Wants a Poly Family

[Arrowbound]

Originally Posted by Cleo

I can only speak for myself, but if my husband and I (we've lived together for about 17 years) for some reason or other would stop living together, I don' t think I'd ever move in with someone again. And a household with more than 2 adults sounds horrific to me
My husband is the only person I've ever met who understands my need for alone time. So many people take this personally where as for me, it's an almost physical need. (It is, btw, the reason I'm childfree).

So my ideal is to have very loving and committed relationships besides the one I have with my husband, but us all living together, is more of a nightmare that dream to me!

Haha, you sound just like me, except I'm a mom. I think my need for space and personal freedom is part of what is thrilling to watch my son become more and more independent as the days go by. I'll love him at every stage but once he started walking there was such cheer in my heart, lmao. And just the other day he grabbed the spoon out of my hand and began feeding himself, so you know I'm over the moon.

My husband's the exact opposite, hilariously.

[RedSalamander]

Originally Posted by redpepper

Agreeing with CDM. Primary/secondary status' in terms of upholding one particular relationship within many relationships sounds more like a cult than a poly dynamic to me. No one is better than another and no relationship is better than another to me.

Hello

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you mean by this. Could you help a newbie out and explain? Thank you.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by RedSalamander

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you mean by this. Could you help a newbie out and explain? Thank you.

Not too hard to understand, so I'll chime in because I feel the same way...

She means that she doesn't subscribe to hierarchies in her relationships. She feels that elevating one person as primary and giving them more or higher status than other people with which one is involved sounds like a cult to her. In other words, there is not anyone she considers a primary, secondary, and so forth. She sees all her loves as equally important to her. That's how I view it, too. Egalitarian poly, no primaries, secondaries, or ranking of any kind. It's not necessary.

This was in response to CDM's statement that he knows "quite a few triads that... don't rank themselves as "primaries" and "other poly partners", and I don't think they would live together on that basis."

[LotusesandRoses]

Anyone else think of Wulf and Arol Zendik at RP's cult mention? No? Well, at least I was amused.

I still think of "primary" as someone you live with and split the bills with... And I admit, I think of the person I split the water bill with as more important. It's an ugly, capitalistic view, and it's something I'm making myself look at and reevaluate. I'm on the fence for whether or not this is a "wrong" view.

Before we embark on something so serious as raising a child, I think we need to examine how our past brought us to this very moment and the surrounding belief system. It's not the lifestyle - It's the mindsets the lifestyle springs from. I've not been there on raising a poly family, but I've seen functional and dysfunctional families, and I assure you, they come in every style on the planet. It's the mind and intention behind them.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by LotusesandRoses

Anyone else think of Wulf and Arol Zendik at RP's cult mention?

Who are they?

[RedSalamander]

Originally Posted by nycindie

She sees all her loves as equally important to her. That's how I view it, too. Egalitarian poly, no primaries, secondaries, or ranking of any kind. It's not necessary.

If you begin dating someone new, perhaps someone you are still feeling out and possibly experiencing NRE with, do you place them on an equal status as, say, a spouse with whom you have shared your life for a decade? In this context, I would see the spouse as a primary partner, and the new lover as - something else, but definitely not primary. How do you see it?

[DevotedGeek]

Originally Posted by redpepper

Primary/secondary status' in terms of upholding one particular relationship within many relationships sounds more like a cult than a poly dynamic to me. No one is better than another and no relationship is better than another to me.

Originally Posted by RedSalamander

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you mean by this. Could you help a newbie out and explain?

When my wife first asked to open our marriage, she asked permission to pursue a romantic relationship with someone as her secondary, in other words, that her soon-to-be-OSO wouldn't interfere from a time standpoint, and that our marriage would always come first.

But I really didn't want that. If two people loved each other and were truly committed to each other, then I didn't want that relationship to have the stigma of being "secondary" to anything. So I invited her OSO to be a full member of the family, an equal and "co-primary", and we're now a committed poly "V" family. I highly recommend it!

That said, I recognize that even our current relationship, open as it is, has certain limits. For example, my wife and I maintain separate finances and property from her OSO. I honestly struggled with that, because I felt we should combine finances for the good of everyone in the family... equal means equal in all respects. But I'm not aware of other poly families that do this (other than "cults" ), so I backed down on it... for now.

Having been poly for a little while (I'm still relatively new at at), I now have a greater appreciation for the primary/secondary/tertiary nomenclature for those that use it. I don't see it as "cult" behavior but rather a simple mechanism for managing expectations on time and decision making. I've met a couple poly groups where this distinction (primary vs. secondary) was essental for them to work. I suspect it's more relevant for certain types of poly relationships, such as (a) multiple independent pair-bonded relationships or (b) large poly networks, but not (c) mid-sized intimate group-oriented poly families.

As for me, I prefer the approach of being "equals", but I'm also fine with being a secondary with someone if that's more appropriate for them. That's one of the wonderful things about polyamory... being open to the right type of relationship for the situation, whatever that may be.

Originally Posted by RedSalamander

If you begin dating someone new, perhaps someone you are still feeling out and possibly experiencing NRE with, do you place them on an equal status as, say, a spouse with whom you have shared your life for a decade? In this context, I would see the spouse as a primary partner, and the new lover as - something else, but definitely not primary. How do you see it?

That's a good point and perhaps a clash on nomenclature. In the mono world, there's a definite level progression:

Dating > "items" > bf/gf > exclusive > living together > engaged > married/significant others > parents > poly

I'm a level 40 hubby mage.

Perhaps the term "primary" doesn't really apply until the relationship with a new love interest is established, e.g. considered an OSO (other significant other) as opposed to just a date, fwb/lover, or bf/gf? I don't know... haven't really thought about it. Either way, it helps to be specific on how to share time between partners (including new dates), possibly to the point of mapping out days/times on a shared calendar. Granted, that's not very romantic, but it's where the rubber meets the road (no pun intended ).

As a side note, I can conceive of situations where a married couple may prefer to have their marriage be secondary, and new partners as primary. For example, they might stay together to raise their family, still love each other, even be physically intimate, but (e.g. due to changes in sexual orientation) seek other relationships. I've seen this occur with at least one couple that's currently exploring polyamory.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by RedSalamander

If you begin dating someone new, perhaps someone you are still feeling out and possibly experiencing NRE with, do you place them on an equal status as, say, a spouse with whom you have shared your life for a decade? In this context, I would see the spouse as a primary partner, and the new lover as - something else, but definitely not primary. How do you see it?

Well, there is always a "getting to know you" phase in the beginning. But that does not make a new lover less important, or less worthy than an already-established one. If I have a spouse and start to date someone else, why should I make my spouse "primary?" Just so I can have a convenient excuse to ditch the new guy? Everyone in my life is important. There isn't more important or less important.

An egalitarian approach just means I would not favor one partner over the other. Of course, each relationship is managed on its own merits, and each lover is special in their own unique way, just not in comparison to whatever else I have going on or whoever else is in my life.

For managing time and calendars, it's first come, first served. If I have plans with a lover, an existing lover doesn't get to trump those plans and insist I go with him. No pecking order.

SchrodingersCat said it really well in another thread:

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

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.

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

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*... 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.

[redpepper]

Well then. I don't have much more to add that hasn't been added.

In my life I have a primary relationship with my husband due to our having birthed a son together, having a house together, having a joint account and debt together... etc. I do not see him as more of an emotional priority over my other partners at all. He absolutely is not my focus in my relationship life. I am my focus.

Without the relationship I have with myself I would have nothing and would of accomplished nothing. I am successful because I have a good relationship with myself. It directly translates evenly to everyone I chose to have in my life. If I am not doing well I am my biggest concern.

Next focus is that of my son. Its my responsibility to raise him to adulthood. Everyone else comes next and I must work with them to achieve the best possible scenario for all of us. I always remember what I give out is what I get back. It keeps me connected to those around me and has given me the biggest potential to get my needs met and to give to others....

I am not saying that primary/secondary relationships are all like cults... just that in some cases there are inklings of hierarchy, manipulation, coercion and control in a cult like fashion. Have a look at this thread and tell us what you think. I decided that the topic warranted its own thread.

[LotusesandRoses]

Originally Posted by nycindie

Who are they?

They're a ker-razy couple who formed a cult - They'd beat members with razor wire for having conversations that weren't high brow enough - They restricted sex, had "box checks" for women before sex, had "road warriors" who harassed hot women at concerts to get new members... Basically, it was a way for Wulf to bang hot 19 year olds under the whole hippie love thing... You'll still see Zendik bumper stickers that say, "Stop bitching and start a revolution," which is a quote from Wulf's book, Don't Go.

Wulf passed away some odd years ago, but Arol is alive, and her nutso daughter is now running the cult - In 25 years, the only children born there have been the offspring of Fawn, Wulf and Arol's only child. They have a website, but I have a friend who was a member and had some interesting stories about her experience.