Interesting PoV on Veto

[zylya]

http://www.scarletletters.com/current/021403_nf_rk.html

Part of real love is being able to say to your lover, "I trust you with control over who I sleep with, because I trust you to make your decision based not on your own insecurities but on a real consideration of my needs, wishes, and safety." If you do not have this level of trust in them, you need to pull back from polyamorous adventures and work on trust-building within the relationship.

I've always been against the veto since I don't agree with an outside party being able to end a relationship, but I thought this was an interesting point of view - the idea that you trust someone enough to make the right decision by you instead of the right one for them. I'm still not sure I'd feel entirely comfortable giving someone that power thought. Thoughts?

[AnnabelMore]

So, if you build a strong partnership with a new lover, at what point do they get the right to veto the old partner? If they don't have that right is it not "real love"?

[AnnabelMore]

Ah, ok, actually read the article. They have a strict primary/secondary hierarchy that is not open to the possibility of another partner every becoming co-primary, and the female partner is only allowed to have piv intercourse with her male primary partner. I'm glad it works for them, though it wouldn't for me.

I do appreciate that if one of them wants to veto a long-standing lover argument is allowed and consensus must be reached.

But goddamn I resent the wording in the first sentence of the bit you quoted above, as it clearly implies that a secondary partner, who does not get veto power, is not participating in "real love."

Fuck. That. Shit.

[SchrodingersCat]

I have veto power over my husband's fuck buddies, and if my husband ever said he had really bad vibes about someone I was seeing, I would seriously consider his opinion. He has a really good sense of people but an occasional miss when it comes to ethics.

The examples: He met this girl online once, she wanted to experience SM play and he was looking for a toy. But she was married, not willing to talk to her vanilla husband about her desires, and I thought that was risky. Even with ethics aside, I was worried that Big Mean Husband might find out one day and come beat my husband up or something. I strongly discouraged him from playing with her, and recommended he suggest to her that she talk to her husband about what she wants.

Meanwhile, my besty had this boyfriend who's a real piece of work. Lazy, manipulative, emotionally abusive, the whole bit. My husband hated him from the first time he met the guy, whereas I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because my friend was into him. Well, turns out my husband was 100% right, he really screwed her over, and left her with two more kids than when they met. He doesn't contribute anything financially, in fact used to eat her out of house and home when they were together and often made it difficult for her to feed her own kids. So if I would have listened better to my husband, maybe I could have helped her see the damage he was doing before it was too late. Or maybe not, but I'll never know.

So from those two examples, I'd say we're both good at seeing problematic situations, but both lose sight of that when we're personally involved. So if either one of use said "hey, this person looks like bad news" then I think we would both listen... But I also don't see this as "veto" power so much as "listening to the advice of someone whose wisdom you trust." Also, it's not so much about ending a relationship after it has already begun, but rather heading off a potential blow-up before it begins. Prevention is the best medicine!

p.s. I didn't read the article.

[rory]

Originally Posted by AnnabelMore

But goddamn I resent the wording in the first sentence of the bit you quoted above, as it clearly implies that a secondary partner, who does not get veto power, is not participating in "real love."

Second this.

Otherwise, I understand their point of view about veto, and it's fine if it works for them. However, it comes from a view that is not made explicit: that one's primary partner has better judgement than one has oneself when it comes to people one wants to start a relationship with. If that isn't made explicit, you can counter that with something like

"I trust you with control over who you sleep with, because I trust you to make your decision based not only on your personal preferences and enjoyment but on a real consideration of my needs, wishes, and safety." If you do not have this level of trust in them, you need to pull back from polyamorous adventures and work on trust-building within the relationship.

Personally, that's the route I take, trusting my own and my partners judgement about our own sexual/romantic relationships. However, I can understand why somebody would want an agreement like that. And if it turned out, for example, that NRE clouds my judgement completely and that resulted in lots of drama, I might consider giving my long-standing partner(s) such power myself (but I would have an expiration date for the veto even in that case).

I read the article and I really don't know what to say about it. It was an interesting reading experience. There was something about it that made me uncomfortable but I'm not quite sure at first thought what it is. That's why I want to take a second look, and see what it actually comes from: the wording, my self-reflection (wouldn't work for me), or if I feel there's actually something "wrong" (i.e. unethical) about their rules. Let's see. (Sorry if you only wanted to talk about the rule about veto here, but since you posted the link I figured it's fine if I comment on the other stuff as well.)

Well, firstly, I feel the wording is strange in this

A. If either of us want to have sexual/romantic relations with someone else, they must bring that person in to be interviewed by the other primary partner before sexual relations have occurred.

This is the first place where we weed "em out. If you're not willing to be grilled by my spouse, then obviously you must not want me that badly, right? Am I worth it, or not?

I would feel quite uneasy with the demand that I must be interviewed by somebody's partner. I don't mind meeting them, and I certainly think that isn't an unreasonable request. But I don't know, while I'm all for loving oneself and healthy self-esteem, if somebody asked me "Am I worth it, or not?" question, I would feel like they think they are such a price that I, a mere average person, should be so lucky to have the opportunity to have sexual/romantic relations with them. Not superbly hot.

Similarly not hot is the wording with this

H. Any and all emotional misunderstandings must be settled by consensus, with mediation if necessary, before they become resentful and blow up. Repeated inability on the part of non-primary lovers to talk through misunderstandings and come to useful compromises will result in disqualification due to immaturity. Repeated unwillingness to bring up emotional resentments before they become dangerous will have the same result. Inability to get along with other primary partner after repeated processing will also have the same result. Remember, the committed relationship comes first.

I'm not opposed to these boundaries as such, and I think it's a good idea to not continue to build relationships where there are severe communication problems from the beginning. But the whole disqualification due to immaturity and the committed relationship comes first... I find it off-putting. Like they are such perfect creatures that, again, anybody with the opportunity to date them should consider themselves blessed. (It would be interesting to know if others read this kind of attitude in the wording or if there's just something in it that triggers me. )

Now with this

I. If genetic male-identified males wish to date Bella, they must first court Raven's permission to do so. Gifts are encouraged.

This is a negotiation around possessiveness and insecurities that we are both especially proud of. When it came to Bella seeing other people, somehow it was very hard for me when she wanted to see genetic male-identified males. I worried that she'd revert to a former pattern of being attracted to abusive, alcoholic jerks. I worried that they'd treat me politely on the surface, but inside they'd be laughing at me for letting them "screw my woman". I worried that they'd start pissing contests with me out of sheer habit. And, yes, I was just kind of possessive and insecure.

I feel the rule is a bit odd, but I also give props for being honest about the reasons behind it. However, I feel that same is not done with this

B. Bella will experience penetrative sex only with Raven.

Sometimes it's good thing to have one special sexual act, even above and beyond those acts limited by body fluid monogamy, that is only for primary partners. It means that when you do this one thing, you are affirming your unique relationship to each other; that it is irreplaceable and unlike any other connection in your lives. It's OK to have one special thing for each relationship, of course, but it's best to pick things that aren't the other partner's cup of tea anyway, if possible.

I do agree that it is OK to have special things to affirm your unique relationship. But my gut tells me that if that was the reason behind this rule, the wording would go something like "Bella and Raven will only experience penetrative sex with each other.". I think it is fine to have rule "Bella will experience penetrative sex only with Raven" if Bella's fine with it. I merely feel that a honest grown-up should own up to the fact that their reasons have to do with insecurities around penetrative sex, and not try to rationalise it with the special uniqueness of the relationship. I'm not buying that and I hope Bella isn't either.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

I have veto power over my husband's fuck buddies, and if my husband ever said he had really bad vibes about someone I was seeing, I would seriously consider his opinion. He has a really good sense of people but an occasional miss when it comes to ethics.

Do you really or does he take your suggestions to heart because he trusts your judgement? His giving his input and you trusting his gut is not what I know of veto power. Veto power is an agreement that one partner gets to end the relationship of another without any discussion. Weighing up situations with your partner who might have a different take might give cause to pause and rethink, even in the end deciding to end the relationship, but that to me is a very different thing than what veto agreements are.

[Magdlyn]

Hey, I know this Raven Kaldera. I've been to his farm, met his wife Bella there, and went to 2 sessions at 2 different kink/poly conferences, where he and his boyfriend/slave Josh spoke and took Q&As.

Raven is a Dom to Josh. I'm not sure of the dynamic between him and Bella. Raven is an activist for poly, kink, pagan BDSM and transgender issues.

http://www.ravenkaldera.org/

[AutumnalTone]

Originally Posted by zylya

"Part of real love is being able to say to your lover, "I trust you with control over who I sleep with, because I trust you to make your decision based not on your own insecurities but on a real consideration of my needs, wishes, and safety." If you do not have this level of trust in them, you need to pull back from polyamorous adventures and work on trust-building within the relationship."

... Thoughts?

I think that's a pile of shit. What an asinine assertion!

[Arrowbound]

I don't think a veto is worth a damn without discussion. Just to get up one day and say to my husband "Hey, I don't like this new girl. Stop seeing her." rubs me the wrong way.

I trust his judgement enough that if I really have concerns about a metamour we can address them together. Same on my end. This is all after I have done my own mentalwork when it comes to polyamory in general, so trust me I didn't always feel this way, lol.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by Arrowbound

I don't think a veto is worth a damn without discussion. Just to get up one day and say to my husband "Hey, I don't like this new girl. Stop seeing her." rubs me the wrong way.

Ah but a veto is justs that. Telling a partner who they are "allowed" to spend their time with. Its trying to force control and giving an ultimatum if that is not respected.

If there is discussion then it isn't a veto. Its a discussion on boundaries. If your boundaries are being pushed about who you are willing to put up with then it warrants a discussion for sure, but it isn't anything about veto. Its just healthy communication and respect/consideration for all. The idea being to find a solution that works for all, not for one person. I would argue that vetoing is not a solution. It compounds the problem and creates more issues.