Veto Experiences in Polyamory

edpsy77

New member
In a podcast, Franklin Veaux talked about his former partner forbidding him to date a specific person. It made me ponder whether this is a ethical boundary in poly. Why would your partner forbid you from dating a specific person? Is it simply based on jealousy/envy or is there something more to this? I was wondering if any of you have experienced this in poly relationships. Did you ever have a partner demand that you refrain from having sex and/or romance with a specific person? I await your responses.
 
I would say that situations do exist in which veto power would make sense ... but as a rule, it is not recommended. It's too easy a power to abuse, and people get too easily hurt by it.

Vetoes aside, there is such a thing as a situation in which a person has reservations about someone their partner is dating, and those reservations are not always jealousy. The someone may be physically or emotionally abusive, may be a drug addict, etc.

The best thing to do when you have reservations is, express those reservations and then let your partner use their own best judgment. Declaring a veto is usually a bad idea.
 
In certain cases, I think it makes sense to veto someone. For example, I would definitely veto any of my partners dating my daughter (who's legally an adult). I think forbidding a partner to date one of your family members, coworkers, etc. is reasonable; they're what some people here call "messy people."

There are other cases where I might *want* to veto one of my partners dating someone, but I don't. If I'm asked my opinion, I give it. If I have specific concerns, I express them. If there's someone who's toxic for me to be around, I set a boundary that if any of my partners dates that person, I'll end my relationship with that partner. But I don't tell any of my partners "You can't date that person," unless they're one of the "messy people" I mention above.

I don't think vetoes are necessarily inherently unethical. It depends on the reason for them. The "messy people" veto doesn't seem unethical to me. I personally wouldn't veto any of my partners dating someone who's abusive (though you'd better believe I would express my concerns), but I wouldn't consider a "you're being abused, stop seeing them" type of veto to be unethical.

The unethical part comes when one partner has veto rights over another's relationship, and there are no conditions on them. When a partner can say, "I don't like her, stop seeing her," and the other partner complies because "we have veto rights," that's unethical and hurtful. Especially if the vetoed person didn't have a say in it or was unaware that a veto agreement existed.
 
Just to reiterate a couple of the ideas above. I think that for many people, there might be certain types of people vetoed "up front" - restrictions agreed upon in the "poly contract" - such as not dating mutual friends/acquaintances, neighbors, relatives, etc.

But arbitrary veto power in regard to existing relationships does have ethical implications - as Veaux and others have written about. And essentially it comes down to the effect a veto has not only on the partner, but also the individual who is being vetoed. An arbitrary veto of a primary partner's other partner might cause a lot of emotional damage to all involved - so I would venture to say that an arbitrary veto power that allows vetoes for any reason (don't like them, etc ) is probably not the healthiest or most ethical choice in a poly relationship.

What has been suggested in lieu of an arbitrary veto, is to approach your primary partner with your concerns - and perhaps suggest that they take a look at certain areas of the relationship. Al
 
I'd just re-frame the whole question in terms of deal breaker versus not a deal breaker, thus removing the whole "veto" concept from consideration.

A "deal breaker" is a choice or decision, activity, or whatever, which if undertaken would have the effect of bringing the whole relationship into question. There are some things which have harmful consequences to a relationship. These can be expressed and worked with -- or not. If it cannot be expressed and worked with that relationship is likely to dissolve.

This approach manages to avoid unhelpful questions about who should have "veto power" and under what circumstances. I don't think the concept of veto power us helpful or useful in loving relationships. But I do think it's okay to say "Hey, if you do this thing it may cause real harm to our relationship. I simply may not be able to cope with a choice like this one."
 
good point

Vetoes aside, there is such a thing as a situation in which a person has reservations about someone their partner is dating, and those reservations are not always jealousy. The someone may be physically or emotionally abusive, may be a drug addict, etc.

The best thing to do when you have reservations is, express those reservations and then let your partner use their own best judgment. Declaring a veto is usually a bad idea.

I could never vetoe my partner's selection of a partner. I know the emotional difference is substantial between platonic friendships and romantic lovers but this difference doesn't mean we should not apply the principles in friendships to romance. What would we say if a friend attempted to veteo his/her friend's new friendship. We would say he or she is out of line. In principle, there should be no difference in application.

I do think when someone vetoes a partner, it is general motivated by jealousy. You are far more likely to be motivated for the concern of your partner when you express reservation about your partner's new lover.
 
Yes, I think you have the right idea of what I had in mind. Veto power is too often used to throw water on a jealousy fire.
 
I can prove jealousy motivates open relationships yet monos deny it

Yes, I think you have the right idea of what I had in mind. Veto power is too often used to throw water on a jealousy fire.
I find it funny that mono people deny they are hypothetically sexual jealousy when veto power poly is rooted in romantic sexual jealousy (in general). You should check out the anti-poly bigotry on this YouTube video called "Can you love multiple people?' The denials from the anti-poly bigots are astounding.
 
Post a link, I'm interested.
 
In a podcast, Franklin Veaux talked about his former partner forbidding him to date a specific person. It made me ponder whether this is a ethical boundary in poly. Why would your partner forbid you from dating a specific person? Is it simply based on jealousy/envy or is there something more to this? I was wondering if any of you have experienced this in poly relationships. Did you ever have a partner demand that you refrain from having sex and/or romance with a specific person? I await your responses.

Sure!

She said I couldn't do her little sister. OMG she (the sister) threw herself at me in the beginning, and tried multiple times over the course of years. Stripped right in front of me the night before I was leaving from my first visit, after big sister went to sleep and I was building a cabinet in the other bedroom.

I can make up fantasies in my head years later, but at the time I had no interest. It just didn't register. She took off her shirt, gave me the "come hither" pose, and I thought hmm, that's odd, lol. She got frustrated I didn't respond, but I wouldn't even call it awkward. I went about my business turning screws and she gave up on it. She was more discreet in later attempts, charming, but the spirit didn't move me - my wife's prohibition was pointless.

I would not do her now, either. I try to think logically and hedge by saying the potential damages are high because it is her blood family maybe? I can see my wife wants to be the #1 Wife and that the #2 wife, the minor wife, gets separate quarters and has to come from some place distant.

Why should I care though? The options, in my case, are so plentiful. Why would her sister be the one person to die on my cross for? Oh no honey, I get your sister too or this deal is off. Or the neighbor across the street. That makes no sense to me. There are plenty of fish in the ocean.

Forgive me, anyone who I offend inadvertantly with this line of thinking. I am sure open-minded about how others look at it.
 
As per the OP, its a personal thing.
If you really do not like someone and you'd dislike the idea of your lover sleeping with that person... surely then whats the problem? Surely it works both ways for either person?

There's nothing worse than someone you don't get on with saying "I slept with your lover last night who admitted to orgasm faster with me than you, ever!"
Sure, you may be all for your lover having the best sex possible, but never, ever with someone you don't like.

Reminds me of my teenage years... of "don't date my friend", just pales in comparison to this lol. Seriously I dunno if I'm just from a different class or from a different generation or what here..
 
A blanket veto power is more about the person doing the vetoing than their concern for their partner. If they veto someone it's like saying they can't handle the poly relationship.
 
My impression is that if you look at the comment section on almost any video you will find nasty remarks. The internet abounds with jerks. I generally don't bother with comment sections.

Leetah
 
Last edited:
Nasty Remarks with BAD REASONING

.If you look at the comment section of any video about polyamory you will find some very nasty remarks. Why do mono people get so angry about this? Because it creates self doubt, possibly. They are pushing back their own feelings by lashing out at others.

Well this video has a very high number of nasty remarks. To be fair they do cite their reasons on why they oppose poly, so I think it is necessary to debunk their reasons but I should expect any "debate" about poly to have a strong majority of anti-poly people who feel offended by poly. Thus, it will result in many nasty remarks.

I don't think there is a great amount of self doubt. They are convinced that poly people are lying to themselves and deep down know that poly is a unhealthy lifestyle and polyamorists are truly unhappy. They claim they know this from polys' lack of "confidence" during the debate. The bottom line is no anti-poly can prove that you can not ROMANTICALLY love more than one person at the same time. Anti-polys are ONLY effective in expressing how they FEEL. They have the intuition that tells them loving more than one person is impossible, they do not KNOW this as a FACT.
 
As per the OP, its a personal thing.
If you really do not like someone and you'd dislike the idea of your lover sleeping with that person... surely then whats the problem? Surely it works both ways for either person?

There's nothing worse than someone you don't get on with saying "I slept with your lover last night who admitted to orgasm faster with me than you, ever!"
Sure, you may be all for your lover having the best sex possible, but never, ever with someone you don't like.

Reminds me of my teenage years... of "don't date my friend", just pales in comparison to this lol. Seriously I dunno if I'm just from a different class or from a different generation or what here..

The problem is that if you're telling your lover, "I can't stand her, you aren't allowed to see her," you are controlling two other adults who aren't getting a say in the matter. Controlling other people just plain isn't okay. What my partners do in their other relationships is not a thing I have the right to control. I have the right to *request*, as in "I really have a hard time dealing with her, and would prefer you not see her." I have the right to set a boundary *for myself*, as in "She's toxic for me, and if you're seeing her, I'm not sure I would be able to continue our relationship." But I emphatically do NOT have the right to say, "She sucks, you aren't allowed to have a relationship with her."

That's what a veto amounts to. "*I* have a problem, so *you* have to change your behavior and do what I say." Which is bullshit. We're adults. We're each responsible for our own choices and emotions. We don't have the right to make *other people* responsible for us.

(And if you don't get on with someone, why on earth would you be talking to them in the first place, let alone having them tell you they're boning your boo?)
 
I do know some people who have a type of veto arrangement. One partner is extremely bad at picking partners - people who behave abusively, or addicted and not dealing with it, or mentally ill and not dealing with it, etc. Because they are so bad at picking healthy partners, the other partner can say 'No, this person is bad for you because of X, Y, Z. Don't see them.' It is controlling for sure and I'm not sure how long term healthy it is. (Does the partner with bad partner picking skills ever get better at selection doing this?) But if someone, for whatever reason, is bad at picking good partners, I can see this working.
 
The problem is that if you're telling your lover, "I can't stand her, you aren't allowed to see her," you are controlling two other adults who aren't getting a say in the matter. Controlling other people just plain isn't okay. What my partners do in their other relationships is not a thing I have the right to control. I have the right to *request*, as in "I really have a hard time dealing with her, and would prefer you not see her." I have the right to set a boundary *for myself*, as in "She's toxic for me, and if you're seeing her, I'm not sure I would be able to continue our relationship." But I emphatically do NOT have the right to say, "She sucks, you aren't allowed to have a relationship with her."

That's what a veto amounts to. "*I* have a problem, so *you* have to change your behavior and do what I say." Which is bullshit. We're adults. We're each responsible for our own choices and emotions. We don't have the right to make *other people* responsible for us.

(And if you don't get on with someone, why on earth would you be talking to them in the first place, let alone having them tell you they're boning your boo?)


I agree with all of this!

Sounds, honestly, like the situations where a “veto” would be desirable are situations where there are already some toxic dynamics. I can’t think of anyone in my life that I truly cannot stand to the extent that I wouldn’t be able to handle them as a metamour. And it is even less conceivable that I could truly not stand someone to that extent AND that my partner would not only like that person but like them enough to want to be partnered with that person. My husband has his share of “weird friends” — people I wouldn’t choose to include in my life myself, but who he likes and hangs out with. But can’t imagine disliking any of those people so strongly that I would refuse to allow him to sleep with them.

As far as vetoes, the specific, pre-emptive vetoes do not seeem to be as big of a deal as blanket veto power. Saying, “not my sister” in the case of MayDecember, seems acceptable (even if unecessary). My husband knows that I have had a little crush on his sister for years — but I would never pursue her....that would be hella weird. Same with “not my mortal enemy.” A veto does not even need to be stated — it would just be awkward. There are people who are off-limits in all kinds of relationships, not just poly ones. Relatives, bosses, clients/patients.....in all those cases, there is another relationship involved that would be at risk if romance were attempted. Poly is no different and it really just comes down to common sense, not a veto.

But the blanket veto power — described by Franklin Veux — is totally different. I sobbed when I listened to that part of his audiobook. Allowing your wife to tell you you may never speak to someone again? With no reason? And not allows to give the other partner a reason? That is just fucking toxic. I lost a lot of respect for him for having gone along with it. That is batshit crazy. Even a poly newbie should know that — and he had been poly even before marrying his wife. There is no point to that level of cruelty.
 
Well said MsEmotional. I agree, it is the kind of veto power that Franklin Veaux described (and experienced) that I am wary of. Having a "messy person list" is different, there you know ahead of time not to get involved with someone in the first place.

Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAE8uQUU4Pw ... thanks for posting that link edpsy77, that was a good presentation. I read some of the comments in the space below it, I liked the presentation itself better and thought it was more constructive. I agree it was a mistake to say that monogamy is easy, but it is also a mistake to say, poly people are just selfish, they don't want to commit, they're unhappy and running from one partner to another, they're all about quantity and not about quality, they're being defensive because they know they're in the wrong, etc.

If polys are defensive it's because so many mono people are speaking against them. But I don't think they are defensive, it's just that some mono people take any pro-poly statement to be defensive.

The same goes for poly people being supposedly unhappy, the mono people who said that *want* the poly people to be unhappy, so, confirmation bias.

I know some poly people, they are quite generous, they are very loyal to all of their partners, they have quite-high-quality relationships. Statements to the contrary are made by monos who are ill-informed.

Take any demographic group and you will find some people in it who are messed up. That goes for both polys and monos. You don't have to be poly to be accepting of poly. It's called live and let live. Eventually the majority will become accepting of poly, just like they're coming around now on homosexuality.
 
Back
Top