"Healthy poly relationships require clear primary/secondary roles, with primary partners always coming first (so to speak), and any secondary attachments or partners coming in somewhere from a close to a distant second."
-
Re: Another reason why I think Dan Savage is a jerk.
Fri, September 15, 2006 - 5:54 PMThere are lots of folks who call themselves poly who act as if that is a truism, fer sure.
-
Re: Another reason why I think Dan Savage is a jerk.
Fri, September 15, 2006 - 7:23 PMphrasing it healthy Hierarchical relationship usually have some kind of primary/secondary may have made it better but he really is being idiot. If people feel thier relationship is healthy and it works for them that seems to be the most important thing regardless of what kind of poly or mono it is.
and besides what about folks who have triad or quad relationship. I would damn pissed if someone told me either of my partners meant less to me.
-
Re: Another reason why I think Dan Savage is a jerk.
Sun, September 17, 2006 - 5:55 PMAs long as **we** know how many ADDITIONAL possibilities there really can be... well, you know the rest.
-
Re: Another reason why I think Dan Savage is a jerk.
Mon, September 18, 2006 - 4:36 PMYeah some poly folk do seem to prefer clear hierarchical organization, while others definitely do not. These two groups don't always see eye to eye... perhaps someone should clue Dan Savage into this aspect of poly cartography? -
-
Re: Another reason why I think Dan Savage is a jerk.
Thu, September 21, 2006 - 2:06 AMI used to have this kind of concept with the clear hierarchical structur. But it stopped working when the new partner came. I try to keep bith their needs in mind but I won't be making announcements about "whom I love more". But I think losing the status as "foremost and primary partner" is what hurt my first lover the most. But I think we work towards a solution.
Generally, i don't like to be told what's healthy or not for me, apart from obvious things like eating fruit, not smoking etc.
-