Secondary relationships

In polyamorous circles, there are many people who want only “secondary” relationships outside of their existing “primary” relationship.

However, the term “secondary” is confusing and often means different things to different people. In the interests of helping clarify some of that confusion, my friend Edward recently proposed a short questionnaire that might be useful to help get everyone on the same page about what exactly is meant by the term “secondary.” I’ve taken his idea and turned it into a handy 3×5 index card, which you can print out and hand to prospective suitors. You can even download a PDF version of the card here.

146 thoughts on “Secondary relationships

    • “this seems like a lot of primary relationships.”

      Wouldn’t it be awesome if every relationship, in its early stages, included some list of “the conditions under which I’d dump you, FYI.”

      I think that would be a fascinating map of each person’s relationship model.

      Even funnier if it was posted on the fridge, and reviewed and modified regularly.

    • Followed you here, love this! It’s so sad and true. I definitely agree banishing the “primary/secondary” language would be a good step to helping people understand that relationships are still relationships and not to pretend they aren’t disposable when they treat them as such.

      • Secondary != disposable

        While this is meant to be humorous, it’s making an unwarranted assumption that “secondary” necessarily means unimportant/dispensable.

        Sometimes, secondary is because:
        – the primary relationship is entangled in different ways: shared house/finances/children/business etc;
        – you only get to meet up now and then;
        – it’s all that the secondary wants, perhaps because they have other commitment, perhaps including their own primary, or their own chosen relationship style is “web-of-secondaries/no-primary”.

  1. This is hilarious and horrible at the same time. My hubby is going through a breakup right now and he is wishing he’d had this when he and his girlfriend started dating.

    This is the exact reason I do not like the whole “primary/Secondary” terminology

  2. This is hilarious and horrible at the same time. My hubby is going through a breakup right now and he is wishing he’d had this when he and his girlfriend started dating.

    This is the exact reason I do not like the whole “primary/Secondary” terminology

  3. You know, there are also people who only want to *be* secondaries. I’m not quite there, but I’m an independent enough person to definitely see the appeal.

    Aren’t you one of them? I didn’t think you lived with any of your romantic partners, and you seem to be kinda nomadic.
    ———————————————————
    How inconvenient?

    If you’d be dumped for saying “love” in a romantic context, that’s not a poly secondary, that friends with benefits, at most.

    If you’d be dumped for getting a new primary (in general, not because they’re objectionable), that’s clearly not a secondary.

    “Treated with respect” is vague to the point of being meaningless. A secondary will generally not get the same consideration because there aren’t the same mutual obligations there. A primary is a partner, someone you’ve decided to build a life together with and mutually support in practical ways, not just emotional.

    Of course a secondary will not usually be invited to family events. They aren’t part of the family.

    Keeping the relationship secret is more likely an indication you’re really a secondary when you might think you’re a co-primary.

    • you have done a fine job of pointing out (without a trace of sensitivity to the humor here, nor the audience and purpose here) exactly *why* this entire thing was prefaced with “often means different things to different people.” And exactly why so many people are so bitter and suspicious about being invited into a pre-existing relationship. Of *course* solid communication ahead of time would help avoid half the disasters, but alas – people walk into things thinking they think one thing and finding later, in practice, that they are actually operating from somewhere else entirely. Certainly it’s not confined to poly relationships. But this particular intersection of fucked-up-edness, lack of consideration, and damaging implicit assumptions illustrated on this card hits the nail on the head for far too many of them. In the interest of honesty, I’ve been on both sides of this, and have been shocked at others’ cavalier attitudes and lack of insight into themselves, and shocked at my own as well.

      “Of course a secondary will not usually be invited to family events. They aren’t part of the family.”

      Huge implicit assumptions indicated by your language choices of “of course,” “clearly,” etc., most apparently the fact that you have a clear set of guidelines and definitions for primary and secondary. Yet there is no manual and there are no bylaws and not everybody is you. Mileage may vary etc. I admire your clarity but I sure hope you trot all this out succinctly with bullet points and maybe even a 3×5 card before you start dating someone new!

      • I saw people mentioning humor, and I looked for it, but I don’t have a clue what was supposed to be funny. I just saw bitterness.

        There’s not really a whole set of definitions. Unless you don’t have *any* relationships on that level, primary means something on the level of a spouse.

        What really needs to be made clear is whether the secondary status is required to be permanent.

        • There’s not really a whole set of definitions. Unless you don’t have *any* relationships on that level, primary means something on the level of a spouse.

          Umm…that’s simply not true for everyone. There are many people who define their primary relationships differently than that.

          And you seem to have missed the whole point. The issue that many people entering secondary relationships face is that of prescriptive boundaries that are there to limit the relationship for the purposes of preserving the primary relationship. And often having decisions made about THEIR OWN relationship by people who are not part of the relationship. And many times those boundaries are unreasonable and really end up giving the secondary a very bum deal. And as you can see from people who have commented on this thread, this very thing has happened to quite a few people.

          The humor that you’ve missed is the whole idea of just putting it all out there as a checklist rather than have to go through the misery and pain that many poly secondaries have to deal with because of thoughtless people who don’t know how to adequately care for and nurture relationships outside their primary one.

          • There are many people who define their primary relationships differently than that.
            So if you have a romantic partner with whom you live, share expenses, make decisions with about moving and careers, and maybe have children, that person may not be a primary while someone who’s not linked to you like that would be?

            It seems to me that the only way for that to be reasonable use of the term is if you’re working to sever that relationship.

            And you seem to have missed the whole point…
            No, I didn’t. I’ve seen it plenty (including my wife’s boyfriend’s wife), and I could tell that ‘s list was trying to address it — they just weren’t reasonable examples.

            A few things I can think of that would work as bullet points are:
            * Veto power beyond the first month or two, apart from responding to sabotage attempts.
            * Expecting the secondary partner’s dates to be canceled because the primary wants to do something.
            * Practical help or emotional support for the secondary partner comes second to significantly less important concerns of the primary.
            * Secrecy beyond that required for employment, custody and harmony with extended family (which still sucks, but may be unavoidable).
            * Secrecy from a partner’s children.
            * Secondary status is permanent, and may not change as the relationship gets more serious.
            * Not in our house / not in our bed.

          • Wow. Nice strawmanning. Did you really see that card as suggesting that being a non-primary partner is to be eschewed, or something?

            I’ve seen a situation where the “secondary” lived with the married “primary” couple, and where that couple also had a “co-primary” non-residential married partner pair (i.e. they were a bi-located quad). Oh, and one of the quad wanted to have kids with the secondary.

            Some really, really wacky and ugly went on there.

            Tacit’s card works as a “please be upfront if you have some seriously !@%#!@$#’d issues” note. Yeah, it’s bitter. And it’s hysterically funny to some of us. It’s a “this way to the poly trainwreck” card, not a “this card is a statement on how to do primary/secondary (whether well or badly)”.

          • So if you have a romantic partner with whom you live, share expenses, make decisions with about moving and careers, and maybe have children, that person may not be a primary while someone who’s not linked to you like that would be?

            It seems to me that the only way for that to be reasonable use of the term is if you’re working to sever that relationship.

            That’s not what I said. And now I’m beginning to see why you can’t see the points. What I did actually say is that there are many people who define their primary relationships differently than that. This means that there are a VARIETY of ways a person can be primary with another person, not just in a spousal, living together, having kids way.

            So far, your posts have really indicate a limited ability to see things other than how you think they should be.

            No, I didn’t. I’ve seen it plenty (including my wife’s boyfriend’s wife), and I could tell that tacit’s list was trying to address it — they just weren’t reasonable examples.

            That’s because they’re NOT reasonable expectations to have for a new relationship. Maybe they weren’t realistic examples to you, but the point is that those points on that list represent some realties that happen regardless of intentions. So regardless of whether *you* think they’re reasonable or not, it seems pretty clear that other people’s ACTUAL experiences of being a secondary partner (not just you’re wife’s experience) would disagree with that. (Which you seem to be ignoring here)

            The examples weren’t reasonable on purpose. This is because most people don’t take on secondary partners with the INTENT of treating them as the list on the card suggests, but because of their lack of awareness, couple entitlement and privilege and all sorts of other things, they actually END UP treating their secondary partners like that.

            And again, YOU may think this doesn’t happen, but there already other people who have responded to this thread for whom this HAS happened, regardless of whether you think it’s reasonable or not.

            For some reason, you seem to think that secondary partners SHOULD know their place.

            Fortunately, there are people who practice poly very differently than the way you seem to be defending.

          • That’s not what I said.
            I don’t see where you actually said anything about that sort of relationship. What I’m saying is that, if you have at least one relationship like that, then only relationships like that can reasonably be considered primary. At that point, primary means they’re a member of your immediate family.

            If you don’t have any relationships like that, using hierarchical terms at all seems like first graders ranking their friends, but call it whatever you feel like.

            you seem to think that secondary partners SHOULD know their place.
            Where are you getting that, just from the family events? There’s a big difference between people who are and are not members of your family; that doesn’t mean they can’t eventually become members.

            the way you seem to be defending
            Were you taking the list I intended as more realistic bad examples as something I was advocating?

          • The point is that what you may define as a primary is different from what others may define as a primary. Similarly, others may define secondary differently, or polyamory, or relationship, etc.

          • This is because most people don’t take on secondary partners with the INTENT of treating them as the list on the card suggests, but because of their lack of awareness, couple entitlement and privilege and all sorts of other things, they actually END UP treating their secondary partners like that.

            This is hitting the nail on the head! And, even people who’ve had quite a bit of experience in poly relationships can fall victim or perpetrator to this.

          • I’d posit they do, in fact, pre-plan most of these items (I didn’t write the last two, so I can’t speak for them).

            They just tart it up in language designed to make it seem nicer than it is.

          • So if you have a romantic partner with whom you live, share expenses, make decisions with about moving and careers, and maybe have children, that person may not be a primary while someone who’s not linked to you like that would be?

            While said nothing like this, this is essentially the situation my relationships have evolved into.

            I have a long-standing primary partner I choose not to live with (we tried it for a while and drove each other crazy), and another primary and business partner who is about to head off to live on a boat on his own for a while, so I shortly won’t be living with him either.
            The people I remain living with are a group of housemates who are all poly, some of whom are platonic friends, some of whom I have more of a sensual relationship with, but none of them would come under my definition of primary, or even secondary partner to me. We’ve shared a house for almost two years in our current setup (some of us have shared for longer), and we’re currently in the process of moving to a new place along with my girlfriend, and opening a joint bank account for the entire group of us. We consider ourselves to be family, and have discussed options including career choices and changing locations in order for us to remain together, even though most of our relationships aren’t particularly romantic. None of this has come about through any intentional desire to separate romantic relationships and living situation, but just out of what works for all of the folks involved. It may not always continue the same way, but I don’t see it changing any time in the near future.

            So to clarify how I define primary and secondary: My personal definition of primary partner is ‘a person I consider before making most decisions’ – this doesn’t mean that I live with them, share finances, or even share the same continent necessarily, just that I consider them often, care for them deeply, and make decisions with their interests in mind. I consider a secondary partner to be a person I give my full attention to during dates, but who don’t necessarily factor in my every day plans (in short, primaries are who I call *first* to help me make decisions, secondaries are the folks I call *second* once decisions are made). This doesn’t mean I care for my secondary partners any less, or that they’re not ‘part of my family’, but it’s often based around the way our lifestyles and schedules fit together (in fact in my poly cluster our family events, such as holidays are often a time we tend to look forward to inviting secondary partners in and seeing more of them than we might usually – different strokes, eh?).
            My definitions are descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and I tend to avoid labeling relationships as anything until they’ve been around long enough to fall into some sort of equilibrium – usually a year or more, without laying down rules or guidelines for what they’re expected to be. A person I’ve just met is not a ‘secondary’ but a *potential* partner, and who knows what they might become.

            There are other ways still of defining primary and secondary, but I note that my definition is markedly different from yours, yet equally valid. (And do feel free to let me know if you still consider it “like first graders ranking their friends” – I suspect I have a response or two in hand for that.)

          • I just went and read your post on secrecy from last June, and it pretty much reflects my experience of living with a polyfamily and attending a mainstream Christian church in my small town.
            And you put it much better than I could have.
            So I figure if you have insights like that to share, I want to read them.
            So I friended you.
            Smiles!

        • “I saw people mentioning humor, and I looked for it, but I don’t have a clue what was supposed to be funny. I just saw bitterness.”

          Well, you may not be at the level where the humor is visible, nor the purpose for the list is apparent.

          It’s a meta-bang on the need for labels in lieu of specificity.

  4. You know, there are also people who only want to *be* secondaries. I’m not quite there, but I’m an independent enough person to definitely see the appeal.

    Aren’t you one of them? I didn’t think you lived with any of your romantic partners, and you seem to be kinda nomadic.
    ———————————————————
    How inconvenient?

    If you’d be dumped for saying “love” in a romantic context, that’s not a poly secondary, that friends with benefits, at most.

    If you’d be dumped for getting a new primary (in general, not because they’re objectionable), that’s clearly not a secondary.

    “Treated with respect” is vague to the point of being meaningless. A secondary will generally not get the same consideration because there aren’t the same mutual obligations there. A primary is a partner, someone you’ve decided to build a life together with and mutually support in practical ways, not just emotional.

    Of course a secondary will not usually be invited to family events. They aren’t part of the family.

    Keeping the relationship secret is more likely an indication you’re really a secondary when you might think you’re a co-primary.

  5. Followed you here, love this! It’s so sad and true. I definitely agree banishing the “primary/secondary” language would be a good step to helping people understand that relationships are still relationships and not to pretend they aren’t disposable when they treat them as such.

  6. you have done a fine job of pointing out (without a trace of sensitivity to the humor here, nor the audience and purpose here) exactly *why* this entire thing was prefaced with “often means different things to different people.” And exactly why so many people are so bitter and suspicious about being invited into a pre-existing relationship. Of *course* solid communication ahead of time would help avoid half the disasters, but alas – people walk into things thinking they think one thing and finding later, in practice, that they are actually operating from somewhere else entirely. Certainly it’s not confined to poly relationships. But this particular intersection of fucked-up-edness, lack of consideration, and damaging implicit assumptions illustrated on this card hits the nail on the head for far too many of them. In the interest of honesty, I’ve been on both sides of this, and have been shocked at others’ cavalier attitudes and lack of insight into themselves, and shocked at my own as well.

    “Of course a secondary will not usually be invited to family events. They aren’t part of the family.”

    Huge implicit assumptions indicated by your language choices of “of course,” “clearly,” etc., most apparently the fact that you have a clear set of guidelines and definitions for primary and secondary. Yet there is no manual and there are no bylaws and not everybody is you. Mileage may vary etc. I admire your clarity but I sure hope you trot all this out succinctly with bullet points and maybe even a 3×5 card before you start dating someone new!

  7. I saw people mentioning humor, and I looked for it, but I don’t have a clue what was supposed to be funny. I just saw bitterness.

    There’s not really a whole set of definitions. Unless you don’t have *any* relationships on that level, primary means something on the level of a spouse.

    What really needs to be made clear is whether the secondary status is required to be permanent.

  8. There’s not really a whole set of definitions. Unless you don’t have *any* relationships on that level, primary means something on the level of a spouse.

    Umm…that’s simply not true for everyone. There are many people who define their primary relationships differently than that.

    And you seem to have missed the whole point. The issue that many people entering secondary relationships face is that of prescriptive boundaries that are there to limit the relationship for the purposes of preserving the primary relationship. And often having decisions made about THEIR OWN relationship by people who are not part of the relationship. And many times those boundaries are unreasonable and really end up giving the secondary a very bum deal. And as you can see from people who have commented on this thread, this very thing has happened to quite a few people.

    The humor that you’ve missed is the whole idea of just putting it all out there as a checklist rather than have to go through the misery and pain that many poly secondaries have to deal with because of thoughtless people who don’t know how to adequately care for and nurture relationships outside their primary one.

  9. There are many people who define their primary relationships differently than that.
    So if you have a romantic partner with whom you live, share expenses, make decisions with about moving and careers, and maybe have children, that person may not be a primary while someone who’s not linked to you like that would be?

    It seems to me that the only way for that to be reasonable use of the term is if you’re working to sever that relationship.

    And you seem to have missed the whole point…
    No, I didn’t. I’ve seen it plenty (including my wife’s boyfriend’s wife), and I could tell that ‘s list was trying to address it — they just weren’t reasonable examples.

    A few things I can think of that would work as bullet points are:
    * Veto power beyond the first month or two, apart from responding to sabotage attempts.
    * Expecting the secondary partner’s dates to be canceled because the primary wants to do something.
    * Practical help or emotional support for the secondary partner comes second to significantly less important concerns of the primary.
    * Secrecy beyond that required for employment, custody and harmony with extended family (which still sucks, but may be unavoidable).
    * Secrecy from a partner’s children.
    * Secondary status is permanent, and may not change as the relationship gets more serious.
    * Not in our house / not in our bed.

  10. Wow. Nice strawmanning. Did you really see that card as suggesting that being a non-primary partner is to be eschewed, or something?

    I’ve seen a situation where the “secondary” lived with the married “primary” couple, and where that couple also had a “co-primary” non-residential married partner pair (i.e. they were a bi-located quad). Oh, and one of the quad wanted to have kids with the secondary.

    Some really, really wacky and ugly went on there.

    Tacit’s card works as a “please be upfront if you have some seriously !@%#!@$#’d issues” note. Yeah, it’s bitter. And it’s hysterically funny to some of us. It’s a “this way to the poly trainwreck” card, not a “this card is a statement on how to do primary/secondary (whether well or badly)”.

  11. So if you have a romantic partner with whom you live, share expenses, make decisions with about moving and careers, and maybe have children, that person may not be a primary while someone who’s not linked to you like that would be?

    It seems to me that the only way for that to be reasonable use of the term is if you’re working to sever that relationship.

    That’s not what I said. And now I’m beginning to see why you can’t see the points. What I did actually say is that there are many people who define their primary relationships differently than that. This means that there are a VARIETY of ways a person can be primary with another person, not just in a spousal, living together, having kids way.

    So far, your posts have really indicate a limited ability to see things other than how you think they should be.

    No, I didn’t. I’ve seen it plenty (including my wife’s boyfriend’s wife), and I could tell that tacit’s list was trying to address it — they just weren’t reasonable examples.

    That’s because they’re NOT reasonable expectations to have for a new relationship. Maybe they weren’t realistic examples to you, but the point is that those points on that list represent some realties that happen regardless of intentions. So regardless of whether *you* think they’re reasonable or not, it seems pretty clear that other people’s ACTUAL experiences of being a secondary partner (not just you’re wife’s experience) would disagree with that. (Which you seem to be ignoring here)

    The examples weren’t reasonable on purpose. This is because most people don’t take on secondary partners with the INTENT of treating them as the list on the card suggests, but because of their lack of awareness, couple entitlement and privilege and all sorts of other things, they actually END UP treating their secondary partners like that.

    And again, YOU may think this doesn’t happen, but there already other people who have responded to this thread for whom this HAS happened, regardless of whether you think it’s reasonable or not.

    For some reason, you seem to think that secondary partners SHOULD know their place.

    Fortunately, there are people who practice poly very differently than the way you seem to be defending.

  12. That’s not what I said.
    I don’t see where you actually said anything about that sort of relationship. What I’m saying is that, if you have at least one relationship like that, then only relationships like that can reasonably be considered primary. At that point, primary means they’re a member of your immediate family.

    If you don’t have any relationships like that, using hierarchical terms at all seems like first graders ranking their friends, but call it whatever you feel like.

    you seem to think that secondary partners SHOULD know their place.
    Where are you getting that, just from the family events? There’s a big difference between people who are and are not members of your family; that doesn’t mean they can’t eventually become members.

    the way you seem to be defending
    Were you taking the list I intended as more realistic bad examples as something I was advocating?

  13. I was linked via a link of a link, etc. Like several others here, any humor to be found in this kinda hit with a hollow thud.

    On the whole “I will be required to keep the relationship a secret from family, friends, or others” bit: It should be noted that some people don’t have a choice, given their profession or family situations, about who they can tell about their lifestyle choices. Making fun those who have to struggle with that very painful and difficult process doesn’t ring funny or clever to me. It just seems mean in the end. Metaphorically slapping people on the back about it and saying, “HA HA JOKE!” doesn’t make it any less upsetting. I do not think it makes someone a bad partner if, because they’ll loose their job/clearance/etc., they decide to not discuss their private and personal relationships with their partners, except those they know they can trust. Many people have families they cannot trust with that caliber of information. Many people have even more friends they cannot trust with such potentially damaging information. If that makes me someone who ‘needs a card’, oh well.

    This strikes me as the typical point-and-laugh-you-are-doing-poly-wrong diatribe I’ve heard ever since I realized I was poly. Admittedly, nearly all of the situations mentioned on the card I find personally revolting. And rock on if you can live in a world where none of those categories are necessary (especially the whole secrecy bit). Most poly people I know can’t.

    Just a thought from a random poly-passerby. I’m sure you’re an awesome person, and I don’t mean to make this a personal attack or anything. I’ve never met you, and I don’t know if I ever will. I just got slightly irked.

    Posted anonymously because the internet remembers everything…and, as you might suspect, I have a career where if I was found to be poly, it could go very, very bad for me.

    • Anonymous,
      A post about secrecy that might or might not be relevant to your situation: http://emanix.livejournal.com/19531.html

      My partner, P, was risking the loss of clearance in his job not because of our open relationship, but because he wasn’t comfortable enough to be open about it. My still-current partner, A, is in exactly the same line of work but our relationship has never been a security risk precisely because he *wasn’t* secretive about it.

      I’ve not always been vocal about poly myself, but I eventually took a stand after realising that every person who *is* able to be out of the closet and chooses not to adds weight to the oppression of the rest of us – and it’s so very hurtful to be a ‘dirty secret’ when there is no other reason but shame or clinging to privilege to excuse it. I believe that was the group aimed at in the checklist, not those who genuinely can’t be open about who they are.

      • First of all, I was sorry to see what a hard time you experienced with the P situation. Sounds exceptionally unfun.

        Secondly, while none of my partners are a ‘dirty’ secret, I’m including the lies of omission in there as well. There was/is recently an occasion where nearly all of my partners came to my house and we celebrated the holidays together. When confronted by multiple people (family) about who these various folks were I’d simply say, “That’s so-and-so.” I’ve usually found people to be fairly confused by this answer when I don’t add the modifier.

        Thirdly, while I’m glad A doesn’t carry the danger of loosing his clearance, there are still many agencies who frown and/or take subtle action against those who are poly. They never say it. They just do it.

        Lastly, recently, I took my own ‘stand’ and, given the circumstance, I don’t lie, deceive or deflect about my relationship status except in a career setting and one family member (she’s elderly, I’m sure she knows what is going on, but honestly, the stress and pain of our disagreement on it would be just too sad to face). It hurts me to have to do the latter. But unfortunately, it’s a risk I am not yet confident enough to take. However, it doesn’t mean I love any partner any less.

        A side note – I’ve noted the proliferation of attaching the word ‘privilege’ to things people don’t like or find pretentious/offensive. Is it just me?

        Thank you for your kind words though. It’s nice to know there’s other people like me out there in general. Sometimes, where I am, the community is rather small.

        • Good luck with the secrecy issue, seriously.

          Privilege is a bit of a buzz word at the minute admittedly. Generally it refers to unearned advantages conferred on a particular group of people by other members of society, usually over and above another group, based on how that group is perceived – so it’s related to how behaviour is often based on stereotypes.
          In this case I’m referring to the advantages conferred on people who are perceived as monogamous couples over and above people who are seen as anything else. For example a mono couple might be invited to more parties and social events than a poly family because they are seen as more ‘normal’, or ‘better’ than the poly family, they might be better respected by their local community, they might well receive a whole raft of other benefits that I can’t think of, having not been a part of that world for a long time. If a couple decided to go from mono to poly but remain in the closet in order to maintain that image of normality and ‘better-ness’ – and continue to reap the rewards of that false perception, then that’s the sort of behaviour I’d term ‘clinging to privilege’.

          I’ve already gone into why I’m not keen on that, however tempting it might be sometimes to do so, because it’s maintaining the stereotypes instead of fighting them, and that, in small ways, harms all of us. I don’t think it’s used as a label for *anything* folks find offensive though (at least, I don’t ues it that way), but that unearned privilege is offensive wherever it happens to crop up – and once you start noticing it, it’s hard to stop!

          (Oh gods, I get wordy when I’m online past midnight- best get to bed now!)

        • A side note – I’ve noted the proliferation of attaching the word ‘privilege’ to things people don’t like or find pretentious/offensive. Is it just me?

          I’ve noticed a proliferation of people attaching to word “privilege” to situations in which one person (or group) has an unearned advantage in some situation over some other person (or group), and then other folks saying “I wish you’d stop talking to me like I have these unearned advantages because it’s clear to me that you’re just trying to make me feel guilty.” Is that what you mean?

          Lastly, recently, I took my own ‘stand’ and, given the circumstance, I don’t lie, deceive or deflect about my relationship status except in a career setting and one family member (she’s elderly, I’m sure she knows what is going on, but honestly, the stress and pain of our disagreement on it would be just too sad to face). It hurts me to have to do the latter. But unfortunately, it’s a risk I am not yet confident enough to take. However, it doesn’t mean I love any partner any less.

          So in other words, you would not check the ticky-box next to “I will be required to keep the relationship secret” without adding an asterisk to explain which particular people and why.

          Seems reasonable to me.

          Hey, folks can and do have perfectly sound reasons for checking some of these ticky-boxes. The point is that if you’re carrying any of these things around with you and attaching them to your expectations for romantic relationships, it’s kinda nice to be up front about it with your prospective partners, so everyone can make informed decisions about whether or not to be involved.

          Because it rather sucks if person A assumes that of course ticky-box number 3 is checked, and person B doesn’t.

    • I also note that while I think some of these checkboxes might well be applied with valid reason in some circumstances, the sort of relationship that flags *several* of these needs to be looked at very carefully and examined for privilege, insensitivity, etc. If you’re only flagging one, then you may well be able to give yourself a pat on the back.

      • Fair enough, and thanks for the pat encouragement. =) However, as a whole, it kinda smacks of pigeon-holing a type of relationship style and openly mocking the pain of others. It’s like a poly-version of those horrible Cosmo articles where they bullet point relationship advice. Sometimes they’re funny, sometimes they make you think, sometimes they’re wildly offensive, and sometimes they’re hurtful.

  14. I was linked via a link of a link, etc. Like several others here, any humor to be found in this kinda hit with a hollow thud.

    On the whole “I will be required to keep the relationship a secret from family, friends, or others” bit: It should be noted that some people don’t have a choice, given their profession or family situations, about who they can tell about their lifestyle choices. Making fun those who have to struggle with that very painful and difficult process doesn’t ring funny or clever to me. It just seems mean in the end. Metaphorically slapping people on the back about it and saying, “HA HA JOKE!” doesn’t make it any less upsetting. I do not think it makes someone a bad partner if, because they’ll loose their job/clearance/etc., they decide to not discuss their private and personal relationships with their partners, except those they know they can trust. Many people have families they cannot trust with that caliber of information. Many people have even more friends they cannot trust with such potentially damaging information. If that makes me someone who ‘needs a card’, oh well.

    This strikes me as the typical point-and-laugh-you-are-doing-poly-wrong diatribe I’ve heard ever since I realized I was poly. Admittedly, nearly all of the situations mentioned on the card I find personally revolting. And rock on if you can live in a world where none of those categories are necessary (especially the whole secrecy bit). Most poly people I know can’t.

    Just a thought from a random poly-passerby. I’m sure you’re an awesome person, and I don’t mean to make this a personal attack or anything. I’ve never met you, and I don’t know if I ever will. I just got slightly irked.

    Posted anonymously because the internet remembers everything…and, as you might suspect, I have a career where if I was found to be poly, it could go very, very bad for me.

  15. Wrong Franklin, though they’re commonly mistaken for each other. The most significant difference between them is that Benjamin Franklin’s eyes are open in most pictures of him. Franklin Veaux, not so much. 🙂

  16. This is because most people don’t take on secondary partners with the INTENT of treating them as the list on the card suggests, but because of their lack of awareness, couple entitlement and privilege and all sorts of other things, they actually END UP treating their secondary partners like that.

    This is hitting the nail on the head! And, even people who’ve had quite a bit of experience in poly relationships can fall victim or perpetrator to this.

  17. Anonymous,
    A post about secrecy that might or might not be relevant to your situation: http://emanix.livejournal.com/19531.html

    My partner, P, was risking the loss of clearance in his job not because of our open relationship, but because he wasn’t comfortable enough to be open about it. My still-current partner, A, is in exactly the same line of work but our relationship has never been a security risk precisely because he *wasn’t* secretive about it.

    I’ve not always been vocal about poly myself, but I eventually took a stand after realising that every person who *is* able to be out of the closet and chooses not to adds weight to the oppression of the rest of us – and it’s so very hurtful to be a ‘dirty secret’ when there is no other reason but shame or clinging to privilege to excuse it. I believe that was the group aimed at in the checklist, not those who genuinely can’t be open about who they are.

  18. I also note that while I think some of these checkboxes might well be applied with valid reason in some circumstances, the sort of relationship that flags *several* of these needs to be looked at very carefully and examined for privilege, insensitivity, etc. If you’re only flagging one, then you may well be able to give yourself a pat on the back.

  19. “To answer yes to any of those is fucked up regardless of whether its poly or mono. “

    Yep.

    Yet it certainly seems to be in some situations, even though not explicitly stated.

    The list illustrates some of the thinking that ought to happen when someone uses the phrase “secondary.” I think it’s very important to ask “Well, yes, but what does that MEAN?”

    It’s all part of my horrible sick and twisted plot to encourage people to take a little more care and be a little more transparent about what they hope for and where they want to clarify their limits in romantic relationships.

  20. “To answer yes to any of those is fucked up regardless of whether its poly or mono. “

    Yep.

    Yet it certainly seems to be in some situations, even though not explicitly stated.

    The list illustrates some of the thinking that ought to happen when someone uses the phrase “secondary.” I think it’s very important to ask “Well, yes, but what does that MEAN?”

    It’s all part of my horrible sick and twisted plot to encourage people to take a little more care and be a little more transparent about what they hope for and where they want to clarify their limits in romantic relationships.

  21. “I saw people mentioning humor, and I looked for it, but I don’t have a clue what was supposed to be funny. I just saw bitterness.”

    Well, you may not be at the level where the humor is visible, nor the purpose for the list is apparent.

    It’s a meta-bang on the need for labels in lieu of specificity.

  22. I’d posit they do, in fact, pre-plan most of these items (I didn’t write the last two, so I can’t speak for them).

    They just tart it up in language designed to make it seem nicer than it is.

  23. “this seems like a lot of primary relationships.”

    Wouldn’t it be awesome if every relationship, in its early stages, included some list of “the conditions under which I’d dump you, FYI.”

    I think that would be a fascinating map of each person’s relationship model.

    Even funnier if it was posted on the fridge, and reviewed and modified regularly.

    • Now that I could find more light-hearted humor in. Thank you for posting that After the steely pang and harsh truth of the “secondary card,” your list was a cute play in the other direction. ^_^

      • Aw, thanks. I wrote it a while ago when I was feeling admittedly a bit sad about my secondary situation, but was trying to see some positive angles to it, too.

  24. You know, some of these can apply to any relationship. My partner has been accused of: “dumping when s/he says love” fun fact, MOST people will get twitchy if you start talking love 4 weeks after meeting someone. If you are then. 2 weeks later asking when you can have a commitment (not if, WHEN). It’s not that the “primary partner” is primary so they get special treatment, it’s that in the many years the couple has been together, this kind of thing has had a chance to grow naturally.

    I think it makes more sense to ask onesself not if you’re being treated the same as a partner with more history, but if you’re being treated appropriately for the stage in YOUR relationship with the person. Too much of this writing about secondaries seems to do a lot of comparing and comparisons, as far as I can tell, are poly poison.

    • You know, some of these can apply to any relationship.

      Yup. I reckon a lot of folks have an internal card like this they carry around inside their heads, with entries like “if you tell me you love me before my subjective internal clock says you should without coming across to me like you’re nuttier than a Babe Ruth bar, I’ll dump you.”

      Wouldn’t it be cool if folks actually talked up front about what that list looked like?

      It’s not that the “primary partner” is primary so they get special treatment, it’s that in the many years the couple has been together, this kind of thing has had a chance to grow naturally.

      Ideally, sure. If, you know, you’re into DESCRIPTIVE relationships of what ‘primary partner’ means.

      A lot of folks are into a more prescriptive definition, one that includes things like “you always have to love me most” and “I reserve the right to unilaterally veto any and all of your other relationships for any reason.” It’s the folks who’ve had run-ins with THOSE models of primacy who see the humor in the card, I reckon.

  25. You know, some of these can apply to any relationship. My partner has been accused of: “dumping when s/he says love” fun fact, MOST people will get twitchy if you start talking love 4 weeks after meeting someone. If you are then. 2 weeks later asking when you can have a commitment (not if, WHEN). It’s not that the “primary partner” is primary so they get special treatment, it’s that in the many years the couple has been together, this kind of thing has had a chance to grow naturally.

    I think it makes more sense to ask onesself not if you’re being treated the same as a partner with more history, but if you’re being treated appropriately for the stage in YOUR relationship with the person. Too much of this writing about secondaries seems to do a lot of comparing and comparisons, as far as I can tell, are poly poison.

  26. Secondary != disposable

    While this is meant to be humorous, it’s making an unwarranted assumption that “secondary” necessarily means unimportant/dispensable.

    Sometimes, secondary is because:
    – the primary relationship is entangled in different ways: shared house/finances/children/business etc;
    – you only get to meet up now and then;
    – it’s all that the secondary wants, perhaps because they have other commitment, perhaps including their own primary, or their own chosen relationship style is “web-of-secondaries/no-primary”.

  27. First of all, I was sorry to see what a hard time you experienced with the P situation. Sounds exceptionally unfun.

    Secondly, while none of my partners are a ‘dirty’ secret, I’m including the lies of omission in there as well. There was/is recently an occasion where nearly all of my partners came to my house and we celebrated the holidays together. When confronted by multiple people (family) about who these various folks were I’d simply say, “That’s so-and-so.” I’ve usually found people to be fairly confused by this answer when I don’t add the modifier.

    Thirdly, while I’m glad A doesn’t carry the danger of loosing his clearance, there are still many agencies who frown and/or take subtle action against those who are poly. They never say it. They just do it.

    Lastly, recently, I took my own ‘stand’ and, given the circumstance, I don’t lie, deceive or deflect about my relationship status except in a career setting and one family member (she’s elderly, I’m sure she knows what is going on, but honestly, the stress and pain of our disagreement on it would be just too sad to face). It hurts me to have to do the latter. But unfortunately, it’s a risk I am not yet confident enough to take. However, it doesn’t mean I love any partner any less.

    A side note – I’ve noted the proliferation of attaching the word ‘privilege’ to things people don’t like or find pretentious/offensive. Is it just me?

    Thank you for your kind words though. It’s nice to know there’s other people like me out there in general. Sometimes, where I am, the community is rather small.

  28. Fair enough, and thanks for the pat encouragement. =) However, as a whole, it kinda smacks of pigeon-holing a type of relationship style and openly mocking the pain of others. It’s like a poly-version of those horrible Cosmo articles where they bullet point relationship advice. Sometimes they’re funny, sometimes they make you think, sometimes they’re wildly offensive, and sometimes they’re hurtful.

  29. The point is that what you may define as a primary is different from what others may define as a primary. Similarly, others may define secondary differently, or polyamory, or relationship, etc.

  30. Now that I could find more light-hearted humor in. Thank you for posting that After the steely pang and harsh truth of the “secondary card,” your list was a cute play in the other direction. ^_^

  31. Aw, thanks. I wrote it a while ago when I was feeling admittedly a bit sad about my secondary situation, but was trying to see some positive angles to it, too.

  32. So if you have a romantic partner with whom you live, share expenses, make decisions with about moving and careers, and maybe have children, that person may not be a primary while someone who’s not linked to you like that would be?

    While said nothing like this, this is essentially the situation my relationships have evolved into.

    I have a long-standing primary partner I choose not to live with (we tried it for a while and drove each other crazy), and another primary and business partner who is about to head off to live on a boat on his own for a while, so I shortly won’t be living with him either.
    The people I remain living with are a group of housemates who are all poly, some of whom are platonic friends, some of whom I have more of a sensual relationship with, but none of them would come under my definition of primary, or even secondary partner to me. We’ve shared a house for almost two years in our current setup (some of us have shared for longer), and we’re currently in the process of moving to a new place along with my girlfriend, and opening a joint bank account for the entire group of us. We consider ourselves to be family, and have discussed options including career choices and changing locations in order for us to remain together, even though most of our relationships aren’t particularly romantic. None of this has come about through any intentional desire to separate romantic relationships and living situation, but just out of what works for all of the folks involved. It may not always continue the same way, but I don’t see it changing any time in the near future.

    So to clarify how I define primary and secondary: My personal definition of primary partner is ‘a person I consider before making most decisions’ – this doesn’t mean that I live with them, share finances, or even share the same continent necessarily, just that I consider them often, care for them deeply, and make decisions with their interests in mind. I consider a secondary partner to be a person I give my full attention to during dates, but who don’t necessarily factor in my every day plans (in short, primaries are who I call *first* to help me make decisions, secondaries are the folks I call *second* once decisions are made). This doesn’t mean I care for my secondary partners any less, or that they’re not ‘part of my family’, but it’s often based around the way our lifestyles and schedules fit together (in fact in my poly cluster our family events, such as holidays are often a time we tend to look forward to inviting secondary partners in and seeing more of them than we might usually – different strokes, eh?).
    My definitions are descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and I tend to avoid labeling relationships as anything until they’ve been around long enough to fall into some sort of equilibrium – usually a year or more, without laying down rules or guidelines for what they’re expected to be. A person I’ve just met is not a ‘secondary’ but a *potential* partner, and who knows what they might become.

    There are other ways still of defining primary and secondary, but I note that my definition is markedly different from yours, yet equally valid. (And do feel free to let me know if you still consider it “like first graders ranking their friends” – I suspect I have a response or two in hand for that.)

  33. Good luck with the secrecy issue, seriously.

    Privilege is a bit of a buzz word at the minute admittedly. Generally it refers to unearned advantages conferred on a particular group of people by other members of society, usually over and above another group, based on how that group is perceived – so it’s related to how behaviour is often based on stereotypes.
    In this case I’m referring to the advantages conferred on people who are perceived as monogamous couples over and above people who are seen as anything else. For example a mono couple might be invited to more parties and social events than a poly family because they are seen as more ‘normal’, or ‘better’ than the poly family, they might be better respected by their local community, they might well receive a whole raft of other benefits that I can’t think of, having not been a part of that world for a long time. If a couple decided to go from mono to poly but remain in the closet in order to maintain that image of normality and ‘better-ness’ – and continue to reap the rewards of that false perception, then that’s the sort of behaviour I’d term ‘clinging to privilege’.

    I’ve already gone into why I’m not keen on that, however tempting it might be sometimes to do so, because it’s maintaining the stereotypes instead of fighting them, and that, in small ways, harms all of us. I don’t think it’s used as a label for *anything* folks find offensive though (at least, I don’t ues it that way), but that unearned privilege is offensive wherever it happens to crop up – and once you start noticing it, it’s hard to stop!

    (Oh gods, I get wordy when I’m online past midnight- best get to bed now!)

    • A brilliant thread, lots of wise words and plenty of smiles illicited.

      On the subject of SLA’s for relationships.. did anyone hear last weeks Manifesto on Radio 4? someone suggested that marriages (relationships?) should be MOT’d every 5 years with questions, a bit like a bad episode of Mr. & Mrs.. if you fail you’re instantly divovced.

      I liked that 🙂 keep people on their toes.

      In a lot of Heinleins books he has 5 year marriage contracts and so on, no hard feelings if you go your separate ways after that with a chance of renewal if both want it. Having some set expectations at the beginning sees awfully wise to me!

      .. but then. I am an analyst.

      Wyoh

  34. A brilliant thread, lots of wise words and plenty of smiles illicited.

    On the subject of SLA’s for relationships.. did anyone hear last weeks Manifesto on Radio 4? someone suggested that marriages (relationships?) should be MOT’d every 5 years with questions, a bit like a bad episode of Mr. & Mrs.. if you fail you’re instantly divovced.

    I liked that 🙂 keep people on their toes.

    In a lot of Heinleins books he has 5 year marriage contracts and so on, no hard feelings if you go your separate ways after that with a chance of renewal if both want it. Having some set expectations at the beginning sees awfully wise to me!

    .. but then. I am an analyst.

    Wyoh

  35. I just went and read your post on secrecy from last June, and it pretty much reflects my experience of living with a polyfamily and attending a mainstream Christian church in my small town.
    And you put it much better than I could have.
    So I figure if you have insights like that to share, I want to read them.
    So I friended you.
    Smiles!

  36. You know, some of these can apply to any relationship.

    Yup. I reckon a lot of folks have an internal card like this they carry around inside their heads, with entries like “if you tell me you love me before my subjective internal clock says you should without coming across to me like you’re nuttier than a Babe Ruth bar, I’ll dump you.”

    Wouldn’t it be cool if folks actually talked up front about what that list looked like?

    It’s not that the “primary partner” is primary so they get special treatment, it’s that in the many years the couple has been together, this kind of thing has had a chance to grow naturally.

    Ideally, sure. If, you know, you’re into DESCRIPTIVE relationships of what ‘primary partner’ means.

    A lot of folks are into a more prescriptive definition, one that includes things like “you always have to love me most” and “I reserve the right to unilaterally veto any and all of your other relationships for any reason.” It’s the folks who’ve had run-ins with THOSE models of primacy who see the humor in the card, I reckon.

  37. A side note – I’ve noted the proliferation of attaching the word ‘privilege’ to things people don’t like or find pretentious/offensive. Is it just me?

    I’ve noticed a proliferation of people attaching to word “privilege” to situations in which one person (or group) has an unearned advantage in some situation over some other person (or group), and then other folks saying “I wish you’d stop talking to me like I have these unearned advantages because it’s clear to me that you’re just trying to make me feel guilty.” Is that what you mean?

    Lastly, recently, I took my own ‘stand’ and, given the circumstance, I don’t lie, deceive or deflect about my relationship status except in a career setting and one family member (she’s elderly, I’m sure she knows what is going on, but honestly, the stress and pain of our disagreement on it would be just too sad to face). It hurts me to have to do the latter. But unfortunately, it’s a risk I am not yet confident enough to take. However, it doesn’t mean I love any partner any less.

    So in other words, you would not check the ticky-box next to “I will be required to keep the relationship secret” without adding an asterisk to explain which particular people and why.

    Seems reasonable to me.

    Hey, folks can and do have perfectly sound reasons for checking some of these ticky-boxes. The point is that if you’re carrying any of these things around with you and attaching them to your expectations for romantic relationships, it’s kinda nice to be up front about it with your prospective partners, so everyone can make informed decisions about whether or not to be involved.

    Because it rather sucks if person A assumes that of course ticky-box number 3 is checked, and person B doesn’t.

  38. Just hilarious…in a pained sort of way…

    It is completely, horribly accurate. unh…is there space on the back for additional options? 😉

  39. Just hilarious…in a pained sort of way…

    It is completely, horribly accurate. unh…is there space on the back for additional options? 😉

  40. Interesting all the discussion about why nuclear power is bad, when I’m jealous of France because they have so much of it. As for what energy source will get us through the next couple centuries, the French (and soon the rest of Europe) will fare just fine on nuclear and renewables after the oil and coal run out, while sit here I watching my fellow Americans do everything they can to be caught with their pants down.

    PS – It’s not irrational to fear HFCS when one is allergic to corn. :p

    PPS – This chart is spot-on IMHO

  41. Interesting all the discussion about why nuclear power is bad, when I’m jealous of France because they have so much of it. As for what energy source will get us through the next couple centuries, the French (and soon the rest of Europe) will fare just fine on nuclear and renewables after the oil and coal run out, while sit here I watching my fellow Americans do everything they can to be caught with their pants down.

    PS – It’s not irrational to fear HFCS when one is allergic to corn. :p

    PPS – This chart is spot-on IMHO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.