Veto Power...?

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by Morningglory629

OMG! We agree!!!!

It wouldn't be the first time.

[Morningglory629]

Originally Posted by NeonKaos

It wouldn't be the first time.

No but it is welcomed and rare. I celebrate it when it happens.

[Tonberry]

I'm not comfortable with vetoes. I'm not comfortable with telling a partner "if you say stop, I have to drop everything" or "if I say stop, you have to drop everything".

However, in a case-by-case basis, I will take my partners' opinion into account when making decisions, and if my boyfriend told me that he's got a really, really bad feeling about a specific person, I might decide not to take things further.

What I would hate though is a veto that happens later on. What I mean is that I am fine with partners being "consultants" when a new relationship develops, but at no point is it fine in my book to tell someone "dump him/her, just because".

It's important to me that my partners get along though, so if they don't, it's likely that the newer relationship won't go very far.

I also have a principle I've always stuck to so far, and that is that if someone ever tells me "it's me or X, you've got to pick", I pick X, no matter what or who X is. Or really, it's more of a matter of "I don't pick you", because sometimes I pick neither. But I just can't stand ultimatums like that, they feel controlling and disrespectful of both me and X.

Now, if a partner tells me "You spend a lot of time doing X (no matter what/who X is :P) and not a lot of time with me. I'm feeling lonely. Is there a way you could spend more time with me so I don't feel like I always come last?", that would be different. It's not an ultimatum, it focuses on what they feel and not what I "should" do, etc. Then I'll see about working things out with everyone involved so people are happy (including me).

For me, a veto is a hard rule that one person can just decide to step into another's relationship and break it off. That's not cool with me. I much prefer communication with everyone involved, and finding case-by-case solutions.

However, before there is any relationship at all, setting some harder rules might seem more comforting because everything is so new and unknown. So I can understand that. Guidelines you set to have an idea where you're going.
However, which any new relationship, or any shift within a relationship, these tend to need to be examined.
And after all, don't a lot of people start their journey into poly this way, by re-examining what used to be a hard rule of monogamy, because their relationship has evolved or it just doesn't work for it?

[Morningglory629]

Originally Posted by Tonberry

However, in a case-by-case basis, I will take my partners' opinion into account when making decisions, and if my boyfriend told me that he's got a really, really bad feeling about a specific person, I might decide not to take things further.

What I would hate though is a veto that happens later on. What I mean is that I am fine with partners being "consultants" when a new relationship develops, but at no point is it fine in my book to tell someone "dump him/her, just because".

It's important to me that my partners get along though, so if they don't, it's likely that the newer relationship won't go very far.

Now, if a partner tells me "You spend a lot of time doing X (no matter what/who X is :P) and not a lot of time with me. I'm feeling lonely. Is there a way you could spend more time with me so I don't feel like I always come last?", that would be different. It's not an ultimatum, it focuses on what they feel and not what I "should" do, etc. Then I'll see about working things out with everyone involved so people are happy (including me).

And after all, don't a lot of people start their journey into poly this way, by re-examining what used to be a hard rule of monogamy, because their relationship has evolved or it just doesn't work for it?

great points.

[rory]

This topic was an interesting read for me. I'm quite new to poly so I did not know that there are veto practices commonly used. However I have been thinking the exact same things now that entering polyamorous relationship has become a practical thing.

We have had an open marriage with my husband for years but we hadn't really discussed the possibility of more serious relationships with others. But I met a girl who I found attractive on multiple levels and the feelings were mutual. So after that I talked with my husband, and if he had not been okay with the whole thing I wouldn't have started anything more with the girl. Although for us it was more the conversation of "is it alright if we have a polyamorous relationship" than "is it alright if I start a relationship with this person". I don't identify as poly and am sure I could be happy in a mono relationship, so that was not something I insisted of.

However, now that we have established that he is okay with polyamory, I would not think it fair for him to have a change of heart. So even though "he was here first" I am definitely not giving him veto.

Also, I am inclined to think "I choose the person who is not making me choose". As in, I choose the freedom to choose, if that makes sense.

[TruckerPete]

Originally Posted by rory

Also, I am inclined to think "I choose the person who is not making me choose". As in, I choose the freedom to choose, if that makes sense.

Exactly! Because how do you know they're not going to put you in that position over and over again?

[MrFarFromRight]

Originally Posted by rory

Also, I am inclined to think "I choose the person who is not making me choose". As in, I choose the freedom to choose, if that makes sense.

I'm with you there! My first impulse on reading this thread's title was to answer: "If both of you are more comfortable with having a veto right, then that's your business." I can accept now that - using the poly definition of "veto" - that then disqualifies you from labelling your relationship "polyamory".

In my own case, I was in a poly relationship (long before the term was coined) for 6 1/2 years. When my GF told me that she wanted to "change the setting" - to commit ourselves to a monogamous relationship - I told her (I'm paraphrasing here): "Your decisions are your own. If you want to be mono, that's up to you. But I'm neither going to ask it of you or expect it of you. And I'm NOT going to be mono..."

I could live happily with only one sexual relationship going. (I'm living [fairly] happily with none at the present time...) But I refuse to limit somebody else' sexual freedom... or accept their right to limit mine.

She walked away from the relationship. But if she hadn't - and had continued to insist on monogamy - I'm sure that I would have walked away eventually.

Sure, she - as a person - was more important than any sexual principles that I might have. [And we continued to be good friends for 18 years after the split as a couple... until she decided to walk away from that friendship as well.] But continuing to sleep with her wasn't (at least, as far as I'm concerned...)

[Morningglory629]

Rory and TP- the point is, don't you think, in any relationship the art of compromise needs to be practiced. I have studied politics for a long time and it is true that idealogues rarely succeed and almost never maintain a piece in play so to speak. Like politics, relationships are fluid, emotionally driven but based on a seemingly solid foundation of love. I say seemingly because even the definition of love can change. So like politics you cannot institute practices like veto unless you realize eventually it will be overturned and you will be out on your ear. Vetos do nothing but entrench resentment. Prohibitive stances are fanatical and off-putting in most cases- especially if it is in a supposedly loving relationship, i.e. one that exists of freewill in the first place.

The only thing we as individuals can do is realize our own purpose in life and not pin our happiness on a moving target. That said if we are happy with ourselves then why would we need to dictate or rule over anyone else in some effort to blame another for our happiness/unhappiness.

[TruckerPete]

Originally Posted by Morningglory629

Rory and TP- the point is, don't you think, in any relationship the art of compromise needs to be practiced. I have studied politics for a long time and it is true that idealogues rarely succeed and almost never maintain a piece in play so to speak. Like politics, relationships are fluid, emotionally driven but based on a seemingly solid foundation of love. I say seemingly because even the definition of love can change. So like politics you cannot institute practices like veto unless you realize eventually it will be overturned and you will be out on your ear. Vetos do nothing but entrench resentment. Prohibitive stances are fanatical and off-putting in most cases- especially if it is in a supposedly loving relationship, i.e. one that exists of freewill in the first place.

The only thing we as individuals can do is realize our own purpose in life and not pin our happiness on a moving target. That said if we are happy with ourselves then why would we need to dictate or rule over anyone else in some effort to blame another for our happiness/unhappiness.

Sorry MG, I don't quite follow. I don't think there's a way to compromise in a situation where one partner says, "It's them or me."

For us, I told Indigo from the get go that I wanted a non-monogamous relationship. If he were to change his mind, that would be the end of the relationship. Period. It would suck.

I've been in enough mono relationships to know that I am not a monogamous person. I will either cheat, or break up with the person to pursue other interests. The heartache of leaving a love who forces me to choose or says they can't be with me if I'm poly is nothing compared to the heartache I know I will eventually inflict on them if I allow myself to try and be something I'm not.

[rory]

Originally Posted by Morningglory629

Vetos do nothing but entrench resentment. Prohibitive stances are fanatical and off-putting in most cases- especially if it is in a supposedly loving relationship, i.e. one that exists of freewill in the first place.

I think I agree with you there, and if I understand correctly with your whole post. Veto is very different from negotiating a compromise; the former just does not work for me (for the reasons you stated above), but the latter is essential.

I am definitely prepared to do very much to find solutions that work for everybody, and taking my partners' wishes into account. But that does stand for all the people I am in a relationship with, not only "the one that came first". That is also why I wanted to make sure that my husband was on board before starting a new relationship because from that point onwards my girlfriend's needs would be a part of the equation, too. For example, if I were to meet someone new at some point and wanted a relationship with them, I would definitely check that both of my existing partners would be ok with it.