MonoVCPHG
New member
A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
Thanks for bringing it back to focus and I get your point
A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
Not totally. I think there's something useful here. Remember the connection between the lack of emotional fulfillment and cheating. The point is not whether one uses a veto or a schedule, but whether one is having choices made for them or a responsible adult making relationship choices. A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
For me the veto I used was to protect my family and protect my husband from [SNIP] 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.
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?
'Protection' of one's family implies anticipation of an actual or imagined threat.
Such a fearful attitude in life makes the choices and the assessments of new connections troublesome, because it diminishes one's tendency to make wise and loving connections.
A less fearful person/couple might have enough confidence to choose better partners, while the fearful tend to choose poorly.
It's the same explanation for why children of loving homes tend to have the confidence to explore the world.
An already secure and loving partnership does not need a veto, because the partners have enough confidence to choose wisely. Partners who feel they need to 'protect' their families would be better off concentrating on confidence-building before trying to connect with new people. [SNIP] Why have an open relationship if the partners have so little confidence in each other's abilities to make good choices in the first place?
The likelihood of having a long-term relationship with a psychopath is extremely rare for two reasons. Psychopaths are rare, and psychopaths lack the commitment necessary for long-term relationships.
A person doesn't have to be a clinical psychopath to be destructive
Instead of a veto, a more surgical device would be a set of gas-and-break pedals. Vetos result in absolutest, black-or-white, thinking whereas a device for moderating the speed of a relationship allows for a wider range of possibilities.
i'm sorry if ever i come across as "this is the only way" i'm open and i ask a lot of questions and i put my 2 cents in... i lack the ability to adequately communicate at times too... i apologize in advance.
but i will say when i know 100% something is wrong... in this case..cheating is 100% wrong even if it involves feelings and a previous partner whose relationship recently ended.
'Protection' of one's family implies anticipation of an actual or imagined threat.
Such a fearful attitude in life makes the choices and the assessments of new connections troublesome, because it diminishes one's tendency to make wise and loving connections. It also makes one question the legitimacy of existing relationships. A less fearful person/couple might have enough confidence to choose better partners, while the fearful tend to choose poorly.
It's the same explanation for why children of loving homes tend to have the confidence to explore the world. They know that whatever happens, things will be ok because they already have love so they tend not to latch onto just anything that catches their fancy. They choose better friendships.
An already secure and loving partnership does not need a veto, because the partners have enough confidence to choose wisely.
Partners who feel they need to 'protect' their families would be better off concentrating on confidence-building before trying to connect with new people. This can be difficult when the sources of insecurities come from childhood, other formative experiences, or betrayals in the existing relationship.
Why have an open relationship if the partners have so little confidence in each other's abilities to make good choices in the first place? Even a veto applied judiciously can mask deeper problems within the existing relationship. It is worth exploring why the established partners lack such confidence in themselves and in each other that they believe they need a veto to protect the family. After all, a new partner chosen wisely and lovingly can become an additional family member.
Thought provoking comments Thunkbunny..thanks. I really like the idea of GAS and Brake.
I don't see this as a veto. I see it as you having some insight that your husband lacked, you sharing your insight with him, and asking him to make a choice for the good of the family. But it was he who made the choice, as opposed to you issuing a "her or your family" type ultimatum.
'Protection' of one's family implies anticipation of an actual or imagined threat. Such a fearful attitude in life makes the choices and the assessments of new connections troublesome, because it diminishes one's tendency to make wise and loving connections. It also makes one question the legitimacy of existing relationships. A less fearful person/couple might have enough confidence to choose better partners, while the fearful tend to choose poorly. It's the same explanation for why children of loving homes tend to have the confidence to explore the world. They know that whatever happens, things will be ok because they already have love so they tend not to latch onto just anything that catches their fancy. They choose better friendships. An already secure and loving partnership does not need a veto, because the partners have enough confidence to choose wisely. Partners who feel they need to 'protect' their families would be better off concentrating on confidence-building before trying to connect with new people. This can be difficult when the sources of insecurities come from childhood, other formative experiences, or betrayals in the existing relationship. Why have an open relationship if the partners have so little confidence in each other's abilities to make good choices in the first place? Even a veto applied judiciously can mask deeper problems within the existing relationship. It is worth exploring why the established partners lack such confidence in themselves and in each other that they believe they need a veto to protect the family. After all, a new partner chosen wisely and lovingly can become an additional family member.
I'm a die hard secondary in my relationship. I am proud of the supportive role I have. I am also completely dedicated to the health of the primary relationship and core family above my own needs. This is because I have had that already and recognize the importance of it. I accept the veto power of either primary partner because I trust and respect their ability to recognize a constructive situation as well as a destructive situation. If I had to leave it would be for a good reason. So the onus becomes less one sided on the primary partners to pick good partners and more shared with the secondary to pick appropriate partners. Secondaries need to own up to their responsibility in some cases and stop pointing fingers perhaps.
Not totally. I think there's something useful here. Remember the connection between the lack of emotional fulfillment and cheating. The point is not whether one uses a veto or a schedule, but whether one is having choices made for them or a responsible adult making relationship choices. A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
That makes it less a "veto rule" and more a "veto agreement"... (like I was outlining in my last post)
Yes?
Since we're back off-topic, what we have here is a difference not of opinions but rather a difference between relativism and strategy. Protectionism is a strategy of the weak, but it works well for the weak. Weaker relationships need protection while stronger ones do not because they can compete with outsiders. It's an interesting dilemma. How do you know your relationship is strong enough not to depend on protectionism to survive?
Furthermore, is survival enough?
Protectionism is a strategy of the weak, but it works well for the weak.
Some so-called 'poly' folk think of relationships as casual/serious, and that casual relationships allow for cheating.
I would argue that relationships are ethical/unethical, and that cheating is unethical as it can kill.
This is an interesting opinion. It is also interesting that the most powerful countries in the world have very strong military forces. This is generally not to protect themselves but to protect their interests and citizens. Think families and children.
I'm not a scholar but have 20 years experience in the concept of protection. It is rarely exercised by the weak but more often practiced by the strong who shield the weak from harm until they are themselves capable of self protection. Think children.
So it is my opinion that the strongest of couples are the most capable of exercising protection but because they are so strong it becomes transparent.
I agree that the weak partnerships are the ones that flex thier muscles the most however. And people who need to flex their muscles often are often the least secure in their strength.
I might be misinterpreting your use of the word "protectionism". Can you explain it if that is the case?
So it is my opinion that the strongest of couples are the most capable of exercising protection but because they are so strong it becomes transparent.
I agree that the weak partnerships are the ones that flex thier muscles the most however. And people who need to flex their muscles often are often the least secure in their strength.
I'm curious about perspectives of people who have been cheated on in the context of a poly relationship.
The only situations I've heard about this happening were along the lines of Person A and Person B make a relationship agreement, when put in practice it works much better for A than B, B wants to renegotiate, A insists on sticking with the original agreement, B expresses frustration and unhappiness, A ignores B's attempts to communicate, B finally violates the agreement, A gets hurt and upset with B for cheating, and either leaves B, or uses the cheating and lack of trust to guilt B into agreeing to even stricter terms for their relationship.