Veto Arrangements - Merged Threads, General Discussion

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?
 
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:p;)] 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...)
 
Rory and TP- the point is, don't you think:confused:, 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.
 
Rory and TP- the point is, don't you think:confused:, 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.
 
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.
 
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.

I don't disagree. I think vetoes within the relationship are actually anti-relationship because it negates the ability to talk it through and come up with a satisfactory solution for both. Veto itself is anti-compromise because it is finite and non-negotiable, "the answer is no, and don't ask again". Now what you're talking about is completely different. Mono/poly acceptance goes beyond the realm of veto power. And obviously if there is no relationship because mono does not accept poly then the idea of a veto is moot altogether. Follow? Am I rambling? Disregard if I am.:eek:
 
^I think we were writing at the same time (my post is the last on page 5), but it seems that I did understand you correctly, and I completely agree with you on what you wrote here as well. :)
 
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.

If somebody tries to dictate my behavior in the fashion of an ultimatum, then I have a strong abreaction. Homey don't play that game.

That's different, however, than somebody saying "I see X happening and I won't accept that. I'll be leaving because of that." They are free to decide what they do in response to changes in the situation.

It all boils down to whether they're choosing something for themselves or trying to force their choice on me.
 
We no longer have a veto, though Wendigo and I have both volunteered to cool things down between us when Wolf or Pretty Lady were struggling. That being said, I have used veto once and only once and it was because a the time Wolf was incapable of making the decision to do what was necessary to keep himself, us, and our son safe (he was not working and was the primary care giver at the time). The woman he was seeing at the time convinced him to stop taking his bi-polar medication and he was [this] close to having a psychotic break..... I couldn't watch him put our son though another one, so I told her that it was over between them, kicked her out of our house, then told him that he could go stay with his mother until he was back on his meds and stable. It hurt to hear him tell me that he believed her, that he wasn't really bi-polar and that all of his problems started when I'd tricked him into marrying me by making him think I was pregnant (mind you I didn't get pregnant until we'd been married almost 3 months, but he wasn't thinking clearly). It took 3 weeks of isolation at his mom's for him to snap out of it enough to go back on his meds and 2 more weeks before I'd let him come back home.

Do I regret using the Veto? NO. Do I regret how I treated her at the time? Yes.
 
That's different, however, than somebody saying "I see X happening and I won't accept that. I'll be leaving because of that." They are free to decide what they do in response to changes in the situation.

It all boils down to whether they're choosing something for themselves or trying to force their choice on me.

yes, agreed
 
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. :)

THIS has been a LONG standing rule in my life-since grade school when kids do the "if you are going to be MY friend then you can't be HER friend" bullshit.

Whoever decides that they want to have a power-control relationship with me... loses.
 
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.
This, this, this. God I wish I could have coined that paragraph years ago!!

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".

AND HERE IN LIES the reason for crisis in my current dynamic.
I didn't play the game in the "proper order" or by the "proper rules" and I fully admit that.

BUT-this far into the dynamic-the bottom line is that EVERY PERSON IN THE FAMILY has been a SIGNIFICANT part of the family for over 10 years. Therefore, EVERY PERSONS needs/feelings etc have equal importance to me.

That is evidently a VERY difficult idea based on "common culture", but it's the reality for me....
:rolleyes:
 
^For me too. The same thing applies for friends as well, although there is of course usually less conflict between friends' than partners' needs.

For me, it means that I treat the people in my life with the same respect I expect for myself. I definitely would not accept my needs or feelings to be cast aside by my friend or partner just because they conflict with their "primary" partner's.
 
^For me too. The same thing applies for friends as well, although there is of course usually less conflict between friends' than partners' needs.

For me, it means that I treat the people in my life with the same respect I expect for myself. I definitely would not accept my needs or feelings to be cast aside by my friend or partner just because they conflict with their "primary" partner's.

I think that is one of my primary issues with HAVING a "primary" relationship. (Yes, I do have one, but it's been a struggle).

I really don't think that being married, or a committed lover or whatever suddenly means that you are "more important" than anyone else in my life.. (same vice versa).

I think that most people do believe that though..... :rolleyes:

I wonder if that's part of why I get so frustrated with relationships in general? I feel like people just want to be "#1" in my life while I don't have a "#1".....
 
I think that is one of my primary issues with HAVING a "primary" relationship. (Yes, I do have one, but it's been a struggle).

I really don't think that being married, or a committed lover or whatever suddenly means that you are "more important" than anyone else in my life.. (same vice versa).

I think that most people do believe that though..... :rolleyes:

I wonder if that's part of why I get so frustrated with relationships in general? I feel like people just want to be "#1" in my life while I don't have a "#1".....

And to further that...in seeking a #1 I kind of always feel/felt disappointed so why do we seek it?!

Not that people aren't important but jeez I have to be my own #1 if I want to find happiness and not worry or continuously be disappointed. We are all human. It is inevitable that I will let my loved ones down from time to time, and them me.
 
Interesting PoV on Veto

http://www.scarletletters.com/current/021403_nf_rk.html

Part of real love is being able to say to your lover, "I trust you with control over who I sleep with, because I trust you to make your decision based not on your own insecurities but on a real consideration of my needs, wishes, and safety." If you do not have this level of trust in them, you need to pull back from polyamorous adventures and work on trust-building within the relationship.

I've always been against the veto since I don't agree with an outside party being able to end a relationship, but I thought this was an interesting point of view - the idea that you trust someone enough to make the right decision by you instead of the right one for them. I'm still not sure I'd feel entirely comfortable giving someone that power thought. Thoughts?
 
So, if you build a strong partnership with a new lover, at what point do they get the right to veto the old partner? If they don't have that right is it not "real love"?
 
Ah, ok, actually read the article. They have a strict primary/secondary hierarchy that is not open to the possibility of another partner every becoming co-primary, and the female partner is only allowed to have piv intercourse with her male primary partner. I'm glad it works for them, though it wouldn't for me.

I do appreciate that if one of them wants to veto a long-standing lover argument is allowed and consensus must be reached.

But goddamn I resent the wording in the first sentence of the bit you quoted above, as it clearly implies that a secondary partner, who does not get veto power, is not participating in "real love."

Fuck. That. Shit.
 
I have veto power over my husband's fuck buddies, and if my husband ever said he had really bad vibes about someone I was seeing, I would seriously consider his opinion. He has a really good sense of people but an occasional miss when it comes to ethics.

The examples: He met this girl online once, she wanted to experience SM play and he was looking for a toy. But she was married, not willing to talk to her vanilla husband about her desires, and I thought that was risky. Even with ethics aside, I was worried that Big Mean Husband might find out one day and come beat my husband up or something. I strongly discouraged him from playing with her, and recommended he suggest to her that she talk to her husband about what she wants.

Meanwhile, my besty had this boyfriend who's a real piece of work. Lazy, manipulative, emotionally abusive, the whole bit. My husband hated him from the first time he met the guy, whereas I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because my friend was into him. Well, turns out my husband was 100% right, he really screwed her over, and left her with two more kids than when they met. He doesn't contribute anything financially, in fact used to eat her out of house and home when they were together and often made it difficult for her to feed her own kids. So if I would have listened better to my husband, maybe I could have helped her see the damage he was doing before it was too late. Or maybe not, but I'll never know.

So from those two examples, I'd say we're both good at seeing problematic situations, but both lose sight of that when we're personally involved. So if either one of use said "hey, this person looks like bad news" then I think we would both listen... But I also don't see this as "veto" power so much as "listening to the advice of someone whose wisdom you trust." Also, it's not so much about ending a relationship after it has already begun, but rather heading off a potential blow-up before it begins. Prevention is the best medicine!

p.s. I didn't read the article.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top