Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-06-2011, 04:56 PM
Derbylicious's Avatar
Derbylicious Derbylicious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,603
Default

If you are using veto power it really comes down to an ultimatum. I think if you have one in place you have to be prepared for the possibility that the veto won't be respected and you may end up having to leave a situation that you feel is unbearable instead. You can't control anyone's actions except your own and ultimatums rarely go well.
__________________
Everything will be ok in the end. If it's not ok it's not the end.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-06-2011, 06:25 PM
MrFarFromRight's Avatar
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Smack in the middle of The Spanish Revolution!
Posts: 483
Default

Mister Pedant Man wades in again. (Bam! Kerpow! Whoosh!)
I clicked on this thread, because I was thinking to write: "If that's what you need to maintain a healthy relationship... it's your call."

Frankly I'm rather amazed to read so many people damning vetoing on a board where so many write about the "necessity of setting clear boundaries". And some of the damning comes from the same people who insist on the boundaries option. Now, it's possible that senility is setting in early with me, but I'm having problems with this one:

Just what is the difference between "vetoing" and "setting clear boundaries"?

(Please remember that I'm Mister Pedant Man, and be gentle with me. My super-tights get laddered in a scuffle.)

I would certainly agree that it's better to discuss problems and come to a happy concensus. And I'm actually playing the Devil's advocate here, because I - personally and generally - hate the idea of vetoes. Especially
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morningglory629 View Post
applie[d] to politics as well. That and filebustering really get on my nerves. I just don't see the point of it other than to piss people off, extend the argument, and cause further stress and discord. The exact opposite of ANY reason I have heard in support of the power of veto.
But let's look at political vetoing. In the USA, the President has a veto right over Congress. (But the veto can be overturned - though with difficulty - by Congress.) In the UN, just 5 countries have the right of veto... on policies that affect the entire World. These are both cases of vetoes being a prerogative of the already over-powerful.

Just which vetoes are being considered here?
You may not have unprotected sex with a new partner before they've been tested for AIDS and STDs. (?)
You may not have unprotected sex with any partner outside our primary relationship. (?)
You may not have sex with any other partner in OUR bed. (?)
You may not do overnights with your GF/BF. (?)

I have seen all of these positions ("setting clear boundaries") defended by experienced polys. Aren't those vetoes?

You may not have sex with Mister Pedant Man because he's a pedantic wanker who gets right up my nose. (?)

Well, how about: "IF you have sex with Mister Pedant Man - a pedantic wanker who gets right up my nose - I think it only fair to tell you that I'll have lost all respect for your sense of taste and (bring on the sad voice) frankly don't hold out much hope for our relationship's future..."

I've seen a lot of emotional blackmail and manipulation in my time, and frankly: if 2 lovers decide on equal vetoing rights (some being negotiable in the future), I don't see it as all that bad.

SHIT!!! My super-tights have laddered! Time to change back into mild-mannered, wishy-washy MrFarFromRight.
__________________
If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution.
- Emma Goldman Anarchist and Polyamorous par excellence
The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.
- old Chinese proverb
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~ Anais Nin
I'd rather have a broken heart / Than have a heart of stone.
- from "Boundless Love (A Polyamory Song)" by Jimmy Hollis i Dickson
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-06-2011, 06:35 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Mr Pendant -

Have you READ what people wrote or are you just interested in experimenting with the formatting options?

I think that folks have explained quite clearly what the difference between a "boundary" and a "veto" is and if you choose to not get it because you like to hear yourself type, then by all means, do it up jiggy, yo.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-06-2011, 06:42 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Veto is the hard and fast "you must end this relationship".. no real reason needed. Just one spouse sneezed too hard. At any point in the relationship... *shudders*.. horrible stuff.

Everything you have posted there, is not a "veto" in the sense this thread is trying to make it. Think of a veto in a relationship like a game show.

What the hell is up with the alternate personality...
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-06-2011, 06:48 PM
MrFarFromRight's Avatar
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Smack in the middle of The Spanish Revolution!
Posts: 483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFarFromRight View Post
I - personally and generally - hate the idea of vetoes.
In what - not general case - would I be in favour of the right to veto?

I have given a lot of thought to the setting-up of communes. I have lived in several "communal houses" (not strictly communes) which had the rule: A person may be invited to stay here by any member of the household, but in case they want to move in and become a full house member with equal rights (and this meant equal rights: no pulling rank, "because I've lived here longer than you have"), any current full house member has the right to veto their admission.

I think that that's a fine rule! (I've seen at least one case - where I wasn't a house member, but a close friend-of-the-house, and was concerned about its happiness and stability - where 2 house members chose [against my spirited advice] not to use their veto right [despite strong misgivings about the applicant: they just didn't believe in vetoes]. The applicant was admitted and within a few months the house split into 3 antagonistic factions. Some people are just poison! [And some people don't recognise poison when they smell it...])
__________________
If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution.
- Emma Goldman Anarchist and Polyamorous par excellence
The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.
- old Chinese proverb
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~ Anais Nin
I'd rather have a broken heart / Than have a heart of stone.
- from "Boundless Love (A Polyamory Song)" by Jimmy Hollis i Dickson
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-06-2011, 06:56 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Mr Pendant brings up a good question.

A good answer is:

A veto is a viable course of action if it has something to do with YOURSELF, not something to do with a partner's activities that are only tangential to yourself.

For example - it wouldn't have made sense for YOU, Mr Pendant, as a "close friend" of the household, to be allowed "veto power" over who moves in, but it DOES make sense for the people who live there to have veto power over who moves in (it really is their problem if they decide to not use veto power and then regret not using it).
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-06-2011, 07:39 PM
MrFarFromRight's Avatar
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Smack in the middle of The Spanish Revolution!
Posts: 483
Default

Sigh! Back into my laddered super-tights...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Veto is the hard and fast "you must end this relationship".. no real reason needed. Just one spouse sneezed too hard. At any point in the relationship... *shudders*.. horrible stuff.

Everything you have posted there, is not a "veto" in the sense this thread is trying to make it. Think of a veto in a relationship like a game show.

What the hell is up with the alternate personality...
Repeat: Veto is the hard and fast "you must end this relationship".. no real reason needed. Here is the original post from fullofdumplins (who - I notice - hasn't chosen to [or possibly "has chosen not to"] add another comment to this thread):
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullofdumplins View Post
Just wanted to open up a discussion on vetoing; do you use veto and if so, what are the guidelines you have with placing a veto?

The boyfriend and I have decided a while back that we are able to place in vetoes: some are non-negotiable while others can be added/removed as we see fit. We are not in a poly relationship at this point in time but it is something that we have discussed while we practice non-monogamy, and I hope we will eventually move forward to a poly relationship in future.

Does placing vetoes seem like a smart idea or is this something that takes away from the relationship?
You will notice that at no point does fullofdumplins define what they mean by "veto". And - excuse my pedantry, but I can't help it - I don't see this as [necessarily] "you must end this relationship". Witness "some are non-negotiable while others can be added/removed as we see fit". This seems - to my addled brain - more in keeping with principles than with personalities. Example: "Right now I would bug out if I thought of you doing it in our bed... so don't! (But I can imagine that a few months/years down the line... and especially if I come to like your Other, I might not feel as adamant about this.)"

Given that fullofdumplins hasn't returned to this debate, who can say for sure just exactly what their query was about?

Just a few quick points:

a) Not having a television, I have no idea how vetoes are used on game shows. Do candidates veto other candidates from taking part?

b) "no real reason needed" I take your point and I think that it's a very good one. But - to take the example I give in my 2nd comment on this thread - I have also noticed people who have a strong gut feeling about something that really matters to them and which would affect their whole quality of life (such as somebody moving into their house). Fine if they're strong personalities who can argue their position cogently and convincingly against a dozen others. But some people aren't born debaters and realise that other people in the house could run rings around them and wear down their resistance. In this case (and one of the women I mentioned in that 2nd post was like this as well having a principled stand against vetoes), there's an argument to be made for "weaker" personalities to have the right to say "No - because I say no... and basta!"

c) I repeat my opinion that - even in the case of veto meaning "you must end this relationship", if this veto right is agreed on bilaterally, that's a lot more open and honest - and healthy - than a lot of the emotional manipulations I've witnessed in many relationships.

I want to repeat and stress that I'm only in favour of a veto right when everybody has the same equal right, and it's not exclusive to the powerful.
__________________
If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution.
- Emma Goldman Anarchist and Polyamorous par excellence
The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.
- old Chinese proverb
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~ Anais Nin
I'd rather have a broken heart / Than have a heart of stone.
- from "Boundless Love (A Polyamory Song)" by Jimmy Hollis i Dickson
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-06-2011, 08:14 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Then the original poster is using veto incorrectly, it seems you are correct, she/he was referring to bondaries. However, I bet most people responding are responding to the reality of a veto's meaning. It is cut and dry.. period. There really isn't an in between pov.

Looks like there has been a disconnect between most answers and the original question. And thereby a disconnect in your extended rants against those answers.

For the record I outright disagree with your opinion on a group consensus. *shrugs* I am dating a person not the group. I wouldn't likely involve myself with such a person who relies on a group to be honest. I don't fit that kind of mold.. happily. Then again, I love strong, intelligent, well spoken women. I don't do well with people who can't hold up their end of a debate/conversation. I bore easily otherwise.

Veto is about control. No matter how you spin it. Even if the group says to the one... thats still controlling. I don't date people who need protecting, they should have the full ability to dump me if they want/need.

*shudders* at the thought of a communal design...

Last edited by Ariakas; 04-06-2011 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-06-2011, 08:27 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruckerPete View Post
All of the responses I've seen that talk about reasonable scenarios to use vetos could easily be categorized as common sense and/or good communication.

Veto literally means "I forbid". If something is common sensical or you're able to have a dialogue with your partner, then you're not vetoing.
Thank you TP. Veto means "I absolutely forbid you to do this that and the other thing" as if a partner is a child or a pet. In veto there is no negotiation, no communication other than they did this so I say you can't date them anymore.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-06-2011, 08:39 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Veto is about control. No matter how you spin it....... I don't date people who need protecting, they have the full ability to dump me if they want/need.
and this! protection... again, that harks of children and animals to me. Not grown ups free to make their own choices.

That being said, I am all for making sure that my loves know my thoughts and opinions about a person. If there is some huge glaring "whatever" about a person then I will be honest about my concerns. The bottom line is that I am the one that must adjust if I find I am unable to find it in my heart to have compersion for them. I would either need to consider leaving or cutting back my time with them.

I found one of the blogs to trigger me on this point. People make their own choices. Some times they are not for the good of everyone and sometimes I think that their choice is wrong... but it is their choice and I have to decide from that what MY choice is...

It drives me crazy when people whine that someone has "done" something to them and that they are where they are because of it... really, if you don't like a metamour and wish she/he would fuck off out of your life because you think they suck, then decide what to do with that for YOU.

Chances are the partner you share will sit up and notice and re-adjust their thinking on the matter if there is a decision made that they struggle with, like leaving. If they don't sit up and notice then plan A in effect no? leave.

I reckon that sometimes things change and I have patience with that to a point. Sometime people don't see when they are in NRE for quite awhile and I am willing to wait it out... sometimes it is just glaringly obvious that I am not on the same wavelength and that its time to go... sad, but sometimes that is all that can be done.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
agreements, contracts, control issues, envy, jealous, jealousy, metamour concerns, new to poly, nre, relationship dynamics, relationship issues, secondaries, secondary, sex, veto, veto policy, veto power, vetos

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 06:09 PM.