Are there any benefits to being a secondary partner?

[u/Alo-mina]

I've been doing a lot of research into polyamory, particularly the topic of hierarchy. The more I learn about it and the ways people practice it, the more it seems like a raw deal to agree to be a secondary. All the benefits I've found - security, prioritization, power - benefit the primary partner only. Some people say not having to climb the relationship escalator or provide a lot of emotional support are benefits, but you can do those things while being nonhierarchical poly and not have the drawbacks of someone having power over you or their needs always taking priority. And the security hierarchy is supposed to provide seems like a false sense of it - being hierarchical does not make a relationship safer from negative outcomes. Hierarchy seems unnecessary at best, and incredibly harmful at worst, especially when primaries have powers like veto power, and especially when they fail to disclose these powers. Does anyone actually like being a secondary over being nonhierarchical? If so, what do you get out of it?

Note: I'm talking about hierarchy meaning giving one partner power or automatic priority over other partners. Some people define hierarchy as choosing one person to climb the relationship escalator with, but I don't think of that alone as being hierarchical and it is not what I'm talking about here.

Edit for clarity: For the purposes of this discussion, I'm asking if anyone prefers being a secondary partner where "secondary" means your meta has power of automatic priority over you. I'm not asking about being a secondary partner when that label means your partner has already climbed the relationship escalator with someone, but your meta does not have power or automatic priority over you.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Nonmonogamy and thank you for the post, /u/Alo-mina!

Commenters, please make sure you read our rules in full before participating here. As a quick summary:

• We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
  
• Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) will lead to a permanent ban.
• Posts flaired for sensitive topics allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
  
• All participants are required to have a verified email address.
  
• Want to help the community? Join the mod team! Apply here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/sassy_castrator]

I love it. My partner of four years calls me up and says, "Hey wanna come over?" We make out and cuddle. We take a walk. I'm friends with their primary partner too, so sometimes we all hang out and watch a movie.

We never fight. I don't have to keep a house with them. I don't have to walk their dog.

I am stressed out all the time by my busy life. I don't ask for security, prioritization, or power. I want breeziness, I want to be known and seen sometimes, and I want to fall into a happy pocket of irreality.

To get more particularly at OP's question, I also take comfort knowing their big emotional needs are being met by someone else.

What's not to like?

[u/Alo-mina → u/sassy_castrator]

I'm glad you're having a positive experience. Does your meta have power or automatic priority over you? If so, how does that come into play?

[u/sassy_castrator → u/Alo-mina]

a.) I'm friends with them too, so any conflict is softened from the get-go

b.) we schedule in advance with a standing weeknight (when it's not a spontaneous thing, at least); we've maybe canceled once ever on account of meta's needs, and it was fine—I'm a very relaxed and forgiving person *shrug*

[u/Alo-mina → u/sassy_castrator]

Thanks for sharing. In your setup, does your meta have automatic priority or power over you? And what was the reason for your partner canceling on you due to your meta's needs?

[u/sassy_castrator → u/Alo-mina]

I don’t know about “automatic priority.” That’s never come up in four years. Not everything has to be systems-based.

I don’t really mind or need to know why a single cancellation happens. If it were a pattern, then I could see it becoming a problem. But in general, we all prefer to DO the relationships rather than endlessly hash them out.

[u/Acaraje_com_pimenta]

It really depend on what you want of a relationship. In one of my best relationships, which lasted for years, I was secondary. Listing a few pros: a) low maintenance b) freedom c) no insecurity or expectations from a "primary" position d) no expectations of climbing the relationship ladder...

[u/Alo-mina → u/Acaraje_com_pimenta]

Good to know. Do you mind elaborating on A-C? Do you feel like those benefits would have been unavailable in a nonhierarchical setup? And did your meta have power or priority over you?

[u/Acaraje_com_pimenta → u/Alo-mina]

It depends on your setup. Probably not, but here´s the catch: what happens most frequently when becoming a secondary is finding a person you really like....already with a primary.

Then, it´s not about what you want ideally, but if you are ok playing with the cards in your hand.

Also, you may start nonhierarchical but with time, a person can become a priority for you...

I try to keep myself open-minded about those possibilities.

Also, I´m really sorry about the experiences I read here on being a secondary and I do think people behave like sh*t sometimes but, I have to say: a lot of trauma also is related to a veiled expectation of becoming primary. I´ve seen it a lot of times. with friends...NRE, falling in love... wanting more, which makes the couple insecure and creates friction... and, then, getting frustrated because and feeling abandoned. Once you understand you should never ever be a menace to the primary couple,90% problems are solved.

[u/Alo-mina → u/Acaraje_com_pimenta]

In my experience in seeing posts about situations in hierarchical polyamory, I haven't seen that. What I've seen too often is the secondary putting up with mistreatment because they don't believe their needs are important given their secondary status. Whereas hierarchical couples often view single people as a threat to their relationship and treat them accordingly. I think most secondary partners understand their position, and I don't think the vast majority of problems in hierarchical polyamory are secondaries being disrespectful. Far more often, it's the primary couple being disrespectful... at least from what I've seen.

[u/DutchElmWife → u/Alo-mina]

In situations where everybody has kids at home, the shorthand label "secondary" can be a useful stand-in for "We both get that family time comes first, and we're grateful to have each other in our lives in whatever extra free time we can manage."

So that's one scenario in which I think it's just a convenient way of saying that everyone's on the same page, during the childrearing years.

[u/This-Satisfaction228 → u/DutchElmWife]

This is exactly what my situation is like. We both understand that family time comes first, and we do what we can, when we can. It's been interesting, and so nice to have a partner that understands, and supports me with my kids and I support them with theirs when we're together, but ultimately, we know that our kiddos always come first. My meta has no "power" over me, that's a weird thing to think about. They're very open to what we decide is okay or not, as long as they, - as the nesting partner and my partner - are also happy. And that's something that's the hinges responsibility... To ensure that all partners feel loved, safe, and cared for - whatever that looks like for each person.

[u/Acaraje_com_pimenta → u/DutchElmWife]

Exactly!

[u/Acaraje_com_pimenta → u/Alo-mina]

Exactly. But keep in mind you´re reading their perspective. And that when people come here, most of the times, they look for validation and exposing, not for support.

Personally, I´m VERY wary of having anything deeper with people in hierarchical...but I also learned that a few times I´ve crossed boundaries that made people behave a bit sh*itty towards me...which made me feel mistreated, just like the reports. But you just see that in retrospect.

[u/Alo-mina → u/Acaraje_com_pimenta]

Thanks for sharing. I'm most curious about in your experience, how does your meta having priority or power over you equate to having more freedom?

[u/Acaraje_com_pimenta → u/Alo-mina]

I´m divorced and I have kids THEY are my priority too, so, to me, a partner that is not my priority is very liberating in many practical ways: for instance, both of us can cancel dates without drama. Having priority is very different from having power over me.

[u/Legitimate-Clock-134 → u/Acaraje_com_pimenta]

Could you expand on d) a little? It doesn't seem uncommon(*) in the cuckolding/hotwife community to have a third become a part of the couple's regular life, replacing the husband in the wife's emotional life.

• I obviously know jack about this personally, which is why I'm asking.

[u/Acaraje_com_pimenta → u/Legitimate-Clock-134]

Look, mate, I elaborated enough. I was not part of couple´s regular replacing anybody. Other commentators below said exactly the same thing I said.

Perhaps you´re just biased against hierarchical relationships and you don´t really want to be convinced of anything... which is ok, honestly. Just live your life and be happy.

But this is the fiftht interaction, so I feel it´s borderline sealioning. We´re done here.

Cheers.

[u/Legitimate-Clock-134 → u/Acaraje_com_pimenta]

Dude. What about "I don't know jack about this, that's why I'm asking" was unclear? It's because I don't know jack about this, and you do, so I'm asking.

But thanks, I've learned a lot about how important screening is. Definitely that.

[u/Hixie]

I define hierarchy as giving one partner power or automatic priority over other partners.

That's more like "being a jerk" than "having hierarchy". Even in pretty hierarchical situations, if one's "secondary" partner had a medical emergency, I would expect one to go to take care of them, even if that meant canceling one's date with one's "primary" partner. Similarly, I would not expect one's primary partner's whims to be able to cancel one's plans with one's secondary partner. I think usually hierarchy is more about who you're going to nest with or having kids with, whether you're available to share finances with other people, maybe giving one partner right of first refusal for certain events (e.g. holidays).

[u/Alo-mina → u/Hixie]

I'm not sure if I've seen that situation come up, but I have heard about people canceling dates with their secondary partners because their primary is feeling jealous or having a bad day. Or people needing permission from their primary partners to escalate with their secondary partners. Or a primary couple maintaining veto power over each other's secondary partners. Or seeing monogamy as a failsafe to return to any time polyamory feels hard, dumping their secondaries in the process (and not being upfront about that possibility). Or primary couples reading each other's private messages with their secondaries, and not getting consent or informing the people whose messages they're reading. Or the primary couple giving each other dibs on their free time, then offering what's left over to secondaries. That's the kind of hierarchy I'm talking about.

[u/Hixie → u/Alo-mina]

Sure. My point is that isn't "hierarchy", it's "being a jerk partner".

[u/Alo-mina → u/Hixie]

But it is hierarchy to a lot of people. A lot of hierarchical people feel justified to do things like that because of their hierarchy. A lot of secondary partners put up with behavior like that because it's so common and they think it comes with the territory of being secondary. Those same situations wouldn't fly in nonhierarchical polyamory.

[u/Hixie → u/Alo-mina]

if you're asking if there are benefits to your partner being a jerk, the answer is sure, you get to go on dates, maybe have sex, fall in love, etc. the question is whether those good things outweigh the downside of them being a jerk.

but i would not call that hierarchy. there are dynamics that are legitimately hierarchial that don't require anyone to be treated poorly.

[u/Alo-mina → u/Hixie]

You wouldn't call a situation where someone's meta had power over them hierarchy?

[u/AnotherBoojum → u/Alo-mina]

Obviously its hierarchy, but theres a distinction between healthy hierarchy and unhealthy hierarchy. You wont see stuff from healthy hierarchy posted here because they dont have drama that gets posted to reddit.

Healthy heirarchy happens with enmeshment (finances, housing, kids) Something you might be missing in the research is the philosophical history of polyamory - we got here through a lot of trial and error with best practices. 

What was happening (still does) was highly enmeshed couples saying they were non-hierarchical because they truly didn't see one relationship being more important than the others emotionally.... but they wouldn't acknowledge that their enmeshment meant there was a ranking to their priority list just because of practicalities and previous commitments.

This made it exceptionally difficult to call out when that priority list had sent things wonky, and to have clear conversations about limits. Naming the situation what it is drags it out into the open where everything is clear. Even if you aim to do this under non-heirarchal, it is exceptionally difficult to execute perfectly because its requires a level of self-awareness few people have

[u/Alo-mina → u/AnotherBoojum]

It sounds like you're saying healthy hierarchy can be climbing the relationship escalator or automatically prioritizing one partner. Do you believe healthy hierarchy can involve someone having power over their meta?

[u/AnotherBoojum → u/Alo-mina]

Having control over a meta is inherently unhealthy by my definition of control. Things like vetoes get talked about like they control the meta's relationship, but they're actually an attempt to exert control over the hinge. Thats why hinges who allow it get called bad hinges. Unhealthy heirarchy is defined by hinges who won't claim their own decisions or hold their own boundaries, and meta's who use their feelings to constrain a hinge's autonomy.

A hinge who has explicitly stated my nesting partner is my priority in these specfic ways has used their agency to clearly state the price of admission.Thats valid. And I use my agency to accept or decline that price.

However I expect "specifc ways" to mean what it says on the tin, and I'm going to have questions of my own to test that. Being told they don't do vetoes and then finding out meta is making it difficult for hinge to date me, and hinge will immediately cave to is unhealthy hierarchy. I am not a disposable sex toy. I expect hinge to have boundaries and meta to take responsibility for their feelings without asking hinge to curtail their autonomy.

But sometimes primary relationships pick up stressors that aren't about me. Nonetheless they can make maintaining a relationship with secondaries untenable. New babies, chronic illnesses, or even garden variety marital issues that have nothing to do with poly but require time and attention - these things all happen. I would expect to effort to be made to maintain our relationship, but I would also be unsurprised to be deprioritised if it doesn't work. And I will make my own decisions about whether that new dynamic works for me. I will be disappointed but not hurt, because hurt by its nature contains an element of surprise. 

There is only so much time and energy, and we use our agency to allocate those resources based on what is important to us. Needs will occasionally conflict between metas, and compromises have to be made. How are you making those compromises? 

• the hinge abdicates from meeting either set of needs to see which partner blinks first? This is an absolute trash answer.

• the hinge chooses between both and decides they like secondary better in that particular moment, so to hell with promises and commitments. Don't make promises if this is your jam.

• the hinge de-escaletes the secondary because primary is the priority, but they didn't admit to that at the outset? This is functionally dishonest to the secondary.

And no one knows which its going to be until the problem crops up and someone gets hurt?

Alternatively the decision is made ahead of time, and hinge uses their agency to state and hold to a boundary that the primary comes first before it is relevant. Then people know where they stand. People get to decide commitment is important to them. That's valid. But commitment means sticking around even when its not fun. (It doesnt mean sticking around when your needs aren't being met)

You personally don't have to enter into a relationship like that. You can choose limited commitments and surprises when conflicts arise. 

[u/Alo-mina → u/AnotherBoojum]

It sounds like you're saying nonhierarchical relationships involve limited commitments and surprises when conflicts arise? I don't think that's true at all. Nonhierarchical relationships can be just as committed as hierarchical ones. Surprises shouldn't happen when conflicts arise, because the hinge should put in effort to manage conflicts fairly and on a case by case basis. Even if that were the case, I'd rather be surprised then automatically deprioritized.

[u/Hixie → u/Alo-mina]

not really, no. i wouldn't really even call that polyamory. Maybe I would accept "toxic hierarchy" or "unhealthy polyamory" if pushed, but I don't think it's useful to label them that way.

The whole point of polyamory is to have autonomy in relationships. When your partner lets someone else control your relationship, they're not acting as an autonomous individual.

Hierarchy, healthy hierarchy in healthy polyamory, does exist, but it does not manifest as one's metamors having control over one's relationships.

It manifests as one's partner having less time available because they have made significant commitments to other partners. It manifests as things like "I am not available to have children with you because I already have children and don't want more", or "I am unavailable to cahabitate at this time because I already live with someone and don't want to change my living arrangements", or "I am not willing to share finances because I already share finances and adding more people to this arrangement would be complicated in a way I do not want".

[u/Alo-mina → u/Hixie]

That sounds like the no true Scotsman fallacy. I've run into a lot of polyamorous people who use hierarchy to mean they have power over each other's relationships. Things like veto power, needing permission for escalations, being able to cancel each other's dates due to non-emergency reasons, etc. It's pretty common.

[u/Hixie → u/Alo-mina]

The no true Scotsman fallacy is when nobody fits the mold. Lots of people practice healthy hierarchical polyamory.

But sure. If you want to call it toxic hierarchy, I'll concede. But then I don't understand the original question.

[u/Alo-mina → u/Hixie]

My original question is asking if anyone prefers being a secondary partner over being a nonhierarchical partner, with "secondary" being used in this case to mean your meta has power or inherent priority over you.

[u/Slinking-Tiger → u/Alo-mina]

A lot of your examples are ones in which people are not doing it right / not doing it well.

Just like people in monogamous relationships make mistakes and could handle things better, that can happen in poly relationships as well.

People who don't have good communication skills, don't have a strong primary relationship, haven't researched the best way to make poly work and/or are doing to to try to save the primary relationship rather than because they both enthusiastically want it, are all more likely to adopt hierarchical poly. As a result, you're more likely to see bad stories about it than about some of the other models.

A lot of the examples you gave would be frowned upon even under much more casual ENM situations where things are more FWB or No Strings Attached. The primary relationship should have more priority, but a secondary connection - whether casual or poly - should still be treated with respect.

Vetoing someone as a possible second ahead of time due to an understandable reason can be valid. The primary meta just declaring "it has to end" after there's already a relationship established isn't fair unless there's been a rule violation that makes that request understandable.

[u/Alo-mina → u/Slinking-Tiger]

What are some examples of a primary relationship taking priority while still treating secondary partners with respect?

In terms of veto power being used before a connection is established, a lot of people still aren’t okay with that. I unmatched someone who gave veto power to his wife but only right when he matched with someone. He also didn’t disclose this until I asked the right vetting questions. Veto power contradicts my values no matter when it’s used, so I unmatched him. I also think that kind of power should be disclosed in one’s profile - I felt a bit violated only learning about it after the fact.

[u/Slinking-Tiger → u/Alo-mina]

I said vetoing for an understandable reason. For example, if it turns out the primary knows the potential secondary or moves in the same social circle and does not want those aspects of their lives to overlap.

Being able to have a healthy discussion about the potential second seems fair for poly. The primary may see red flags in communication patterns for example that the hinge missed. They're primary for a reason, and working together to protect that relationship is understandable.

Honestly, your tone in your comments here is something that I would consider a red flag and would cause me to ask a partner to decline to see you. You come across as militant that your view of how things should be is The Right Way and if a couple's approach is different than you think it should be, you'll cause conflict and drama. You also seem very bitter.

I play as a third in NSA ENM spaces and one thing I always keep in mind is that the primary relationships shouldn't be harmed. I have walked away from hot men I really liked because the vibe from his wife seemed off, even when the words were okay. They need to work that out and I don't need to be in the middle.

Especially when you're starting a new relationship, you have to understand that the established one has a lot more power. They've invested in that for a long time and have made commitments. From their point of view, you're a stranger and they don't owe you anything beyond basic civility.

I don't know anyone that lists all their rules in their profile. Just listening their main dynamic (e.g. hierarchical poly) puts them in the top 5-10% of profiles. The details happen in the getting-to-know-you stage of things.

You'll likely be happier if you relax your expectations a little bit and be open to others taking different approaches than you do. You could give it a shot for a while and see what happens. You might be pleasantly surprised! And if you're not, you can always revert.

[u/Alo-mina → u/Slinking-Tiger]

Please refrain from ad hominem; it’s disrespectful. I’m on the autism spectrum so my natural way of communication is significantly more blunt than most people’s. Your comment comes across as tone policing, especially when it's difficult to impossible to determine tone via text. I’ve been respectful in my comments but I have asked people direct questions. I notice you didn’t answer the question I asked.

I have tried dating people with hierarchy as I've defined it in my post and my experiences have been universally bad. It's not as simple as reverting back to dating nonhierarchical people if I don't like it, as being disrespected by people in the dating world has a lasting negative effect.

[u/MstrCrimsonSpade]

I only do secondary partner type situations where there is no veto powers and I heavily vet for that. I'm a Dom and what I get out of being a secondary is not having to be that person's "always available/always on" Dom. I can take a night off and put my phone on DND without worry or guilt because I know my sub has someone still when I want to go out and drink or something (I don't mix kink and intoxication). It also prevents overwhelm for me in general because I have my own mental health needs and being everyone's everything is a recipe for disaster for me which kept happening despite not dating monogamous people.

Hierarchy brings me comfort because I know the order of operations and exactly where I stand. Non hierarchy leaves a lot up for debate at any given time and unless someone is solo polyam, I would very much struggle to believe they are truly completely free of hierarchy. Enmeshment is hierarchy. If you share a bank account with someone, that's an automatic hierarchy because finances drive the world and dating budgets are real and important which gets decided on between the two bank account holders and impacts all other partners in various ways. If you share a house, same deal and doubly so if you share a car.

It's not everyone's cup of tea but for those who do it thoughtfully, intentionally, and with enthusiastic consent, it's not a raw deal at all. Keep in mind that your definition of primary partner isn't universal. Those doing hierarchy should always discuss with their partners what terms mean to them specifically and what it looks like to them and how that will play out in the dynamic. There is an ethical way to handle hierarchy and it comes down to enthusiastic consent.

[u/Alo-mina → u/MstrCrimsonSpade]

I included how I was defining hierarchy because I know my definition isn't universal. I have no problem dating people who use "primary partner" to mean someone they climb the relationship escalator with. I know I would never date someone whose primary partner had power over me, and I have a hard time seeing myself dating someone whose primary partner had automatic priority over me. But thank you for sharing your perspective.

You mention enthusiastic consent. Personally, I don't think enthusiastic consent means a situation is ethical. [The man who consented to being eaten by that German cannibal comes to mind.] Do you think veto power is ethical if it is disclosed and consented to? Because personally, I do not.

[u/GettingItOnMidwest → u/Alo-mina]

Who do you keep asking questions then arguing with people's answers? This is coming across as you having an agenda to push versus actually wanting to hear what people have to say.

[u/Alo-mina → u/GettingItOnMidwest]

I am receiving people's answers and providing additional information, expressing agreement or disagreement, and asking followup questions. The information I've gotten has been helpful so far. What makes you think I'm pushing an agenda or arguing?

[u/wacky_spaz]

I’m secondary and it’s perfect for us all.

For me: I have sole custody of my kid as his mum decided drugs meant more = abandonment issues. My now ex and I broke up after several years = worse. I’m not doing it to him again so I won’t actually date monogamously until he’s older. This is the best compromise I came up with excepting one night stands.

For her: her husband refuses any BDSM and she ‘needs’ it. Personally I don’t think any of need that it’s a want, it’s not food or water but who am I to complain?

For her husband: knowledge that I have zero interest in interrupting their family, she gets what she can’t get off him and everyone’s happy.

The drawbacks are only drawbacks if you want more. I don’t want some romance of holding hands or social media. Nor am I all that interested in shared holidays or deep family integration. We long agreed our kids are first and if this impacts negatively any it’s done. Pregnancy sure long agreed via birth control and abortion agreements in case of failure. Scheduling issues aren’t issues really. How long does it really take to go on a date and then do the deed? If someone can’t find that in a week or fortnight then they aren’t running their life in a scheduled manner. I’m also not fooling myself him and I are on equal footing. They’re married, in love, have a decade of life and 2 kids, mortgage, investments, merged family, a joint life. I’m not part of that integrally.

The drawbacks you indicate are from people who actually want to be the nesting partner but aren’t. The issue seems to me to be seeking equal footing when it can never be - how can you be prioritised equally with someone who’s married, living together, planning to die together and children? Logically how could you be equal to that?

[u/Alo-mina → u/wacky_spaz]

I'm glad it's working for you.

There's a difference between being prioritized equally and not agreeing to another partner having inherent priority over you. Not agreeing to be deprioritized does not mean equal priority, just that prioritization is made on a case by case basis. The difference between prescriptive and descriptive hierarchy.

[u/wacky_spaz → u/Alo-mina]

I don’t see how a married couple with kids would not always be more priority than you (or me).

Theoretically that can be agreed when push comes to shove and it’s a them or me conversation I’d expect not to be chosen for 2 main reasons

1. I’m not the person they committed their life to and
2. I’m not gonna be the reason kids get traumatised

I get your question is to have no veto etc but frankly life is life. Humans have emotions, they change, flow and ebb. If suddenly the husband finds himself neglected and kids are neglected and veto was agreed as not present would you actually expect him to value your feelings over that of his kids?

I’m older and at 40, I meet people with young kids maybe it’s different with no kids or older ones but at my life stage and stage of people I interact with expecting no veto for any reason seems foolish.

[u/Alo-mina → u/wacky_spaz]

I don't believe in marriage as a romantic concept, but personally, I would sooner break up with a long term partner than accept veto power or return to monogamy. I'm looking for the same in a partner. I don't believe veto power strengthens relationships.

[u/wacky_spaz → u/Alo-mina]

Do you have kids? What you’re suggesting isn’t workable as easily as that … monogamy - yes. A split - no. And you assume one decision made at x is holding potentially years later … that’s not how humans work and why so many poly fail - wrong reasons to open, evolution of relationship and jealousy. You’d be hard pressed to find a single one of us that didn’t experience this several times even with extensive vetting.

[u/Alo-mina → u/wacky_spaz]

Veto power doesn't strengthen relationships, it damages them. Not just the relationship being vetoed, but the relationship of the person exercising the veto. It fosters resentment long term. I have a strong negative opinion of veto - I don't think it's ever ethical - and would not date someone who would agree to it, whether done directly or indirectly. If I ever got vetoed (and I vet connections for veto power), I would consider it a major ethical violation.

[u/wacky_spaz → u/Alo-mina]

I dunno what to tell you then.

If I found out that I was any source of friction in their marriage and it couldn’t be resolved easily it wouldn’t get to a veto conversation, I’d walk away. I’m not out to damage or hurt anyone or interrupt lives.

A veto is used at least to me when my part in this relationship presents serious challenges to their relationship so why would I remain and cause further issues and cause a potential breakup? What do I get out of it except guilt? Ethical or not is no longer the question, ethics is already on thin ice when something meant to enrich is causing pain.

[u/Alo-mina → u/wacky_spaz]

Being a "source of friction" for dating someone doesn't mean the solution is to end the relationship. It means the hinge needs to manage their relationship better or meta needs to work on their coping skills. Unless you're trying to break them up or are mistreating one of them, you've done nothing wrong. With good hingeing, you wouldn't even know that you're a source of friction, because it's in poor taste to share relationship problems with one partner to the other.

[u/wacky_spaz → u/Alo-mina]

I didn’t say it was, but if it cannot be easily resolved then I’m out. I view the world differently but if my existence in this relationship means someone needs to get therapy to cope then I’ll remove myself from it.

I agree unless I’m mistreating or doing something wrong realistically means I’m off the hook and shouldn’t worry but as a parent I know my moods impact my son so why would I do that to their daughters? Why let them see their dad sad? Why let them see their parents have tension? Ethically that isn’t the right thing to me and nothing can shift that.

If there’s no children involved my answer would be different but in my case there is and their mental health takes priority over this any day.

[u/Alo-mina → u/wacky_spaz]

If the hinge dating other people is making meta that unhappy, and coping skills aren't helping, then meta should be the one to end the relationship with hinge and find someone monogamous to date. Veto power just hurts everyone and prolongs suffering. Why would you be the one to exit the relationship when it's your meta who can't handle polyamory? You're not causing your meta to be unhappy; it's their relationship with hinge that is.

[u/Brave_Quality_4135]

I was secondary to someone who was married, but I also had a primary. It was great. There was very little pressure for either of us in our second relationship to do anything except have fun. We put the hard work (chores, finances, and emotional labor) into our primary relationships, and we just hung out once or twice a month and had sex and blew off steam. So yes, I think it can have advantages, especially if you both have other partners, and you understand that each other’s primary’s come first. I think it’s harder when a secondary doesn’t have their own primary or nesting partner.

After reading your comments, you seem to want an answer to this question of what happens when a meta has power over you. I think the answer to that is you don’t consent to giving power to someone you’re not in a relationship with. I never once heard bad news from my secondary partner’s wife. It was always from him directly, and he never said negative things to me about her.

The primary couple has to manage their stuff and then communicate it to their partners without blaming or involving their partner. For example if I needed to cancel because my primary partner had a jealous moment, I would not call up my secondary partner and say “hey my primary is having a meltdown so I’m not allowed to see you”. If you have that kind of behavior going on, I think you’ve got bigger problems than a hierarchy.

[u/Successful_Depth3565]

You are discussing one particular common configuration, where a formerly monogamous couple opens up, and one person takes an outside partner who has no other partners themselves. In that case there’s a potential mismatch in expectations and time, because the people involved don’t have the experience to look ahead.

Another configuration, which is more common as people get older, is that people have more experience and more types of relationships, including adult children who are their highest priority, or spouses they no longer live with but are still very important to them. In my experience these configurations are more durable because they offer people more flexibility and options for love.

[u/CouldveWouldveMayve → u/Successful_Depth3565]

I don't think this evolution gets talked about enough. I no longer have a kid at home, and I'm no longer working full-time. I have substantial time and flexibility, and my relationships have changed over the years. The non-nesting partner who might be "secondary" (based on enmeshments) and I go on weeks-long adventures together. Yeah, we aren't merging our retirement accounts, because my retirement has been planned with my spouse over decades, but we might create a joint travel account. Everyone is relaxed and respectful. I can see this configuration lasting for the rest of my life. Hope it does!

[u/guyako]

If both people in a “secondary” relationship already have primary partners, then they both can easily get exactly what they need from that relationship.

My wife’s longest-running secondary is also married, with a kid. They usually hang out once a week, smoke weed, eat, laugh themselves silly, and have what she describes as “animal sex.” Because they both have Primary partners, there has never been any confusion over expectations. They know once a week is the maximum allotment of time, and that some weeks they might not see each other at all.

Some of the downsides you mention don’t really exist in our relationship. Neither of us have exercised a “veto,” and I do prefer the security and priority of having a Primary partner. We’ve been together over 8 years, and recently bought an apartment together (which I could never afford on my own).

[u/Spayse_Case]

I think it’s great, you don’t have to worry about them trying to marry you or something. And less shared responsibility, you get to be the happy fun time partner

[u/FoxNFern]

So I live with my nesting partner, I chose not to call him my primary partner because we try and practice to our best abilities, non-hierarchy. However we live together and are raising a family together, inherently in this situation he has automatic priority because our shared and household responsibilities.

However what he doesn’t have is veto power over any of my relationships. He isn’t more important to me as a partner either.

I’ve found that when it comes to “secondary” partners this tends to work best when both partners are secondary. I met someone who is also poly and he refers to his wife as his primary partner, and they also have a family. This worked very well for us because we both had lives and responsibilities but are excited to see each other, but didn’t expect more.

I am probably going to catch flack for saying this, but I think “secondary” partners often tend to in the long term want more, and that leads to resentment. If hierarchy is established at the beginning of the relationship it should also be clear what’s on the table. In my situation cohabitation isn’t currently on the table, I’m only able to sleep over on weekends, can sometimes go out after work and sometimes can’t. This is more dictated by having children than anything else though. But I’m clear about these things with anyone who’s considering me.

[u/Comprehensive-Put575]

I found myself getting jealous sometimes or wanting to be more included. I preferred one partner over the other and I thought we had better chemistry than they did. I had to distance myself from the relationship because it wasn’t fulfilling my needs.

But then they broke up and suddenly I was able to be his new primary relationship partner. Yet once I had him to myself I realized how much he had relied on the other guy to get through life. It turns out I liked him much better when the other guy was in the picture.

So as the secondary partner I got all of the pleasures and few of the responsibilities. All the while his primary partner was cooking all their meals, doing his laundry, cleaning the house, waking him up for work in the morning, scheduling fun things for them/us to do. But I never saw any of that until he wasn’t there doing it anymore. Then I realized being his primary partner meant I would have to take these things on.

I actually did try for a while to do those things, but he wanted to treat me the same way and I wasn’t going to put up with that. At least he had contributed financially to the previous partner, he wasn’t doing that for me. So I’m over there doing all this for him, scraping him up off the floor, and then going home to my place and doing it all for myself. All for what? So he could look presentable and put together for the next side piece.

If was far better being secondary. Because then I could just enjoy them and have fun and then leave to go do what I wanted.

[u/clairejv]

There are no benefits to dating someone who gives their other partner power over your relationship, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't necessarily mind being a lower priority, but I will not accept lower power.

[u/FeeFiFooFunyon]

I love heirarchy both ways. I love the deeply woven commitment to my spouse. Our decades of love and trust. With my partner I love the lightness, flexibility, lack of shared reponsibilities.

I don’t have the time, energy, or desire to have it any other way.

[u/rab2bar]

Being a secondary is fine when you don't depend on the hinge to be your "primary." Get all your needs met through a variety of partners and then it doesn't matter as much when one of them prioritizes someone else. Granted, wanting more from someone who can't provide it is what it is, but we aren't entitled.

[u/noone3377]

Thats why some of us don’t agree or practice hierarchy

[u/ifapulongtime]

A lot of the language of hierarchy can be confusing and frustrating; some people have Egalitarian Hierarchy where the Primary partner doesn't have control over your relationship, but is generally prioritized. There is the concept of "Descriptive" vs "Prescriptive" Hierarchy, though the writer who initially coined the term has expressed regrets and tried to rescind their writing it's stuck around and many people find it useful. Example: NP and I have been together 20+ years, my GF and I have been together 2. NP does not have veto authority over my other relationships, but I trust her judgement and if she disliked one of my other partners that relationship would be unlikely to last.

For some people, for example those with high stress careers, or with already full lives like single parents, and especially those that are chronically ill the demands of being a primary partner are too much. For that GF, having one date night a week is enough, and often too much for her to keep up with. She wants someone to take her out once a week, and then take her home for sex and snuggle her through the night. She often has to cancel due to illness or fatigue, and is generally not available in the evenings after work.

You could argue that's more solo-poly or non-hierarchical, which is where the frustration with the definitions really comes into play; they're not mutually exclusive, and it's probably easier to find a partner who has some hierarchy than someone who's truly E: nonhierarchical.

[u/Shreddingblueroses]

Personally the whole primary secondary thing gives me the ick and I won't partner up with people who use those labels. I'm open to partnering up with people who have a lot of entanglement with a particular partner, depending on their philosophy about all of that jazz. Sometimes you live with someone, and needing to prioritize paying the rent is valid, but I would rather do without being repeatedly told I'm of "secondary" importance in someone's life.

Anyway you'll get some answers in this thread. Everything I've read so far seems to be "I enjoy not having the responsibilities of being someone's primary" and yeah, that's great, but you don't have to be a secondary to not be someone's primary. You could just be... Idk, an equally important person who isn't on an entanglement escalator?

One of my partners is pretty strictly SoPo and I have to admit to enjoying the fact that we possess no pressure to escalate our relationship beyond it's current level of entanglement.

I have never felt the need to label our relationship secondary because of this. It's just a weirdly hamfisted and artificial approach.

[u/Negative-Day-8061]

You have a weird definition of hierarchy. I’ll be curious if anyone answers the question you meant to ask.

[u/Acaraje_com_pimenta → u/Negative-Day-8061]

I´m realizing lots of people have this bias because they keep reading miserable posts here and elswhere to the point where they think it´s the norm, not the exception.

[u/allthestuffis]

When I first started exploring solo poly, I was fine being a secondary in the sense you’re talking about because I wanted to remain emotionally detached from any partners, and knowing that their partner could veto me at any time meant that I was way less invested, which is what I wanted at the time. 

Now, though, I don’t feel that way at all and I don’t want that. My two partners (who are both married to others), care for and about me, and wouldn’t give their spouses veto power over me, but I still get significantly less time with them than their spouses do. This makes sense to me, and it’s what I want (most of the time) because my life is very full and I need a lot of space to myself. I’m technically secondary, but our relationships are our own and not controlled by the primary. 

If I was looking for a hookup I probably wouldn’t care too much about hierarchy, but at this point I don’t have it in me to tolerate the potential drama of being the secondary to someone whose primary relationship is uncomfortable enough in ENM that they’d force a veto. 

[u/Altostratus]

I’m solo poly and happily a secondary in all of my relationships. I want to live alone and spend most of my time alone with my dog. I don’t want to marry someone, or cohabit with them. I don’t want to be the mothering wife who nags you to clean the toilet or pick up children from school. I want intimacy, connection, fun, ease.

[u/solataria]

I have found that people that are also submissive in the poly lifestyle like being secondary in that kind of a sense but I think most people will not look for or enter a relationship like that

[u/MrsLenaF_ATX79]

So… don’t be a secondary? Not rocket science here.

[u/Alo-mina → u/MrsLenaF_ATX79]

The point of my post is to hear people's views on being a secondary and expand my views on hierarchy for my research, not to tell people that I don't want to be a secondary.

[u/LovelyLilac-]

Why are you only considering such a strict definition of hierarchy and rejecting the experiences of everyone who uses a more expansive definition?

[u/Alo-mina → u/LovelyLilac-]

Because I’m already aware of the benefits to not climbing the relationship escalator together. I was not aware of benefits to a meta having power or priority, hence the question.

[u/Alo-mina → u/[deleted]]

Primary partners and nonhierarchical people can also choose not to climb the relationship escalator and can choose to date outside of their polycule. How does a secondary partner have more freedom than a primary partner?

[u/Alo-mina → u/[deleted]]

I'm aware. That's why I included what I'm talking about when I say "hierarchy" in my post.

[u/Alo-mina → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand what you're trying to say in response to my question of, "How does a secondary partner have more freedom than a primary partner?" if they're in a setup where someone else has power or automatic priority over them.

[u/Alo-mina → u/[deleted]]

In a non-hierarchical situation many people believe Partner A would be able to influence Partner C’s living space. Or partner C could make partner A accept the haunted porcelain dolls.

That's not true at all. Nonhierarchy doesn't mean a person has decorating rights over somewhere they don't live. Nonhierarchy doesn't mean making your partners accept something about someone else. Nonhierarchy just means that one person doesn't have power or automatic priority over other partners.

[u/AnotherBoojum → u/Alo-mina]

I think the dolls thing was the wrong example.

More relationship power also tends to come with more responsibilty/expectations. 

My life is fast and loose, and I don't got a lot for romantic relationships now. Being secondary means I'm not the one my partner is going to come to first if they need to lean on someone. They'll come to me occasionally, or with lower level stuff that can wait till the next time we see eachother. But its not on me to be their main support.

[u/Fifteen_inches → u/Alo-mina]

Absolutely these types of manipulations happen in non-hierarchical relationships

It’s pretty clear you don’t want to see things from another perspective, I don’t care enough to sway you. Have a good night.

[u/docnonsense]

Since I want different things from different partners, I do prefer to date some people in a mutual non-primary status. So I have a few partners I date & keep up with week to week as friends, and each of us has other main priorities - so it's a nice opportunity that's sometimes made available but neither of us is asking for more than the other agrees to offer. You don't find ultimate fulfillment with every partner, but every partner is uniquely fulfilling.

[u/Asynchronous_City]

Some folks are just really fundamentally solo.

They enjoy the attention and care that a partnership-oriented person can give them in limited doses, but they also want a lot of their own personal space, and especially in their home. They don’t want to cohabitate or marry, but they do enjoy the attention and commitment of a long-term relationship.

It’s not for everyone, but it works great for some.

[u/Alo-mina → u/Asynchronous_City]

That’s definitely one of the benefits to not climbing the relationship escalator. But I’m specifically asking if there are any benefits to a meta having automatic priority or power over you.

[u/unmaskingtheself]

If you live a full and independent life and aren’t looking for primary partnership in general (or already have a primary yourself), then it should be fine as long as your partner actually has a relationship to offer that’s on par with your standards.

[u/red_knots_x]

I’ve dated several people who are married, and there’s a defacto difference there between where I stand with them and what their relationship with their husbands is. 

The biggest plus for me is being able to have a more fun, relaxed relationship without an expectation of escalation. 

One of the biggest pluses of non-monogamy for me has been having relationships with people who I really enjoy, but probably wouldn’t be able to have a primary relationship with. People who I find delightful, but know we just wouldn’t do well living together. Or where our long term goals are just not compatible. 

The thing here is that it doesn’t work to only be secondary, unless you’re comfortable being your own main priority. If you want to have a primary partner who you can move in with, spend most nights with, or have kids with, you’re not going to have that as a secondary. 

The big thing I’ll caution you against is filling your time with a secondary partner and not leaving space for a primary partner, if what you want is a primary partner. If you want someone to marry, you need to make sure additional partners aren’t filling all the space in your life.

[u/YeOldeNubber]

Yes, you don't have to be a primary partner and deal with all the potential baggage that comes with it. I prefer my partners have a primary.

[u/bdrwr]

Well, as somebody who's married and cohabitating with a primary partner, being a secondary to somebody else is kinda what I really want.

In a lot of these situations, it's not that people are seeking opportunities to be secondary, people are just dating, and there are always implicit hierarchies and seniority in play.

Maybe that's what you're getting stuck on: I don't think many people actually set about ranking partners, explicitly granting veto powers, looking to fill defined slots with graduated levels of privilege and obligation...

It's just that, even without discussing it, if you and me go on a date, and I have an established partner I've been with for years, well, simply because of our history and our existing relationship, there is implicit hierarchy. If my partner of 10 years has serious beef with my brand new partner, I'm going to take their concerns very seriously, even if I don't "believe in" hierarchical poly or vetos.

[u/LaughingIshikawa]

I think you're totally correct, and what's more I think I can explain the confusion you're feeling. Like all or almost all of polyamory's loudest debates, this tracks back to one "hidden" issue that's not discussed or even acknowledged a lot.

The first thing you have to understand, is that there are two kinds of people in the poly community: The first kind of person is interested in deep, committed partnerships with multiple people. The second kind of person is interested in... having friends (sometimes even close friends) whom they have sex with sometimes. Both these people say that they're pursuing "love" and "commitment" with other people... but when push comes to shove the "sex with friends" type will act as if it's unreasonable to ask them to stand up to their (real, monogamous) PARTNER for the sake of their "partners" (read: friends) and like... in a way they aren't even wrong?

I used to argue about this more energetically, and I was especially convinced that some people are simply "play acting" a poly relationship, but they actually function much more like a sexually open, romantically monogamous couple than anything to do with polyamory. At some point though, it clicked for me that there isn't anything inherently wrong with being a sexually non-mono, romantically closed couple... like that's a perfectly valid way to approach relationships! The problem is that people aren't being open about what they are / what they have to offer, and for whatever reason they want the "street cred" of being "polyamorous" just without really committing to leaving behind monogamy.

Which brings me to the "hidden" issue: if you suspect that a specific person in particular is really just being "polyamorous" in the "I have friends that I sometimes have sex with" way, but not polyamorous in the "I'm deeply committed to my other partners, and will take steps to build a life around being with them" kind of way... how do you "prove" your assertion / accusation? (Also hang on here - this is long, but I promise I'm getting back around to answering your question re: what do secondaries get out of hierarchy!)

You end up arguing that their "love" for each other isn't real, and that's a difficult argument to "prove" because love is subjective... plus you look like an asshole the whole time for trying to convince two people who say they love each other, that they don't really love each other. I'm not even sure that it's possible to completely reliably pick out couples are practice "polyamory" in the "sex with friends" sense - some relationships look more casual on the surface, but involve deep feelings and commitment, and also not all relationships "have to be" deep and meaningful; poly people can have casual sex, so why can't they have more "casual" relationships? Some relationships may even have started out as something more serious, and then moved towards being casual, or vice versa. "Debating" the validity of specific people's real relationships is something the community leans away from, and I think rightfully so.

Only... now we have a problem though, because the "I want deep commitment and reasonable reassurances that I'll always have a place in your life" people are running up against the "You're only ever going to be a friend to me even if we pretend that we're in a loving relationship!" people. Because those people have fundamentally different goals and motivations in pursuing polyamory... it can cause a lot of petty arguments and talking past each other, go-nowhere arguments if they end up in a relationship with someone who is doing the other kind of "polyamory." What do?

Enter "hierarchical" polyamory! Hierarchical polyamory (especially strongly hierarchical couples) is a way for people who just want to have sex with their friends, while portraying it as a deeply romantic and committed relationship, to find other people who also want the same thing! This explains a lot about why this kind of "polyamory" works so well for primary partners who are only ever "secondary" partners to people who already have primary partners... because "secondary partner" really often just translates to "friend I sometimes have sex with." Meanwhile "primary partner" translates to "my real (ie monogamous!!) partner whom I'm actually romantically involved with!" In that way, the benefit of being a "secondary" partner, is actually the mutual understanding and reassurance that their relationship isn't that "deep" and/or "real," and therefore doesn't actually challenge the supremacy of traditional monogamy!

...At least, that's my best attempt at a strong argument for why some people actually like being a "secondary" partner. I think it's a common enough practice, we should assume that there's a reason behind it, even if it seems nonsensical to you and me. It also makes sense to me that that reason would be "I want to feel like I'm stepping outside the confines of monogamy... without actually doing real non-monogamy" because frankly people trying to find a "halfway point" between monogamy and non-monogamy is super common. Being "hierarchical poly" may just be that way to be "poly... but without the 'risk' of actual commitment!" And honestly, I can totally see why that would appeal to secondary partners as well?

I'm sure that there are many, many people who want a "relationship" with multiple partners, but because of ingrained monogamous thinking, they instinctively feel that actually having real commitment to their other partners "would be too messy,** and therefore hierarchical poly is a way for the "primary" partner to promise to the "secondary" partner "don't worry, I won't actually fall in love with you and make things messy! I have my real partner at home!!

[u/BobbiPin808]

I'd never be in a relationship where someone not in the relationship has power over that relationship. I'd also lose the words primary and secondary as they are subjective and not helpful.