Interesting PoV on Veto

[SchrodingersCat]

Originally Posted by redpepper

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.

[nycindie]

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?

[Arrowbound]

Originally Posted by redpepper

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.

[sevechten]

Originally Posted by Arrowbound

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.

[Arrowbound]

Originally Posted by sevechten

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.

[Phy]

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.

[rory]

Originally Posted by sevechten

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.

[zylya]

Originally Posted by Phy

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.

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?

[BigGuy]

Originally Posted by zylya

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.

[Phy]

Originally Posted by zylya

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.

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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.