View Single Post
Old 09-05-2010, 04:31 PM
RatatouilleStrychnine's Avatar
RatatouilleStrychnine RatatouilleStrychnine is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 19

Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
To me, if the choice is being made by me, then it's not a veto. It may have the same result, but for me, I consider it very important who is making the choices. I prefer partners who make choices themselves (even of those choices are to put someone else ahead of me) rather than partners who have their other partners make choices for them.
But it's always their choice, surely? They choose whether or not to comply with the veto, and I expect they chose to have the veto in place to begin with as well, just as we choose whether or not to put a partner's needs ahead of a new relationship.

These two scenarios...
  1. A: "I would never date someone if that made you unhappy."
    B: "Thank you, darling."
  2. B: "Would you continue to date someone if it made me unhappy?"
    A: "Of course I wouldn't, darling."

...dont seem that different to me. The second situation could be described as a veto arrangement. But really, it isn't that different from the first, which is the situation you say that you and I are in.

I prefer people who solve things with communication rather than veto rules. For me, I don't see vetoes as necessary if partners communicate well, good at choosing other partners and are basically decent to each other. I would take that over a veto any day.
Why does having a veto arrangement preclude communication, basic decency and good decisions? Why would you assue that having a veto in place means that the couple will use that to solve things and never use communication?

I'm not sure what you're defending here because I'm not talking about monogamous couples or couples who have other types of open arrangements. I don't see monogamy as less secure than polyamory nor have I said or implied that.
As I said before, I'm taking the idea that boundaries/rules/vetoes etc show an instability in the primary relationship to its logical conclusion - that the more boundaries a relationship has, the less secure it is.

If setting huge boundaries works for that couple, great. It doesn't work for me. If they have those boundaries in place, then chances are they wouldn't be happy with me and I wouldn't be happy with them. Partially because they are solving issues in a very different way than I solve them. I prefer to solve things with communication rather than rules.
Do you really think all couples with rules and boundaries never solve their issues by communicating? How do you think the rules and boundaries got there in the first place?

I'm not judging their relationship.
Isn't implying that their relationship is insecure and lacks good communication because it has a rule in place that you wouldn't want quite judgemental?

I have no desire to get into serious relationships people who pre-set limits on my relationship based upon preserving some kind of set-up in their other relationship.
As I said before, what if the pre-set limits are there because they just want them to be there? Preserving "some kind of set up" is not the only reason why someone might choose a more "prescriptive" relationship. I've known plenty of people in poly who just don't want more than one primary style relationship, and so they take steps to avoid it happening. That might make them an unsuitable dating prospect for you, but I don't think it is fair to make all these assumptions about their relationship and how and why it works.

I'm not arguing that you or other anti-vetoers should start dating these people, I just think there is a lack of understanding here about how and why different people do poly.
Reply With Quote