Primary partner? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Polyamorous Lifestyles



Message

ShiftedJewel -> Primary partner? (2/20/2006 8:28:51 AM)

To avoid highjacking another thread I decided to start a new one. In a lot of poly homes we/they often refer to the "Primary couple/Primary partner", meaning the original pair, right? Well, our girl brought it up and made a good point.

How would you describe "Primary" under those standards? So many worry so much about the original couple that it is often put "above" the poly relationship as a whole. If you are looking for long term (as in a lifetime committment) can you really put a distinguisher in there? When you love more then one person how do you decide who gets what status? And when? Granted, I am Scooter's wife, but.... Tess is collared to us, and in our minds that collar is as powerful, if not more so, as our wedding bands... (yes, we are also collared to each other as well).

Granted there aren't as many duo-dominant households as there are M/s/s households, but if you are living 24/7 how do you see your relationships with each individual in your group? Is one primary and one secondary? (if there is a third do they rank even lower?) And do you define primary as "first/more important"?

Jewel



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Primary partner? (2/20/2006 9:37:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel
How would you describe "Primary" under those standards?

I used primary as "first in priority." Whatever decisions would be made, whatever resources would be divided up, the [primary had first dibs and consideration when making priorities.

I have actually abandoned the concepts of "primary" and "secondary" partners. Everyone in my life is important and everyone at times will need to be primary focus. Sometimes it's my mom, sometimes it's my friend, sometimes it's my boyfriend, sometimes it's my local partner- sometimes it's even ME.

For me, it was simpler and caused me easier processing to discard the primary/secondary/tertiary stickiness.

quote:

Granted there aren't as many duo-dominant households as there are M/s/s households, but if you are living 24/7 how do you see your relationships with each individual in your group? Is one primary and one secondary? (if there is a third do they rank even lower?) And do you define primary as "first/more important"?

Jewel

I used to. The owner was primary in importance. And then my boyfriend and I had a lifelong connection. Everyone else was just a partner.

Then the relationship with the owner ended, some family emergency stuff happened, and other relationships dropped off while other relationships become extremely dear to me. So I realized trying to categorize things weren't going to work for me.

But it obviously still works for some people.



LadiesBladewing -> RE: Primary partner? (2/20/2006 5:04:32 PM)

We don't use the whole "primary/secondary" thing -- we're so diverse, and have so many people who have such a broad range of relationships within the House that it never seemed a good fit.

SilverRose and I are co-matriarchs. We each have our areas of expertise, and sometimes, we butt heads right royally! The other members of the household aren't "secondary" though. If one of them was in a position to be able to do so, he or she might easily take over the role of Matriarch or Patriarch -- in the same way, at some point down the road, SR or myself might opt to "bow out" in the head honcho roles. I see myself traveling extensively for a while, and I wouldn't expect the House to just sit there and wait for me to get the wind out of my sails to keep moving and growing -- so we're completely dynamic.

It's possible that what your household is doesn't fit neatly into that nice little "diagram" of primary/secondary, and it's perfectly ok to decide for yourself what the structure of your household is.

Lady Zephyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel

Granted there aren't as many duo-dominant households as there are M/s/s households, but if you are living 24/7 how do you see your relationships with each individual in your group? Is one primary and one secondary? (if there is a third do they rank even lower?) And do you define primary as "first/more important"?

Jewel



MsPurrmeow -> RE: Primary partner? (2/21/2006 10:13:36 AM)

Primary, for me, means that they are in it for the long haul. Names on bank accounts, mortgages, life insurance beneficiaries, the whole nine yards. A secondary would have a separate bank account and so forth.

While a secondary who is long-term and living in the household would be a part of vacation plans as much as tax time activities, they probably wouldn't go to the investment counselor with me or talk life insurance and funeral plots. (Yeah, I'm pretty well grounded in reality)

That being said, a secondary is merely a stage that comes before primary for the most part. I don't so long distance relationships and my relationships are for a lifetime. There is a stage where they keep their money separate until everything is corralled and there is a sense of 'foreverness' fully in play. Even a slave could be a primary at some point. If someone were to be secondary for a while without moving up, they are likely to remain a friend and could end up livng separately or just be a satellite relationship. Those don't happen often.



ScooterTrash -> RE: Primary partner? (2/26/2006 6:10:44 AM)



I had a tough time deciding what to say to this one, particularly since I and the OP are in the same household. I feel we don't cater to the "Primary" anything, but we are in fact the Original" couple and in this case Dominant couple....because of that we are the founders of our group/clan/pride (whatever), not so dis-similar to the founders and corporate heads in a privately held company. Saying that, yes, we make primary decisions with regard to the operation of the home, but when it comes to matters of the heart, we are on more of an even plane. Right now, "even" may not be where we are at, but as time passes and the meshing of us as a family unit progresses, I do feel this will be the final outcome. So "primary"? Kind of a play on semantics, yes, at the onset, but just like a company that loses it's founder years later, should something like that happen, I don't see us as the glue that sticks it together, the group would be it's own entity at some point. Should others come into our "group", I see this the same way, there would be an acclimation period where they would of course be tutored and trained by all, including existing sub/slaves, but there would be a point in time where they would be more an associate as well, not a secondary to the main unit.



kyraofMists -> RE: Primary partner? (2/26/2006 9:17:20 AM)

In our house, a primary partner is a partner who fulfills a significant amount of our needs and wants, it does not signify the original relationship. My Lord, alandra and I are primary partners. She is part of the original relationship, but that does not make her any more significant or important to him than I am. That would be akin to saying that the first-born is more important than the other children.

denika and her husband are intimate friends of the house. They are secondary partners for my Lord and alandra. For me, denika and Rob are slowly becoming friends and I am not intimate with either of them. I have very limited time to spend with them so developing a more significant relationship takes longer.


Knight's kyra



denika -> RE: Primary partner? (2/26/2006 12:33:24 PM)

One of the speakers at Lupercalia in Edmonton did a presentation on Poly but she had a really intresting way of describing primary and secondary partners. Seeing it as a wheel and the primary of course is the center and the spokes that go out reach to the primary people in that relationship.(i know sounds cliched *S*) My husband is my primary, not because he is my Master/Top/Dom but because he is my partner. Knight is my secondary, as is alandra. When we are in a play setting or at a lifestyle event I will defer to Knight as He is my Top and we have an informal D/s relationship. That and Rob enjoys watching me submit but prefers not to be the one making the rules, lol. As kyra said, distance and time have made it difficult for us to bond but the more I get to know her the more I appreciate her as a person and an important part of Knight's household. As well as earning the right to call her friend.




denika


'in some country's running with scissors is a sport'



BearNFirelight -> RE: Primary partner? (2/27/2006 6:24:59 AM)

My personal feeling is that the primary relationship is defined by the initial relationship in place. I don't know that 'secondary' is a good term for the third or fourth brought into the 'primary' relationship, but you can't discout that the third (for the sake of this conversation) is entering an established relationship. Therefore bears the responsibility of integrating into it successfully. It is of course a common responsibility of all to make the dynamic work, but there wouldn't be much loyalty in the primary relationship if the overall loyalty, should a choice have to be made, wasn't placed in the established relationship versus a new developing one. (This also of course presumes there are not problems in the already established relationship.)

Anyone who has been around poly relationships will know that primary relationships don't just define "established" or "married" relationships. They define the truly established and stable relationship in the dynamic. It could start with two in a not so stable dynamic and the third actually wind up over time become the primary relationship with one of the first two. It could be three who come together in a short period of time and form the core/primary relationship of three, not two. In Poly you can't put defined labels on such things. One such relationship could have many come and go from the primary dynamic over the years, but it remains fast despite who may come and go. Now if you are lucky enough to find one or more who come into the primary relationship and integrate well....thus becoming part of the core relationship, then I hardly think looking at them as a secondary relationship is fair or right. They have earned the right to now be part of the primary relationship. It would then only be others new to the relationship, where a question of loyalty or longivity still remains that could be considered secondary relationships.

If a third enters the primary relationship and make a long term committment to it, no matter if they serve one, both, Top one or both, they are part of the core relationship and giving them less than the respect and mutual devotion that the primary relationship gets is a receipe for disaster. That plants the seeds of separation and alienation that will ultimately lead to a decision having to be made between the triad (again, used for this example). In short, your setting yourself up to fail. I can only see this definition used long term in a dynamic where it is always understood the 'secondary' may one day leave.

If a secondary seeks to be a core part of the dynamic and a 'member' of the family and constructively works to that end, is accepted as such and cared for mutually by the primary partners in the relationship, then I think they've earned the right to become of equal value and importance in the core or primary relationship. Why would anyone commit to a long term relationship, if the security of being in one without fear of being tossed aside as less than the core relationship was not something that could be earned? It shouldn't matter if they have only been in the relationship for a year versus the years invested in the previously primarly relationship. All parties have agreed to expand the relationship to include another and should not put conditions on that once a point of stability and long term commitment have been made. Were such conditions placed on either of the initial two in the dynamic? Nope...they committed and make a go of it from day one of the true relationship being formed. There is simply too much investment of time, energy, emotion and trust to leave it as something always hanging delicately in the wind. All must be able to trust that this is how its going to be and so long as all work to keep it so, no life altering events will occur, nor will any be left feeling like less than part of the whole.

If you practice your poly under the terms of simple play partners, or distanced relationships, then there is no real and serious commitment to a long term relationship. No 24/7 dynamic and lives being built together.....under these conditions there is most definately a Primary and secondary relationship status, providing there is even an true primary relationship that falls under that 24/7 committed status.

Just one Dom's opinion.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625