Not sure what to do...

[SearchingforMyself]

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

Now, it could be that JP and J mean something else by "veto" and that they're just using the wrong word, or it could be that you misunderstood the meaning of veto. I, personally, would want to find out which one it is. I don't think I could be with someone whose partner has permission to send me packing.

Perhaps "veto" is not the best word, but our definition of it is that J can end an outside relationship that JP is involved in at any time. Like I said before, as far as I know all previous "relationships" that JP has had have only been of a sexual nature. We are still figuring out how this particular relationship is going. This may be something that J needs or may be something that will be renegotiated.

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

Myself, I would probably be worrying more that J is agreeing to have me there for JP's sake. Have you asked JP whether this was his idea or hers? Are her other close friends going to be there, or just you three?.

Inviting me was J's idea. The three of us are going to a nice restaurant for dinner. J does not have a lot of close friends and is not a very social person so she is not comfortable with large groups. We spend most weekends hanging out together.

[BreatheDeeply]

So really, you're becoming more uncomfortable with J's position. She can say the word to JP and you might just be history. But in all fairness, you entered the relationship under those terms, so my guess is you're changing and becoming less accepting of the terms as the relationship matures. Well that's pretty understandable considering the type of veto power hanging over you. But have you told either J or JP that you're having second thoughts about your place in the relationship? If it's starting to become awkward you might want to explain to the both o them how the disparity of power makes you feel. Maybe it's time as mentioned in an earlier post for you to assert more control in the future of the relationship.

[SearchingforMyself]

Originally Posted by BreatheDeeply

So really, you're becoming more uncomfortable with J's position. She can say the word to JP and you might just be history. But in all fairness, you entered the relationship under those terms, so my guess is you're changing and becoming less accepting of the terms as the relationship matures. Well that's pretty understandable considering the type of veto power hanging over you. But have you told either J or JP that you're having second thoughts about your place in the relationship? If it's starting to become awkward you might want to explain to the both o them how the disparity of power makes you feel. Maybe it's time as mentioned in an earlier post for you to assert more control in the future of the relationship.

First, I'd like to make it clear that I'm actually not usually uncomfortable with J's position or find it awkward. I typically look at it as any relationship can end on one person's word - granted, it usually isn't a 3rd person, but still. This is a new relationship with a new dynamic - at this point we are all learning how this will work for the three of us with a LOT of communication on all tiers (thanks GG for your poly math on another thread).

[nancyfore]

Originally Posted by SearchingforMyself

JP and I became involved while I was living with my former primary partner E. I've posted about the demise of my relationship with E in a few other threads. Without going into too much detail, JP and his wife J have always had a sexually open relationship due in part to a large difference in sex drives and J has always held veto power. I will admit that I sometimes have insecurities with being a secondary where my metamour (and really good friend) has complete veto power. At any point, J could tell JP "no more" and his and my relationship would have to shift back to just being friends.

On the other hand, as far as I know, J has never become friends with any of the girls that JP has previously been involved with. She now refers to me openly (with our friends) as JP's "mistress" and encourages our communication - between her and I, between him and I, between her and him, and between all three of us.

6 months in to whatever it is that we're doing and it's pretty hard to describe - but overall it seems to be working. I do still worry about that veto - but it's something that she needs.

This is a tad off topic, but do you find it acceptable to be called his "mistress" every where you go?? Is it only FWB? It sounds as though you might feel as if your not quite equal because your constantly reminded by what they say that your not...

Nancy

[SearchingforMyself]

Originally Posted by nancyfore

This is a tad off topic, but do you find it acceptable to be called his "mistress" every where you go?? Is it only FWB?

I'm ok with being the "mistress" The three of us have discussed it and we tend to agree with the definition of it as follows (found on Wikipedia):

...long-term female lover and companion who is not married to her partner; the term is used especially when her partner is married. The relationship generally is stable and at least semi-permanent; however, the couple does not live together openly. Also the relationship is usually, but not always, secret...

We have differing opinions, however, on what the term FWB means to each of us. JP and J both have positive definitions while I have had nothing but negative experiences with the use of that term - so we don't use that phrase to describe our relationship.

[nancyfore]

Originally Posted by SearchingforMyself

I'm ok with being the "mistress" The three of us have discussed it and we tend to agree with the definition of it as follows (found on Wikipedia):

...long-term female lover and companion who is not married to her partner; the term is used especially when her partner is married. The relationship generally is stable and at least semi-permanent; however, the couple does not live together openly. Also the relationship is usually, but not always, secret...

We have differing opinions, however, on what the term FWB means to each of us. JP and J both have positive definitions while I have had nothing but negative experiences with the use of that term - so we don't use that phrase to describe our relationship.

As long as your (and others) are ok with the terms being used, that's all that matters..

[SchrodingersCat]

I can see SFM's point about accepting J's "termination power." Frankly, if JP has agreed to it, there isn't a lot she can do about it. I can also see how raising an objection to it now could backfire, making J feel like she's being ousted.

Whether or not SFM is fond of that possibility looming over her head, it's really there for any of us. While we may not have it as an official policy, most married people would tend to end the secondary relationship before the marriage. That's not to say it wouldn't come without a tremendous amount of resentment and anger... And I'm sure JP wouldn't go silently into that good night if J were to end the relationship. Whether or not J has that power "officially" I suspect JP would fight for his relationship. If J really put her foot down, I can't imaging JP not feeling resentment and anger over it.

So it's not like this power means that J could just on a whim throw SFM out the door, and that JP would just be like "Oh yeah, that's cool, I don't mind."