Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-12-2014, 06:18 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,109
Default

I could never bring myself to refer to anyone I am in a relationship with as secondary. Nor would I want to be considered or treated as secondary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyinPractice View Post
Primary/secondary does not necessarily have to mean hierarchy; it could mean degree of connection.
And what does "degree of connection" mean, exactly? That sounds hierarchical to me.

Suffice it to say that there are plenty of people out there who do not use the terms "primary" or "secondary" and prefer a more egalitarian approach to polyamory, in whatever way that manifests in their lives.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 02-12-2014 at 06:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-12-2014, 06:26 AM
PolyinPractice PolyinPractice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
I could never bring myself to refer to anyone I am in a relationship with as secondary. Nor would I want to be considered or treated as secondary.


And what does "degree of connection" mean, exactly? That sounds hierarchical to me.

Suffice it to say that there are plenty of people out there who do not use the terms "primary" or "secondary" and prefer a more egalitarian approach to polyamory, in whatever way that manifests in their lives.
I don't use the terms in describing people, but the depth of connection I associate with a "primary" style relationship takes me a long time to form. I guess it can SOUND hierarchical, but so long as each relationship is free to develop fully, I don't think of it as such.

I guess I don't understand what an "egalitarian approach" really means. Does it mean I must feel equally about everyone, regardless of how well I know them?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-12-2014, 06:42 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Means your husband doesn't come before boyfriend just due to marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-12-2014, 06:45 AM
PolyinPractice PolyinPractice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
Means your husband doesn't come before boyfriend just due to marriage.
Right, and I totally get that. I wouldn't put up with a relationship where that wasn't a possibility. But how do you get there? Do you start off giving equal weight to each relationship?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-12-2014, 06:55 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

From date one, i wouldn't cancel potential bf for a whim of hubby. A year in, I'd value and protect each relationship similarly.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-12-2014, 07:09 AM
PolyinPractice PolyinPractice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
From date one, i wouldn't cancel potential bf for a whim of hubby. A year in, I'd value and protect each relationship similarly.
Okay, that makes sense. A year might be too soon for me to feel fully comfortable in a relationship, but you never know what might happen!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-12-2014, 07:52 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyinPractice View Post
I guess I don't understand what an "egalitarian approach" really means. Does it mean I must feel equally about everyone, regardless of how well I know them?
LOL, I don't even know what "feeling equally about" people would look like. Hmm, I thought I explained what an egalitarian approach means to me when I wrote, "Just because I might be married to someone for 20 years doesn't mean I cannot listen to and consider the needs of a newer partner with the same level of respect, kindness, empathy, and affection as anyone else I care about. Having a long, previously established partner should not mean that another, newer partner's time will never, ever come first!" and ". . . whoever needs me most at the moment gets priority, like triage, not who "outranks" the other in terms of length of time with me." However, let's see, perhaps I explain myself more clearly...

An egalitarian approach would be quite the opposite of a couple-centric model where two people in a committed relationship are at the center and the others they get involved with are treated like appendages, "extras," or satellites orbiting around them. There would be no OPPs, no rules set by one dyad about how another dyad can conduct their relationship, no reading a metamour's emails or monitoring a partner's communications or activities with their other lovers, all to make sure to hold the #1 place in their priorities, for example. Each person's autonomy and agency are equally respected and honored.

For me, personally, it would mean that I would not automatically and without exception place a long-term partner's needs/wants/desires above a new lover's just because he was there first. It means that I make my own choices about my life, spending my time, etc., without seeking permission from anyone; that the boundaries I abide by are my own personal ones, not arbitrary rules decreed by one partner as a way to make another partner "less than," and it means that none of my partners must defer to any of my others. It means that all of my partners would have the same rights and opportunities with regard to relating to me - ie., to ask for my time, to communicate without reservation, to take part in physical acts without clearing what we do by another lover, and so on.

Yes, there is always a "getting to know you" phase when a new relationship is blossoming. However, that does not automatically mean that a new lover is less important or less worthy of my time and energies than an already-established one. An egalitarian approach just means I would not favor one partner over the other. In other words, an existing lover doesn't get to trump plans I have with a new lover and insist I go with him. Of course, each relationship is managed on its own merits, and each lover is special to me in their own unique way, just not in comparison to whoever or whatever is in my life, and not according to a predetermined pecking order.

This all isn't to say that there can't ever be an ebb and flow of feelings toward one or another, as things like that cannot always be controlled, and life (and one's emotions) has natural ups and downs. It doesn't mean that I could not designate certain times with one person as private and not to be interrupted by another except for emergencies. And it doesn't mean that everything is always equally balanced, but it does mean that I strive to never let anyone I'm involved with ever feel that they've been treated as less important to me than anyone else.

Does that make sense? Here's another take on it from Mya, in an old thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mya View Post
You know, not all couples are that couple-centric to begin with. You don't necessarily have to downgrade the old relationship for the old and new relationship to become equal. And remember, equal doesn't always mean the same. Equal can mean just equally important and equally considered in life decisions for example. It doesn't mean that the two people will get everything (time, attention, sex etc.) exactly the same amount. It means that no one is higher in the hierarchy than the other when making plans and decisions.
And some more from Rory:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory View Post
Being in two relationships, I started with the aim of equality, which I largely (subconsciously) equated with sameness. Not maybe as "everything has to be the same right now" but as "the eventual aim is symmetry". I think this was valuable at the beginning of poly in terms of being open to changes. However, at some point it started to become increasingly clear that the aim of symmetry was not always something that aligned with what the people involved actually wanted. Also, it seemed that the aversion towards hierarchy (plus some internalised relationship-escalator-as-measure-of-serious-relationship assumptions) was something that caused pressure towards equality. So, the aim of equality as symmetry moved aside, and was replaced by more flexible decision making based on what all want.

I think there are some aspects that have been incredibly helpful. Firstly, I don't view my poly life as something separate from other aspects of my life. Secondly, I used to have an autonomous relationship when monogamous, and I have not changed this since becoming poly. These tie in together, and I will try to illustrate.

When monogamous, I would make decisions concerning the ways in which I spend my time autonomously. Obviously, I want to spend some time with my partner, so that fact will be factored into the decision-making, along with any preferences he has expressed in the past. But if I want to see a friend, I will make plans with my friend and let my partner know about it. If he has any wishes, he is free to express them - e.g. "I have Sundays off and would like to see you then" - and I am happy to consider them in the future, but I will not cancel plans with other people once I've made them. When opening up, there is no reason to change this method - i.e. when making plans with another partner, I will not start asking for his permission, or even checking with him in advance, any more than I do when I'm making plans with a friend. He is as free to express his wishes as he's always been, and I am happy to take them into account in the future.

Poly is not separate from life. Romantic relationships are relationships. I will make my own decisions autonomously as I've always done. If my partner expresses wishes, I will consider them based on their reasonability, validity, and my own judgement; not based on some hierarchical status. I would not cancel plans with a friend simply because my partner asked me to, and I will not cancel plans with a newer partner because older partner asked me to. I would not give up a friendship simply because my partner wants me to or doesn't like my friend, nor would I break up with a person for those kind of reasons. You get the picture. None of these situations have ever happened. I doubt any of them will ever happen, because there is a mutual respect for each other's autonomy, which recognises that unreasonable demands don't become any more reasonable in romantic relationships. That is not to say that we are above that - more that we all know ultimatums etc. would not be met with compliance, because, eventually, none of us want the kinds of relationships where they are used.

Egalitarian relationships are a process. We have established a relationship life and routines that work for us. However, there is a need to remain open to change in order to take into consideration potentially changing wishes. That is the key; consideration. Doesn't mean you need to change everything, or accommodate everything your partners want, or compromise everything. It means to take seriously the wants and wishes of all people involved, whatever they are and become.
Schrodinger's Cat wrote this in a different discussion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
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.

. . . 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.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 02-12-2014 at 07:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-12-2014, 02:21 PM
bookbug bookbug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 636
Default

I think of an egalitarian approach in terms of behavior. Of course you may not have the depth of feeling for someone you are just getting to know as you would a long time partner, but once you have decided to pursue a relationship with a new person, it means s/he deserves the same consideration as the long-time partner - just as we manage with our non-sexual friends. I don't use a hierarchy with them. I don't value one friend more than another - they all give me something different. So why would I use a hierarchy with lovers?

That new love is a human being with real live feelings; not a play thing that can be ignored on a whim.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-12-2014, 02:36 PM
Dagferi's Avatar
Dagferi Dagferi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookbug View Post
I think of an egalitarian approach in terms of behavior. Of course you may not have the depth of feeling for someone you are just getting to know as you would a long time partner, but once you have decided to pursue a relationship with a new person, it means s/he deserves the same consideration as the long-time partner - just as we manage with our non-sexual friends. I don't use a hierarchy with them. I don't value one friend more than another - they all give me something different. So why would I use a hierarchy with lovers?

That new love is a human being with real live feelings; not a play thing that can be ignored on a whim.
Exactly... Why would anyone stick around knowing they would come second to someone else.

Murf's wants and needs are just as important as Butch's. It doesn't matter that Butch has been in my life 13 years. I didn't know Murf 13 years ago.
__________________
40 yo straight female
Married in the eyes of the government to Butch since 2001...
Murf my monogamous second husband has been with me since May of 2012.
In a V relationship with an average 60/40 split of time. Only due to Murf's and Butch's crappy work schedules.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-12-2014, 02:37 PM
seakinganswers seakinganswers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 68
Default

Wow, lots of interesting conversation on the topic!

So I'm assuming if you are married and decide to become poly together then there would have to be certain rules put in place depending on people's comfort level. I'm not saying you try to quantify loving one person more or less than another but certainly you are more committed to your spouse and mother of your children. I may love the hell out of one girl, but if something about it made my wife feel uncomfortable and it was messing up my relationship with my wife then we may have to part ways for the sake of my commitment to someone else I also love.

Or am I misunderstanding how it works? (As if it has to work the same for everyone)
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:20 AM.