Secondary Definitions

[pastrychef]

We've had posters here who had been told that either they gave up all thoughts of poly or they lost their primary relationship. They had tried the respectful talk, they had tried refusing their feelings and so on.
Moving into an open relationship when you've been in monogamous marriage for a long time is always a challenge-and even more of one if the impetus is one-sided.
If someone feels like a second class citizen in their relationships, that's a problem in the relationship, not in the tag.
And having some idea of what you're going to get out of a situation before you start can make the decision to start or not easier. How many poly people have had to explain that this isn't a new kind of overlapping serial monogamy? That whatever the new relationship grows into it won't erase the old one(s)?
If a person in what is a secondary relationship insists that they get all of the same time and attention as if they were in a primary relationship they're going to be disappointed. LDRs are not less important, but they get less time. This isn't being treated badly, it's reality.

[Ceoli]

I think the problem is that JoshuaK and his sweetie want differnt things out of their relationsip, a problem that they are earenstly trying to address with an agreement to be "open" but which left the limitations he was operating under unclear.  That subproblem has been addressed.

Ceoli I think the other girl in this case is happy with the sitution as it stands, I agree that it is probably not a situation I would personally get involved with, but it might do very well for the secondary right now.

I'm not disputing or even referring to whether or not the secondary in question (honestly I don't even know if there is one) is happy or not.  I'm sure this arrangement works great for some people.  I'm just calling a spade a spade.  When a person enters into a relationship with less "rights" (his word, not mine), than the other relationship, that implies a second class relationship. Just calling it what it is.  When people get offended by the term "secondary" it is usually because many times "secondary" refers to this very situation and the tacit expectation that if you're a new partner coming into the arrangement, you have to put up with it.  Sure some people are happy in that situation, more power to them.  That doesn't change the basic shape of the set up and the fact that it is this very attitude that makes it extremely difficult to be an unpartnered poly person. 

It's this kind of blanket statement that kind of made me start the post.  See, everyone comes to poly differently.

This wasn't a blanket statement. It was a statement referring to a very specific scenario as laid out by the poster.  As I said earlier, he used the term "rights" and decided that the he and the primary can assign "rights" to anyone entering the relationship (which puts that person entering the relationship automatically as second class).  That doesn't mean that EVERYONE who uses the word secondary does that, which is why I was referring specifically to his post.

DH and I are on other lists because of our specific situation, which is, in a monogamous relationship for years, then one partner falls for someone else, and learns about poly.  Not to be rude, but that is a TOTALLY different situation.

Which is why I wasn't referring to you.

So really, coming out poly while in a mono relationship, all the advice was to tell the mono partner "like it or lump it".  Yet, no one takes up for the mono partners, there's no one saying how rude it is to suddenly change the relationship and telling them to deal or divorce.  However, DH and I got yelled at for someone who felt the need to stick up for LDR.  For all secondaries everywhere who aren't being treated with respect.

Ok, here there are clearly two points being argued and one of them has nothing to do with anything I said. Should people make assumptions about what the nature of *your* secondary relationship is? Absolutely not.  To make judgements about your specific use of a very broad term without even knowing how you use it is just stupid. 

The second point about the difficulties faced by mono partners being co-opted into being poly because of a circumstance is an entirely other matter.  I'm speaking from the standpoint of a very specific issue laid out within the thread and not in the original post.  I hear you say that no-one takes up for the mono partners...well, my experience as a single poly person is that most poly people seem to be blissfully unaware of how much it can suck.  There can be a couple-centric culture that leaves single poly people with the choice of either a very prescripted and limited "secondary meaning second class" relationships or hope to win the lottery by finding another compatible single poly parter or a partner who won't prescript limits.  That can be hard to find and it's amazing how many partnered poly people seem to get confused at the frustration that can arise from such arrangements.

If a person in what is a secondary relationship insists that they get all of the same time and attention as if they were in a primary relationship they're going to be disappointed. LDRs are not less important, but they get less time. This isn't being treated badly, it's reality.

I'm not saying that a new partner should get equal treatment as the existing partner right off the bat. I'm saying that the new partner should have the chance to be an equal partner in their relationship.  There's a big difference there.

Actually, at this point I should defer to the latest PW podcast because it pretty much sums up how I feel about it pretty well.

[Icewraithonyx]

Could you explain what you mean by being an equal partner in their relationship?  Perhaps this is a point I've not understood before.

Because I agree that forcing or constraining a person into a relationship that they don't want is unhealthy.  Doubly so when there is no chance or hope for any progress or change.  For the single polys stuck in the secondary track, I deeply sympathize. 

[Ceoli]

So maybe it's unfair in the beginning that the primary gets to make some rules for the other to abide by, but let's be honest, it's unfair to the primary to tell them that you are poly and change THEIR mono relationship.  You are asking them to go through a lot, grow a lot and deal with a lot, and all for your benefit. 

I count myself so VERY lucky to have found someone that respects that and my husband rather then bitches immediately on how they feel they are being treated as a second class citizen and are degraded.  That, IMHO, reeks of selfishness and caring only about their position in someone's life rather then caring about everyone involved.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be accusing a person who would like to be treated like a person and not some great big threat to your primary relationship as being selfish?  When you're stating in the previous paragraph that it's all for your benefit?  And you seem to be assuming that the first thing I do in any relationship I enter is bitch and moan about my treatment?  Actually, you don't know me and just as people shouldn't make assumptions about your relationships, you shouldn't make assumptions about mine. I don't bitch and moan about second class treatment because I don't get involved with people who treat me like second class citizens.

The majority of people who become poly do so from a monogamous pair bond.  How exactly is a person wanting to be treated like a person and given a voice in THEIR relationship and not treated like some pariah simply because someone else has forced their mono partner to deal with the fact they are poly being selfish and caring only about their position?

Why on earth would I want to get involved with a relationship that is viewed and treated as a threat?

And how exactly does that automatically equal being disrespectful or uncaring to the existing partner? Generally, I'd like to think that the people I get involved with are decent people and that I don't need to have a whole big set of rules put in place to tell me to be a decent person.  Frankly, if someone is going to be a jerk, making a rule telling them not to be a jerk probably won't help.  And quite frankly, if a new partner HAS to be treated with all these limitations and not be allowed a voice or the right to negotiate the terms of THEIR relationship for the sake of preserving the security of the primary relationship, then I would question why that primary relationship is being opened up at all.

Wanting to be treated like a person and equal partner in a relationship (NOT equal to the primary, but equal in MY relationship with my partner where I get to negotiate the terms of MY relationship) DOESN'T automatically mean that I'm going to demand house keys or parental rights to someone else's kids. 

You're very lucky to have found a situation that works for you, but to make blanket statements (like what you accuse others of doing) that wanting to be treated as a person in a relationship is "selfish and caring only about their position in someone's life" is pretty damned insulting and makes a lot of assumptions that are really off the mark.

[Ceoli]

Could you explain what you mean by being an equal partner in their relationship?  Perhaps this is a point I've not understood before.

I'm going to answer this with a slightly edited quote from Joreth's Livejournal post that rants on this very subject (with bolded passages from me).  The rest of the post can be found here: http://joreth.livejournal.com/213986.html

As I said earlier in the forum thread, when two monogamous people begin dating, they do not exchange checking account numbers on the first date.  Most reasonable adults do not bring a guy home at the end of the night, wake up the kiddies and say "Billy, Suzy, meet your new daddy! You will listen to him exactly as you listen to me."  A relationship needs time to grow, to see which direction it even wants to grow in. Many specific privileges are granted only with a certain level of intimacy.

But monogamous people ALSO do not go on a first date with a 40 page contract spelling out what level of intimacy they're allowed to achieve, what pet names they're allowed to be called, on which numbered date they're allowed to have sex, and in which rooms, all of which has been determined by more than one person, none of whom are the new date (that's not a strawman, that's an anecdote - someone actually published a 40-page contract on their website, including which pet names new partners are allowed to use. If they hadn't taken down the document, I'd post a link).  Those things are determined over time as the individuals learn what their relationship wants to be.   Single parents who date manage to figure out how to introduce a new partner to their family just fine without writing up the path of the relationship beforehand.

What they do is get to know each other.  Then maybe they talk about how they think their relationship is going.  Through the course of their relationship, they discuss their dreams and goals, and they see how they fit together.  Anyone who has ever dated a "momma's boy" or girl with an overprotective father knows how frustrating it is to have a third party looking over your shoulder and deciding for you the course of your relationship.  And anyone who has ever eloped or snuck out in the middle of the night, or skipped class to have sex knows just how realistic those rules are when the participants are head-over-heels "in love" and the rules no longer make sense or hold any power over them.  The day we, as children, realize our parents only have the power over us that we give them is the day their control over us ends.  The day we, as adults, realize that our spouses' rules are only effective for as long as we want to follow them is the day the "rules" no longer dictate our behaviour, and it is our individual choice to behave respectfully and lovingly that controls whether or not we behave respectfully and lovingly.   Our partners have no control over our behaviour.   We choose to behave in certain manners, and if anyone ever decides they don't want to behave that way anymore, having a "rule" will not stop them.

[b/]If your new partner or metamour wants to behave respectfully, they will not need a "rule" telling them to do so.  If they do not want to behave respectfully, your "rule" will not prevent them from being disrespectful, because (get this!) they're disrespectful![/b]

So don't treat your spouse and his new girlfriend as if you were their mother trying to keep teenagers in check before they get into trouble.   If your adult partner needs to be watched like a child for his or her own good, then you really ought not to be doing polyamory, or any relationship with that person, for that matter.

The people who are actually in the relationship being negotiated are the ones who should make up the bulk of the negotiation process.  OF COURSE the other pre-existing partner can express his or her concerns, and should discuss them directly with both the partner and the new person. Group discussions are recommended.   So quit going to extremes, quit pulling out the strawmen, because it's becoming a fire hazard in here.   Just as we're not abdicating full and equal household rule for the new guy, we're also not abdicating pushing aside the feelings and concerns of the non-participating pre-existing partner or other family members. Everyone affected should get a say, and that includes the new partner!  But the ones who are actually in the relationship should have the most say, and should have an equal say to each other.

I will repeat, because apparently the 50,000 times I've said it before didn't get heard:

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE NEW GUY IS EQUAL TO YOUR SPOUSE IN YOUR LIFE DECISIONS.   It means the new guy is an equal partner IN HIS OWN FUCKING RELATIONSHIP.  If the new guy and the wife have a "secondary" relationship, that means that they are BOTH "secondary" to each other and have the same rights and privileges AS each other TO each other.  If he's not allowed to make demands on your time anytime he wants, NEITHER ARE YOU.

Or, instead of writing up prohibitive permissions, you could negotiate welcoming guidelines instead and, y'know, behave as though you all WANT this relationship.

[Ceoli]

I'm sorry, but it is incredibly frustrating to have this conversation over and over.  The truth of the matter is, I find it insulting, how many times other secondaries, OSOs, non domestic partners, whatever term you feel comfortable with, feel the need to insult other people's relationships.  Because I'm sorry that's what has happened, more then once.  Claiming you were speaking about a specific situation that of JoshuaK, you didn't bother to really look at the specific situation.

Umm..wha?? What I said pertained specifically to a very specific thing that JoshuaK posted.  He can feel free to take issue with that, but generally, when you post something on a forum, you are actually opening up what you post to the opinions of others. It's kind how this whole thing works.  And I wasn't at any point talking about *your* relationship.

WHICH IS, a couple that is not poly, that one half of would like to be and one half of is not ready for, so they are coming up with compromises as they go.  This is the third time I have seen or been personally insulted by being told people in a relationship are being treated as second class citizens.  What's really sad, is not ONCE has this other person ASKED to be taken up as a cause or defended.

For the third time, I'll say again. I'm not talking about your relationship.  If what I'm saying applies to your relationship then that's another matter. I have no idea what your relationship is like.  I'm talking about relationship PRINCIPLES as they are laid out in a DISCUSSION forum and how those principles can be hurtful to others.  I have no idea who LDR is and have no desire to take up any cause on his or her behalf.  I do, however, desire to speak about principles that are laid out that say secondaries should suck it up and be ok with second class treatment or that setting prescripted limits on a relationship in order to protect the insecurities of another relationship is a good and healthy thing to do.  I happen to think these are hurtful and myself and many other people have had experiences of this that would tend to back this up.  I have no idea what kind of treatment your secondary gets and that's fine, because again, I'm not talking about you.

I understand there are people that are incredibly frustrated at the feelings of "always a secondary", however, when you insult other people's relationships on behalf of THEIR secondary, that is rude.  Plain and simple.  No one asked you to.  LDR said it best when the first time someone decided to stick up for him, "I didn't ask her to.  I can speak for myself, I have spoken for myself, and I've said all I need to.  This is the relationship I want." 

Again, I'm not speaking "on behalf" of anyone.  However, I am allowed to have my own thoughts and opinions on the matter and to discuss those thoughts and opinions on a forum that's designed for just such discussions.

So there are a lot of single polys that are unhappy with how they feel they are treated as secondaries, I am sorry about that. HOWEVER, when you decide then that you have to insult other people's relationships, that other people MUST have a certain kind of relationship with secondaries, tertiaries, OSOs and so on, then I don't see how that's productive or right.

I've never said anyone MUST have one kind of relationship or another. Merely talking about an effect that a certain relationship practice (that seems to be accepted by lots of poly people) creates a hurtful and sucky environment for other poly people.  Do what you like with it. Ignore it. Listen to it.  Learn from it.  Dismiss it. But don't tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to voice my thoughts from my own hard-earned experiences. 

I thought the point of being poly, at least for me, has been to find the relationships that work for you.  That are healthy and loving for ALL involved.  Open and honest.  No, it's not right to demand that a new person in a relationship is going to always be allowed only this much room to grow, but it's just as wrong to demand that you MUST treat a new person any way.  So by telling someone they are wrong in how they choose to have their relationships, when everyone in the relationships is fine with how things are, you are doing the exact same thing you are complaining about.

Can you please point out exactly where I said "you're doing it wrong"?  Somehow, my bringing up of the issues faced by secondaries who are limited to prescripted relationships has translated into "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!", "ALL SECONDARIES *MUST* BE TREATED LIKE X", and "HOW HORRIBLE YOU ARE TO LDR!"

Well, I haven't said any of this, yet I suspect you will continue to hear these things no matter what I type.

And that, is what really frustrates me.  That the empathy only goes one way, that only one person's experiences as a non primary partner are valid.  It's insulting to relationships that do NOT follow the model you are looking for.

Interesting, because I often find the opposite experience and much of the poly world to be rather couple-centric and a difficult environment for non-partnered poly people or people on the "secondary track".  Funny how our experiences lead to how we see things.

If it's not what you want, don't take it, if you don't want to do it, then don't.  But do not believe you have the right to say no one else can either.

AGAIN, I've never said what ANYONE else CAN or CAN'T do.  If you decide to take everything I say personally and make it all about you, then that's your choice and has nothing to do with what I've been actually saying (except for this bit which is clearly about you).

[ourquad]

Intersting list JoshuaK. 

If I use this list as a guide I would probably not be considered a secondary in any of my current relationships, which is probably pretty reflective of the on the ground reality. 

Of course it didn't start that way, but I have to admit if my relationships did not have room to grow in to what they are now I would probably be frustrated.

So that is another question, can the relationship grow or are these hard limits?

Labels don't bother me very much. A difference in my love for my husband and my boyfriend is hard to see. But the list that was shared could describe the difference in my relationships with them.

It's just inevitable that living together causes differences. It the four of us lived together, then the dynamics would change again.

I do have problems with the fact that my relationship with Tech has some limitations on it that isn't allowing it to grow. In fact, I would say it has moved backwards instead of forward. And while some of that started with Kitten, it is becoming apparent to me that part of it is due to Tech.

And he and I currently are at an impasse. He is willing to accept these limitations...those that are real, those that are perceived, those that are imposed. I can not accept the ones that can be changed. And I can not longer keep waiting for those things to change when no effort is being made to overcome the ones that can be.

Each relationship deserves to be allowed to reach its full potential. I've always thought this.

[theredhead]

Some descriptive/functional definitions:

Primary Relationships are the closest relationship type, the person(s) given the most time, energy and priority in a person's life; includes high level of intimacy, attraction and commitment as demonstrated by marriage-level bonding (such as shared life paths, goals, parenting, economics, housing, important values, ongoing emotional support, etc.) Typically includes a desire for a shared lifelong future together.

Secondary Relationships are close relationship types; by definition they are given less in terms of time, energy and priority in a person's life than any primary relationship. Includes aspects of primary relating, such as sexuality and emotional support but usually involves fewer ongoing commitments as evidenced by fewer shared values, plans or financial/legal involvements. May include a desire for a long-term future together.

-the redhead-

[Ceoli]

As you have missed the point of what I said, and quoted me about my relationship, when I was giving information on JoshuaK and what he had said previously, I'm going to call it good.  I am not getting into this argument, yet again, with someone who refuses to budge from anything but their point of view.  You date who you want to, I'll date who I want to.  As far as a spade being a spade, you were insulting.  Period.  Call it like you see it, just the way I am, are all too familiar excuses for judging someone else's relationship.  

Mods, please close this thread as the reason I started  it has just erupted into more of this who is right and who isn't.  When my intention was that I wanted to know if I was the only one finding it inappropriate to insult someone's relationship on behalf of the people termed secondaries and if it was an inappropriate term.  I got my answer from people who's opinions matter to me.  So thank you.

By all means, could you please quote *exactly* what I said that you derived insult from?

[Icewraithonyx]

Ok, well, thank you but to be honest, Joreth's rant was kind of what we were trying to get away from.  Not because it was "wrong" but basically because it was a rant.  A frustration fueled exposition on something she disagrees with.  When we tried for clarification, we were either bitched at or disregarded.  Perhaps we should have noted that a rant was not the best place for a discussion.  Fair enough.  So Sabiruna posted this as a discussion that, and it seems we're back at Joreth's rant again.  Hrm.

Trying to see this point by point, I can see where a 40-page contract detailing pet names and such is, well, silly is the word I'd use.  However, I thought this was anecdotal, as in a specific EXTREME case.  I'm sure there are also cases where a person has introduced a new person as EQUAL in every way to their long-term partner.  No, that's probably not something a reasonable adult would do but some people make UNreasonable decisions about relationships.

I guess the main point I disagree on is the idea that the new couple gets to determine the boundaries for their relationship, while the existing partner gets to have "input".  After 10+ years of marriage, I think I've earned more than INPUT as two NRE addled adults hijack my relationship.  For example, I'm envisioning some of the intro thread on Poly/Mono where a spouse has fallen in love (sometimes had an affair) and decided rather unilaterally that they are now polyamorous, leaving their existing partner in a "Wha Huh" state.  It gets worse when spouse and new person decide on their relationship, uncaring of the havoc wrought on the existing one. 

Now, I'm aware that not every relationship is as "new person" centered, just as not every relationship is as 40-page contract, primary centered.  MY impression was that JoshuaK was moving gradually into non-monogamy.  Much like moving to a new city, where you stick to main streets, when we first started into non-monogamy, we have more rules and boundaries.  After more time and experience, we're finding many of those boundaries unneccessary.  Which is why I've thought of it as a developmental thing.

For the record, I agree (mostly) with many of your points.  It just seems to me that you come across somewhat adversarial.

[vrimj]

Mods, please close this thread as the reason I started  it has just erupted into more of this who is right and who isn't.  

I am sorry if the discussion is upsetting, but locking the thread is not the kind of thing that is usually done here.  I try not to do more then delete spam.  I do not want anyone to feel like they have been unable to speak their peace. 

This has sometimes meant that I have had to stop reading threads that personally upset me.  But I really don't want to do anything more then remove obvious trolls because I want people who are still trying to communicate to have the chance to reach out and share their experience and perspective. Even if it is one I disagree with.   In fact being exposed to ideas I find challenging and perspectives I disagree with is one of the reasons I spend so much time here.   That is what gives me the opportunity for growth.

[Ceoli]

Ok, well, thank you but to be honest, Joreth's rant was kind of what we were trying to get away from.  Not because it was "wrong" but basically because it was a rant.  A frustration fueled exposition on something she disagrees with.  When we tried for clarification, we were either bitched at or disregarded.  Perhaps we should have noted that a rant was not the best place for a discussion.  Fair enough.  So Sabiruna posted this as a discussion that, and it seems we're back at Joreth's rant again.  Hrm.

Joreth is pretty clear about what the space in her journal is for.  So yeah, it indeed isn't the best place for discussion and she even noted it in the post in question.  And yes, it was a rant...but frankly, it's a rant that isn't heard often enough and one that many many many people who have had to endure secondary treatment are glad to have said.  I think it's important to recognize the validity of that.

Trying to see this point by point, I can see where a 40-page contract detailing pet names and such is, well, silly is the word I'd use.  However, I thought this was anecdotal, as in a specific EXTREME case.  I'm sure there are also cases where a person has introduced a new person as EQUAL in every way to their long-term partner.  No, that's probably not something a reasonable adult would do but some people make UNreasonable decisions about relationships.

Even among the 40 page contract example...while the whole of it seems extreme, there are many little bits of it that add up..."you can't go on a date at this restaurant because it's our restaurant...you can't use these pet names...you can only have sex outside your partner's home....you will not be invited to any family functions...etc".  While Joreth's example of putting all of those kinds of things in one contract may be extreme, many of us do have to deal with all those little things that are in the contract all the time, most likely not presented to us in written form, but definitely set upon us in one way or another.  Being frustrated with that kind of thing when building a relationship is a perfectly valid feeling, yet many times when such frustrations are brought up in discussions like this, those valid feelings become invalidated with strawman arguments such as "well it's selfish of a new partner to expect to be equal to the other partner right away" and such.

I guess the main point I disagree on is the idea that the new couple gets to determine the boundaries for their relationship, while the existing partner gets to have "input".  After 10+ years of marriage, I think I've earned more than INPUT as two NRE addled adults hijack my relationship.  For example, I'm envisioning some of the intro thread on Poly/Mono where a spouse has fallen in love (sometimes had an affair) and decided rather unilaterally that they are now polyamorous, leaving their existing partner in a "Wha Huh" state.  It gets worse when spouse and new person decide on their relationship, uncaring of the havoc wrought on the existing one.

First, there is this assumption that the spouse and the new partner are going to wreak uncaring havoc if left unfettered. Why do we need to start with such an assumptions?  Second, I would think that the the partner who is in the primary relationship and is negotiating a new relationship would bring the interests of his or her existing relationship into the negotiations.  Of course the concerns of the existing partner should be taken into consideration, but does it really have to happen in a way that dictates to the new partner how they're supposed to act?  I'm going to assume that everyone involved is there to honor the relationship.  If I didn't think my partner was going to honor my relationship, I wouldn't get involved.

Joreth was right about one thing...if new relationships are approached with the assumption that it will wreak "uncaring havoc" then you're acting like you don't want the relationship.  Why would anyone want to start a relationship on those terms.  If your only option was to start a relationship with prescripted limits based on the assumption that you are a threat to your partner, would you get involved?

Now, I'm aware that not every relationship is as "new person" centered, just as not every relationship is as 40-page contract, primary centered.  MY impression was that JoshuaK was moving gradually into non-monogamy.  Much like moving to a new city, where you stick to main streets, when we first started into non-monogamy, we have more rules and boundaries.  After more time and experience, we're finding many of those boundaries unneccessary.  Which is why I've thought of it as a developmental thing.

So sure, it's a developmental thing.  That doesn't change the reality of the situation.  Even for people taking baby steps, it should be noted that sometimes those baby steps and crutches and training wheels happen at the expense of someone else's feelings.  Whether that means they *should* do it or not is another matter entirely.  But the reality is what it is, on *both* sides of it.

For the record, I agree (mostly) with many of your points.  It just seems to me that you come across somewhat adversarial.

Well, to be honest, it's hard not to come across as adversarial when trying to raise a point that lots of people don't want to hear, or when being accused of being selfish or other such things. 

[pastrychef]

The original post here wondered if it was rude for one person to leap to the defense of another-who wasn't there and wasn't known to the defender-based purely on the use of the term "secondary" to describe a relationship he is in.
The question had nothing to do with the actual roles within relationships, just with an overenthusiastic response to a descriptive term. As it happens, the person so described has no problem with that label. He apparently has no problem with the status of his relationship. The poster felt put-up for using a term she was comfortable with and getting argued with about it.
Some poly relationships have a level of built-in inequality-and if the people in them are uncomfortable with that they'll change the relationship. Sometimes that means changing boundaries, sometimes that means leaving.
It really sounds like whinging when people who are dealing with half of an established partnership contend that they aren't getting equal respect. If that's how you feel, then get out of the relationship. It's a situation that's making you unhappy.
I'd bet that the 40 page contract didn't last long in the face of reality, or if it's still being presented at least the people being asked to sign it really know what they will and will not be getting from the relationship.  If a pair of essentially insecure people get into ploy, then they will create more boundaries and have more issues around them.
If a couple is new to the ideas, much less the practice, of poly then letting the more cautious partner set a few limits isn't out of line. They are allowing a major life change to happen to their relationship out of love for their partner. If it means that the new partner has to accept some limitations at first then the new person can decide if they want to deal with that. No-one is saying that the relationship can't grow or change, just that at the outset there will be boundaries.

[Icewraithonyx]

Joreth is pretty clear about what the space in her journal is for.  So yeah, it indeed isn't the best place for discussion and she even noted it in the post in question.  And yes, it was a rant...but frankly, it's a rant that isn't heard often enough and one that many many many people who have had to endure secondary treatment are glad to have said.  I think it's important to recognize the validity of that.

Very well, I concede the validity of the frustration

Even among the 40 page contract example...while the whole of it seems extreme, there are many little bits of it that add up..."you can't go on a date at this restaurant because it's our restaurant...you can't use these pet names...you can only have sex outside your partner's home....you will not be invited to any family functions...etc".  While Joreth's example of putting all of those kinds of things in one contract may be extreme, many of us do have to deal with all those little things that are in the contract all the time, most likely not presented to us in written form, but definitely set upon us in one way or another.  Being frustrated with that kind of thing when building a relationship is a perfectly valid feeling, yet many times when such frustrations are brought up in discussions like this, those valid feelings become invalidated with strawman arguments such as "well it's selfish of a new partner to expect to be equal to the other partner right away" and such.

First, perhaps I should ask "What do you want?"  What's the difference between an equal say and an equal partner?  (And to clarify, I'm not attempting to be "willfully ignorant".  There's a saying about seeking to understand before being understood, so I'm trying that.)  Like how would some of the examples be done differently?

First, there is this assumption that the spouse and the new partner are going to wreak uncaring havoc if left unfettered. Why do we need to start with such an assumptions?  Second, I would think that the the partner who is in the primary relationship and is negotiating a new relationship would bring the interests of his or her existing relationship into the negotiations.  Of course the concerns of the existing partner should be taken into consideration, but does it really have to happen in a way that dictates to the new partner how they're supposed to act?  I'm going to assume that everyone involved is there to honor the relationship.  If I didn't think my partner was going to honor my relationship, I wouldn't get involved.

In some scenarios, the established partner is this respectful of the existing relationship.  In some scenarios, they are not as respectful.  So it varies.  In my personal experience, I (wrongly) assumed a threat because it was new and different.  The closest analogy to non-monogamy many of us are aware of is infidelity.  (Can I blame the media?  Oh, ok.  It was still my freakout)

Joreth was right about one thing...if new relationships are approached with the assumption that it will wreak "uncaring havoc" then you're acting like you don't want the relationship.  Why would anyone want to start a relationship on those terms.  If your only option was to start a relationship with prescripted limits based on the assumption that you are a threat to your partner, would you get involved?

To be honest, in my case, I DIDN'T want the relationship.  Sabiruna and I were monogamous and she fell in love with someone else in addition to me.  It was (I hope I'm using the phrase correctly) a "game changer" and one I did not directly benefit from.  But Sab wanted it, and I wanted Sab, so I went in with these prescribed rules as a compromise.  As I said before, with more experience, many of those are gone now.

So sure, it's a developmental thing.  That doesn't change the reality of the situation.  Even for people taking baby steps, it should be noted that sometimes those baby steps and crutches and training wheels happen at the expense of someone else's feelings.  Whether that means they *should* do it or not is another matter entirely.  But the reality is what it is, on *both* sides of it.

This is where I think I felt attacked before.  Borrowing an example from before, a new person is told that the couple wants to keep a Greek restaurant as their special place.  New person doesn't like Greek food and so agrees.  Is this at the expense of the new person's feelings?  When Sab and I first started this, her OSO was also married and was not interested in anything more than a "secondary" relationship.  And being honest, this relationship caught me by surprise so I'll grant I was too busy worried about my feeling to be concerned about his.  After all, he didn't seem that concerned about my input at first.  So all things considered, I still feel I was more considerate of his feelings than he of mine.

Well, to be honest, it's hard not to come across as adversarial when trying to raise a point that lots of people don't want to hear, or when being accused of being selfish or other such things. 

To borrow your phrase, why do we need to start with the assumption that people don't want to hear your point?  It seems to me that many difficult situations arise because of pessimistic assumptions and the pre-re-actions they tend to cause.  I worry some of your invectives might get in the way of effective communication

[anodyne]

First, perhaps I should ask "What do you want?"  What's the difference between an equal say and an equal partner?  (And to clarify, I'm not attempting to be "willfully ignorant".  There's a saying about seeking to understand before being understood, so I'm trying that.)  Like how would some of the examples be done differently?

To my mind, an equal partner states that they are a co-primary, with all of the benefits and status markers associated with that.  Wedding ring, collar, mark of co-ownership, that sort of thing.  An "equal say" means that they get a chance to define what their secondary status means.  Rather than being told by the existing relationship "We are primaries, you are a secondary, this is what that means and the primary relationship will always come first" they are told "Hey, you're nifty, I think we should date, what does that mean to you?"  Similar to the way in which investment grows in monogamous relationships, you meet you feel eachother out, you get used to eachother and then you grow more involved and share more responsibilities.   Talking with my girlfriend, I came up with this analogy to describe the difference.

Say you're recently divorced, single, or what have you and you are back in a monogamous dating mentality.  You meet this totally awesome (person of interest) and hit it off really well.  You think, hey, this could be going somewhere!   You go out on a date, and they say that they'd like to make things more serious.  You say, "Awesome!" then they tell you that they really really like you, but recently their spouse passed away, and though they want to date you, there's a certain role you can play in their life, but everything else will be taken up by the memory of this other person who is no longer with us.  You can accept that, and date them, or go, woah woah woah.  nay nay, this is not healthy for me, and back out.

For me, any relationship I'm in needs to have the space and agency to grow into something else.  Whether that's growing into something less or more, it needs to have the room to be something other than stagnant.   When a top limit is imposed, that means the only way for my relationship to grow is apart.  That is why I don't pursue secondary status relationships or find the term useful.   If we're dating, we're dating, and I don't have a clear idea what the geometry of that relationship is going to be, so I find restrictive language inadequate and potentially damaging.

That's not to say it doesn't work for other people, or that it's not a valid relationship dynamic.  It's just not one that meshes well with me.