Primary, Secondary, Aviary, Capillary

I’ve never really liked the poly convention of designating relationships as “primary,” “secondary,” or “tertiary.”  It’s a little ridiculous to rank people like that.

However, as with all terms, these ones get used because they’re sometimes useful.

Although I don’t usually think of my own relationships in these terms -- I prefer more old-fashioned relationship designators like “husband,” “boyfriend,” or “lover” – there are times when I do feel a need for the order that ordering terms are supposed to provide.  Words like “eldest,” “middle,” and “youngest” tell us something not just about the person they describe, but also about the entire family system.  

So, in attempting to navigate the dynamics of a poly group, one sometimes must resort to differentiating between primaries, secondaries, and tertiaries.

Yuck.

As distasteful as it is for me to cop to participating in & perpetuating a hierarchical system, the unrosy, unfrilly, unglittery truth is that I do not practice an egalitarian form of polyamory.  I have a primary partner and two children, which means that other people in my life are always going to be one rung down on my list of priorities. I suppose it’s possible that someday, these dynamics will change.  I can imagine having two primaries, for example – but because any big shift in the current configuration (unless it happened on the heels of some disaster) is contingent upon everyone involved agreeing to the change, I don’t know that it will ever happen.  And, even supposing that such a radical shift were to occur, I imagine that someone might, at some point, choose to begin a relationship with someone else outside the "group", who would then be, at least for a time, a secondary partner. 

In short, given an open relationship system, I don’t see any way out of the whole hierarchical hoopla.

Perhaps this is why some non-monogamous types are all about polyfidelity, which is a closed system.

Proponents of polyfidelity are quick to claim that they are the fairest folks in polyworld, because their way of sharing lovers eliminates differences in status between people: in a polyfidelitous marriage, each person in the group of 3+ adults is a primary partner, and no particular dyadic pair is more important than another.  Since the group is closed, there is no “outside” lover who might feel like an outsider.  Of course, my opinion of closed marriages -- whether there are 2 people involved, or ten – is that they run counter to the whole idea of polyamory.  For me, if there’s a “first principle” of polyamory, it’s openness.  But that’s not the only bone I have to pick with polyfidelity.  I think their claim of equality is utter hogwash: I’ll bet that, in reality, there are stronger and weaker pair-bonds in these group marriages, however fair’n’square they try to make themselves out to be. And I’ll bet that these subtle inequities are the source of a lot of contention.

Now, once again, I have used up all my allotted writing time in throat-clearing: the topic that was on my mind had to do with my own experiences as a primary, secondary, and tertiary.  So, next up: a veritable Kama Sutra of Viny in different positions!  You won’t want to miss it!