💾 Archived View for sdf.org › mi.4707100 › gemlog › 2022-03-31-solopoly.gmi captured on 2023-06-14 at 14:25:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-04-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A very chaotic post. Not written from start to end even.
I have been getting fed up with my longdistance partner a lot.
They already know that i feel like they may not gonna be my anchor partner.
They always dread badly that i will 'ditch' them.
But I wouldn't want to call them "friend with partner traits". They're a partner.
I also have a person that I've called a quasipartner since 'forever' (it's been a year, and 1.5y since the befriending&crush). Living with her as roommates.
(I'm not listing the ones who could be said to be tertiary at most.)
There is no hierarchy as in decisive power. They're both nonprimaries. Could be said, secondaries. But to no one not now not ever.
Earlier when not as deep in the reading as now, I wrote:
i feel like im currently solo poly recently, and it's only now that i found out about the term... i have yet to communicate that to my partner (i will travel to him this weekend), although they already know i feel like they may not gonna be my anchor partner, but isn't a "downgrade" to *specifically* "secondary" almost like a break-up
they dread badly i will "ditch" them
before, i had an issue with thinking about calling them *secondary* because i guess i felt like someone needs to be *secondary* to *someone else*. i literally had my mind think about "friends with partner traits" terms and that didn't make sense because that's not the way it is. only now i realize secondaries can exist without the "comparative" *primaries*.
and another secondary was being called "quasipartner" since forever
i may need advice as to how to grasp all that
...oh ok i just learnt there is a concept of choosing to avoid saying "secondary" and only saying "nonprimary"
I feel like our relationship has a chance of being strong and peaceful again if the thing gets taken care of that I seek to.
And here I am struggling to put it into words. Wtf I ran out of all of it.
Idk he keeps calling me his "half" that is a Polish phrase for an SO. I feel bad then.
I stopped calling him my darling as I feel guilty and misleading then. It needs to stop being misleading. It needs to stop implying I want to commit that much. Much as him.
Whenever he doesn't understand me or he behaves badly in a text conversation with me i am thinking a lot about how he's aiming for being very connected with me and how I can't be that connected to him.
I maybe kinda want to limit our closeness to just that usually circa one week a month when I travel to him?
And maybe I feel bad with all the gifts and restaurants he takes me to. I feel guilty that this is not what I can appreciate. And... so with the romanticism that he engages in on me.
But hell i still love him... want him... i want...
I hope this time I will resolve all that obscuring things for me and see what I want for sure and not assumingly.
The above was written while/after reading the belows. But the above is unresolved and not even as resolved as the belows allow and kinda 'say'.
https://solopoly.net/2014/12/05/what-is-solo-polyamory-my-take/
People can be solo poly by choice or circumstance. That is, some people prefer solo polyamory and are unwilling to strongly merge their identity or life infrastructure with their partners. Others simply happen to be effectively solo: they may desire (or be open to) primary-style relationships in the future, but they just don’t happen to have one at the moment.
https://solopoly.net/2020/02/02/on-bringing-my-best-self-to-my-intimate-relationships/
[...] I find that I’ve gotten much better at accepting the people I love for who they are. This, in turn, has helped my relationships become more honest and supportive, and less fraught.
[...] I found it very difficult to cope when big differences in style and choices emerged between us. [...] I focused mainly [...] on what I believed his desires or choices indicated about how much he loved or valued me. The real problem was: I wasn’t seeing, accepting and appreciating who he is — which was unfortunate, because he’s pretty awesome! That didn’t help our relationship. Rather, it fed the tension and distance between us.
[...] ultimately our relationship grew much stronger and healthier because of this change. Now, we’re far more accepting and supportive of each other, with fewer disagreements and much less tension. We’re still close, supportive, and in each other’s lives on a daily basis. Had we tried to hold on to being married nesting partners, our relationship surely would have ground down until only bitterness and resentment remained. That, indeed, would have been a failed relationship.
Consequently, for me, being solo as well as poly is, among other things, a strategy for bringing my best self to my most emotionally intense or committed relationships. It allows me to be less fearful, judgmental, controlling and resentful toward the people I love.
https://solopoly.net/2012/11/30/why-i-say-non-primary-not-secondary/
https://solopoly.net/2012/09/20/whats-a-primary-partner-on-my-terms/
Primary partnership: When two or more people in an intimate relationship have made — or are making plans for — significant commitments to merge the everyday infrastructure of their lives in a spouse-like fashion.
Of course there’s a lot of gray area surrounding “primary partners.”
For instance, not all primary partners live together. Some keep separate finances, file taxes separately, etc. On the flip side: If two good friends who never had a romantic/sexual connection live together and share many of the logistical connections and life commitments that spouses do, are they primary partners? Maybe.
Also, what about people involved in a long-term, committed intimate relationship that involves a lot of emotional connection, time together, and mutual support but does not involve any of the logistical merging I listed above? Might they still be primary partners? Sure, maybe.
Caprica comments: I have long distance partner of 2 1/2 years. I’d like to have one or more primary relationships, but the fact remains that they aren’t suitable at this point. I’ve come to think of my LDR as my primary, as ridiculous as that sounds! -- author replied: Thanks Caprica! Not silly at all!
Si comments: I am not against labels as a way to start discussion or put a relationshp into the right ballpark. But I also recognize that labels often are a rough sort and additional info is needed to describe a nuanced relationship. And poly relationships are nothing if not nuanced. I don’t use secondary as I feel it does have purjorative connotations. I prefer life partner to primary.
I think it is possible to call someone a lover or a sweetie, and then talk about the ways in which we are connected beyond the sexual – activities we enjoy, projects we are working on, etc. That gives a more nuanced picture in a fairly efficient way. --
author replied: Thanks Si. Yes, I realize some people chafe at terms like “primary” and there are valid alternatives. [...]
River: [...] Thus, I would like to ask you to consider perhaps using another, non-hierarchical term. Primary/secondary are handy, since they are widely used and immediately recognised by poly people. But there are other ways of saying more specifically what is meant, such as live-in partnership, married, etc., that don’t have all that baggage.
author: [...]
Notice, though, that I do not choose to use the word “secondary.” Instead I refer to “other” or “additional” or “non-primary” partners. Because these partnerships need not be less important, or unimportant. But these additional relationships do typically occupy a different space in terms of collective decisionmaking.
("long-term" was also mentioned in the comment.)
Gned the Gnome comments: An interesting example I read – You get an irresistable job offer you can’t refuse, but it’s across the country. Your primary says “when do we move?” Secondary says “when can I visit?” Tertiary says “I’ll miss you!”
(huh.)
Lately, though, I’ve thought of using the terms “live-in” or “nonresident” instead. Granted, they don’t always correlate right e.g. residence vs. financial or other real life involvement etc. but most of the time they do, and it seems simpler and sounds less hierarchical to me. What do y’all think?
author replies: Lately, though, I’ve thought of using the terms “live-in” or “nonresident” instead. Granted, they don’t always correlate right e.g. residence vs. financial or other real life involvement etc. but most of the time they do, and it seems simpler and sounds less hierarchical to me. What do y’all think?
wow, that's quite something about RA. i was mostly wrong in just the way that post describes.
https://tacit.livejournal.com/577888.html
A poly hierarchy exists when at least one person holds more power over a partner's other relationships than is held by the people within those relationships.
Holy shit. Well I surely am nonhierarchical in *that* way!
A poly hierarchy is also not about accepting the fact that relationships will take different forms and allowing them to do so. When I explore new connections, I remain open to the directions they can grow in and the level of intensity and connection they can reach. Some connections may be better suited for interconnected, life-partner-type relationships, while others may be better suited for less interdependent relationships with fewer expectations. What makes a poly hierarchy is when the form a relationship can take is prescribed at the outset (“I can only have secondary partners”), more specifically, when it is prescribed at the outset (or, for that matter, at any point during the relationship) by another partner who is not in the relationship (“You can only have secondary partners. I want to be your only primary”). If relationships are allowed to unfold naturally, it’s not a poly hierarchy when, with the consent and participation of those in them, they end up in different shapes.
https://imaginingi.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/primary/
Personally, I don’t use the word primary much myself. If someone asked me if I had a primary/ies, I would say yes, meaning my significant others. I think being life partners with someone, for me, would necessarily also mean being significant others with them
Type 1: SO. Type 2 (as per solopoly): replaced with "life-partners" by the author.
Type 3: Hierarchy as per the above "holy shit no".
Back on the solopoly.net tracks:
https://solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/
https://solopoly.net/2014/07/03/plan-a-balancing-commitment-and-flexibility-in-solo-polyamory/
When people consider what qualifies an intimate relationship as “serious” or “significant,” one of the most common themes is “commitment.” That sounds so concrete, but it’s a surprisingly slippery concept. [...]
https://solopoly.net/2014/06/10/balancing-autonomy-and-connection-in-solo-polyamory/
https://solopoly.net/2013/07/31/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-dating-and-fwb/
https://solopoly.net/2012/11/27/non-primary-partners-tell-how-to-treat-us-well/
https://solopoly.net/2012/11/04/why-spoiling-some-dates-is-good-for-a-non-primary-relationship/
A side find:
https://offescalator.com/friendships-are-they-relationships-too/
(Yes, for many people, the “friends” part of friends with benefits is quite genuine.)
This! This! This! FFS!
https://solopoly.net/2013/09/02/5-ways-to-get-enough-touch-without-all-the-pressure/
https://solopoly.net/2013/07/08/why-fluid-bonded-sex-is-um-sticky/