Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-15-2010, 03:38 PM
sunnydee sunnydee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 44
Default

This is a very funny, (imo), take on the whole hierarchy thing. At least R-rated+, I'd say for those at work or with kids.

http://www.goodiebag.tv/episodes/polly_wally.htm

Last edited by sunnydee; 02-15-2010 at 03:51 PM. Reason: New Link
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-16-2010, 08:19 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
My new partner considers primary connections to be emotional connections, not necessarily a function of who he's living with. He does live with one of his partners, but lives across the country from another partner with whom he has a strong "primary" connection (he would say "strongly pair-bonded"). That connection has nothing to do with living arrangements or shared finances. But what I love most about his outlook is that each of his relationships can develop to what level of connection is right for them, not necessarily to a level that must fit in a hierarchy of already established relationships. That way, there can easily be more than one primary in his life. I tend to see it that way too.
I agree entirely. This is how I live my poly life also. I see no need for terms unless I am explaining something. I don't feel I need to categorize anymore, but it sure was helpful when I needed to sort it all out in my head at the beginning!
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-16-2010, 05:38 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
My new partner considers primary connections to be emotional connections, not necessarily a function of who he's living with....But what I love most about his outlook is that each of his relationships can develop to what level of connection is right for them, not necessarily to a level that must fit in a hierarchy of already established relationships. That way, there can easily be more than one primary in his life. I tend to see it that way too.
I thnk that is awesome. That is my preferred lifestyle (is lifestyle the right word?I hope you get what I mean).
One of the most primary relationships in my life is completely non-sexual. MANY people who live in my day to day life have believed he was.... more tertiary in regards to the depth/importance of our relationship.Right up unto the point where it looked like was going to die-and they saw the toll that took on myself (and my oldest daughter as well).
Now they are seeing that my relationships are just too complicated to fit in those little "label" boxes cleanly.
When I love someone-I LOVE them deeply and fully.
When I have sex-who knows, it may or may not be related. Looking back over the years I can see many examples when it was and many when it was not-even within individual relationships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthsabbath View Post
... the idea of primaries and secondaries just isn't appealing. In some ways, we don't even like referring to ourselves as "husband and wife" in the context of polyamory, because that seems to automatically erect a barrier to any external partners.....
This too!
I really don't have an issue with it in context of acknowledging Maca's importance to me. He's VERY important to me and I want people to know that. I don't regret marrying him-I'd do it again. I love him and I know we belong together.
I DO have an issue with it in context of introducing Maca and GG together, or introducing GG to someone who knows Maca and I. Because it leads to the belief that GG is somehow less than Maca to me, but that isn't true.
IF poly-marriage was an option-I would marry them both. No if's, and's or but's. I love them both equally though differently and just as deeply. I believe that if one were to use the term soulmate-they are both soulmates to me.
I have 17 years of history with GG, I have 10 years as Maca's wife, and I met him 21 years ago(though he was out of the picture for 10 years as we had lost contact with one another). Soo how can I say that one relationship is MORE than the other? If the day comes where Maca and GG are more comfortable with one another and with our family-I will call them both my "term they choose together". Because they are both my beloveds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
I agree entirely. This is how I live my poly life also. I see no need for terms unless I am explaining something. I don't feel I need to categorize anymore, but it sure was helpful when I needed to sort it all out in my head at the beginning!
I loathe the terms and so far find it only serves to frustrate me if I use them. I say I have two primaries, everyone here seems to get that, but in "r/l" they ask questions about how that is possible, and seem to WANT to classify GG as a secondary regardless of how one chooses to define it (emotional attachment or living arrangement) and the truth is that he doesn't fit the definition either way.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"

Last edited by NeonKaos; 02-16-2010 at 06:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-28-2010, 06:44 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default primary/secondary link

http://tacit.livejournal.com/323210.html

I read this today and wanted to pass it along. I usually like what Franklin writes, but his scepticism and suspicion about poly people who think it's a better thing for them to have a heirarchy of relationships I think is a tad arrogant. I don't recall him once suggesting that perhaps for some people it works better. He makes a whole bunch of assumptions based on how his nature is it seems to me.

What of people who have kids? I am not about to see just any partner as equal to my boy and his Dad whom I both love dearly. I'm sorry, but they have to take the role of secondary to them. They have to take a role as secondary to Mono too now as he is a part of our family now for the long term. Would I appreciate them less and sluff them off if I don't have time because my family needs me, no? Of course I would be respectful, but I would make sure they know that my first concern above my own needs is them... actually, my boys needs are above mine even.

I understand that change is necessary,,, as Franklin makes his point later, and it is necessary to teach children of change too, but if a "game changer" relationship comes along that is not going to work in a family situation then I think that the primary/secondary arrangement might want to hold fast and might want to assert some kind of control over the situation.

What do you think about this?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-28-2010, 04:04 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default Ummm

Hey RP,

Well, I'm not sure if I interpreted the overall point of that article the same as you did ?

What I came away with was summed up by these lines (hope there's no copyright infringement here?)

Quote:
Change is the one essential feature of life; what I have now I will cherish, and what we build tomorrow I will also cherish, and I will do so without fear."

Like I said, it takes courage. Letting go of the idea that the way things are now is the way they should always be is gutsy.
I think he was speaking in a more general manner of the problems caused by fear of change in general. People ARE fearful of change. Many of us spend significant amounts of time & effort trying to build walls around things in our lives that can be affected by change. I think he was trying to point out that that can be a largely self defeating way of life.

Change WILL come.

Better to focus skills on learning to deal with and accept change, and keep it in proper perspective than the masonry skills of building walls.

In your case & example (kids etc), that has always been one large debate - i.e. stay together for the 'kids' even under what can be negative circumstances or upset their stability in a quest for a better environment. There's never been a single 'correct' answer to this question. The only one (answer) I ever saw was 'don't have kids !' - at least until it's literally certain from years of practice that the environment you are bringing them into will be the best & most supportive we believe humans capable of constructing.

And even that is no guarantee against change.

We do the best we can with what we have to work with (our world). But preparing for change seems to be a prudent part of that.

GS
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-28-2010, 07:22 PM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,938
Default

I'm afraid I'm with you on this post RP. Particularly the second paragraph in which he voices his 'suspicions' about couples that maintain hierarchies, and the third para where he mentions it being 'cruel' to thirds. I find it gives the article a tone of 'this is the right way, and that is the wrong way to practice poly'. I found that distracted me from the rest of the article, and what was probably the actual point, the futility of trying to control change.

As it concerns hierarchies, I've heard people talk about non-hierarchal formats both in person, as well as other threads on the forum. Anecdotally from what I've been able to observe there are trends I've noticed between those who advocate for non-hierarchal, and those who lean towards hierarchies or primary/secondary arrangements. Some of these factors do seem to involve things like kids, previously established relationships/marriages or lack thereof, and time/experience in living poly.

For myself, I'm not at the point where I could adapt a non-hierarchal model to my situation and existing marriage. I can see how it might work for some people, and I have a certain amount of admiration for those who are able to manage it. But for me, I find myself restricted to hierarchies for several reasons, and I won't apologize for it.

The short list for me: I have kids. I have a wife with whom I've shared almost half my life. I have not as yet won the lottery. Poly is new territory for us. We have priorities. And I summarily reject the notion that having a secondary would be 'cruel' to them. For me it's a matter of managing expectations. Love may not be finite, but time and resources are...and a lot of both is already committed. There's a lot I could say to expand on these, but the gist I think could be fairly well understood.

The rest of the article about change...I can understand his point of view and the line of thinking. Again, it doesn't entirely jive with mine, but that may have something to do with being required to take control of things that are theoretically uncontrollable.
There is a reason I think why certain constructs tend to show up repeatedly ... vetoes, hierarchies, labels, and why they often accompany efforts to control relationships. They are tools that can be used for such control, and relationships can be controlled to some extent. I think at some level most people are aware of this, or we wouldn't see the very same tools show up so frequently by so many different people.

Again there's a lot more I could say about these things, but for now I'll suffice to say that I can understand Franklin's point of the article. It does spell out his point of view and the reasons why certain things do and don't work for him, and I certainly respect that. However, for some other people, other situations, I don't think anything in the article would invalidate either the reasons that people would look to control their destiny, nor the effectiveness of the tools that people regularly turn to.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-28-2010, 08:05 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

I think that this "veto" power that Franklin and others speak against is often implemented because one partner has "convinced" the other to "try" poly and veto/primary/secondary/etc. is supposed to function as some sort of free-floating life-raft for when the "weaker" (I use that term very loosely and not to imply that one partner is a weaker person than the other, but more to describe the partner who is less sure about "being poly") partner feels out of their depth. In practice, this kind of parameter can give rise to its own demons because it creates a false sense of security that an externally-defined boundary can protect one from having to deal with reality.

Having said that, I agree with those who believe that where children are involved, it is a good thing to do when it comes to providing a stable environment. However, that sort of thing is not limited to "love" or "poly" relationships. If a father of a family had male platonic friends that were unhealthy for the kids (let's say they were always drinking when they were around), it would be perfectly understandable for the other parent to say "I don't want that person around unless they clean up their act" or "I don't want you hanging out with him because I think he's a bad influence on you and I don't like the person you become when you are around him".

But no one seems to acknowledge that in the comments, Franklin does address some concerns that have been brought up here. In particular, he does clarify the difference between "description" and "prescription". I'm going to leave it there because anyone who wants to can click the link and read it themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-28-2010, 08:28 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Part of my thing was getting through the first part in order to read the second part. I had to normalize for myself the first part that made me frustrated in order to get to the "game changer" part, which I essentially agreed with.

I get what he is saying and think that anyone who has the luxury of leaving it all up in the air and just accepting change is very fortunate. I think that some people just don't have that luxury for many different reasons... raising kids, finances tied up in another, disabilities, etc.

I like what he is saying, but I would like it more if he took more consideration for those that are not in his situation. It would of taken a bit of editing to at least be respectful to the fact that we are not all living poly the way he is and that that is okay. More inclusivity would of helped me read his blog without getting frustrated with the seeming arrogance behind it. I dunno, perhaps he was frustrated when he wrote it?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog

Last edited by redpepper; 02-28-2010 at 08:48 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-28-2010, 08:39 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
More exclusivity would of helped me read his blog without getting frustrated with the seeming arrogance behind it.

What do you mean "more exclusivity"?

Do you not mean "less exclusivity" or "more inclusivity"?

Explain pls.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-28-2010, 08:48 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
What do you mean "more exclusivity"?

Do you not mean "less exclusivity" or "more inclusivity"?

Explain pls.
yes, more inclusivity. oops.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
boyfriends, definitions, defintions, descriptions, equality, equanimity, family, girlfriends, hierarchy, importance, labeling, new dynamics, new relationships, poly singles, prescriptions, primaries, primary, primary/secondary, relationship dynamics, relationships, secondaries, secondary, terminology, unicorn

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 05:35 PM.