Polyamory and affairs

In various private discussions, the situation that keeps coming up is that a secondary relationship got too involved, the primary got jealous and vetoed it, and that didn't work too well.

So, pulling the nuclear option of retroactive veto is bad, and ignoring the retroactive veto is cheating.
 
In various private discussions, the situation that keeps coming up is that a secondary relationship got too involved, the primary got jealous and vetoed it, and that didn't work too well.

So, pulling the nuclear option of retroactive veto is bad, and ignoring the retroactive veto is cheating.

What is a retroactive veto? one that is used after a relationship has started?

So what was the purpose of vetoing? was it in hopes of them cooling off? and how did that lead to cheating? because they didn't cool off?

confusing... and crazy making it sounds like. It sounds like no one acted in anyone else's best interest? is that it?
 
What is a retroactive veto? one that is used after a relationship has started?

So what was the purpose of vetoing? was it in hopes of them cooling off? and how did that lead to cheating? because they didn't cool off?

confusing... and crazy making it sounds like. It sounds like no one acted in anyone else's best interest? is that it?

Regardless of the intent, a retroactive veto is a clear demonstration of inequality and an unwillingness to cooperate for mutually-beneficial relations. It avoids conflict by avoiding change, and it limits opportunities for everybody. I would go further to suggest that a veto is a red flag that shows there is not enough trust in the relationship for it to open itself up to other partners. There is no reasonable explanation for a veto. It's an excuse for a person to act entirely out of self-interest, and that's not love.

Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship. An imbalance of relational power, such as a veto, is likely to contribute to to that problem for one party.
 
Last edited:
Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship. An imbalance of relational power, such as a veto, is likely to contribute to to that problem for one party.

I can totally see this happening. The veto could artificially or legitimately create a sense the the primaries won't miss the new person as much therefore there is less at stake if they wander...the primaries can just find someone else anyways.

"Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship." Nicely put.
 
Why the word "retroactive" then? It seems to imply that things were humming along until someone got stuck, freaked out and called the whole thing off because "they" are having a hard time. Rather than asking for some attention to their needs in order to move forward.

All this is very tricky, it's true. There is no absolute anything in any of this in my experience. I hate these stupid definitions. Not because they weren't useful at one point in my life but because people think they have to make them absolute one way or another. Really they morph as different people come and go from our lives, in my experience.

We have been over "veto" before on here several times. A search might bring up some interesting stuff. The thing that has come up over and over for me is that it seems people think that it is negative. Sure it needs to be used carefully, but why is it negative to have a gut reaction to something, or an adverse experience and ask your partner to call something off? Is there no situation where this would be a good idea for the health and safety of a relationship?

"there is not enough trust in the relationship for it to open itself up to other partners. There is no reasonable explanation for a veto. It's an excuse for a person to act entirely out of self-interest, and that's not love."

Not to pick on you thunkybunny, that isn't my intent, but I had a thought that perhaps there are other reasons for a veto other than excuses to act out of self-interest rather than love? Perhaps being absolutely sure that veto is always bad is counter productive and keeps us from moving forward.

For me the veto I used was to protect my family and protect my husband from having so much crazy NRE that he forgot about us.... not to mention the woman that he was in love with was using him in my opinion and he didn't see it. He saw it eventually and called it off himself.

Was I wrong to do this? Maybe, but we were just starting out and we were wary. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I am assuming that others are starting out too and that there is some reassurance in vetos for them.... does that mean they get to do whatever and take advantage of others because they can just call it off when they want, no. That isn't fair either.

The whole defining anything thing all needs to be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion. What is one persons reality is not another persons and that needs respecting to me.

I'm just trying to remember that unless I have lived through something, I really doesn't know anything about something, just what others say.... I don't know what anyone else experiences, just myself and if someone wanted to tell me their "veto" worked in their relationship then I need to believe it worked for them.

I'm finding more and more that there is a trend in "poly talk" to make absolute statements about other peoples reality. Why is that? Is someone out there saying, "this is the way" and everyone following along? Can we not encorporate what others say and make it our own when we have some experience in it or in terms of our lives? The same language seems to come up over and over and it all says the same thing.... this is totally an aside, just something I have noticed.
 
I'd say that vetos are clumsy. It's too easy to abuse them instead of communicating. Some established couples get into this habit of vetoing each other's other significant others, causing a lot of unnecessary confusion and lasting resentments (in the established relationship). It's the same explanation for why the United Nations is a big joke. Vetos privilege certain people and relationships over others. The impulse to 'protect' our attachments to property and people is ingrained possibly in our natures and cultures. A better approach would be for everyone to sit down and talk, but that would require so much *hand on head* work. :p
 
Last edited:
I'd say that vetos are clumsy. It's too easy to abuse them instead of communicating. Some established couples get into this habit of vetoing each other's other significant others, causing a lot of unnecessary confusion and lasting resentments (in the established relationship). It's the same explanation for why the United Nations is a big joke. Vetos privilege certain people and relationships over others. The impulse to 'protect' our attachments to property and people is ingrained possibly in our natures and cultures. A better approach would be for everyone to sit down and talk, but that would require so much *hand on head* work. :p

I agree that it would be better to talk. I don't think it is always to do with possession though. Certainly sometimes, but not always. I

"clumsy" is a really good word I think, as they are very risky indeed. Thanks for that word. I intend to remember it in terms of a lot of terminology to do with poly theory. Anything "in theory" can be clumsy it seems. And really, just because a veto is used one time doesn't mean it works another time. Clumsy. Sometimes that is all we have when we feel that there is a threat and we aren't interested in being pushed to change. Feeling uncomfortable makes us do clumsy things sometimes. At least it makes me do clumsy things anyway.
 
wow, ok you gusy are all bringing up some amazing points.....
"Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship." is indeed the best way to word things....
and yes, i've had experience with "vetoes" and can honestly say they can lead to an imbalance emotionally and can (AND I USE THAT "CAN" VERY LIGHTLY) be a gateway to cheating...
for example
"a+b" have a relationship. "b" gets involved with "c". "a+b" have a veto rule and "a" vetoes "c" after "b+c" have been together for some time. so "b + c" have feelings for one and another and end up cheating on "a". but once again... the whole problem here isn't necessarily just the veto rule, its the lack of communication. vetos can work, but in my opinion they are messy situations and it is better to simply be open and honest and communicative with all parties involved. and also to explore, why are you "vetoeing" in the first place? are your reasons for insecurities? if it is for insecurity then a veto rule is dangerous ground...
just my "two cents"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
but once again... the whole problem here isn't necessarily just the veto rule, its the lack of communication. vetos can work, but in my opinion they are messy situations and it is better to simply be open and honest and communicative with all parties involved. and also to explore, why are you "vetoeing" in the first place? are your reasons for insecurities? if it is for insecurity then a veto rule is dangerous ground...

yes, I think if it is for insecurity then veto's are dangerous... our issue was that we have a high level of communication and the woman my husband was dating didn't, and was interested in something casual but wasn't telling him that. I saw this, or suspected this and he didn't, he was blissfully in his NRE. I told him after much discussion and argument that I thought he needed to find out for himself and if I was right I saw it in the best interest of our family for him to end it... he just isn't a casual sex kind of guy (I know, bizarre :p) He thought about it all night and told me in the morning he had written to her to set a time to meet her and tell her it's over.

Her response to him ending it was, "ah, I won't get to fuck you anymore then :(" That was not his intent in the first place, he loved her and was showing her that, by doing sexual things with her because of that, not because he liked fooling around. he doesn't operate that way. He was heart broken and she just shrugged her shoulders.

Neither of us had insecurities...
yet I found it necessary to be firm with him about looking at what it was all doing to him... and as a result us.
 
What is a retroactive veto? one that is used after a relationship has started?

So what was the purpose of vetoing? was it in hopes of them cooling off? and how did that lead to cheating? because they didn't cool off?

confusing... and crazy making it sounds like. It sounds like no one acted in anyone else's best interest? is that it?

Yeah, when I say "retroactive veto" I'm referring to a situation where the primary partner was originally okay with the secondary relationship, then the primary started having problems with it, and instead of working through the issues, demanded that they break up. Of course, when 2 people are happy together and some 3rd party tries to force them apart, that doesn't do anything to change their feelings, and rarely goes well in any context.

I'm not sure what the purpose of vetoing was, you'd have to ask someone who has done it. My assumption is that it's because the primary feels threatened and is trying to get control of the situation to feel safe, and has somehow forgotten that forbidding love generally does not work out so well.
 
Red,
what you just is a perfect example of open and honest communication WITH a veto rule... basically you saw something your partner didn't and yes i quite agree it had nothing to do with insecurities. i am saying thats why you have you look at why you are having a veto rule. if it is for control, insecurities, emotionalism, problems with the core/primary relationship...then i think a veto rule is a bad idea but if it is because you see a potentially harmful situation for your SO (like in your case Red) then it isnt messy and it is beneficial. the key was you didnt just say "veto!" you said "veto, and heres why"
i think veto rules are messy, but when applied like in your case they arent.
it all boils down to "why" are you having a veto rule which determines if it is messy...

Yeah, when I say "retroactive veto" I'm referring to a situation where the primary partner was originally okay with the secondary relationship, then the primary started having problems with it, and instead of working through the issues, demanded that they break up. Of course, when 2 people are happy together and some 3rd party tries to force them apart, that doesn't do anything to change their feelings, and rarely goes well in any context. well.

this is exactly what i mean when i say that think that SOME vetos can be gateway to cheating. afterall, the feelings don't just go away.... it does not make the cheating right by anymeans....but certainly explains it a lot. don't you think?

I'm finding more and more that there is a trend in "poly talk" to make absolute statements about other peoples reality. Why is that? Is someone out there saying, "this is the way" and everyone following along? Can we not encorporate what others say and make it our own when we have some experience in it or in terms of our lives? The same language seems to come up over and over and it all says the same thing.... this is totally an aside, just something I have noticed.[/QUOTE]


agreed with the statement above. i'm sorry if ever i come across as "this is the only way" i'm open and i ask a lot of questions and i put my 2 cents in... i lack the ability to adequately communicate at times too... i apologize in advance.
but i will say when i know 100% something is wrong... in this case..cheating is 100% wrong even if it involves feelings and a previous partner whose relationship recently ended.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'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:
' After all, a new partner chosen wisely and lovingly can become an additional family member.


Very true in some cases...but a wisely chosen sheep to add to the herd can also quickly turn into a wolf. This isn't poly exclusive, it happens in all relationships. Look at the person who marries the love of their dreams who after the ceremony becomes a controlling abusive spouse. The abuser's act is so complete that even the sharpest of people can be fooled from time to time and often it takes outside eyes to see what is happening...I.E. family members.

Restraining orders are a form of veto and serve the purpose to protect. Do we blame the person who needs protection for not "chosing better"? Are they the perpetrator of putting themselves into that situation or a victim?
 
Very true in some cases...but a wisely chosen sheep to add to the herd can also quickly turn into a wolf. This isn't poly exclusive, it happens in all relationships. Look at the person who marries the love of their dreams who after the ceremony becomes a controlling abusive spouse. The abuser's act is so complete that even the sharpest of people can be fooled from time to time and often it takes outside eyes to see what is happening...I.E. family members.

Restraining orders are a form of veto and serve the purpose to protect. Do we blame the person who needs protection for not "chosing better"? Are they the perpetrator of putting themselves into that situation or a victim?

This is where a realistic perspective comes in handy. The likelihood of having a long-term relationship with a psychopath is extremely rare for two reasons. Psychopaths are rare, and psychopaths lack the commitment necessary for long-term relationships. Instead of a veto, a more surgical device would be a set of gas-and-break pedals. Vetos result in absolutest, black-or-white, thinking whereas a device for moderating the speed of a relationship allows for a wider range of possibilities. In practical terms, that can be something as mundane as scheduling. For example, one can 'date' an established partner twice a week while seeing the new partner once a week. Scheduling requires commitment and is a much more useful device for moderating relationships than a veto.

This brings us back to the topic of motivations. If the motivation is to moderate, then a veto is still too clumsy. A simple calender would serve the purpose better than a veto.
 
Last edited:
This is where a realistic perspective comes in handy. The likelihood of having a long-term relationship with a psychopath is extremely rare for two reasons. Psychopaths are rare, and psychopaths lack the attention necessary for long-term relationships. Instead of a veto, a more surgical device would be a set of gas-and-break pedals.

A person doesn't have to be a clinical psychopath to be destructive; the person could just become a freak which is reality. That is taking the example to the extreme but I do see the value of gas break as well.

The word veto is over used and artifically isolated to the concept of secondaries. Having to tell a partner to stop a destructive behavior spans many subjects. It could be reckless driving that is threatening the health of family members. It doesn't mean they will stop, it but then you can decide not to let your family in the vehicle with them.
 
Insecurities over the idea of a veto for lack of a better word indicate to me that there is a feeling of less self worth or alternately a bloated sense of it.

The big thing for me is recognizing that it's ok for a person to not want to become involved with a situation where "veto" power is held. But it is equally ok for someone to be ok with it. It's judging the relationship criteria of others that is the real problem. They will find what they need and that won't be the same for others.

I'm a die hard secondary in my relationship. I am proud of the supportive role I have. I am also completely dedicated to the health of the primary relationship and core family above my own needs. This is because I have had that already and recognize the importance of it. I accept the veto power of either primary partner because I trust and respect their ability to recognize a constructive situation as well as a destructive situation. If I had to leave it would be for a good reason. So the onus becomes less one sided on the primary partners to pick good partners and more shared with the secondary to pick appropriate partners. Secondaries need to own up to their responsibility in some cases and stop pointing fingers perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Thought provoking comments Thunkbunny..thanks. I really like the idea of GAS and Brake.
 
This thread has gone on a tangent hasn't it? :( My apologies everyone....

Not totally. I think there's something useful here. Remember the connection between the lack of emotional fulfillment and cheating. The point is not whether one uses a veto or a schedule, but whether one is having choices made for them or a responsible adult making relationship choices. A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
 
Back
Top