Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-19-2011, 06:00 AM
rory's Avatar
rory rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnabelMore View Post
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-19-2011, 07:49 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
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.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-19-2011, 01:03 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,681
Default

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/
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-20-2011, 03:05 AM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post

"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!
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-24-2011, 03:14 AM
Arrowbound's Avatar
Arrowbound Arrowbound is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 275
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-24-2011, 07:40 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowbound View Post
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.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-25-2011, 07:48 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
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.
That's a good point. In that sense, we have a simultaneous "happy wife, happy life" and "father knows best" arrangement. We each play our cards when we basically know we're right and the other is being oblivious to something and won't see reason in the immediate situation. Then after everything is said and done, we're both good enough at life analysis to realize what happened and why the other person put their foot down. I'm not just talking about dating anymore, but just the trust and judgement you have in any good relationship.

And in anything in life, I think anyone trying to put down some major "veto" without any explanation or discussion would never go down well with either of us.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-25-2011, 01:21 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,291
Default

Oh my lord, I just went to the link and read that contract. It actually has me wondering about Raven Kaldera's sanity. I swear, I felt like I was reading the ramblings of a mental patient - not to put down mental patients, as I have close family members who have been hospitalized in psych wards for serious mental illnesses and so I never say such a thing lightly. But wow, just wow. The entire thing seems quite delusional and smacks of deep, deep insecurity and possessiveness. I don't know how anyone could live that way.


Wondering now... how many members here actually have a contract on paper, written and signed, for their poly relationships?
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-25-2011, 10:28 PM
Arrowbound's Avatar
Arrowbound Arrowbound is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
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.
I'm all about discussion. A veto makes it seem like there's ownership of one another's personhood. We own our selves and that's as far it goes.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-27-2011, 02:34 AM
sevechten sevechten is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowbound View Post
I'm all about discussion. A veto makes it seem like there's ownership of one another's personhood. We own our selves and that's as far it goes.
I still don't understand the hangup on the word veto. It doesn't seem to make much difference to me whether someone has agreed to an arbitrary veto, a limit after discussion or has not made any explicit veto agreement--if a partner (especially a primary) expresses a veto, a hard limit, or a boundary and isn't willing to change--the choices and the likely consequences remain the same regardless of what it is called or how much discussion there was first.

I suggested veto as a condition of opening our relationship--but it was merely making explicit something that would exist anyhow. There may come a time where it needs to be renegotiated, where I will become unwilling to give up a new relationship--but again that would be the case regardless of what we called it.

This may be a point of view issue--I'm very newly poly, and 'being poly' is less important than my relationship with my wife. Knowing my wife, I also think having an explicit veto policy makes a veto less likely, and makes it more likely she will bring up any problems while they can still be solved. I understand the reluctance of some to date where there is a veto--but again, I think the same issues would be present in almost any long-term mono relationship that has just opened.
__________________
Poly in a newly-open poly/mono relationship
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
agreements, contracts, control issues, envy, jealous, jealousy, metamour concerns, new to poly, nre, relationship dynamics, relationship issues, secondaries, secondary, sex, veto, veto policy, veto power, vetos

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:36 AM.