Secondary wants another relationship?

While reading another thread in this forum, we had the idea for this question

How would you react if your secondary wanted to have a relationship with someone else while maintaining your current relationship?

We are curious how those involved in a poly relationships feel about this.

T, A, and P

My GF and I have talked about this. The situation hasn't come up, but we have talked.

My take is that I can deal with relationships with 2 women, why can't she have relationships with 2 men?

In the general case, I'm all for anything that makes her happy. Of course there might be issues if it was someone that I had a problem with.

Ken

KenRachel I think you didn't understand the question I posed. In poly relationships there is a primary relationship ( one that you have with your spouse/ significant other)and secondary relationships( ones that you have with people outside your primary one). My question was how would you react if a person that you already had a secondary relationship with, wanted to have a relationship with someone else while still involved in your relationship.

T, A, and P

I think I was answering that question. I think I may just have not defined terms.

Rachel is my wife, Pat is my girlfriend (the secondary). I have no problems with the general idea of Pat having another relationship.

Ken

KenRachel I think you didn't understand the question I posed. In poly relationships there is a primary relationship ( one that you have with your spouse/ significant other)and secondary relationships( ones that you have with people outside your primary one). My question was how would you react if a person that you already had a secondary relationship with, wanted to have a relationship with someone else while still involved in your relationship.

 

T, A, and P

In non-poly terms, HE had HIS partner plus another loving woman in his life, but he considered me unfaithful for wanting to find a partner of my own (who would have hopefully been happy to become a polyamorous foursome if I'd found the right man). He thought I should have considered their combined affection enough and not felt a need to have my own partner.

I ended the relationship because of his inability to recognize the validity of MY need for my own primary relationship.

KenRachel our apologies if we misunderstood your answer, we may have just misread what you said. We think it is wonderful that you have that kind of attitude about her having the freedom to develop other relationships. We have met others who are not so understanding.

Annaiis welcome to the poly forum. the situation you have described is similar to some others we have met. We find it rather odd and hypocritical that some have that point of view about people like yourself developing other relationships.

T, A, and P

I find it interesting that the pair bonding instinct holds true even in people who think of themselves as a poly couple.

I'm starting to think that this is more like traditional male polygamy where men have a 'head' wife and everyone else is secondary (not to use your term).

It would be little wonder the man would get jealous if his secondary were looking for a primary relationship. You were breaking up his little harem.

I am married (primary relationship) and have two secondary male partners, one in his own primary relationship, the other looking for a primary relationship while dating other women. Neither one of these situations gives me pause. I want both partners to be happy and content in their lives.

At one time, there was a special woman in our life. She was a full secondary partner to both my husband and myself. She moved away and has since married. Her husband is not interested in swinging or a poly relationship. We still love her, are in contact with her, but when we meet in person, we do not share a sexual relationship.

Poly relationships are as varied as snowflakes, honestly.

Keep in mind that we've begun exploring swinging in order to avoid some of the drama and expectations that tend to come with poly relationships, as I've said elsewhere. That said, when we were functioning as polyamorous people, I usually felt more than a little ambivalent when one of our lovers found someone new. On one hand, I was always happy to see the possibility for yet more love to be shared all around -- "love doesn't subtract, it multiplies," and all that. In an ideal world, anyway.

On the other, this isn't an ideal world and the new relationship usually meant there was going to be less love, at least as I/we experienced it. If that "secondary's" new relationship became their primary, it was going to change the amount of time any of us could spend together. All our "in jokes" were going to have to be explained in order to include the new person -- and this assumes they wanted to be included, which wasn't always the case.

Even so, I wouldn't hold anyone back from their chance to experience more love and happiness. And good grief, all things change over time -- I've always been delighted at who ends up back on my doorstep after extended absences.

Anyway, yeah. Ambivalence. That's the short answer, for this former poly.

As someone who enters most of my poly relationships in a "secondary" (or at least a "not primary") relationship status, I would not stay with someone that wanted to keep me from dating other people. The whole reason why I am poly is to be able to date who I want.

I don't object when my dating partners start dating someone else, or even if my partner who has a primary has another partner, why would they object if I found someone new?

(Time issues aside)

I'm no expert, but it only seems fair to me. Why should one person get more than one partner but not someone else?

~SS

I've been the secondary in that very situation. The male of the primary couple did not want me to have my own primary. I thought it represented a double standard in that he had a primary (his wife) and a secondary (me), his wife had a primary (him) and secondary (me), and though I had no primary (I was the secondary to both of them) he thought that I was unfaithful to them for wanting a primary relationship of my own.

 

In non-poly terms, HE had HIS partner plus another loving woman in his life, but he considered me unfaithful for wanting to find a partner of my own (who would have hopefully been happy to become a polyamorous foursome if I'd found the right man). He thought I should have considered their combined affection enough and not felt a need to have my own partner.

 

I ended the relationship because of his inability to recognize the validity of MY need for my own primary relationship.

Well, this reminds me of our situation, we had this girlfriend (secondary relationship), she said for a long time we were her primary relationship (so to speak), the "only ones she wanted", but we didn't felt it fair nor right for her, and we encouraged ger to date other people and, hopefully, develop a foursome poly relationship (she would have a primary, and they would be our secondaries).

The fact is, she developed a primary relationship with someone who wasn't up to have a secondary relationship.... nor even up to swing, so our poly relationship finished.

Of course, it was something sad for all of us, but... well, it was a risk we were aware of beforehand, and it was one of the many possible RIGHT outcomes (instead of a wrong one). So there is no regret about this, and should we engage in a poly relationship again, the fairness would be pursued the same way we did before, we'd be facing the same risks... because it's part of the game.

I find it interesting that the pair bonding instinct holds true even in people who think of themselves as a poly couple.

 

I'm starting to think that this is more like traditional male polygamy where men have a 'head' wife and everyone else is secondary (not to use your term).

 

It would be little wonder the man would get jealous if his secondary were looking for a primary relationship. You were breaking up his little harem.

As a side note after my previous post.... I disagree with you. Unless you're making a distinction between "poly people" and "people who claim to be poly", and even so, traditional polygamy is a poly relationship, however, it isn't the ONLY possible one.

Not being presently in a poly relationship, but having been in a poly relationship in the past I can say from experience that I would not mind if they had another relationship. I don't own the other person, therefore I can't tell them what to do and what not to do. I think that would be just plain selfish.

Mr. WS

I find it interesting that the pair bonding instinct holds true even in people who think of themselves as a poly couple.

 

I'm starting to think that this is more like traditional male polygamy where men have a 'head' wife and everyone else is secondary (not to use your term).

 

It would be little wonder the man would get jealous if his secondary were looking for a primary relationship. You were breaking up his little harem.

Mr. WS

It is funny you mention this since Mrs. WS and I were just talking about it today. There are a couple of poly situations in the Pagan community here and with a few exceptions it seems that several of the men have always had multiple women as long as we've known them, but are very closed-minded to them having other men. We have discussed that these men are using the Pagan belief system and the openness about sex in it to do simply further their goal of being with all the women they want. There is an arrogance and selfishness about them that completely does not follow, nor represent what both the Pagan belief system or polyamory is about.

 

Mr. WS

By Paganism I assume you are talking about the neo-pagan Wicca like paganism and not some more traditional paganism.

Pagan itself is a non-descriptive term as basically any pantheistic religion is Pagan.

The problem with the neo-Pagan movement is there is no real tradition to fall back on. Everyone sort of makes it up as they go along. While some will claim it stems from the ancient Celts or Gauls or whatever pre-Christian northern European group they pick, real information is very sparse and often only located in Roman accounts.

From what I've been able to gather, most modern Pagan's would be quite uncomfortable with the 'old time religion' which seemed very brutal and brutish.

Where I'm going with this is that traditions tend to be based on some wisdom. Perhaps the time for that wisdom is past in some cases, but they didn't form randomly, and were of value at some point.

As there are no real traditions in neopaganism this allows charismatic or dominant people to easily exploit it to their own end. Add that many new pagans are young disaffected Christians, and its easy to see how some could be sucked into such a harem like arrangement in an attempt to fit in and be welcome.

Well since we appear to be a poly 4-some...the relationship part is not an issue. I do have a little of the green eye, when it comes to the secondary playing...but that is just me and it will not be an issue...it was discussed in another forum.

By Paganism I assume you are talking about the neo-pagan Wicca like paganism and not some more traditional paganism.

 

Pagan itself is a non-descriptive term as basically any pantheistic religon is Pagan.

The problem with the neo-Pagan movement is there is no real tradition to fall back on. Everyone sort of makes it up as they go along. While some will claim it stems from the ancient Celts or Gauls or whatever pre-Christian northern European group they pick, real information is very sparse and often only located in Roman accounts.

From what I've been able to gather, most modern Pagan's would be quite uncomfortable with the 'old time religion' which seemed very brutal and brutish.

Where I'm going with this is that traditions tend to be based on some wisdom. Perhaps the time for that wisdom is past in some cases, but they didn't form randomly, and were of value at some point.

As there are no real traditions in neopaganism this allows charismatic or dominant people to easily exploit it to their own end. Add that many new pagans are young disaffected Christians, and its easy to see how some could be sucked into such a harem like arrangement in an attempt to fit in and be welcome.

It's interesting that no matter the religion, human nature is a constant. And in this case the practitioners are definitely using it selfishly to their advantage. I have to wonder if the tables were turned and the primary woman in the relationships wanted a MFM poly situation if they would agree to it. I very much doubt it knowing the subjects at hand. I do feel though that in any relationship where there is more then two people involved that the pendulum has to be allowed to swing both ways (no pun intended) and the possibility for a poly relationship to develop has to be open to it happening with either a FMF or a MFM scenario, or for any other possible combination for that matter. I feel if the door isn't open for it, then the intent behind it is questionable.

Mr. WS

It's interesting that no matter the religion, human nature is a constant. And in this case the practitioners are definitely using it selfishly to their advantage. I have to wonder if the tables were turned and the primary woman in the relationships wanted a MFM poly situation if they would agree to it. I very much doubt it knowing the subjects at hand. I do feel though that in any relationship where there is more then two people involved that the pendulum has to be allowed to swing both ways (no pun intended) and the possibility for a poly relationship to develop has to be open to it happening with either a FMF or a MFM scenario, or for any other possible combination for that matter. I feel if the door isn't open for it, then the intent behind it is questionable.

 

Mr. WS

I'm only going to be guessing and I doubt there are any real numbers on it, but my guess is MFM poly is far less common and far less stable long term than FMF poly. From a nature perspective and MFM produces no more children than monogamy so there is no benefit to the men being in that relationship, so the nature of men would be to avoid such a relationship. Women in an FMF can do well long term as long as the man is a good provider (would you rather be the second wife of a rich man or the first wife of a poor man back when poverty could equal starvation and a life of toil?) and be just as successful as a FM type of marriage.

So we as men fight our very nature which is to be jealous and 'protective' of our women. Its still seen in its more extreme state in Islamic culture which is designed to keep women out of contact of non-related males. Jealousy is as natural as love, and most have a hard time overcoming it. Interesting I've even felt twinges of it with swing partners when I've seen the other wife playing with a different couple. It is illogical, I never let it be an issue, but my basic male brain says 'mmmmm, my woman, stranger bad, must smash.'

Over all though from what I can gather, all poly relationships seem short term. It seems that people are either looking for a new one, or had them in the past etc, but what I don't see is the multi-year (decade) commitment you see from a strong marriage.

If I were to examine poly relationships scientifically, my basic assumptions to test would be that MFM poly is unstable unless the men are bisexual as well. That FMF poly is more stable than MFM poly, but likely to be broken up with the secondary wife finds her own primary male. I would also assume very wealthy men would be able to have more a stable FMF than an average male.

Over all I think a MFFF++ with children would be mostly stable as there would be ample help with child care and allow for large families while still allowing personal freedom for the women involved. Many 'traditional' Mormon women enjoy this scenario, even when the women are professionals, much to the amazement of some feminists.

Chicup made an interesting point here.

Now, I'll drift in other direction, since WesternSwing mentioned in other post the Belthame seremony, and I stated correlating this with texts like Graves' The Wite Goddess (disregarding the evaluation you may do about it) and some others that were used to suppor a feminist re-reading of history.

Now, it is very likely that I'll make mistaken assumptions here, and I'll apreciate them to be pointed out. As Chicup said, Paganism is the Roman Christians name for the rest of the religions, but I guess WesternSwing meant the Europeans religions rooted on the oldest Greek myths, referring to the times of Era, mother of Zeus who created the world.

In the other hand, I believe there is a male and a female subculture which are like oil and water, no matter the effort we put on it, there's a point where women are total alien for males, and males total alien for women. IMO, this is rooted in an existential problem we all face, but women and men have different tool sets to deal with. The question is about the purpose of our existence and our legacy.

Now, if we travel backwards in time, we should be able to reach to a point where is reasonable to suppose men and women didn't correlate sex with procreation: people just fucked around instinctively, children popped out from the women bellies, and those were unrelated events. At this point, women's purpose seemed to be obvious, while men's purpose wasn't so clear. Even when mankind was able to make the correlation between sex and procreation, the question remained, because motherhood was something given for granted to the women, while fatherhood requested an act of faith from the men. This was true until the last few decades where DNA tests were able to grant fatherhood for sure, and even so, most males wouldn't ask for a DNA test without some ground to challenge the faith they have (since it would be offensive for women). So, I guess the entire tapestry of our cultures (all the cultures) was made around this problem and the ways to solve them.

Now, allow me to drift in a conjecture here: those old cultures were motherhood ones, women represented the Nature as the force able to bring life to the world, the earth itself was seen as a woman, and men had to respect this "female" peace ruling the world. As for the women, they reached an stable situation regarding the existential problem, since the nature reassure them about her role and legacy, but for the male, this was a pretty volatile scenario, they were asked to reassure only on faith without anything in exchange.

So, men needed something in exchange, and that something was the result of a symbolic option (or several ones): "if I owe the factory, then I owe the factory product and it production ability". This option led to fatherhood: women belonging to men, being exchanged by families as goods, whose kids carried the father (last)name while the mother name was deemed to be forgotten in time. This was a more stable scenario for men to deal with their existential problem, and women didn't resisted too much, perhaps because their reassuring "tool" didn't change. Moreover, it is likely that they didn't understood the men realm and the craving to solve the problem; for women, this symbolic option was something pointless, because they don't even need this option to reassure themselves. However, for males this is like the unstable balance point: the reality challenged this option on an everyday basis, just the doubt of the women fidelity would be enough challenge. In the other hand, this option was extended and applied over the rest of the nature: men forced the nature to follow their desired peace (i.e., agriculture to force the land to produce, technology to take advantage of the nature for our purpose), and this also lead to a welfare that, we may suppose, womanhood wasn't unable to achieve, just because women didn't have this craving.

So, it appeals to me the following idea: womanhood lead to culture development, and fatherhood to civilization as we know it today (including the problems we have from abusing the nature peace, i.e. lack of resources and pollution).

Now, back to the topic, and from the perspective of my drift, it's possible that polyamorous relationships were females outnumber the males are more likely to happen, besides what Chicup pointed out from the "biological-practical" perspective, because if the way the existential problem leads men and women behavior: for men, having several women increases the chances of ensuring a legacy, even when some child were coming from another father, which may lead to an even more stable way to solve the existential problem. As for women, once men reaches this more stable scenario, they don't face the risks of violence the previous scenario had for them, while being just another symbolic option they don't require, thus not caring too much about which option men choose to do.

Do you see this too stretched?

Now, someone help me and bring me back to the ground

I am currently in a six year poly relationship with my wife, and going on two years with my girlfriend. My girlfriend does have a separate relationship with a guy that has been going for about a year.

I have personally made all the mistake a man can make learning about poly, in various relationships over the years. One of the earliest things I learned was (for me) it seems that trying to restrain someone else's love for a new person will most likely end up backfiring on you at a later date. Learn to enjoy their newfound joy.

Exactly, anotherway2liv.

“Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own."

Robert Heinlein

Just wanted to welcome anotherway2liv to the forum........Great to have you here.

Just wanted to welcome anotherway2liv to the forum........Great to have you here.

Thanks,

We are been mostly just reading and learning for a while, but this subject is right up our alley.

Ok I really don't want to say this in case I offend but it is a question only secondaries in a poly relationship can answer.

The Menage trio seem to have an almost utopia over in Reno, but how does it make a person feel to be referred to as a secondary? In my way of thinking, please keep in mind I am new to the lifestyle and have a lot to learn, I would have a hard time swallowing this distinction between me and the other women in the relationship. I would want to be my love's primary and only (except of course playmates).

Did I ask this question clearly? I really hope I did not upset or offend anyone here.

Your friend,

Prettylady

Ok I really don't want to say this in case I offend but it is a question only secondaries in a poly relationship can answer.

 

The Menage trio seem to have an almost utopia over in Reno, but how does it make a person feel to be referred to as a secondary? In my way of thinking, please keep in mind I am new to the lifestyle and have a lot to learn, I would have a hard time swallowing this distinction between me and the other women in the relationship. I would want to be my love's primary and only (except of course playmates).

 

Did I ask this question clearly? I really hope I did not upset or offend anyone here.

Prettylady – so sorry for the delay in replying back on this, and no offense taken here! I understand completely what you are saying. I can not answer this for everyone in poly relationships but for me and us there is no secondary, period end. I know there will be those out there saying oh bullshit, but it’s the god’s to honest truth. The only time I have ever felt like a secondary in this relationship was when I made myself feel like that early in the relationship. And I quickly learned it was EXTREMELY self-imposed. Have others tried to make me feel that way? Hell yes! Do I allow it, NOT on your life……..For us the only way this would work was for all of us to in this equally, one for all and all for US, all sharing equally in all aspects of this marriage.

And as for people walking around actually and literally calling their “secondary’s” their “secondary’s” that really doesn’t happen. It’s more likely used in the manner in which you are seeing it here on the board as an effort to explain who’s who. It’s more in a clinical discussion/sitting like this. As for you wanting to be your one and only, just really says poly isn’t necessarily for you, which is cool. Hope that helps to clear things up a little!

The Other Mrs. Menage

Other Mrs. Menage,

Thanks for your response and for not being upset at the question.

I am happy to hear that you are not the "secondary" although to be honest. With the other two in your trio I didn't really expect you were secondary for them. You three really are ONE in a million.

Your right that poly is not for me, but it sounds like it could be a wonderful way of life.

Best wishes to you.

Your friend,

Prettylady

You guys blow my mind with your wealth of knowledge and ability to so easily research and debate topics.

I may sound silly, but I often read the posts by the likes of Westernswing, Thrax, Sereneiders, and Chicup and think how the hell do they know so much about so many different things...Or have you lot got together to try and confound me?

I can see that you four get together and say hey let's pull one over on Prettylady. :rollseyes

Anyway sorry about the robbery of a great thread. I will go now.

Your friend,

Prettylady

Oh prettylady, being confused is a normal state of being for me! You are not alone there lol

Mr. Menage often just shakes his head at me. As for all of us plotting to make that pretty little head of yours hurt...well if we did it wouldn't be with things like this...it would be from holding you down and having our way with you!

The Other Mrs. Menage

Hopefully, the other couple in our relationship will start posting here. They finally got an account, and I told them to stop being lurkers....really love them both.

Hopefully, the other couple in our relationship will start posting here. They finally got an account, and I told them to stop being lurkers....really love them both.

Well we are glad to have you all here! Hopefully they will chime in as well.