tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post7524452593053782420..comments2023-10-06T06:29:02.689-04:00Comments on A Bright Cape: Words are hardSkyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10723733406348223879noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-60384368993537630132015-01-21T12:30:33.192-05:002015-01-21T12:30:33.192-05:00So I get the "I say X and people pretty much ...So I get the "I say X and people pretty much get it" utility, and I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to do that. What I'm saying is that if these terms cause confusion in the poly community, it's probably because the distinction being made has nothing to do with being poly. Your example is between Wendy and your brother, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say you aren't romantically entangled with your brother. My highest emergency multiplier would be for my children (there are certain legal, ethical and practical considerations there, but I think they would win anyway), not my wife.<br /><br />I mean, you say, "The trick in this case is that I don't think that people with whom I have secondary relationships have an inherently subordinate position" but then you start talking about literally giving out ordinals and theirs being sub-Wendy.<br /><br />If our wives suddenly fell in love with one another and ran away, leaving us with our homes/kids and we decided to Brady-bunch it for logistical reasons, you would jump very high on my emergency multiplier list, but I don't think I'd be gay for you (though the premise of this scenario suggests I might be wrong?). In that event, I think you would care more about my emergency than about that of at least most lovers because I'm the one who cooks dinner some nights and picks up the kids from school (or whatever I do).<br /><br />My point is that the effect you are describing is not a modifier on a romantic relationship, but is orthogonal to romantic relationships. It's also unrelated to being poly. What the poly community uniquely brings to the discussion is clarity about the issue. For the romantitypical community, the order is (young kids/old spouse) -> (young spouse/old kids) -> blood relations -> close friends with some minor variation based on circumstances. The top two spots are supposed to be reserved for sexual partners and the results of your having sexual partners. It's just another thing we boring people get to assume without thought. But when I do think about it, the whole idea of emergency multipliers is just as relevant to me.Sthennohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05429676469805661834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-53995547924541561872015-01-20T22:27:57.820-05:002015-01-20T22:27:57.820-05:00I both accept my lower multiplier and am impressed...I both accept my lower multiplier and am impressed at how quickly this devolved into math.Matt Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06532354277848905275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-24399519266710548092015-01-20T16:34:07.734-05:002015-01-20T16:34:07.734-05:00If there is a better set of words that aren't ...If there is a better set of words that aren't overly clumsy I would happily use them but I don't know of any. The trouble is that domestic doesn't quite capture it exactly either. There is an emergency multiplier on people that I have (and which most people have, I assume) to tell them who is most important. If I get a phone call saying Wendy and one other person are in the hospital I am heading to see Wendy no matter who the other person is. If Wendy had a broken leg but my brother was dying I would go to see my brother because although his multiplier is lower the overall product is larger because of the more serious condition. Part of being primary isn't just living together, it is the raw multiplier.<br /><br />Not that I use primary to describe Wendy generally, of course. I call her my wife and people figure it out pretty well. It just seems that generally people get the right idea when I call her my primary partner so it works for me.Skyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10723733406348223879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-87971400059309587082015-01-20T14:48:51.912-05:002015-01-20T14:48:51.912-05:00It sounds to me like "primary" and "...It sounds to me like "primary" and "secondary" just aren't the right words. You described your partnership with Wendy as "domestic" and I think that's probably the right word. I guess to me the point would be to find a word that describes the moving-to-Edmonton issue completely independent of the romantic relationship. I know of at least one pair of elderly sisters who live together and who are probably about as attached to one another as most married couples but who (I presume) are not romantically entangled.<br /><br />We conflate romantic attachment with building your life around someone because of marriage and children, but marriage and children don't automatically come together anymore (not that they ever did), and people who are not romantically involved could be raising children together. When primary means "+domestic" and second means "not domestic" it seems like there is confusion that could be cleared up with a change of terms.Sthennohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05429676469805661834noreply@blogger.com