'Protection' of one's family implies anticipation of an actual or imagined threat. Such a fearful attitude in life makes the choices and the assessments of new connections troublesome, because it diminishes one's tendency to make wise and loving connections. It also makes one question the legitimacy of existing relationships. A less fearful person/couple might have enough confidence to choose better partners, while the fearful tend to choose poorly. It's the same explanation for why children of loving homes tend to have the confidence to explore the world. They know that whatever happens, things will be ok because they already have love so they tend not to latch onto just anything that catches their fancy. They choose better friendships. An already secure and loving partnership does not need a veto, because the partners have enough confidence to choose wisely. Partners who feel they need to 'protect' their families would be better off concentrating on confidence-building before trying to connect with new people. This can be difficult when the sources of insecurities come from childhood, other formative experiences, or betrayals in the existing relationship. Why have an open relationship if the partners have so little confidence in each other's abilities to make good choices in the first place? Even a veto applied judiciously can mask deeper problems within the existing relationship. It is worth exploring why the established partners lack such confidence in themselves and in each other that they believe they need a veto to protect the family. After all, a new partner chosen wisely and lovingly can become an additional family member.
Last edited by thunkybunny; 03-26-2010 at 11:17 AM.