Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-27-2011, 04:33 AM
Arrowbound's Avatar
Arrowbound Arrowbound is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sevechten View Post
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.
This is also my husband's POV. I used to see a veto as a way to protect our relationship but now I just see it as an avenue you go down when you become unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-27-2011, 06:24 AM
Phy's Avatar
Phy Phy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 597
Default

Veto - latin, "I forbid" = a prohibition of any sort.

That's why I find this word and the concept behind it absolutely unfitting for any relationship. Because they involve feelings. You can't forbid feelings and no one should have the idea in mind that you can have such an influence on feelings that aren't yours. (Btw, in my opinion you will never have the possibility to have such a handle on your own feelings as well.)

The moment you call veto because of a new partner in the life of your spouse you not approve of, you aren't just preventing this person from entering his life, because on an emotional level, he/she already has done so nevertheless. You will cause your spouse hurt.

What's most problematic about this concept is that the one agreeing to it, may have done so with best intentions in mind, but the moment, the spouse claims this right, the one who agreed to the veto power won't be able to do so with all the consequences that should theoretically come with it. But because of the pledge he needs to stick by his word.

All fine if you think of veto in the sense of, 'give it another thought and bear my disapprobation in mind' but that's not what veto means literally. I see a danger of misunderstanding what you are talking about without further explanation in this kind of situation.
__________________
Facts: 30, female, bi, v-type relationship with Sward (husband, straight, mono) and Lin (boyfriend, straight, mono), poly-fi and co-primary.

My Blog
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-27-2011, 08:59 AM
rory's Avatar
rory rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sevechten View Post
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.
Hmmm, this is interesting!

Firstly, I would say that for myself the consequences of a partner expressing a boundary/hard limit would not necessarily be as straightforward as you suggest; but then again I would never consider agreeing to something like a veto. For example, if my husband got cold feet now and presented an ultimatum that I need to break up with my girlfriend of 8 months, I consider it very unlikely that would be my choice. Well, some of you may say that 8 months would be too late to present a veto anyway (though many have mentioned a year's time limit), but I've been thinking this almost since the beginning. To me, an ultimatum from a partner suggests a problem in my relationship with that partner, not in my other relationship. I would refuse to pick either..or, but start negotiation about some temporary boundaries I could agree to. I will negotiate to find compromises but I will not respond to an ultimatum. It will be on the presenter to follow through with it, if that is his choice.

However, secondly, I do think you have a point in that, from the point of view of the "new" partner. When one is starting a relatioship with somebody who has an existing long-term partner, I think there is a risk of 'being vetoed' whether there is a agreed veto or not, particularly if the couple in question has (had) no other (successful) poly-relationships. So in terms of risk if an ultimatum is made, there may not be much of a difference for the "incomer". However, there is a question about whether veto-agreements correlate with the likelihood of ultimatums presenting themselves as a response of discomfort (whether from jealousy or simply not liking the new metamour). If there is a veto-agreement, clearly a veto is considered acceptable way of handling things.

I guess for me it does make a difference if my metamour has veto-power. It tells me something about my partner's relationship with them. Yet, I could see myself accepting that and starting a relationship with that person regardless: it all depends on the situation, on the reasons for the veto, and on what kind of a relationship I wish to have with that person.

For me veto is a way bigger question in my own relationships: I cannot see a situation where I could accept that. I would not agree to a veto in a first place, and I won't consider ultimatums an acceptable way of communication. Don't get me wrong, I am very flexible in negotiating boundaries, and I certainly don't always need to get what I want. But perhaps it's just that I see giving an ultimatum as seeking control whereas expressing extremely hurt feelings and major discomfort is honest. I will do as much as I can to help in the latter case, but I suppose I have a personal hard boundary about not giving anybody power to control my actions.
__________________
In long-term relationships with Alec and Mya. Seeing Lily. Metamours with Hank.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-27-2011, 02:11 PM
zylya zylya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phy View Post
Veto - latin, "I forbid" = a prohibition of any sort.

That's why I find this word and the concept behind it absolutely unfitting for any relationship. Because they involve feelings. You can't forbid feelings and no one should have the idea in mind that you can have such an influence on feelings that aren't yours. (Btw, in my opinion you will never have the possibility to have such a handle on your own feelings as well.)
But the veto doesn't forbid FEELINGS, only ACTION. Just like monogamy doesn't prohibit you from FEELING something for another person, only acting upon it.

Quote:
The moment you call veto because of a new partner in the life of your spouse you not approve of, you aren't just preventing this person from entering his life, because on an emotional level, he/she already has done so nevertheless. You will cause your spouse hurt.

What's most problematic about this concept is that the one agreeing to it, may have done so with best intentions in mind, but the moment, the spouse claims this right, the one who agreed to the veto power won't be able to do so with all the consequences that should theoretically come with it. But because of the pledge he needs to stick by his word.

All fine if you think of veto in the sense of, 'give it another thought and bear my disapprobation in mind' but that's not what veto means literally. I see a danger of misunderstanding what you are talking about without further explanation in this kind of situation.
If a partner is going to abuse the power of veto, then I am simply going to disregard that veto. People are talking very theoretically here, but I'd have to have a whole shitload of trust in someone before giving them such an important power. If I'm with a partner, and there was a veto arrangement, if she was using it simply for her own convenience, then I would just disregard the veto, and more than likely end the current relationship, on the basis that they were trying to cause me hurt for their own gain.

Assuming a veto arrangement, if you can't trust your partner to not screw you over, then why are you in a relationship with them?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-27-2011, 02:30 PM
BigGuy's Avatar
BigGuy BigGuy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Central Illinois
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
But the veto doesn't forbid FEELINGS, only ACTION. Just like monogamy doesn't prohibit you from FEELING something for another person, only acting upon it.
My understanding of monogamy is that emotional fidelity is also a requirement.

If people want to have relationships with veto powers, more power to them. Whatever works for them. However, my thought is that it is a short term fix, and most of the time doesn't address the underlying problem. I don't have a fundamental problem with veto's, but I really think they should have a sunset clause or end date, if you will.

I also see it as a way that someone might test just to be assured how committed their partner is to the relationship.

And finally, sometimes people are really bad relationship pickers. Perhaps people who haven't fully addressed and healed emotional wounds. There is a certain security in giving the final authority for your relationships to someone else.
__________________
Me: 48 - Married, straight, male
OkCProfile
Shiela: My wife.
Suzanne: My FWB
Adam: Shiela's LDR
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-27-2011, 02:58 PM
Phy's Avatar
Phy Phy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
But the veto doesn't forbid FEELINGS, only ACTION. Just like monogamy doesn't prohibit you from FEELING something for another person, only acting upon it.

Assuming a veto arrangement, if you can't trust your partner to not screw you over, then why are you in a relationship with them?
Yes, and someone who calls that veto is absolutely happy when the spouse just doesn't act on it? IF that would be the case there is no love for the one who has to obey this veto power, because this one will suffer. Feeling without acting is torture, I know what I am talking about ...

I can trust my partners. I can trust them to come to me and explain to me why this or that makes them feel uncomfortable if it is linked to my actions. But why would they need absolute power over these actions? Can't they trust me in return to take their worries at face value and consider them in my decisions? I would feel greatly offended if one of them came to me and asked for such an arrangement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGuy View Post
My understanding of monogamy is that emotional fidelity is also a requirement.

I also see it as a way that someone might test just to be assured how committed their partner is to the relationship.

There is a certain security in giving the final authority for your relationships to someone else.
Exactly. I can't understand handing such power over to any other person. Why should I? I am my own. Why should I wish for someone to control me or my actions? We can talk and negotiate everything but why this ultimate power over something that is so important to me? I can't see this as a special sign of trust. It's pure disregard of the person I am and leads to only seeing oneself and the needs you have. Nothing that hints to a healthy relationship, at least that's my take on the matter.
__________________
Facts: 30, female, bi, v-type relationship with Sward (husband, straight, mono) and Lin (boyfriend, straight, mono), poly-fi and co-primary.

My Blog
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-27-2011, 03:53 PM
sevechten sevechten is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowbound View Post
This is also my husband's POV. I used to see a veto as a way to protect our relationship but now I just see it as an avenue you go down when you become unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.
Then the problem isn't the veto, it is being unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rory View Post
I see giving an ultimatum as seeking control whereas expressing extremely hurt feelings and major discomfort is honest. I will do as much as I can to help in the latter case, but I suppose I have a personal hard boundary about not giving anybody power to control my actions.
"I've listened, but I'm going to keep seeing this person" is also an ultimatum of sorts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylya View Post
Assuming a veto arrangement, if you can't trust your partner to not screw you over, then why are you in a relationship with them?
Right. In my particular case, Wife thinks she's OK with me acting on being poly, but can't be sure until it happens, and not completely sure until there's sex. She is much more comfortable with this as an experiment than as an irrevocable change in our relationship. So far it is working well--she has gone far above and beyond mere tolerance of my new girlfriend, they are discussing taking some craft classes together.

Also in my case, Wife didn't ask for veto, it was my suggestion.
__________________
Poly in a newly-open poly/mono relationship
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-27-2011, 08:58 PM
Arrowbound's Avatar
Arrowbound Arrowbound is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sevechten View Post
Then the problem isn't the veto, it is being unwilling to do the communicative and emotional work.
I see it being one and the same. A veto won't do anything but temporarily stall the inevitable. Your poly nature doesn't all of a sudden go away.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-28-2011, 12:06 AM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,230
Default

It seems to me that this is all about wording.

If my partner's choices, actions, or associations are hurting me or hurting our partnership, I expect to get a chance to voice my opinion and be listened to carefully. If it's so important to me that I feel the need to put my foot down about it and make it clear I just won't be able to handle it if the situation continues, my partner can then respect my wishes or let me walk away. If I'm making a fuss over nothing, of course, I don't expect to be listened to.

How is that different from the sort of "discussion and negotiation will take place and I'll disregard it if it's being used frivolously" version of the veto that some people here are defending?

I guess the difference is that with the veto in place you promise to be the one to acquiese in the end rather than let your partner walk away. But wouldn't that be most people's choice most of the time anyway, unless we're talking about your partner asking you to drop someone with whom you've fallen deeply in love and with whom you've forged a partnership of your own... in which case most people seem to agree that a veto policy should no longer necessarily be in effect (note that in the original article linked above the writer talks of needing to reach consensus before a long-standing relationship can be ended... doesn't sound like a veto to me at that point, it just sounds like a discussion of an important issue)?

Veto is a loaded term because for some people it truly does mean "I will drop any other partner the moment you say so, no matter what your reasons are, no matter how much I love him/her, and that is that." *shudder* I would hate to think of my metamour having veto power over me, and yet in essence he does because I know that if my gf were absolutely forced to choose, she would choose him... I would want her to. So, again, it's a matter of wording.

If you need the wording for your partner to feel comfortable, fair enough. But understand that it is a very loaded word. And for those who are ardently against it, it may help to realize that, with the variability in how folk apply it, it may be in essence not so different from what you would practice in your life, it's just been given a harsh-sounding label.
__________________
The major players. Me, 30ish bi female. Gia, girlfriend of 4+ years. Clay, boyfriend/dom. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eddie, roommate & fwb.
The supporting cast. Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler. Dexter, Gia's lover. Helen, Eric's lover. Izzy and Nikki, Clay's partners. Liam, Eddie's husband.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-29-2011, 02:44 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,044
Default

Well said, Anabel.

Even without veto power, there's always The Ultimatum. In my experience, relationships that exercise ultimatum power doom themselves. It's a bad sign when your arguments involve "Choose what I want or else I walk." Note the difference from "My needs in this relationship cannot be met under these circumstances."

The notion of veto power with no explanation or justification frightens me. That obviously indicates a lack of communication and abundance of insecurity. Our relationship couldn't function the way it does if we didn't understand the way the other one ticks. Anything serious in life requires explanation and justification, it's part of the deal when you're sharing a life together. I'm not talking about every little coffee date or new dress. But spend enough time with someone, you should know what's important to them and when they'd like to be consulted. If you have any trust and respect for them, you'll consider their concerns.
__________________
Gralson: my husband. Auto: my girlfriend.
Zoffee: Auto's husband. Cue: Zoffee's boyfriend. Bookie: Cue's wife.

"Crowns do queer things to the heads beneath them."
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 04:19 AM.