Veto Arrangements - Merged Threads, General Discussion

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.
 
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
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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...])
 
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).
 
Sigh! Back into my laddered super-tights...
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):
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
and this! protection... again, that harks of children and animals to me. Not grown ups free to make their own choices.

exactly :)

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.

Precisely :)
 
I think this is a good thread since for me before reading TP's response, the difference between a veto and a boundary was conceptually very fuzzy.

Don't normal people have like dealbrakers or somesuch to function in a similar capacity :D? I think the problem here is thinking that if you are already involved with someone else, they somehow need the right to impose their own deal-breakers on your other relationships in order to feel secure.
 
I think this is a good thread since for me before reading TP's response, the difference between a veto and a boundary was conceptually very fuzzy.

Don't normal people have like dealbrakers or somesuch to function in a similar capacity :D? I think the problem here is thinking that if you are already involved with someone else, they somehow need the right to impose their own deal-breakers on your other relationships in order to feel secure.

Often the one imposing the "dealbreaker" is left holding an empty bag, especially if there is no real merit to it. So of course any ONE person can have dealbreakers...but that means they have their own independent choice of leaving a situation or not engaging in that dealbreaker activity. Right? I mean a relationship is bilateral NOT unilateral. Dealbreakers are decisively unilateral. Relationships are two people coming together with their own independent offerings to the relationship. One does not own the other. You cannot control someone who does not want to be controlled. So each person is making a choice to engage or not engage. The veto power is only viable if it is a mutually agreeable dealbreaker. And even that can change or end if one partner decides the dealbreaker is now something that is attractive. So veto as I said before is just a temporary block for the most part and in the end becomes as contentious as the dealbreaker in most cases.
 
Everyone ultimately makes their own choices, so if an adult decides to let another adult make choices FOR them, that is itself a choice.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
Back
Top