What if these designations are simply descriptions and not intended to perform any greater function than that? Your approach to this question may bias the answers you seek.

My own approach to the "status" question comes from my experiences as someone once in a long term relationship (30 years) in which I was the established partner and my more recent experiences in my current relationship of 7 years in which I am the newcomer. I believe my struggles on both ends of the spectrum were driven by needs I understand more clearly and am more competent to negotiate today than I was at 21.

All relationships exist as one-on-one bonds (even triads, but most definitely Vs). It is not possible to legislate their emotional parameters by externally imposed hierarchies. That being said, all dyads also exist as a set of agreements between those committed to them. How elegantly you negotiate agreements between multiple partners will predict how well your poly relationships will meet your needs and the needs of those you love.

I will have a different set of agreements with a partner with whom I share a home, children, finances, assets than I will with a partner with whom those life decisions need not be made. Unless I can manage my commitments to these different sets of agreements, I probably won't create a sustainable poly life.

I might suggest an analogous dilemma: Suppose you want a career and you also want children. Are you capable of meeting both of those needs, taking on those responsibilities, without being caught in unresolvable conflicts? At times, perhaps during his/her infancy, you might give your child priority. At other times, perhaps in the early years of building a resume, you might want to give your career priority. Having done both, I strongly recommend finding a way to balance your life obligations. Planning ahead helps. The same would apply to adding new relationships to a life already filled with one committed relationship. Only you can determine what "status" you are willing to give each partner. This is no different than deciding how important your career will be compared to your family life. It consists of how many and what kind of agreements you are willing to make together.

If you are not the one in the established relationship, have you thought of how decisions about your current "status" will impact you once you are in the catbird seat? No-one remains the new partner forever. If you are wanting "instant, or relatively quick, equal status with everyone else" are you willing to live by that when there is a newcomer to what is now your new relationship? Most importantly, have you asked yourself or the newcomer what "equal status" really means for you/her? Do either of you take it to mean your partner loves one of you more than the other? Instead of loving you each uniquely?

I am of the firm opinion that urgency/immediacy in these situations is a sign that something is going on which hasn't been discussed. I have a similar opinion that resistance to further evolution also reveals unexplored feelings about the new relationship. I recognize that the feelings behind both positions are often signs of core issues that require an atmosphere of deep trust before they will be shared. The only answer to that is to operate with impeccable integrity and continue to ask hard questions of yourself before asking them of others. Sometimes respect for your own fears gives you the compassion to give respect to the fears of another.

Lastly, has the pivot person, with both an established and a new partner, clarified his own values around polyamory. Is a "primary" label being offered to reassure an established partner or promised to lay claim to a new partner so she won't flee the complication of a poly relationship, when the reality is one of these women still harbors monogamous dreams of sole ownership? In other words, are there undisclosed fears and feelings on the part of the hinge? Questions he's unwilling to ask for fear of upsetting his apple cart. Is anyone in this scenario floating down a River in Eqypt?

I realize this I may not be responding to a real life situation. If so, I hope others will offer their two cents. In any case, I hope I've offered food for thought you might find useful.

That's an interesting question.

What would be the privileges of this status that you're so keen on, I guess would be the real question. What do you perceive being a primary means?

Natasha,

This is a very good question. Whay label realtionships with staus qualifiers which actually limit and regulale the authenticness of the relationship.

When two people connect in a relationship, it's a unique bond of friedship, love, romance, whatever. Why does it have to be labeled???

On the other hand, these lables help to sort out how complicated open relationships, multiple realtionships, poly arrangements are. Many of us are in long term relationships, and meet someone else along the way with whom we become intimate also. The idea that this is a "secondary" relatoinship helps to clarify that it's not monagomous, our secondary partenrs don;t have a exclusive claim or related expections on us, and that everyone involved needs to respect space and needs of the other... For instance: I may need to spend time with my kids, while their Mother is busy with something, (or is with her girlfriend) and my "secondary" girlfreind will need to understand and be patient with me.

Other than that however - I think the lables are questionable. And are loaded with potential hurtfullness, and generazised expectations that are irrelevant to the actual unique bond betwen tow people.

"Are primary and secondary designations necessary or are they just an attempt to oppress newcomers?"

Probably neither of these choices help with finding a resolution.

"Supposing you're in a long-term relationship and a newcomer joins. Should a newcomer be secondary, or is this unfair?"

I see no reason why one can create whatever relationship one wants, as long as the two people involved agree on the terms. that can take any form whatsoever.

"Fair" fails as a useful term in human relationships.

"Should everyone have instant, or relatively quick, equal status with everyone else, or should "status" evolve through a process?"

"Should" fails as a useful term in human relationships.

"What might such a process involve?"

Agreement.

Everything else either serves to achieve agreement, or is a waste of time at best.

"What are the implications of both approaches, and what are your feelings about them and experiences with them?"

Any system that is acceptable to the people involved is acceptable.

I find it helpful to take away sex and use a comparison with friendship.

Remember in grade school, when you had your best friend, and your second-best friend, and your third-best friend, and so on? Most people stop doing that in grade school--adults just have friends.

When I make a new friend, I don't label them as a "secondary friend" or have a procedure by which they can advance to the status of "primary friend." At the same time, I have an implicit understanding with the friends I've known longest and have the most history with that there's a certain level of trust and commitment there that doesn't exist with newer friends. I have many friends, but relatively few whom I would ask to help me move, drive me home from surgery, or answer the phone at 2 a.m. Perhaps I could call these my "primary friends." But who does that?

At the same time I try to treat *all* people with a basic level of dignity and respect. I try not to stand people up, and I try to include people in decisions that affect them. If someone I barely know needs a ride home from surgery and none of their "primary" friends is available to help but I am, I'll drive them. (And if I have to move a second time in a year, I hire a mover.) This doesn't mean that all people have equal importance in my life, but everyone is "equal" in terms of the importance of their feelings and their right to be respected and considered.

I understand that people use the terms differently, but I find that many people in primary/secondary arrangements have agreements with my primary partners such as:

If the primary relationship is in trouble, I will stop seeing my secondary partners until things are okay again.
If my primary partner dislikes my secondary partner, my primary partner can ask me to break up with my secondary partner.
I must consult my primary partner before scheduling dates/overnights/travel with my secondary partner.
I must love my primary partner more than my secondary partner.
I must consult my primary partner before making a commitment to my secondary partner.
I must cancel plans with my secondary partner if my primary partner decides they need me during that time.

The secondary partner generally does not enjoy any of these privileges--though they may be able to exercise them in the case of new partners that are "added" after they are.

This is the form of "inequality" that to me is unfair in so many primary/secondary arrangements. The primary partner can expect to be consulted on all issues that affect her as well as many issues that affect the secondary partner, while the secondary partner is rarely or never consulted on issues that affect the primary partner, and sometimes on issues that concern the secondary partner. I think few of us would stand for this kind of inequality in our friendships--no one makes agreements with one friend that they'll abandon all their others if that friend wants them to, for example--why do we think it's acceptable in romantic relationships?

I have found it useful to make a distinction between shared responsibilities within relationships (for things like children, property ownership, legal obligations... ) and shared relationship dynamics (things like time spent with someone, sexual practices, disclosure of information... ). I try to remember that sharing responsibilities with someone does NOT automatically confer "higher" status on them, but simply more shared responsibility. I also try to remember that in the area of relationship dynamics, I do not have the right to choose for or influence my partners' desires and needs, whereas in the area of shared responsibilities, I do.

For example, if a partner with whom I share children decides they want to take a holiday and be away for three months, I have the right to request that they take our children's needs into consideration and act appropriately. I do NOT, however, have the right to influence who they might take a holiday with or what they do with them while they're away (even if they don't share children with this partner).

The temptation, of course, is to use shared responsibilities as an excuse for influencing our partners when we're feeling emotionally insecure about our relationship dynamics. I try to be really careful about not doing this, which is why I avoid terms like "primary" and "secondary" and "status" altogether in my relationships.

I really really like Barbara's comment about not rushing into creating categories within poly relationships. Better to take your time and deal with issues as they come up than try to make everyone fit into a pre-determined pattern or hierarchy.