 55
Default

One solution is to avoid defined roles, or take the built in connotation out of the labels you impose upon yourselves, this is, afterall, an "unconventional" relationship, so the rules are completely up to those involved.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-30-2011, 10:09 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnabelMore View Post
They're both really positively-charged words that focus not on differences in importance or in feeling, but differences in role. And isn't that what we're trying to capture?
I like that the terms themselves don't rank people into strata, at the outset, for sure! Or, rather, I'd prefer words that don't do that--for my own use.

Some people will prefer terms that DO rank people into value-strata, and that's fine for them, so long as everyone involved is happy with that arrangement.

I could certainly imagine myself profoundly committed to lifelong, intensive loving relationships of equal importance whether or not all parties share a home, finances, children, livelihood and the like. I'd therefore have no need to call either of them by any names other than Sweetheart, HoneyPumpkin, Lover, Partner, LoveBunny, Sweetie, Darling.... I see no personal need to rank my partners. But that's me!

Hmm. I think I've found my answer. I don't require a substitute terminology to "primary, secondary, tertiary". Others might, but I do not. Any love of mine is simply that.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-30-2011, 10:22 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,244
Default

River, I'm happy for you in your choice, and it seems like that's probably what you've been building to all along.

For me (and this is addressed in part to you too, lucky7), as I said in the original post, I think that it's very useful to have terms to describe different types of relationships, which is where primary/secondary came from in the first place, and I remain curious as to what alternative terminology might work better for more people.

I don't think of it as a value-strata thing that says who's best or who you love more, nor do I think of it as a prescriptive thing that ordains what rules apply in what relationships. It's about clear communication, description and understanding. Which is what all words are about pretty much.
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
definitions, descriptions, hierarchy, perscriptions, primary/secondary, secondaries, secondary, terminology

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 PM.