Veto Power...?

[fullofdumplins]

Just wanted to open up a discussion on vetoing; do you use veto and if so, what are the guidelines you have with placing a veto?

The boyfriend and I have decided a while back that we are able to place in vetoes: some are non-negotiable while others can be added/removed as we see fit. We are not in a poly relationship at this point in time but it is something that we have discussed while we practice non-monogamy, and I hope we will eventually move forward to a poly relationship in future.

Does placing vetoes seem like a smart idea or is this something that takes away from the relationship?

[BlackUnicorn]

I would consider using a veto in two very specific cases;

1) adding another partner would seriously take up already thinly-divided time. Say, my partner would consider taking on a fifth partner. I say four is pretty much the upper limit I can see one person engaging with at the same time and still having enough time for work, hobbies, other duties etc.
2) continuing a relationship with one partner is seriously threatening the wellbeing of everyone in the constellation. I'm thinking drug addictions, trouble with the law, acute mental health breakdowns, compulsive lying, cheating, violent behavior, something of that magnitude.

Using a veto in any other case, because of insecurity, jealousy etc. I think undermines the foundation of the relationship and might lead to resentment and boundary-breaking. Haven't thought the implications of absolute vs. negotiable vetoes. Are you thinking of something along the lines of a person A being off-limits for now, but maybe not so in the future?

[Ariakas]

Honestly, I dislike veto power greatly. Unless there is something dangerous in the mix (see BU's number 2 as some examples). I have seen what it can do to people, and unless you have control of your own relationship, it will never ever be relaxed or stable or even fun. At some point you have to be trusted as an adult, to manage your own shit. Otherwise, why are you getting involved with people?

People believe veto power can only come from a spouse saying "no this isn't happening" But how is it different if there is no veto power on the table but the spouse acts like a lunatic and it ends. It isn't...

I would outright refuse to get involved with someone who has veto ability. Its not worth my time to be involved with someone who doesn't have control of our relationship.

[Morningglory629]

I agree with Ari. That's a surprise!:p

[TruckerPete]

I equate veto power to a sort of panic button. It allows one partner to pull the plug without any need to work through their own emotions or have a dialogue with their SO about concerning behaviour, etc.

Want poly without the work? Try Veto™*!



*side effects may include: resentment from your partner, treating others as disposible objects, never learning to deal with shit

[MindfulAgony]

Who knew that such a "common" option would be so unpopular here?

But, I too, abhor the veto option. If I were married, desperate to live out my poly dreams, then I might accept the veto option to make it feel more safe to go there. But, I'm not sure that it is as helpful as we might believe.

In the end, if you can't trust my judgment about people, you need to be willing to work with me as I learn to be a better judge. Deciding for me is not particularly helpful. I realize that this willingness might not be without some pain. But, it is pain that could help strengthen the relationship because of the trust given, wisdom shared, and stick with me through those growing pains.

If I'm a fool and can't learn, then you might as well get out while you can anyway...

[LovingRadiance]

I think veto power is flat cruel.

It takes the "person" out of the "secondary role".

From the perspective of the "third" (or subsequent number):

WHY on earth would you want to date someone that you knew-even if you both fall madly in love, have a healthy, happy, loving relationship that doesn't ACTUALLY disrespect or infringe on their other relationships,
their other lover could "terminate" your relationship at will?

Nope. Wouldn't do it.

In a healthy relationship (hell even in many unhealthy relationships) there SHOULD be the ability to say "honey, that person is smoking crack on the weekends, they just aren't an appropriate fit for you".
AND
Having the where with all in ourselves to say "you know what honey, as much as I WANT a relationship, you're right. I don't want that kind of b.s. in my life either."

But, that's not veto power, that's communicating honestly and openly.

At the point where someone ELSE has the right to decide if a relationship is or isn't important enough to me, for me to keep it... we're no longer in a relationship, we're in a dictatorship.


(no, I didn't feel that way when we first started poly-but it became quite clear to me after reading all the horror stories and encountering a few "I'm not so sure" moments myself. I figured out pretty quick that I don't need veto power-I just need to know I can express my concerns and Maca will listen.)

[MonoVCPHG]

As a secondary involved with a couple who have a child, I would completely accept the concept of Veto Power for them if the stability of their family was at stake. The child and those who are responsible to provide a stable and healthy environment come first. Then again I believe marriages come first as well...I would just go into a relationship with my eyes open to the idea that my impact would be less than that of the married/established or parenting couple. In order to do that you have to "want" to be with the partner and not "need" to be with them in a specific way.

I'm weird..I know :o

[Derbylicious]

I see vetos as a step along the journey to opening up an existing relationship. It's one of those safety line things that many people have in place when testing out the waters. All I can say is be open with anyone who you are considering dating about there being a veto power in place so that individual can make the desision whether or not they want to get involved with you. You might find as things go on that there is less and less need for veto.

I used to be a strong defender of veto power but I'm not a big fan of it anymore. I figure the only person you can really make desisions for is yourself. If a situation isn't working for you it's best to talk it out and find a mutually agreed upon solution. Plus the person who is having the veto used against them is a person with real emotions too and it's got to be hard being in a realtionship where you have the possibility of having it ended by an outside source over your head all the time. I wouldn't chose to be in a relationship like that.

[Mohegan]

Karma and I call it our Happy Healthy Sane rule. Very similar to BU's #2. We both feel it is something only to be used when happy, healthy,sane is not being met. And even then it's with a lot of talking. Even when all hell broke loose with Cricket lying time and time again and putting our health in jepardy, I told Karma what I would like to see, that I was removing myself from the situation, and he could make whatever decision he felt right, but that I would no longer be supportive of them being together.

It was still his choice to stay or go, but as part of our honesty agreement, he needed to know that I felt happy healthy sane wasn't being met for him and in a way for me.

We've both agreed that the only time we are going to flat out veto a relationship is when health and/or sanity is being threatened in a major way.

[Morningglory629]

I equate veto power to a sort of panic button. It allows one partner to pull the plug without any need to work through their own emotions or have a dialogue with their SO about concerning behaviour, etc.

Want poly without the work? Try Veto™*!



*side effects may include: resentment from your partner, treating others as disposible objects, never learning to deal with shit

TP you are hilarious! Love your posts!

[LovingRadiance]

As a secondary involved with a couple who have a child, I would completely accept the concept of Veto Power for them if the stability of their family was at stake. The child and those who are responsible to provide a stable and healthy environment come first. Then again I believe marriages come first as well...I would just go into a relationship with my eyes open to the idea that my impact would be less than that of the married/established or parenting couple. In order to do that you have to "want" to be with the partner and not "need" to be with them in a specific way.

I'm weird..I know :o

I dont know if you are weird or not. I agree that the stability of the family has to come first.
BUT-if my husband isn't providing a stable environment for the family-it's HIM that needs to go, not his lover that needs to be veto'd by me.

IF his lover is a detriment to the family-then he should handle that.

Of course-that's not an issue for me, because his lover is the most amazing woman I've met.

BUT-I still hold to it being his responsibility to make that decision as a responsible party in the family.

Likewise-it's my responsibility in the family.

Veto power allows the wrong person to have 100% control over the staying or going of another. (IMHO)

But-you know I love you Mon. So you be your weird self. :) hehehe

[MonoVCPHG]

But-you know I love you Mon. So you be your weird self. :) hehehe

you'ld better..my astral projection just saw you in the shower! I think you winked at me too:o

[LovingRadiance]

you'ld better..my astral projection just saw you in the shower! I think you winked at me too:o

:eek:
You SAW!

Damn, did you see the pic of you and your Harley on the wall too?
SHIT! I was trying to keep that secret.

heheheheh

[MonoVCPHG]

:eek:
You SAW!

Damn, did you see the pic of you and your Harley on the wall too?
SHIT! I was trying to keep that secret.

heheheheh

I wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't for all the candles burning around it...and the lip stick kisses :D

Enough Hi-jacking!

[redpepper]

I think that doing as I would want to have done to me is the best bet for me. I would not want to be told flat off to just fuck off because someones wife or whomever else decides I am not what "they" want for their partner... that is bullshit to me. But, I would be very willing to negotiate something that works better for a partner that is struggling or even decide to let the relationship go because I can see they have far too much to work on before being truly ready for what poly brings to ones life.

There is no way in hell I would accept a partner of mines veto. I have come too far :p

I think veto and primary/secondary language and descriptions are for newbies. Those who are stuck in the realm of relationships where one owns another and isn't able to let go of that just yet. It's based on fear and that, I think, needs to be broached before stepping into being an individual in ones relationship... I get that. I don't operate like that, but I get it... we are fed it in every bit of pop culture there is... it's hard not to get it. I just don't do that, is all.

[redpepper]

there are several threads on this if one were to do a tag search for "veto" and "veto power" btw....

[Morningglory629]

I think veto and primary/secondary language and descriptions are for newbies. Those who are stuck in the realm of relationships where one owns another and isn't able to let go of that just yet. It's based on fear and that, I think, needs to be broached before stepping into being an individual in ones relationship... I get that. I don't operate like that, but I get it... we are fed it in every bit of pop culture there is... it's hard not to get it. I just don't do that, is all.

Perfect break down of how that language can damage.

[GroundedSpirit]

..............
In the end, if you can't trust my judgment about people, you need to be willing to work with me as I learn to be a better judge. Deciding for me is not particularly helpful. I realize that this willingness might not be without some pain. But, it is pain that could help strengthen the relationship because of the trust given, wisdom shared, and stick with me through those growing pains.

If I'm a fool and can't learn, then you might as well get out while you can anyway...

This is a good summation I think MA.......

Because of the control dynamics involved, one of the basics of poly involves giving up that control option.
And I know that in many cases, after you do that, your example is the way that's left to flow.
You either choose to accept SOME risk and try to work towards something better long term - or you call a spade a spade - and bail !

Every situation is unique and everyone's willingness or ability to risk is different. So the "bail point" moves..........

GS

[MindfulAgony]

This is a good summation I think MA.......

Because of the control dynamics involved, one of the basics of poly involves giving up that control option.
And I know that in many cases, after you do that, your example is the way that's left to flow.
You either choose to accept SOME risk and try to work towards something better long term - or you call a spade a spade - and bail !

Every situation is unique and everyone's willingness or ability to risk is different. So the "bail point" moves..........

GS

Glad it resonated with you. I like the way you put a finer point on it. Giving up control, taking some risk, and committing to growth is inherent in making this shift.

[Anneintherain]

We have agreed we can veto someone early on if we get a really bad feeling about somebody - I know sometimes people get giddy over somebody new and don't really see things that could be problems. That is why we prefer to meet people the other is dating fairly soon, I don't think its fair to the third party to try be able to pull the plug whenever.

I don't picture using it - my husband hasn't dated crazy needy dysfunctional women for a long time, and I have only seen him date sane ones since we have been together, most of whom I have liked.

We do have veto in another way I suppose. We don't have hard and fast rules about dating somebody based on their sexual activities, lifestyle, or dating style (some things really just aren't our thing but we don't have a "you can't date somebody who does that" clause preset up because each person is an individual), but it is possible that we realize after awhile that we aren't going to be comfortable with that third person's choices. I have found some of that information just doesn't come up in the first few dates, and decisions might be made a bit later down the line.

I imagine that (working hard to come up with an example I would actually want to veto) if somebody my husband was dating for awhile started having unprotected casual sex now and then, got into risky blood play & started phoning at 2 am wanting to chat because she was feeling insecure - well he probably would've already broken up with her, but I imagine in that case I would be sitting him down at some point if there were ongoing issues and saying I didn't want this person in his life as a girlfriend anymore.

Admittedly if somebody he dated cheated on say - their primary partner, he might be more tolerant because he just is and knows people make mistakes - but I might ask to veto that person at that point because of a lot of personal reasons and history. Hmm that makes good conversation fodder for tonight.

[Malena]

I do not believe in Veto's as for me that belongs to a mono relationship. If someone loves me they do not want to decide for me who is my loved one and who is not. When a couple has multiple relationships i sometimes wonder if it is really polyamory or more like an open relationship. If there is one most important person to me that is an open relationship that has overlap with polyamory but isn't so to me.
In my relationships both my partners are equal which in the case of veto means they would both have a veto option. If only one of them dislikes the other and therefore uses his veto what the hell would be the point?? Even when someone is a drug addict I would say it is my partners choice.

Even though somewhere you of course have to respect one another and have the same idea what the word respect involves for you both. If you love someone you do not want to put that person in danger and you will make sure your other relationships do not do so.
Veto could be meaning: communication. Stay open about your feelings, give your partner time to trust again if trust is damaged. We are people and we do get insecure sometimes that is normal. Take time to tell and show to eachother what they mean to you. If that means that you have to invest more time with that person at that time then another or even means you have to sometimes take a time out with that other person to settle things with one i think you have to do so. You owe that to someone if you respect and love them the last thing you want to do is hurt them, even if you do not mean to and you are not in your own opinion. Listen to one another and talk! SHARE

[BlackUnicorn]

I think of vetoes more as ultimatums, in a 'this shit doesn't fly by me anymore - take it or leave it' kinda way, but I see that is not what people generally mean by the concept. Of course, if I had been married for ten years and just now starting to play the field, I might be more inclined to try to work on a veto policy when getting into poly.

What do you think of temporary vetoes, as in 'I love this person but they need to work their shit out before we can continue as metamours, because right now it's having too much of an impact on our family life'?

[Morningglory629]

What do you think of temporary vetoes, as in 'I love this person but they need to work their shit out before we can continue as metamours, because right now it's having too much of an impact on our family life'?

Either way, is it your responsibility to veto? I mean that means anyone in the relationship Vee can veto anything they deem "impacting" life.

Example1: I am moody and snap at hubs for the umpteenth time he has left laundry on the floor just because I had a fight with 2Rings over something entirely separate from hubs....might be over KT, might be something else... I may have snapped because I was not my usual self and pissed-off in general. Does my argument with 2Rings impact family life, quite often but does that mean hubs has a right to veto a relationship I want. No. He can ask why I jumped in his ass today, bitch a little about it and may utter that a sock on the floor does not warrant a full-blown rant, pick up his laundry and move-on; he can point out "hey I am not 2Rings but I am sorry I was the last straw today" and pick up his laundry; or he can just pick up his laundry and lump the mood I am in until it passes. Trying to place a sanction on something HE has nothing to do with just adds another layer of annoyance AND excludes hubs from his responsibility in any discord he is causing as well.

Example2: Hubs is looking for ways to control the relationship I have with 2Rings because he is monogamous and does not agree with poly lifestyle etc, so he vetos this, that and the other. He argues with me until we are screaming in eachother's faces and in front of the kids almost daily because I do not agree with the vetoes and BTW I am an independent person with free-thought, right? So I am just as stubborn in my "rights." Kids are impacted NOT by metamour but hubs' reaction to my want of my relatinship with said metamour and to have this or that everyday, normal expectation in that relationship. What did the veto accomplish?

BTW- hubs doesn't ever veto. Thank god!

Just my thoughts on veto. And this applies to politics as well. That and filebustering really get on my nerves. I just don't see the point of it other than to piss people off, extend the argument, and cause further stress and discord. The exact opposite of ANY reason I have heard in support of the power of veto.

[TruckerPete]

All of the responses I've seen that talk about reasonable scenarios to use vetos could easily be categorized as common sense and/or good communication.

Veto literally means "I forbid". If something is common sensical or you're able to have a dialogue with your partner, then you're not vetoing.

[Derbylicious]

If you are using veto power it really comes down to an ultimatum. I think if you have one in place you have to be prepared for the possibility that the veto won't be respected and you may end up having to leave a situation that you feel is unbearable instead. You can't control anyone's actions except your own and ultimatums rarely go well.

[MrFarFromRight]

Mister Pedant Man wades in again. (Bam! Kerpow! Whoosh!)
I clicked on this thread, because I was thinking to write: "If that's what you need to maintain a healthy relationship... it's your call."

Frankly I'm rather amazed to read so many people damning vetoing on a board where so many write about the "necessity of setting clear boundaries". And some of the damning comes from the same people who insist on the boundaries option. Now, it's possible that senility is setting in early with me, but I'm having problems with this one:

Just what is the difference between "vetoing" and "setting clear boundaries"?

(Please remember that I'm Mister Pedant Man, and be gentle with me. My super-tights get laddered in a scuffle.)

I would certainly agree that it's better to discuss problems and come to a happy concensus. And I'm actually playing the Devil's advocate here, because I - personally and generally - hate the idea of vetoes. Especiallyapplie[d] to politics as well. That and filebustering really get on my nerves. I just don't see the point of it other than to piss people off, extend the argument, and cause further stress and discord. The exact opposite of ANY reason I have heard in support of the power of veto.But let's look at political vetoing. In the USA, the President has a veto right over Congress. (But the veto can be overturned - though with difficulty - by Congress.) In the UN, just 5 countries have the right of veto... on policies that affect the entire World. These are both cases of vetoes being a prerogative of the already over-powerful.

Just which vetoes are being considered here?
You may not have unprotected sex with a new partner before they've been tested for AIDS and STDs. (?)
You may not have unprotected sex with any partner outside our primary relationship. (?)
You may not have sex with any other partner in OUR bed. (?)
You may not do overnights with your GF/BF. (?)

I have seen all of these positions ("setting clear boundaries") defended by experienced polys. Aren't those vetoes?

You may not have sex with Mister Pedant Man because he's a pedantic wanker who gets right up my nose. (?)

Well, how about: "IF you have sex with Mister Pedant Man - a pedantic wanker who gets right up my nose - I think it only fair to tell you that I'll have lost all respect for your sense of taste and (bring on the sad voice) frankly don't hold out much hope for our relationship's future..."

I've seen a lot of emotional blackmail and manipulation in my time, and frankly: if 2 lovers decide on equal vetoing rights (some being negotiable in the future), I don't see it as all that bad.

SHIT!!! My super-tights have laddered! Time to change back into mild-mannered, wishy-washy MrFarFromRight.

[NeonKaos]

Mr Pendant -

Have you READ what people wrote or are you just interested in experimenting with the formatting options?

I think that folks have explained quite clearly what the difference between a "boundary" and a "veto" is and if you choose to not get it because you like to hear yourself type, then by all means, do it up jiggy, yo.

[Ariakas]

Veto is the hard and fast "you must end this relationship".. no real reason needed. Just one spouse sneezed too hard. At any point in the relationship... *shudders*.. horrible stuff.

Everything you have posted there, is not a "veto" in the sense this thread is trying to make it. Think of a veto in a relationship like a game show.

What the hell is up with the alternate personality...

[MrFarFromRight]

I - personally and generally - hate the idea of vetoes.In what - not general case - would I be in favour of the right to veto?

I have given a lot of thought to the setting-up of communes. I have lived in several "communal houses" (not strictly communes) which had the rule: A person may be invited to stay here by any member of the household, but in case they want to move in and become a full house member with equal rights (and this meant equal rights: no pulling rank, "because I've lived here longer than you have"), any current full house member has the right to veto their admission.

I think that that's a fine rule! (I've seen at least one case - where I wasn't a house member, but a close friend-of-the-house, and was concerned about its happiness and stability - where 2 house members chose [against my spirited advice] not to use their veto right [despite strong misgivings about the applicant: they just didn't believe in vetoes]. The applicant was admitted and within a few months the house split into 3 antagonistic factions. Some people are just poison! [And some people don't recognise poison when they smell it...])

[NeonKaos]

Mr Pendant brings up a good question.

A good answer is:

A veto is a viable course of action if it has something to do with YOURSELF, not something to do with a partner's activities that are only tangential to yourself.

For example - it wouldn't have made sense for YOU, Mr Pendant, as a "close friend" of the household, to be allowed "veto power" over who moves in, but it DOES make sense for the people who live there to have veto power over who moves in (it really is their problem if they decide to not use veto power and then regret not using it).

[MrFarFromRight]

Sigh! Back into my laddered super-tights...Veto is the hard and fast "you must end this relationship".. no real reason needed. Just one spouse sneezed too hard. At any point in the relationship... *shudders*.. horrible stuff.

Everything you have posted there, is not a "veto" in the sense this thread is trying to make it. Think of a veto in a relationship like a game show.

What the hell is up with the alternate personality...Repeat: Veto is the hard and fast "you must end this relationship".. no real reason needed. Here is the original post from fullofdumplins (who - I notice - hasn't chosen to [or possibly "has chosen not to"] add another comment to this thread):Just wanted to open up a discussion on vetoing; do you use veto and if so, what are the guidelines you have with placing a veto?

The boyfriend and I have decided a while back that we are able to place in vetoes: some are non-negotiable while others can be added/removed as we see fit. We are not in a poly relationship at this point in time but it is something that we have discussed while we practice non-monogamy, and I hope we will eventually move forward to a poly relationship in future.

Does placing vetoes seem like a smart idea or is this something that takes away from the relationship?You will notice that at no point does fullofdumplins define what they mean by "veto". And - excuse my pedantry, but I can't help it - I don't see this as [necessarily] "you must end this relationship". Witness "some are non-negotiable while others can be added/removed as we see fit". This seems - to my addled brain - more in keeping with principles than with personalities. Example: "Right now I would bug out if I thought of you doing it in our bed... so don't! (But I can imagine that a few months/years down the line... and especially if I come to like your Other, I might not feel as adamant about this.)"

Given that fullofdumplins hasn't returned to this debate, who can say for sure just exactly what their query was about?

Just a few quick points:

a) Not having a television, I have no idea how vetoes are used on game shows. Do candidates veto other candidates from taking part?

b) "no real reason needed" I take your point and I think that it's a very good one. But - to take the example I give in my 2nd comment on this thread - I have also noticed people who have a strong gut feeling about something that really matters to them and which would affect their whole quality of life (such as somebody moving into their house). Fine if they're strong personalities who can argue their position cogently and convincingly against a dozen others. But some people aren't born debaters and realise that other people in the house could run rings around them and wear down their resistance. In this case (and one of the women I mentioned in that 2nd post was like this as well having a principled stand against vetoes), there's an argument to be made for "weaker" personalities to have the right to say "No - because I say no... and basta!"

c) I repeat my opinion that - even in the case of veto meaning "you must end this relationship", if this veto right is agreed on bilaterally, that's a lot more open and honest - and healthy - than a lot of the emotional manipulations I've witnessed in many relationships.

I want to repeat and stress that I'm only in favour of a veto right when everybody has the same equal right, and it's not exclusive to the powerful.

[Ariakas]

Then the original poster is using veto incorrectly, it seems you are correct, she/he was referring to bondaries. However, I bet most people responding are responding to the reality of a veto's meaning. It is cut and dry.. period. There really isn't an in between pov.

Looks like there has been a disconnect between most answers and the original question. And thereby a disconnect in your extended rants against those answers.

For the record I outright disagree with your opinion on a group consensus. *shrugs* I am dating a person not the group. I wouldn't likely involve myself with such a person who relies on a group to be honest. I don't fit that kind of mold.. happily. Then again, I love strong, intelligent, well spoken women. I don't do well with people who can't hold up their end of a debate/conversation. I bore easily otherwise.

Veto is about control. No matter how you spin it. Even if the group says to the one... thats still controlling. I don't date people who need protecting, they should have the full ability to dump me if they want/need.

*shudders* at the thought of a communal design...

[redpepper]

All of the responses I've seen that talk about reasonable scenarios to use vetos could easily be categorized as common sense and/or good communication.

Veto literally means "I forbid". If something is common sensical or you're able to have a dialogue with your partner, then you're not vetoing.Thank you TP. Veto means "I absolutely forbid you to do this that and the other thing" as if a partner is a child or a pet. In veto there is no negotiation, no communication other than they did this so I say you can't date them anymore.

[redpepper]

Veto is about control. No matter how you spin it....... I don't date people who need protecting, they have the full ability to dump me if they want/need.and this! protection... again, that harks of children and animals to me. Not grown ups free to make their own choices.

That being said, I am all for making sure that my loves know my thoughts and opinions about a person. If there is some huge glaring "whatever" about a person then I will be honest about my concerns. The bottom line is that I am the one that must adjust if I find I am unable to find it in my heart to have compersion for them. I would either need to consider leaving or cutting back my time with them.

I found one of the blogs to trigger me on this point. People make their own choices. Some times they are not for the good of everyone and sometimes I think that their choice is wrong... but it is their choice and I have to decide from that what MY choice is...

It drives me crazy when people whine that someone has "done" something to them and that they are where they are because of it... really, if you don't like a metamour and wish she/he would fuck off out of your life because you think they suck, then decide what to do with that for YOU.

Chances are the partner you share will sit up and notice and re-adjust their thinking on the matter if there is a decision made that they struggle with, like leaving. If they don't sit up and notice then plan A in effect no? leave.

I reckon that sometimes things change and I have patience with that to a point. Sometime people don't see when they are in NRE for quite awhile and I am willing to wait it out... sometimes it is just glaringly obvious that I am not on the same wavelength and that its time to go... sad, but sometimes that is all that can be done.

[Ariakas]

and this! protection... again, that harks of children and animals to me. Not grown ups free to make their own choices.


exactly :)


That being said, I am all for making sure that my loves know my thoughts and opinions about a person. If there is some huge glaring "whatever" about a person then I will be honest about my concerns.


Precisely :)

[BlackUnicorn]

I think this is a good thread since for me before reading TP's response, the difference between a veto and a boundary was conceptually very fuzzy.

Don't normal people have like dealbrakers or somesuch to function in a similar capacity :D? I think the problem here is thinking that if you are already involved with someone else, they somehow need the right to impose their own deal-breakers on your other relationships in order to feel secure.

[Morningglory629]

I think this is a good thread since for me before reading TP's response, the difference between a veto and a boundary was conceptually very fuzzy.

Don't normal people have like dealbrakers or somesuch to function in a similar capacity :D? I think the problem here is thinking that if you are already involved with someone else, they somehow need the right to impose their own deal-breakers on your other relationships in order to feel secure.

Often the one imposing the "dealbreaker" is left holding an empty bag, especially if there is no real merit to it. So of course any ONE person can have dealbreakers...but that means they have their own independent choice of leaving a situation or not engaging in that dealbreaker activity. Right? I mean a relationship is bilateral NOT unilateral. Dealbreakers are decisively unilateral. Relationships are two people coming together with their own independent offerings to the relationship. One does not own the other. You cannot control someone who does not want to be controlled. So each person is making a choice to engage or not engage. The veto power is only viable if it is a mutually agreeable dealbreaker. And even that can change or end if one partner decides the dealbreaker is now something that is attractive. So veto as I said before is just a temporary block for the most part and in the end becomes as contentious as the dealbreaker in most cases.

[NeonKaos]

Everyone ultimately makes their own choices, so if an adult decides to let another adult make choices FOR them, that is itself a choice.

[Morningglory629]

Everyone ultimately makes their own choices, so if an adult decides to let another adult make choices FOR them, that is itself a choice.

OMG! We agree!!!!:p

[NeonKaos]

OMG! We agree!!!!:p

It wouldn't be the first time.

[Morningglory629]

It wouldn't be the first time.

No but it is welcomed and rare. I celebrate it when it happens.:)

[Tonberry]

I'm not comfortable with vetoes. I'm not comfortable with telling a partner "if you say stop, I have to drop everything" or "if I say stop, you have to drop everything".

However, in a case-by-case basis, I will take my partners' opinion into account when making decisions, and if my boyfriend told me that he's got a really, really bad feeling about a specific person, I might decide not to take things further.

What I would hate though is a veto that happens later on. What I mean is that I am fine with partners being "consultants" when a new relationship develops, but at no point is it fine in my book to tell someone "dump him/her, just because".

It's important to me that my partners get along though, so if they don't, it's likely that the newer relationship won't go very far.

I also have a principle I've always stuck to so far, and that is that if someone ever tells me "it's me or X, you've got to pick", I pick X, no matter what or who X is. Or really, it's more of a matter of "I don't pick you", because sometimes I pick neither. But I just can't stand ultimatums like that, they feel controlling and disrespectful of both me and X.

Now, if a partner tells me "You spend a lot of time doing X (no matter what/who X is :P) and not a lot of time with me. I'm feeling lonely. Is there a way you could spend more time with me so I don't feel like I always come last?", that would be different. It's not an ultimatum, it focuses on what they feel and not what I "should" do, etc. Then I'll see about working things out with everyone involved so people are happy (including me).

For me, a veto is a hard rule that one person can just decide to step into another's relationship and break it off. That's not cool with me. I much prefer communication with everyone involved, and finding case-by-case solutions.

However, before there is any relationship at all, setting some harder rules might seem more comforting because everything is so new and unknown. So I can understand that. Guidelines you set to have an idea where you're going.
However, which any new relationship, or any shift within a relationship, these tend to need to be examined.
And after all, don't a lot of people start their journey into poly this way, by re-examining what used to be a hard rule of monogamy, because their relationship has evolved or it just doesn't work for it?

[Morningglory629]

However, in a case-by-case basis, I will take my partners' opinion into account when making decisions, and if my boyfriend told me that he's got a really, really bad feeling about a specific person, I might decide not to take things further.

What I would hate though is a veto that happens later on. What I mean is that I am fine with partners being "consultants" when a new relationship develops, but at no point is it fine in my book to tell someone "dump him/her, just because".

It's important to me that my partners get along though, so if they don't, it's likely that the newer relationship won't go very far.

Now, if a partner tells me "You spend a lot of time doing X (no matter what/who X is :P) and not a lot of time with me. I'm feeling lonely. Is there a way you could spend more time with me so I don't feel like I always come last?", that would be different. It's not an ultimatum, it focuses on what they feel and not what I "should" do, etc. Then I'll see about working things out with everyone involved so people are happy (including me).

And after all, don't a lot of people start their journey into poly this way, by re-examining what used to be a hard rule of monogamy, because their relationship has evolved or it just doesn't work for it?

great points.

[rory]

This topic was an interesting read for me. I'm quite new to poly so I did not know that there are veto practices commonly used. However I have been thinking the exact same things now that entering polyamorous relationship has become a practical thing.

We have had an open marriage with my husband for years but we hadn't really discussed the possibility of more serious relationships with others. But I met a girl who I found attractive on multiple levels and the feelings were mutual. So after that I talked with my husband, and if he had not been okay with the whole thing I wouldn't have started anything more with the girl. Although for us it was more the conversation of "is it alright if we have a polyamorous relationship" than "is it alright if I start a relationship with this person". I don't identify as poly and am sure I could be happy in a mono relationship, so that was not something I insisted of.

However, now that we have established that he is okay with polyamory, I would not think it fair for him to have a change of heart. So even though "he was here first" I am definitely not giving him veto.

Also, I am inclined to think "I choose the person who is not making me choose". As in, I choose the freedom to choose, if that makes sense. :)

[TruckerPete]

Also, I am inclined to think "I choose the person who is not making me choose". As in, I choose the freedom to choose, if that makes sense. :)

Exactly! Because how do you know they're not going to put you in that position over and over again?

[MrFarFromRight]

Also, I am inclined to think "I choose the person who is not making me choose". As in, I choose the freedom to choose, if that makes sense. :)I'm with you there! My first impulse on reading this thread's title was to answer: "If both of you are more comfortable with having a veto right, then that's your business." I can accept now that - using the poly definition of "veto" - that then disqualifies you from labelling your relationship "polyamory".

In my own case, I was in a poly relationship (long before the term was coined) for 6 1/2 years. When my GF told me that she wanted to "change the setting" - to commit ourselves to a monogamous relationship - I told her (I'm paraphrasing here): "Your decisions are your own. If you want to be mono, that's up to you. But I'm neither going to ask it of you or expect it of you. And I'm NOT going to be mono..."

I could live happily with only one sexual relationship going. (I'm living [fairly:p;)] happily with none at the present time...) But I refuse to limit somebody else' sexual freedom... or accept their right to limit mine.

She walked away from the relationship. But if she hadn't - and had continued to insist on monogamy - I'm sure that I would have walked away eventually.

Sure, she - as a person - was more important than any sexual principles that I might have. [And we continued to be good friends for 18 years after the split as a couple... until she decided to walk away from that friendship as well.] But continuing to sleep with her wasn't (at least, as far as I'm concerned...)

[Morningglory629]

Rory and TP- the point is, don't you think:confused:, in any relationship the art of compromise needs to be practiced. I have studied politics for a long time and it is true that idealogues rarely succeed and almost never maintain a piece in play so to speak. Like politics, relationships are fluid, emotionally driven but based on a seemingly solid foundation of love. I say seemingly because even the definition of love can change. So like politics you cannot institute practices like veto unless you realize eventually it will be overturned and you will be out on your ear. Vetos do nothing but entrench resentment. Prohibitive stances are fanatical and off-putting in most cases- especially if it is in a supposedly loving relationship, i.e. one that exists of freewill in the first place.

The only thing we as individuals can do is realize our own purpose in life and not pin our happiness on a moving target. That said if we are happy with ourselves then why would we need to dictate or rule over anyone else in some effort to blame another for our happiness/unhappiness.

[TruckerPete]

Rory and TP- the point is, don't you think:confused:, in any relationship the art of compromise needs to be practiced. I have studied politics for a long time and it is true that idealogues rarely succeed and almost never maintain a piece in play so to speak. Like politics, relationships are fluid, emotionally driven but based on a seemingly solid foundation of love. I say seemingly because even the definition of love can change. So like politics you cannot institute practices like veto unless you realize eventually it will be overturned and you will be out on your ear. Vetos do nothing but entrench resentment. Prohibitive stances are fanatical and off-putting in most cases- especially if it is in a supposedly loving relationship, i.e. one that exists of freewill in the first place.

The only thing we as individuals can do is realize our own purpose in life and not pin our happiness on a moving target. That said if we are happy with ourselves then why would we need to dictate or rule over anyone else in some effort to blame another for our happiness/unhappiness.

Sorry MG, I don't quite follow. I don't think there's a way to compromise in a situation where one partner says, "It's them or me."

For us, I told Indigo from the get go that I wanted a non-monogamous relationship. If he were to change his mind, that would be the end of the relationship. Period. It would suck.

I've been in enough mono relationships to know that I am not a monogamous person. I will either cheat, or break up with the person to pursue other interests. The heartache of leaving a love who forces me to choose or says they can't be with me if I'm poly is nothing compared to the heartache I know I will eventually inflict on them if I allow myself to try and be something I'm not.

[rory]

Vetos do nothing but entrench resentment. Prohibitive stances are fanatical and off-putting in most cases- especially if it is in a supposedly loving relationship, i.e. one that exists of freewill in the first place.
I think I agree with you there, and if I understand correctly with your whole post. Veto is very different from negotiating a compromise; the former just does not work for me (for the reasons you stated above), but the latter is essential.

I am definitely prepared to do very much to find solutions that work for everybody, and taking my partners' wishes into account. But that does stand for all the people I am in a relationship with, not only "the one that came first". That is also why I wanted to make sure that my husband was on board before starting a new relationship because from that point onwards my girlfriend's needs would be a part of the equation, too. :) For example, if I were to meet someone new at some point and wanted a relationship with them, I would definitely check that both of my existing partners would be ok with it.

[Morningglory629]

Sorry MG, I don't quite follow. I don't think there's a way to compromise in a situation where one partner says, "It's them or me."

For us, I told Indigo from the get go that I wanted a non-monogamous relationship. If he were to change his mind, that would be the end of the relationship. Period. It would suck.

I've been in enough mono relationships to know that I am not a monogamous person. I will either cheat, or break up with the person to pursue other interests. The heartache of leaving a love who forces me to choose or says they can't be with me if I'm poly is nothing compared to the heartache I know I will eventually inflict on them if I allow myself to try and be something I'm not.

I don't disagree. I think vetoes within the relationship are actually anti-relationship because it negates the ability to talk it through and come up with a satisfactory solution for both. Veto itself is anti-compromise because it is finite and non-negotiable, "the answer is no, and don't ask again". Now what you're talking about is completely different. Mono/poly acceptance goes beyond the realm of veto power. And obviously if there is no relationship because mono does not accept poly then the idea of a veto is moot altogether. Follow? Am I rambling? Disregard if I am.:o

[rory]

^I think we were writing at the same time (my post is the last on page 5), but it seems that I did understand you correctly, and I completely agree with you on what you wrote here as well. :)

[AutumnalTone]

I also have a principle I've always stuck to so far, and that is that if someone ever tells me "it's me or X, you've got to pick", I pick X, no matter what or who X is. Or really, it's more of a matter of "I don't pick you", because sometimes I pick neither. But I just can't stand ultimatums like that, they feel controlling and disrespectful of both me and X.


If somebody tries to dictate my behavior in the fashion of an ultimatum, then I have a strong abreaction. Homey don't play that game.

That's different, however, than somebody saying "I see X happening and I won't accept that. I'll be leaving because of that." They are free to decide what they do in response to changes in the situation.

It all boils down to whether they're choosing something for themselves or trying to force their choice on me.

[BrigidsDaughter]

We no longer have a veto, though Wendigo and I have both volunteered to cool things down between us when Wolf or Pretty Lady were struggling. That being said, I have used veto once and only once and it was because a the time Wolf was incapable of making the decision to do what was necessary to keep himself, us, and our son safe (he was not working and was the primary care giver at the time). The woman he was seeing at the time convinced him to stop taking his bi-polar medication and he was [this] close to having a psychotic break..... I couldn't watch him put our son though another one, so I told her that it was over between them, kicked her out of our house, then told him that he could go stay with his mother until he was back on his meds and stable. It hurt to hear him tell me that he believed her, that he wasn't really bi-polar and that all of his problems started when I'd tricked him into marrying me by making him think I was pregnant (mind you I didn't get pregnant until we'd been married almost 3 months, but he wasn't thinking clearly). It took 3 weeks of isolation at his mom's for him to snap out of it enough to go back on his meds and 2 more weeks before I'd let him come back home.

Do I regret using the Veto? NO. Do I regret how I treated her at the time? Yes.

[Morningglory629]

That's different, however, than somebody saying "I see X happening and I won't accept that. I'll be leaving because of that." They are free to decide what they do in response to changes in the situation.

It all boils down to whether they're choosing something for themselves or trying to force their choice on me.

yes, agreed

[TruckerPete]

Am I rambling? Disregard if I am.:o

Gotcha ... Thought you were disagreeing with me in your post before, but you were voicing my same thoughts! :p

[LovingRadiance]

Also, I am inclined to think "I choose the person who is not making me choose". As in, I choose the freedom to choose, if that makes sense. :)

THIS has been a LONG standing rule in my life-since grade school when kids do the "if you are going to be MY friend then you can't be HER friend" bullshit.

Whoever decides that they want to have a power-control relationship with me... loses.

[LovingRadiance]

I've been in enough mono relationships to know that I am not a monogamous person. I will either cheat, or break up with the person to pursue other interests. The heartache of leaving a love who forces me to choose or says they can't be with me if I'm poly is nothing compared to the heartache I know I will eventually inflict on them if I allow myself to try and be something I'm not.This, this, this. God I wish I could have coined that paragraph years ago!!


I am definitely prepared to do very much to find solutions that work for everybody, and taking my partners' wishes into account. But that does stand for all the people I am in a relationship with, not only "the one that came first".

AND HERE IN LIES the reason for crisis in my current dynamic.
I didn't play the game in the "proper order" or by the "proper rules" and I fully admit that.

BUT-this far into the dynamic-the bottom line is that EVERY PERSON IN THE FAMILY has been a SIGNIFICANT part of the family for over 10 years. Therefore, EVERY PERSONS needs/feelings etc have equal importance to me.

That is evidently a VERY difficult idea based on "common culture", but it's the reality for me....
:rolleyes:

[rory]

^For me too. The same thing applies for friends as well, although there is of course usually less conflict between friends' than partners' needs.

For me, it means that I treat the people in my life with the same respect I expect for myself. I definitely would not accept my needs or feelings to be cast aside by my friend or partner just because they conflict with their "primary" partner's.

[LovingRadiance]

^For me too. The same thing applies for friends as well, although there is of course usually less conflict between friends' than partners' needs.

For me, it means that I treat the people in my life with the same respect I expect for myself. I definitely would not accept my needs or feelings to be cast aside by my friend or partner just because they conflict with their "primary" partner's.

I think that is one of my primary issues with HAVING a "primary" relationship. (Yes, I do have one, but it's been a struggle).

I really don't think that being married, or a committed lover or whatever suddenly means that you are "more important" than anyone else in my life.. (same vice versa).

I think that most people do believe that though..... :rolleyes:

I wonder if that's part of why I get so frustrated with relationships in general? I feel like people just want to be "#1" in my life while I don't have a "#1".....

[Morningglory629]

I think that is one of my primary issues with HAVING a "primary" relationship. (Yes, I do have one, but it's been a struggle).

I really don't think that being married, or a committed lover or whatever suddenly means that you are "more important" than anyone else in my life.. (same vice versa).

I think that most people do believe that though..... :rolleyes:

I wonder if that's part of why I get so frustrated with relationships in general? I feel like people just want to be "#1" in my life while I don't have a "#1".....

And to further that...in seeking a #1 I kind of always feel/felt disappointed so why do we seek it?!

Not that people aren't important but jeez I have to be my own #1 if I want to find happiness and not worry or continuously be disappointed. We are all human. It is inevitable that I will let my loved ones down from time to time, and them me.