Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-25-2010, 06:55 AM
StitchwitchD StitchwitchD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 77
Default

In various private discussions, the situation that keeps coming up is that a secondary relationship got too involved, the primary got jealous and vetoed it, and that didn't work too well.

So, pulling the nuclear option of retroactive veto is bad, and ignoring the retroactive veto is cheating.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-25-2010, 07:06 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StitchwitchD View Post
In various private discussions, the situation that keeps coming up is that a secondary relationship got too involved, the primary got jealous and vetoed it, and that didn't work too well.

So, pulling the nuclear option of retroactive veto is bad, and ignoring the retroactive veto is cheating.
What is a retroactive veto? one that is used after a relationship has started?

So what was the purpose of vetoing? was it in hopes of them cooling off? and how did that lead to cheating? because they didn't cool off?

confusing... and crazy making it sounds like. It sounds like no one acted in anyone else's best interest? is that it?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-25-2010, 11:51 AM
thunkybunny thunkybunny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
What is a retroactive veto? one that is used after a relationship has started?

So what was the purpose of vetoing? was it in hopes of them cooling off? and how did that lead to cheating? because they didn't cool off?

confusing... and crazy making it sounds like. It sounds like no one acted in anyone else's best interest? is that it?
Regardless of the intent, a retroactive veto is a clear demonstration of inequality and an unwillingness to cooperate for mutually-beneficial relations. It avoids conflict by avoiding change, and it limits opportunities for everybody. I would go further to suggest that a veto is a red flag that shows there is not enough trust in the relationship for it to open itself up to other partners. There is no reasonable explanation for a veto. It's an excuse for a person to act entirely out of self-interest, and that's not love.

Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship. An imbalance of relational power, such as a veto, is likely to contribute to to that problem for one party.

Last edited by thunkybunny; 03-25-2010 at 11:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-25-2010, 02:54 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post

Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship. An imbalance of relational power, such as a veto, is likely to contribute to to that problem for one party.
I can totally see this happening. The veto could artificially or legitimately create a sense the the primaries won't miss the new person as much therefore there is less at stake if they wander...the primaries can just find someone else anyways.

"Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship." Nicely put.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-25-2010, 02:55 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Why the word "retroactive" then? It seems to imply that things were humming along until someone got stuck, freaked out and called the whole thing off because "they" are having a hard time. Rather than asking for some attention to their needs in order to move forward.

All this is very tricky, it's true. There is no absolute anything in any of this in my experience. I hate these stupid definitions. Not because they weren't useful at one point in my life but because people think they have to make them absolute one way or another. Really they morph as different people come and go from our lives, in my experience.

We have been over "veto" before on here several times. A search might bring up some interesting stuff. The thing that has come up over and over for me is that it seems people think that it is negative. Sure it needs to be used carefully, but why is it negative to have a gut reaction to something, or an adverse experience and ask your partner to call something off? Is there no situation where this would be a good idea for the health and safety of a relationship?

"there is not enough trust in the relationship for it to open itself up to other partners. There is no reasonable explanation for a veto. It's an excuse for a person to act entirely out of self-interest, and that's not love."

Not to pick on you thunkybunny, that isn't my intent, but I had a thought that perhaps there are other reasons for a veto other than excuses to act out of self-interest rather than love? Perhaps being absolutely sure that veto is always bad is counter productive and keeps us from moving forward.

For me the veto I used was to protect my family and protect my husband from having so much crazy NRE that he forgot about us.... not to mention the woman that he was in love with was using him in my opinion and he didn't see it. He saw it eventually and called it off himself.

Was I wrong to do this? Maybe, but we were just starting out and we were wary. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I am assuming that others are starting out too and that there is some reassurance in vetos for them.... does that mean they get to do whatever and take advantage of others because they can just call it off when they want, no. That isn't fair either.

The whole defining anything thing all needs to be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion. What is one persons reality is not another persons and that needs respecting to me.

I'm just trying to remember that unless I have lived through something, I really doesn't know anything about something, just what others say.... I don't know what anyone else experiences, just myself and if someone wanted to tell me their "veto" worked in their relationship then I need to believe it worked for them.

I'm finding more and more that there is a trend in "poly talk" to make absolute statements about other peoples reality. Why is that? Is someone out there saying, "this is the way" and everyone following along? Can we not encorporate what others say and make it our own when we have some experience in it or in terms of our lives? The same language seems to come up over and over and it all says the same thing.... this is totally an aside, just something I have noticed.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-25-2010, 03:17 PM
thunkybunny thunkybunny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 44
Default

I'd say that vetos are clumsy. It's too easy to abuse them instead of communicating. Some established couples get into this habit of vetoing each other's other significant others, causing a lot of unnecessary confusion and lasting resentments (in the established relationship). It's the same explanation for why the United Nations is a big joke. Vetos privilege certain people and relationships over others. The impulse to 'protect' our attachments to property and people is ingrained possibly in our natures and cultures. A better approach would be for everyone to sit down and talk, but that would require so much *hand on head* work.

Last edited by thunkybunny; 03-25-2010 at 03:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-25-2010, 04:41 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
I'd say that vetos are clumsy. It's too easy to abuse them instead of communicating. Some established couples get into this habit of vetoing each other's other significant others, causing a lot of unnecessary confusion and lasting resentments (in the established relationship). It's the same explanation for why the United Nations is a big joke. Vetos privilege certain people and relationships over others. The impulse to 'protect' our attachments to property and people is ingrained possibly in our natures and cultures. A better approach would be for everyone to sit down and talk, but that would require so much *hand on head* work.
I agree that it would be better to talk. I don't think it is always to do with possession though. Certainly sometimes, but not always. I

"clumsy" is a really good word I think, as they are very risky indeed. Thanks for that word. I intend to remember it in terms of a lot of terminology to do with poly theory. Anything "in theory" can be clumsy it seems. And really, just because a veto is used one time doesn't mean it works another time. Clumsy. Sometimes that is all we have when we feel that there is a threat and we aren't interested in being pushed to change. Feeling uncomfortable makes us do clumsy things sometimes. At least it makes me do clumsy things anyway.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-25-2010, 08:42 PM
Honestheart's Avatar
Honestheart Honestheart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 91
Default

wow, ok you gusy are all bringing up some amazing points.....
"Cheating usually occurs when there is a lack of emotional, rather than sexual, fulfillment in a relationship." is indeed the best way to word things....
and yes, i've had experience with "vetoes" and can honestly say they can lead to an imbalance emotionally and can (AND I USE THAT "CAN" VERY LIGHTLY) be a gateway to cheating...
for example
"a+b" have a relationship. "b" gets involved with "c". "a+b" have a veto rule and "a" vetoes "c" after "b+c" have been together for some time. so "b + c" have feelings for one and another and end up cheating on "a". but once again... the whole problem here isn't necessarily just the veto rule, its the lack of communication. vetos can work, but in my opinion they are messy situations and it is better to simply be open and honest and communicative with all parties involved. and also to explore, why are you "vetoeing" in the first place? are your reasons for insecurities? if it is for insecurity then a veto rule is dangerous ground...
just my "two cents"
__________________
"...Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident." ~St Augustine

Last edited by NeonKaos; 03-25-2010 at 10:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-25-2010, 11:25 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honestheart View Post
but once again... the whole problem here isn't necessarily just the veto rule, its the lack of communication. vetos can work, but in my opinion they are messy situations and it is better to simply be open and honest and communicative with all parties involved. and also to explore, why are you "vetoeing" in the first place? are your reasons for insecurities? if it is for insecurity then a veto rule is dangerous ground...
yes, I think if it is for insecurity then veto's are dangerous... our issue was that we have a high level of communication and the woman my husband was dating didn't, and was interested in something casual but wasn't telling him that. I saw this, or suspected this and he didn't, he was blissfully in his NRE. I told him after much discussion and argument that I thought he needed to find out for himself and if I was right I saw it in the best interest of our family for him to end it... he just isn't a casual sex kind of guy (I know, bizarre ) He thought about it all night and told me in the morning he had written to her to set a time to meet her and tell her it's over.

Her response to him ending it was, "ah, I won't get to fuck you anymore then " That was not his intent in the first place, he loved her and was showing her that, by doing sexual things with her because of that, not because he liked fooling around. he doesn't operate that way. He was heart broken and she just shrugged her shoulders.

Neither of us had insecurities...
yet I found it necessary to be firm with him about looking at what it was all doing to him... and as a result us.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:19 AM
StitchwitchD StitchwitchD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
What is a retroactive veto? one that is used after a relationship has started?

So what was the purpose of vetoing? was it in hopes of them cooling off? and how did that lead to cheating? because they didn't cool off?

confusing... and crazy making it sounds like. It sounds like no one acted in anyone else's best interest? is that it?
Yeah, when I say "retroactive veto" I'm referring to a situation where the primary partner was originally okay with the secondary relationship, then the primary started having problems with it, and instead of working through the issues, demanded that they break up. Of course, when 2 people are happy together and some 3rd party tries to force them apart, that doesn't do anything to change their feelings, and rarely goes well in any context.

I'm not sure what the purpose of vetoing was, you'd have to ask someone who has done it. My assumption is that it's because the primary feels threatened and is trying to get control of the situation to feel safe, and has somehow forgotten that forbidding love generally does not work out so well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adultery, affairs, break ups, cheating, love triangle

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 08:13 PM.