Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-26-2013, 09:56 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default it's whether or not the power is abused

there are few things worse than a position of authority that is abused but it's ignorant to paint all relationships framed with a hierarchy as something to be shamed by a community. It pretty much the same deal with blasting or bashing all couples who seek to add a third to "their relationship" and call them unicorn hunters as if all couples are going to abuse the single.

Trying to get a group to adopt such an attitude is a good example of bad authority. I don't buy into the whole anarchy outlook either as it doesn't matter if it's one person abusing authority or a collective of individuals claiming no authority, either way when an ignorant viewpoint is enforced in a community it's a problem, subtlety or masking the problem with any picture frame doesn't change anything. Democracy works, it's not a mob mentality, the reason the United States democracy doesn't work is because there is no voting system that allows for a large enough voter turnout to truly be a Voice of The People. Alls they have to do to fix it, is implement on secure online system as these days that would mean numbers closer to 90% of eligible voters voting as opposed to the 30-40% we have now.

There really isn't a whole lot of difference between a "veto" and when someone more respectfully says they will leave because of such and such behavior, but will stay if it stops. When there is a choice presented and it's distinguished as a choice with consequences THAT is an ultimatum, so it's almost comical to say there is a difference, but I too have mistakenly believed there's a difference, but there isn't

The only difference is the ethics of the intention is more closely associated with plain old right and wrong. If a person behavior is that of someone you cannot be in a relationship with, because their core beliefs do not align with yours, you shouldn't give them a choice to change the behavior. The behavior will manifest in new and equally unethical behaviors because it is beliefs that are the problem.

The problem isn't with vetos, it's people who are too immature to recognize that when you have to issue a veto with a partner that's due to a discrepancy of core beliefs, you should be leaving the relationship not trying to change the behavior. If you want to stay in the relationship you will need to be able teach them your belief system, but they have to genuinely desire to learn it. Sometimes it's good to have an ultimatum for those caught up in NRE, but when the ultimatum is given by a petty partner who cannot handle reasonable jealousy it's a problem

The only people who will know whether a veto is right or wrong are those involved, but sometimes those involved are so blinded by their emotions they cannot recognize the difference between right and wrong, and that is exactly the reason why friends, true friends who have similar beliefs, their opinions are invaluable

It's a dumb idea for a community to decide black and white attitudes for anything other than right and wrong. To label all hierarchies either way is ignorant.

Detailed definitions are necessary for all languages that communicate complex ideas, but allowing for fluidity is necessary for people who aren't perfect. Some fluidity is needed for those who can admit when they were wrong. Some people are not able to do that

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 05-26-2013 at 11:04 PM. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-30-2013, 01:29 PM
london london is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,437
Default

I don't see, or should I say, I'm not particularly interested in relationships where the terms "primary" or "secondary" refer to a limitation of emotional availability for those relationships outside the primary relationship. It might end up that you don't share much of an emotional connection with a partner, but it's very important that I have the potential to have more than one person that I love romantically without restriction. I do believe that these terms refer to practical entanglement and joint responsibilities such as children, homes, financial obligations, family commitments and the like. I also believe that whilst one should avoid "couples privileges", it is absolutely likely that there will be privileges that a new partner has not yet earned. The key is that the potential should be there for those privileges to be earned over time.

In terms of veto powers, I would not be comfortable to enter a relationship with someone who had a partner who could end our relationship at any time they felt like. I am all for people having the space to approach their partner with an issue, or even say that they don't feel they are unable to continue in the relationship if x continues, that is simply expressing that your needs may have become incompatible, but as for being able to end their partners other relationships whenever they feel it necessary without reason or explanation is not ethical non monogamy in my eyes. You could perhaps make it ethical by stating to anyone who gets involved that they can be discarded in that fashion, but you must make it clear that quite possibly, it will be through no action of their doing and there won't be a compromise.

There may come a time when one partner has expressed an incompatibility in needs and stated that they cannot continue with that incompatibility in place. This incompatibility maybe polyamory as a whole, or a particular person. If the other partner then chooses to change things in order to continue the relationship and become compatible again, they must take responsibility for this decision. They can't then tell the partners that they have to dump that their spouse has "vetoed" the arrangement, they must be honest and say that my spouse could no longer continue our relationship with this thing going on, so I chose to discard that thing in order to continue the relationship with my spouse. That is taking responsibility for your actions
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-30-2013, 02:58 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london
In terms of veto powers, I would not be comfortable to enter a relationship with someone who had a partner who could end our relationship at any time they felt like.
I think anyone would have greivance being treated that way, probably because it's impossible to respect yourself if a person you are supposed to be in a loving relationship could or would just end it at any time.

Any relationship where people treat others like that is for the most part abusive. It's the emotional abuse that is no good, but having priorities with your obligations is not what is problematic. If the only way or the easiest way for your relationships to allow your life to run smoothly is without any sort of hierarchy, I would without any doubt use the successful dynamic

I would be weary too if a couple told me they have a pre-arranged agreement that either one of them could force the other to suddenly end the relationship for any reason, as anyone who let another partner have that control, that is likely not the only innappropriate control over their partners life that's going on

let's face it, unless they have some M/s dynamic that is desired and fully consented to that they never made you aware of, it would be a pretty fucked situation, some people get off on that and so long as they don't conspire against someone who doesn't consent or isn't fully knowledgeable and aware then proceeds to fuck with you to teach you humility or whatever abusive power tripping scheme that can be had, is just abuse

but not every dynamic with a hierarchy is fucked up abusive like that, or even abusive at all necessarily.

Abuse is abuse is abuse, it's what abusive people do, but it has nothing to do with hierarchy, as authority that is NOT abusive is a good thing
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-30-2013, 03:37 PM
london london is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,437
Default

@Dirtclustit, I believe that you are making the popular argument that "veto rights" aren't inherently bad because decent people will use them responsibly and not just because they get a bit jealous or scared. I think this is true, for the most part, but I still believe even more strongly that people use them as a crutch, a false sense of security that they do still have control over their partner's other relationships.

When it comes to a veto, if you are a decent person and have a healthy relationship, all your partners will be able to approach you with an issue anyway. You won't continue something that is causing your partner undue pain. This does not mean that you will stop doing anything they don't like, but it does mean that you will try and reassure them that the thing you are doing is not meant to make them feel less valuable and make steps to reassure them of their place in your life in other ways. Sometimes you reach an impasse and that thing is something that you need and your partner can't tolerate and so, hopefully amicably, you decide to end the relationship as it isn't healthy to continue it. If this is how decent people in healthy relationships act, why would you need an official rule that states "you will treat me decently"? Your partner should feel they can approach you with an issue, they shouldn't need the protection of a "rule" that allows them to have their opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-30-2013, 04:33 PM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 814
Default

Let us not forget the unspoken veto, those who will claim not to believe in having veto rights but when it comes to the crunch will use subtle manipulations and emotional blackmail to undermine their partner's other relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-30-2013, 04:47 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default Oh I don't believe in veto

In prearranged ability to enforce one or be protected from another trying to issue one.

Vetos are occurrences that happen in politics, any intimate or poly relationships that are run by politics is in my eyes the perfect example of abusive hierarchy at play.

If I am in a relationship with a person or people, and after many discussions of what is acceptable and what is not for what goes on in my relationships, the situation you are calling "a veto" would be what I call dissolution of the relationship, it doesn't mean I can't be friends with the person, just not in a relationship, they would have to do something seriously wrong and against my beliefs to for my friendship to dissolve completely.

But I don't feel the need to reserve the right to break up with a partner, which is what I see as essentially the same thing as a veto, which may actually be closer to simply the threat of a break up, in which case I do not feel the need to reserve the right to threaten to break up with a partner. If after trying to come to an understanding and we could not, there would be no threats about it, it would be done, the same as it would if a partner threatened to break up with me in a manipulating way. But something so clear cut and dry I don't typically have problems with.

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 05-30-2013 at 04:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-30-2013, 05:12 PM
london london is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,437
Default

In terms of hierarchy, I'll say the same thing I have said on other threads today: I think that a polyamorous relationship is the ability to have more than one romantic and/or sexual relationship without fixed limitations on how emotionally entangled any of those relationships can become. In a polyamorous relationship, hierarchical terms like "primary" and "secondary" should only consistently indicate the level of practical entanglement you have with the person concerned. Ie. your spouse who you share a home, children, financial obligations, family commitments etc is your primary partner and your girl/boyfriend who you see a few times a week, have no or few practical entanglements with and may or may not also have a primary style relationship is your secondary partner.

The minute your secondary partner is defined as "the person I have to love less, I believe you are moving into a different realm of ethical non monogamy and heading towards an "open relationship".

Generally, I am a fan of quite precise labels; as well as being on the autistic spectrum and preferring things to be quite fixed, I genuinely believe that if we use these labels in a more defined fashion, people will have less incidences of misunderstandings. If you approach someone who says they have an open marriage, you will automatically know that any potential relationship you have with them has quite a definite ceiling in terms of how emotionally/romantically attached you can become. Of course, there will always be a scale within a scale and you will only find if you are on the same place in that scale by communicating. But at least it will give all people looking for non monogamous relationships a concise way to indicate their limitations before there is any emotional attachment and thus the possibility of a misunderstanding and people getting hurt.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-30-2013, 05:53 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default Now THAT makes sense to me

Thank you for clarifying what you meant London, I have a tendency to be overprotective of anybody and everybody and can come across as extremely rude or even pardon the expression, an asshole.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that there intentions are not at all bad. But I because I view people's sexuality as being something that everybody deserves to have theirs respected in that having anything about your sexuality ridiculed or shamed is not acceptable behavior for anyone to have to put with, not that it happens so much here, but most of the online sites that are geared towards having a open mind towards sex, it seems inevitable that it cannot be separated from an environment that is very harsh and requires "thick skinned" attitudes.

But I do realize in my zeal to prevent others from experiencing that I begin using the very tones I vehemently oppose.

Your last post here makes me think your view isn't in opposition to mine, that I may have misunderstood
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-30-2013, 06:26 PM
london london is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,437
Default

I didn't notice any sort of hostility in your posts. I love debating, that's all we were doing.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-30-2013, 08:25 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtclustit View Post
it's ignorant to paint all relationships framed with a hierarchy as something to be shamed by a community.
No one is shaming anyone else, throughout this entire thread. There have been disagreements, points discussed back and forth, but this has been a pretty great example of how to have an intelligent conversation. Disagreement is not the same as shaming, Dirtclustit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtclustit View Post
If I am in a relationship with a person or people, and after many discussions of what is acceptable and what is not for what goes on in my relationships, the situation you are calling "a veto" would be what I call dissolution of the relationship.
"Veto Power" really is just an prearranged agreement regarding a future deal breaker. It's like having the argument beforehand and deciding not to break up, but to instead capitulate to the desires of the one with the issue. Instead of saying "I don't trust that girl, she gives me the willies, you need to break up with her or I'm leaving you" and his responding "No, no, don't leave me... I'll break up with her because my feelings for her are irrelevant"... it's just done prior to the issue coming up.

Yucko!
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
heirarchy, primary, primary/secondary, secondaries, secondary, secondary feelings

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 03:39 PM.