View Single Post
Old 09-03-2010, 12:21 PM
RatatouilleStrychnine's Avatar
RatatouilleStrychnine RatatouilleStrychnine is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 19

Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
What you're describing to me doesn't sound like veto, because you're the one making the decision about your relationship, not your husband. It definitely sounds entirely reasonable to want to end a relationship that is making your husband unhappy. We make choices like that in our lives and relationships all the time.
But it does, effectively, amount to a veto. It may be my choice, but even in relationships with explicit veto the vetoed partner has to chose whether or not to comply with the veto. I wouldn't react well if my husband just said "END IT!!!!" because that isn't how our relationship works. But because I love him so much, I am sensitive to his needs and feelings and that means he has the power to decide that one of my relationships should end. I didn't give him that power, but he has it and we can't not have it. So the "veto" we have is a result of the strength of our commitment to each other.

On the other side of the spectrum, my bf does not have that power, because our relationship is just not stable or committed enough. He isn't (currently) central to my decision making the way that my husband is, so I wouldn't stop dating someone just to make him happier, (and neither would he!) (Of course, we'd take eachother's feelings into consideration in the way that you describe to a certain extent - we do care about each other!)

Personally, I don't see it as an either/or situation. There are partners who have stable confidently open primary relationships without vetoes.
Absolutely! That wasn't my point. My point was that the presence or lack of a veto is not really a factor in how stable the relationship is or how stable an additional relationship might feel. Different couples might have different reasons for having or not having veto power, and projecting our assumptions about why they do/do not might not always lead to accurate conclusions.

For me, if my involvement needs to be limited based upon their security, then I don't see their relationship as secure enough for me to be involved. If my involvement is limited by time, distance, previous commitments, etc, that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
What if the boundaries/limits are there because they both just want them to be there? Or because that is just how their relationship naturally developed? Assuming that certain boundaries indicate a lack of relationship security seems a little poly-supremicist to me! There isn't a connection between how open your relationship is and how stable it is. As I said in my earlier post, there is a huge spectrum from monogamous, life-long, sexually/emotionally exlusive relationships to completely open polyamory. I don't think it is fair to judge people's relationships as unstable just because they aren't where you are on that spectrum. It's a perfectly valid reason not to date them, of course, which is why I don't date people who want monogamous commitment.

Last edited by RatatouilleStrychnine; 09-03-2010 at 01:37 PM.
Reply With Quote