Interesting PoV on Veto

[zylya]

http://www.scarletletters.com/current/021403_nf_rk.html

Part of real love is being able to say to your lover, "I trust you with control over who I sleep with, because I trust you to make your decision based not on your own insecurities but on a real consideration of my needs, wishes, and safety." If you do not have this level of trust in them, you need to pull back from polyamorous adventures and work on trust-building within the relationship.

I've always been against the veto since I don't agree with an outside party being able to end a relationship, but I thought this was an interesting point of view - the idea that you trust someone enough to make the right decision by you instead of the right one for them. I'm still not sure I'd feel entirely comfortable giving someone that power thought. Thoughts?

[AnnabelMore]

So, if you build a strong partnership with a new lover, at what point do they get the right to veto the old partner? If they don't have that right is it not "real love"?

[AnnabelMore]

Ah, ok, actually read the article. They have a strict primary/secondary hierarchy that is not open to the possibility of another partner every becoming co-primary, and the female partner is only allowed to have piv intercourse with her male primary partner. I'm glad it works for them, though it wouldn't for me.

I do appreciate that if one of them wants to veto a long-standing lover argument is allowed and consensus must be reached.

But goddamn I resent the wording in the first sentence of the bit you quoted above, as it clearly implies that a secondary partner, who does not get veto power, is not participating in "real love."

Fuck. That. Shit.

[SchrodingersCat]

I have veto power over my husband's fuck buddies, and if my husband ever said he had really bad vibes about someone I was seeing, I would seriously consider his opinion. He has a really good sense of people but an occasional miss when it comes to ethics.

The examples: He met this girl online once, she wanted to experience SM play and he was looking for a toy. But she was married, not willing to talk to her vanilla husband about her desires, and I thought that was risky. Even with ethics aside, I was worried that Big Mean Husband might find out one day and come beat my husband up or something. I strongly discouraged him from playing with her, and recommended he suggest to her that she talk to her husband about what she wants.

Meanwhile, my besty had this boyfriend who's a real piece of work. Lazy, manipulative, emotionally abusive, the whole bit. My husband hated him from the first time he met the guy, whereas I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because my friend was into him. Well, turns out my husband was 100% right, he really screwed her over, and left her with two more kids than when they met. He doesn't contribute anything financially, in fact used to eat her out of house and home when they were together and often made it difficult for her to feed her own kids. So if I would have listened better to my husband, maybe I could have helped her see the damage he was doing before it was too late. Or maybe not, but I'll never know.

So from those two examples, I'd say we're both good at seeing problematic situations, but both lose sight of that when we're personally involved. So if either one of use said "hey, this person looks like bad news" then I think we would both listen... But I also don't see this as "veto" power so much as "listening to the advice of someone whose wisdom you trust." Also, it's not so much about ending a relationship after it has already begun, but rather heading off a potential blow-up before it begins. Prevention is the best medicine!

p.s. I didn't read the article.

[rory]

But goddamn I resent the wording in the first sentence of the bit you quoted above, as it clearly implies that a secondary partner, who does not get veto power, is not participating in "real love."
Second this.

Otherwise, I understand their point of view about veto, and it's fine if it works for them. However, it comes from a view that is not made explicit: that one's primary partner has better judgement than one has oneself when it comes to people one wants to start a relationship with. If that isn't made explicit, you can counter that with something like

"I trust you with control over who you sleep with, because I trust you to make your decision based not only on your personal preferences and enjoyment but on a real consideration of my needs, wishes, and safety." If you do not have this level of trust in them, you need to pull back from polyamorous adventures and work on trust-building within the relationship.

Personally, that's the route I take, trusting my own and my partners judgement about our own sexual/romantic relationships. However, I can understand why somebody would want an agreement like that. And if it turned out, for example, that NRE clouds my judgement completely and that resulted in lots of drama, I might consider giving my long-standing partner(s) such power myself (but I would have an expiration date for the veto even in that case).

I read the article and I really don't know what to say about it. It was an interesting reading experience. There was something about it that made me uncomfortable but I'm not quite sure at first thought what it is. That's why I want to take a second look, and see what it actually comes from: the wording, my self-reflection (wouldn't work for me), or if I feel there's actually something "wrong" (i.e. unethical) about their rules. Let's see. (Sorry if you only wanted to talk about the rule about veto here, but since you posted the link I figured it's fine if I comment on the other stuff as well.)

Well, firstly, I feel the wording is strange in this
A. If either of us want to have sexual/romantic relations with someone else, they must bring that person in to be interviewed by the other primary partner before sexual relations have occurred.

This is the first place where we weed "em out. If you're not willing to be grilled by my spouse, then obviously you must not want me that badly, right? Am I worth it, or not?
I would feel quite uneasy with the demand that I must be interviewed by somebody's partner. I don't mind meeting them, and I certainly think that isn't an unreasonable request. But I don't know, while I'm all for loving oneself and healthy self-esteem, if somebody asked me "Am I worth it, or not?" question, I would feel like they think they are such a price that I, a mere average person, should be so lucky to have the opportunity to have sexual/romantic relations with them. Not superbly hot.

Similarly not hot is the wording with this
H. Any and all emotional misunderstandings must be settled by consensus, with mediation if necessary, before they become resentful and blow up. Repeated inability on the part of non-primary lovers to talk through misunderstandings and come to useful compromises will result in disqualification due to immaturity. Repeated unwillingness to bring up emotional resentments before they become dangerous will have the same result. Inability to get along with other primary partner after repeated processing will also have the same result. Remember, the committed relationship comes first.
I'm not opposed to these boundaries as such, and I think it's a good idea to not continue to build relationships where there are severe communication problems from the beginning. But the whole disqualification due to immaturity and the committed relationship comes first... I find it off-putting. Like they are such perfect creatures that, again, anybody with the opportunity to date them should consider themselves blessed. (It would be interesting to know if others read this kind of attitude in the wording or if there's just something in it that triggers me. :confused: )

Now with this
I. If genetic male-identified males wish to date Bella, they must first court Raven's permission to do so. Gifts are encouraged.

This is a negotiation around possessiveness and insecurities that we are both especially proud of. When it came to Bella seeing other people, somehow it was very hard for me when she wanted to see genetic male-identified males. I worried that she'd revert to a former pattern of being attracted to abusive, alcoholic jerks. I worried that they'd treat me politely on the surface, but inside they'd be laughing at me for letting them "screw my woman". I worried that they'd start pissing contests with me out of sheer habit. And, yes, I was just kind of possessive and insecure.
I feel the rule is a bit odd, but I also give props for being honest about the reasons behind it. However, I feel that same is not done with this
B. Bella will experience penetrative sex only with Raven.

Sometimes it's good thing to have one special sexual act, even above and beyond those acts limited by body fluid monogamy, that is only for primary partners. It means that when you do this one thing, you are affirming your unique relationship to each other; that it is irreplaceable and unlike any other connection in your lives. It's OK to have one special thing for each relationship, of course, but it's best to pick things that aren't the other partner's cup of tea anyway, if possible.
I do agree that it is OK to have special things to affirm your unique relationship. But my gut tells me that if that was the reason behind this rule, the wording would go something like "Bella and Raven will only experience penetrative sex with each other.". I think it is fine to have rule "Bella will experience penetrative sex only with Raven" if Bella's fine with it. I merely feel that a honest grown-up should own up to the fact that their reasons have to do with insecurities around penetrative sex, and not try to rationalise it with the special uniqueness of the relationship. I'm not buying that and I hope Bella isn't either.

[redpepper]

I have veto power over my husband's fuck buddies, and if my husband ever said he had really bad vibes about someone I was seeing, I would seriously consider his opinion. He has a really good sense of people but an occasional miss when it comes to ethics.Do you really or does he take your suggestions to heart because he trusts your judgement? His giving his input and you trusting his gut is not what I know of veto power. Veto power is an agreement that one partner gets to end the relationship of another without any discussion. Weighing up situations with your partner who might have a different take might give cause to pause and rethink, even in the end deciding to end the relationship, but that to me is a very different thing than what veto agreements are.

[Magdlyn]

Hey, I know this Raven Kaldera. I've been to his farm, met his wife Bella there, and went to 2 sessions at 2 different kink/poly conferences, where he and his boyfriend/slave Josh spoke and took Q&As.

Raven is a Dom to Josh. I'm not sure of the dynamic between him and Bella. Raven is an activist for poly, kink, pagan BDSM and transgender issues.

http://www.ravenkaldera.org/

[AutumnalTone]

"Part of real love is being able to say to your lover, "I trust you with control over who I sleep with, because I trust you to make your decision based not on your own insecurities but on a real consideration of my needs, wishes, and safety." If you do not have this level of trust in them, you need to pull back from polyamorous adventures and work on trust-building within the relationship."

... Thoughts?

I think that's a pile of shit. What an asinine assertion!

[Arrowbound]

I don't think a veto is worth a damn without discussion. Just to get up one day and say to my husband "Hey, I don't like this new girl. Stop seeing her." rubs me the wrong way.

I trust his judgement enough that if I really have concerns about a metamour we can address them together. Same on my end. This is all after I have done my own mentalwork when it comes to polyamory in general, so trust me I didn't always feel this way, lol.

[redpepper]

I don't think a veto is worth a damn without discussion. Just to get up one day and say to my husband "Hey, I don't like this new girl. Stop seeing her." rubs me the wrong way.Ah but a veto is justs that. Telling a partner who they are "allowed" to spend their time with. Its trying to force control and giving an ultimatum if that is not respected.

If there is discussion then it isn't a veto. Its a discussion on boundaries. If your boundaries are being pushed about who you are willing to put up with then it warrants a discussion for sure, but it isn't anything about veto. Its just healthy communication and respect/consideration for all. The idea being to find a solution that works for all, not for one person. I would argue that vetoing is not a solution. It compounds the problem and creates more issues.

[SchrodingersCat]

Do you really or does he take your suggestions to heart because he trusts your judgement? His giving his input and you trusting his gut is not what I know of veto power. Veto power is an agreement that one partner gets to end the relationship of another without any discussion. Weighing up situations with your partner who might have a different take might give cause to pause and rethink, even in the end deciding to end the relationship, but that to me is a very different thing than what veto agreements are.

That's a good point. In that sense, we have a simultaneous "happy wife, happy life" and "father knows best" arrangement. We each play our cards when we basically know we're right and the other is being oblivious to something and won't see reason in the immediate situation. Then after everything is said and done, we're both good enough at life analysis to realize what happened and why the other person put their foot down. I'm not just talking about dating anymore, but just the trust and judgement you have in any good relationship.

And in anything in life, I think anyone trying to put down some major "veto" without any explanation or discussion would never go down well with either of us.

[nycindie]

Oh my lord, I just went to the link and read that contract. It actually has me wondering about Raven Kaldera's sanity. I swear, I felt like I was reading the ramblings of a mental patient - not to put down mental patients, as I have close family members who have been hospitalized in psych wards for serious mental illnesses and so I never say such a thing lightly. But wow, just wow. The entire thing seems quite delusional and smacks of deep, deep insecurity and possessiveness. I don't know how anyone could live that way.


Wondering now... how many members here actually have a contract on paper, written and signed, for their poly relationships?

[Arrowbound]

Ah but a veto is justs that. Telling a partner who they are "allowed" to spend their time with. Its trying to force control and giving an ultimatum if that is not respected.

If there is discussion then it isn't a veto. Its a discussion on boundaries. If your boundaries are being pushed about who you are willing to put up with then it warrants a discussion for sure, but it isn't anything about veto. Its just healthy communication and respect/consideration for all. The idea being to find a solution that works for all, not for one person. I would argue that vetoing is not a solution. It compounds the problem and creates more issues.

I'm all about discussion. A veto makes it seem like there's ownership of one another's personhood. We own our selves and that's as far it goes.

[sevechten]

I'm all about discussion. A veto makes it seem like there's ownership of one another's personhood. We own our selves and that's as far it goes.

I still don't understand the hangup on the word veto. It doesn't seem to make much difference to me whether someone has agreed to an arbitrary veto, a limit after discussion or has not made any explicit veto agreement--if a partner (especially a primary) expresses a veto, a hard limit, or a boundary and isn't willing to change--the choices and the likely consequences remain the same regardless of what it is called or how much discussion there was first.

I suggested veto as a condition of opening our relationship--but it was merely making explicit something that would exist anyhow. There may come a time where it needs to be renegotiated, where I will become unwilling to give up a new relationship--but again that would be the case regardless of what we called it.

This may be a point of view issue--I'm very newly poly, and 'being poly' is less important than my relationship with my wife. Knowing my wife, I also think having an explicit veto policy makes a veto less likely, and makes it more likely she will bring up any problems while they can still be solved. I understand the reluctance of some to date where there is a veto--but again, I think the same issues would be present in almost any long-term mono relationship that has just opened.

[Arrowbound]

This may be a point of view issue--I'm very newly poly, and 'being poly' is less important than my relationship with my wife. Knowing my wife, I also think having an explicit veto policy makes a veto less likely, and makes it more likely she will bring up any problems while they can still be solved. I understand the reluctance of some to date where there is a veto--but again, I think the same issues would be present in almost any long-term mono relationship that has just opened.

This is also my husband's POV. I used to see a veto as a way to protect our relationship but now I just see it as an avenue you go down when you become unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.

[Phy]

Veto - latin, "I forbid" = a prohibition of any sort.

That's why I find this word and the concept behind it absolutely unfitting for any relationship. Because they involve feelings. You can't forbid feelings and no one should have the idea in mind that you can have such an influence on feelings that aren't yours. (Btw, in my opinion you will never have the possibility to have such a handle on your own feelings as well.)

The moment you call veto because of a new partner in the life of your spouse you not approve of, you aren't just preventing this person from entering his life, because on an emotional level, he/she already has done so nevertheless. You will cause your spouse hurt.

What's most problematic about this concept is that the one agreeing to it, may have done so with best intentions in mind, but the moment, the spouse claims this right, the one who agreed to the veto power won't be able to do so with all the consequences that should theoretically come with it. But because of the pledge he needs to stick by his word.

All fine if you think of veto in the sense of, 'give it another thought and bear my disapprobation in mind' but that's not what veto means literally. I see a danger of misunderstanding what you are talking about without further explanation in this kind of situation.

[rory]

I still don't understand the hangup on the word veto. It doesn't seem to make much difference to me whether someone has agreed to an arbitrary veto, a limit after discussion or has not made any explicit veto agreement--if a partner (especially a primary) expresses a veto, a hard limit, or a boundary and isn't willing to change--the choices and the likely consequences remain the same regardless of what it is called or how much discussion there was first.

Hmmm, this is interesting!

Firstly, I would say that for myself the consequences of a partner expressing a boundary/hard limit would not necessarily be as straightforward as you suggest; but then again I would never consider agreeing to something like a veto. For example, if my husband got cold feet now and presented an ultimatum that I need to break up with my girlfriend of 8 months, I consider it very unlikely that would be my choice. Well, some of you may say that 8 months would be too late to present a veto anyway (though many have mentioned a year's time limit), but I've been thinking this almost since the beginning. To me, an ultimatum from a partner suggests a problem in my relationship with that partner, not in my other relationship. I would refuse to pick either..or, but start negotiation about some temporary boundaries I could agree to. I will negotiate to find compromises but I will not respond to an ultimatum. It will be on the presenter to follow through with it, if that is his choice.

However, secondly, I do think you have a point in that, from the point of view of the "new" partner. When one is starting a relatioship with somebody who has an existing long-term partner, I think there is a risk of 'being vetoed' whether there is a agreed veto or not, particularly if the couple in question has (had) no other (successful) poly-relationships. So in terms of risk if an ultimatum is made, there may not be much of a difference for the "incomer". However, there is a question about whether veto-agreements correlate with the likelihood of ultimatums presenting themselves as a response of discomfort (whether from jealousy or simply not liking the new metamour). If there is a veto-agreement, clearly a veto is considered acceptable way of handling things.

I guess for me it does make a difference if my metamour has veto-power. It tells me something about my partner's relationship with them. Yet, I could see myself accepting that and starting a relationship with that person regardless: it all depends on the situation, on the reasons for the veto, and on what kind of a relationship I wish to have with that person.

For me veto is a way bigger question in my own relationships: I cannot see a situation where I could accept that. I would not agree to a veto in a first place, and I won't consider ultimatums an acceptable way of communication. Don't get me wrong, I am very flexible in negotiating boundaries, and I certainly don't always need to get what I want. But perhaps it's just that I see giving an ultimatum as seeking control whereas expressing extremely hurt feelings and major discomfort is honest. I will do as much as I can to help in the latter case, but I suppose I have a personal hard boundary about not giving anybody power to control my actions.

[zylya]

Veto - latin, "I forbid" = a prohibition of any sort.

That's why I find this word and the concept behind it absolutely unfitting for any relationship. Because they involve feelings. You can't forbid feelings and no one should have the idea in mind that you can have such an influence on feelings that aren't yours. (Btw, in my opinion you will never have the possibility to have such a handle on your own feelings as well.)

But the veto doesn't forbid FEELINGS, only ACTION. Just like monogamy doesn't prohibit you from FEELING something for another person, only acting upon it.

The moment you call veto because of a new partner in the life of your spouse you not approve of, you aren't just preventing this person from entering his life, because on an emotional level, he/she already has done so nevertheless. You will cause your spouse hurt.

What's most problematic about this concept is that the one agreeing to it, may have done so with best intentions in mind, but the moment, the spouse claims this right, the one who agreed to the veto power won't be able to do so with all the consequences that should theoretically come with it. But because of the pledge he needs to stick by his word.

All fine if you think of veto in the sense of, 'give it another thought and bear my disapprobation in mind' but that's not what veto means literally. I see a danger of misunderstanding what you are talking about without further explanation in this kind of situation.

If a partner is going to abuse the power of veto, then I am simply going to disregard that veto. People are talking very theoretically here, but I'd have to have a whole shitload of trust in someone before giving them such an important power. If I'm with a partner, and there was a veto arrangement, if she was using it simply for her own convenience, then I would just disregard the veto, and more than likely end the current relationship, on the basis that they were trying to cause me hurt for their own gain.

Assuming a veto arrangement, if you can't trust your partner to not screw you over, then why are you in a relationship with them?

[BigGuy]

But the veto doesn't forbid FEELINGS, only ACTION. Just like monogamy doesn't prohibit you from FEELING something for another person, only acting upon it.

My understanding of monogamy is that emotional fidelity is also a requirement.

If people want to have relationships with veto powers, more power to them. Whatever works for them. However, my thought is that it is a short term fix, and most of the time doesn't address the underlying problem. I don't have a fundamental problem with veto's, but I really think they should have a sunset clause or end date, if you will.

I also see it as a way that someone might test just to be assured how committed their partner is to the relationship.

And finally, sometimes people are really bad relationship pickers. Perhaps people who haven't fully addressed and healed emotional wounds. There is a certain security in giving the final authority for your relationships to someone else.

[Phy]

But the veto doesn't forbid FEELINGS, only ACTION. Just like monogamy doesn't prohibit you from FEELING something for another person, only acting upon it.

Assuming a veto arrangement, if you can't trust your partner to not screw you over, then why are you in a relationship with them?

Yes, and someone who calls that veto is absolutely happy when the spouse just doesn't act on it? IF that would be the case there is no love for the one who has to obey this veto power, because this one will suffer. Feeling without acting is torture, I know what I am talking about ...

I can trust my partners. I can trust them to come to me and explain to me why this or that makes them feel uncomfortable if it is linked to my actions. But why would they need absolute power over these actions? Can't they trust me in return to take their worries at face value and consider them in my decisions? I would feel greatly offended if one of them came to me and asked for such an arrangement.

My understanding of monogamy is that emotional fidelity is also a requirement.

I also see it as a way that someone might test just to be assured how committed their partner is to the relationship.

There is a certain security in giving the final authority for your relationships to someone else.

Exactly. I can't understand handing such power over to any other person. Why should I? I am my own. Why should I wish for someone to control me or my actions? We can talk and negotiate everything but why this ultimate power over something that is so important to me? I can't see this as a special sign of trust. It's pure disregard of the person I am and leads to only seeing oneself and the needs you have. Nothing that hints to a healthy relationship, at least that's my take on the matter.

[sevechten]

This is also my husband's POV. I used to see a veto as a way to protect our relationship but now I just see it as an avenue you go down when you become unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.

Then the problem isn't the veto, it is being unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.

I see giving an ultimatum as seeking control whereas expressing extremely hurt feelings and major discomfort is honest. I will do as much as I can to help in the latter case, but I suppose I have a personal hard boundary about not giving anybody power to control my actions.

"I've listened, but I'm going to keep seeing this person" is also an ultimatum of sorts.

Assuming a veto arrangement, if you can't trust your partner to not screw you over, then why are you in a relationship with them?

Right. In my particular case, Wife thinks she's OK with me acting on being poly, but can't be sure until it happens, and not completely sure until there's sex. She is much more comfortable with this as an experiment than as an irrevocable change in our relationship. So far it is working well--she has gone far above and beyond mere tolerance of my new girlfriend, they are discussing taking some craft classes together.

Also in my case, Wife didn't ask for veto, it was my suggestion.

[Arrowbound]

Then the problem isn't the veto, it is being unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.


I see it being one and the same. A veto won't do anything but temporarily stall the inevitable. Your poly nature doesn't all of a sudden go away.

[AnnabelMore]

It seems to me that this is all about wording.

If my partner's choices, actions, or associations are hurting me or hurting our partnership, I expect to get a chance to voice my opinion and be listened to carefully. If it's so important to me that I feel the need to put my foot down about it and make it clear I just won't be able to handle it if the situation continues, my partner can then respect my wishes or let me walk away. If I'm making a fuss over nothing, of course, I don't expect to be listened to.

How is that different from the sort of "discussion and negotiation will take place and I'll disregard it if it's being used frivolously" version of the veto that some people here are defending?

I guess the difference is that with the veto in place you promise to be the one to acquiese in the end rather than let your partner walk away. But wouldn't that be most people's choice most of the time anyway, unless we're talking about your partner asking you to drop someone with whom you've fallen deeply in love and with whom you've forged a partnership of your own... in which case most people seem to agree that a veto policy should no longer necessarily be in effect (note that in the original article linked above the writer talks of needing to reach consensus before a long-standing relationship can be ended... doesn't sound like a veto to me at that point, it just sounds like a discussion of an important issue)?

Veto is a loaded term because for some people it truly does mean "I will drop any other partner the moment you say so, no matter what your reasons are, no matter how much I love him/her, and that is that." *shudder* I would hate to think of my metamour having veto power over me, and yet in essence he does because I know that if my gf were absolutely forced to choose, she would choose him... I would want her to. So, again, it's a matter of wording.

If you need the wording for your partner to feel comfortable, fair enough. But understand that it is a very loaded word. And for those who are ardently against it, it may help to realize that, with the variability in how folk apply it, it may be in essence not so different from what you would practice in your life, it's just been given a harsh-sounding label.

[SchrodingersCat]

Well said, Anabel.

Even without veto power, there's always The Ultimatum. In my experience, relationships that exercise ultimatum power doom themselves. It's a bad sign when your arguments involve "Choose what I want or else I walk." Note the difference from "My needs in this relationship cannot be met under these circumstances."

The notion of veto power with no explanation or justification frightens me. That obviously indicates a lack of communication and abundance of insecurity. Our relationship couldn't function the way it does if we didn't understand the way the other one ticks. Anything serious in life requires explanation and justification, it's part of the deal when you're sharing a life together. I'm not talking about every little coffee date or new dress. But spend enough time with someone, you should know what's important to them and when they'd like to be consulted. If you have any trust and respect for them, you'll consider their concerns.

[AnnabelMore]

Joreth provides a definition of "veto" that makes sense to me (as differentiated from the sort of discussion and negotiation that take place in any healthy relationship) and then rips it to shreds: http://joreth.livejournal.com/259773.html

[redpepper]

Veto is the illusion of control and while that seems to be a relief in the beginning of a poly dynamic it inevitably falls on its face and causes more pain when the realization that there is no control becomes evident.

My BF had a veto agreement with his wife who broke it three times. He eventually gave up and let her do whatever she wanted and their trust was broken. If he had decided to ask that he be considered and that she respect his boundaries then he might not of ended up there. She had agreed to his veto but when push came to shove was unable to respect it.

Their trust has built up again but for a time he gave up all control and found that when he did it was very freeing and created more respect for his boundaries than he had thought it would. Not only that it opened up their communication because she no longer felt that she had to hide, that he judged her decisions and that he was going to implode on his feelings of lack of control.

[Tonberry]

So, when they say "penetrative sex" they mean PiV? I would think that pretty much everything else has some degree of penetration involved (or can have it, for instance masturbating a woman or giving her oral sex son't HAVE to involve penetration, but they can.)

It sounds like a weird choice of words to me.

For the rest, the relationship wouldn't work at all for me. And I don't like that they make it sound like people who work differently don't experience "real love".

[MeeraReed]

I agree with NYCindie. These people sound completely nutty.

Is it possible that the contract is a joke/satire/spoof to point out how polyamory does NOT work with ridiculous rules?

[AnnabelMore]

New term: "One Penetrator Policy" :D Wait, except nothing says that he can't be penetrated by others, which would mean there would be multiple penetrators involved... so, it's a one-sided one-penetrator policy!

[Freetime]

The power of veto is a myth. The idea creates the illusion of security to those new to poly such as myself, and the emotionally insecure. The core idea behind the veto when you striip the bullshit out from the discussion is mistrust.

Good luck having a real poly relationship if one of the core agreements is based on Fear.

[Juntas]

When my wife and I became poly, we decided we would have veto power, and I have only ever used it once, and even then it was after a discussion. And the only reason it came up was due to the guy not accepting the rules and boundaries we had set up, he crossed them and it didn't sit well with either of us. So I vetoed it, so my wife didn't feel like the bad guy ending that relationship. I don't think its necessary unless the other person crosses the boundaries in which you and your partner have set up.

[redpepper]

When my wife and I became poly, we decided we would have veto power, and I have only ever used it once, and even then it was after a discussion. And the only reason it came up was due to the guy not accepting the rules and boundaries we had set up, he crossed them and it didn't sit well with either of us. So I vetoed it, so my wife didn't feel like the bad guy ending that relationship. I don't think its necessary unless the other person crosses the boundaries in which you and your partner have set up.Again, not a veto as far as I can see. You both agreed with your wife to end the relationship. A veto would be if she DIDN'T agree and you called him up and said, "sorry buddy, yer out," while your wife cried "nooooo" in the back ground. This didn't happen by the account you are relaying; not a veto.

[riftara]

everyone, welcome Juntas - my John.

Our poly journey has been one of communication - but I have to say if I hadnt agreed in that case, I still would have respected John's wishes that I not be with this guy anymore. Mainly because he had never used his veto before, so I know that he wouldn't use it lightly.

[Ttree]

http://www.scarletletters.com/current/021403_nf_rk.html



I've always been against the veto since I don't agree with an outside party being able to end a relationship, but I thought this was an interesting point of view - the idea that you trust someone enough to make the right decision by you instead of the right one for them. I'm still not sure I'd feel entirely comfortable giving someone that power thought. Thoughts?

I agree with your POV. I don't think love should have to be "proven" through demonstrations of trust and allowing someone else to control or limit you. Love is not demanding like that. (Bear in mind, anyone reading this, that I am referring specifically to the veto as defined "allowing someone the right to TELL you whom you may not date (and by my own extension, declare your love to and maybe at some point express your love via physical intimacy with said person/s)", under any or specific circumstances, I am not addressing the right to advise, or to veto oher things one may issue with regarding such things as who is allowed around the children, who is allowed in whose house, etc).

My own experience (more in very close friendships and family relationships than romantic relationships) has been that one tool that was frequently used by people to manipulate me was the "I'm trusting you to do this, don't let me down" or "if you really care you'll let me make this decision for you" angle, which I fell for many times. In the emotionally abusive and manipulative friendship(s) I was in it was basically a way for them to establish control over me.

However I am against the veto on principle because I see "love" as a big part of my personality, and wanting to be there for those I love, and tell those I deeply care about that I do really love them. Nobody can tell me whom to love and whom of my lovers I may lend my strength to. I see it as being about more than me and as an activist I see love as one of the things I fight for. Love is not wrong! However, other people may not have the same feelings as me, or form the same emotional and protective attachments I do. For me, to be able to love whomever I love and be able to be there on all levels when the person I love needs me is very important. I consider myself (currently) non-hierarchical for this reason, because I don't want to be held back or limited by someone else's veto whenever someone I care about needs me to be there for them. Maybe other people prefer a primary or see things differently?