Veto Power

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

I've been thinking about the dreaded evil thing known as Veto Power, and I'm curious about how others see it. It seems like people are quick to say giving someone veto power is a terrible, dangerous idea, but...

Is it really that big a deal? Don't we all kind of have veto power anyway? After all, we can all end a relationship at any time, for any reason - including a dislike of our significant other's new partner. I've never seen anyone claim that we should always stay in a relationship, even when a metamour is making our lives miserable. And when you break it down, a veto is really just a "s/he goes or I go". A veto just forces that conversation and that choice.

So what's the practical difference between veto power and the personal agency we all have in our relationships?

Scenario One: The Veto

My husband and I are poly, and we're open to new relationships. We have veto power. He meets New Girl. I don't like her. I veto her.

Now, my husband has a choice. He can go along with my veto and break up with New Girl. He can try and talk to me about it, in hopes of finding a solution that allows him to continue seeing us both. Or, he can decide the potential relationship with New Girl is more important than his relationship with me, and break up with me.

Scenario Two: Not Exactly A Veto

My husband and I are poly, and we're open to new relationships. We don't have veto power. He meets New Girl. I don't like her. I tell my husband I'm uncomfortable with the idea of him dating New Girl. I tell him I can't be in a relationship with someone who's also dating New Girl. I explain that if he continues to see her, I can no longer be with him.

Now, my husband has a choice. He can decide that our relationship is more important than the new relationship, and break up with New Girl. He can try and talk to me about it, in hopes of finding a solution that allows him to continue seeing us both. Or, he can decide the potential relationship with New Girl is more important than his relationship with me, and break up with me.

Both scenarios put my husband in the exact same place, with the exact same choices. So why is one acceptable, and not the other? Why is Veto Power awful, when having it vs not having it doesn't really change anything?

 

[icesong]

There is an implication or assumption in a classic Veto scenario that the husband has already _made_ the choice, that if the veto card is played he'll go along with it with no discussion nor thought.

Clearly it's unrealistic.

But that idea that there's an instant emergency ripcord is very reassuring to some people who don't think about - or don't want to think about - the idea that staying in a marriage _is_ ALWAYS a choice.

 

[A2Poly]

In a non-veto you are choosing to leave or make a sacrifice (stay anyway). In a veto you are forcing him to leave or make a sacrifice (break up with her). Veto is about force. You hold the right to demand an action from another person.

Now given, in a non-veto he may choose to sacrifice (give her up) if it's making you that miserable, but he's choosing it, not being forced to it.

If you've read More Than Two, there's a story about how having given his wife a veto Franklin felt he *had to* follow through with it, immediately, with no free choice. And that very much hurt his partner, and eventually ended his marriage because he resented having to do it.

I can't imagine being in a relationship with someone who a) thought they could demand *anything* of me (request? Yes, demand? No); and b) would ever be in a relationship that would upset me so much that I would want to demand them to stop seeing the other person (ask? Yes, demand? No).

 

[PinkPig]

Ditto to what A2Poly see. I see vetos as giving power and control over one's own agency to another person. Versus the second scenario is the partner enforcing his/her own boundaries. It is a subtle difference, but it makes a huge difference in the power dynamics within the relationship, imo. One example is one person wielding control over the other, the second example is a person willingly choosing between the relationships. The first example is breeding ground for resentment, imo.

 

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

Those answers make sense... That it's really what the veto power says about the relationship. I don't usually stop and think about power dynamics in relationships - I've been lucky, I guess, and never encountered a toxic or controlling one.

But that idea that there's an instant emergency ripcord is very reassuring to some people who don't think about - or don't want to think about - the idea that staying in a marriage _is_ ALWAYS a choice.

Yeah, I can see that. Opening a marriage can feel like a complete loss of control over your life, and that's terrifying. What helped me, far more than a veto card could have, was realizing that the control I thought I had was just an illusion. Promises of monogamy don't guarantee that a marriage will last, any more than yelling "veto" guarantees that your partner will actually end the other relationship.

 

[icesong]

Those answers make sense... That it's really what the veto power says about the relationship. I don't usually stop and think about power dynamics in relationships - I've been lucky, I guess, and never encountered a toxic or controlling one.

My first experience with poly involved another couple with astonishingly toxic dynamics, both to my ex-partner (HipsterBoy, if you read my blog) and to people outside that relationship. So I'm a bit paranoid now, and have done a lot of reading and thinking on the whole thing.

Promises of monogamy don't guarantee that a marriage will last, any more than yelling "veto" guarantees that your partner will actually end the other relationship.

Actually the funny thing is that poly makes me feel *more* in control of my relationship lasting - one of the many many reasons TheKnight and I decided this was the right path for us was that we didn't want temptation / grass is greener syndrome to cause us to destroy our relationship just to see what else was out there, as insisting on monogamy might have done.

 

[Nadya]

Actually the funny thing is that poly makes me feel *more* in control of my relationship lasting - one of the many many reasons TheKnight and I decided this was the right path for us was that we didn't want temptation / grass is greener syndrome to cause us to destroy our relationship just to see what else was out there, as insisting on monogamy might have done.

This. This exactly was my thought as I chose to practice polyamory. And by practicing poly I mean the freedom to choose - at that time I was still a virgin. All of my relationships have been open and polyamorous, even when I've only had one partner. I feel secure knowing that I always can explore all the possibilities that arise and that my partner(s) have the same freedom. That way it feels more like staying in the relationship is choice out of free will and not something that is expected of us. I know being monogamous can be as much a conscious choice and feel natural, but to me... well, poly it is.

To be more on the topic: I'd never give anyone veto power, nor have it myself - or date anyone whose partner had veto. I love the freedom.

 

[breathemusic]

I don't have much to add in terms of the differences between veto and non-veto, but I can at least comment that in the sense that veto power generally means that one partner can demand that the other end an outside relationship... the idea of even being told that would absolutely be instant anger and resentment for me. Even if in someone's mind, by them saying "You can't date X anymore" if they didn't actually mean it as a demand and wanted to prompt discussion, I'd still be floored that they even thought they could speak to me that way and make a demand. Because if you're not demanding, you wouldn't word it that way.

Sure, if I was really uncomfortable with someone that my partner was seeing and I told them so, I'd probably hope that they cared enough about our partnership to take that into consideration and if I really didn't think there was any way for that person to be with both of us, naturally I'm going to hope that I win. But I'm also going to feel bad that my partner even has to choose (well, maybe I wouldn't if the other partner was abusive, or something?). Ideally, I'd wish that we could find a way to make things work out. But for someone to assume that they can just say "nope, you gotta dump X" ugh, it makes me mad just thinking about it!

 

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

Appreciate all the insights! It's really interesting to me that others seem to focus on the meaning and dynamics of a veto, while I just looked at the outcomes...

I was vetoed, years ago, and yes, it was awful. But part of processing the hurt was realizing that it wasn't the Official Veto Power that ended my relationship. It was the reality of my partner valuing his relationship with his wife more than his relationship with me. It wouldn't have changed a thing for his wife to sugarcoat the veto with pretty language about boundaries, or have endless conversations about why she didn't approve of me. He would have chosen his marriage over our relationship no matter how the choice was framed.

So, from my point of view, as the outsider, whether she used the word veto or not really didn't change anything. But I never thought about what the situation did to *their* relationship. (And I have no idea, as the guy was never allowed to speak to me again ).

 

[central]

The idea of a veto may be reassuring to someone inexperienced with poly. In reality, it's seldom going to work or end well if invoked. I think you must make concerns and issues with the other partner known and discuss them. Hopefully you can reach a solution or compromise because you both care enough to do so, and/or the other partner will participate in the solution. In the end, there are no guarantees even if you have a veto or are monogamous, so if things are truly unacceptable and can't be resolved, I would - sadly, and with difficulty - choose to leave.

Working things out can be harder when there is NRE involved, though. More time and patience may be needed to do so. And sometimes it's clear that you should move on, because you will never again have what you need or what you had before, and what's left may not be enough.

 

[breathemusic]

Out of curiosity, do you know why she didn't approve of you? Maybe part of my issue with it is also because by granting a partner veto power from the start, it allows people to exercise that veto without actually having to work through a problem at all. I've read enough on some of the blogs here where people have experienced veto power because a partner was just jealous over looks, or because some rule in their mind that was never actually agreed to was broken. If my meta genuinely has a problem with me that is legitimate, then fine, they should speak to me or our hinge (depending on what the issue is and if we interact) about it and that might lead to on of the relationships ending. But I'd hate to think that someone can veto me just because they don't like that I see our shared partner 2 days a week vs 1, or I'm younger than they are, or whatever random insecurity might be going through their head that is causing some jealousy and then not even have to try to work through the issue in a way that will allow all the relationships to continue.

 

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

Out of curiosity, do you know why she didn't approve of you? Maybe part of my issue with it is also because by granting a partner veto power from the start, it allows people to exercise that veto without actually having to work through a problem at all.

All I know is she got upset because he was looking at naked pics I sent while they were on vacation... Epic fight, veto, game over. Was she jealous over looks?I dunno, maybe, she was ten years older than me, but attractive, I thought. Did she think I crossed a line by emailing those I'll never know, and it was... geez, almost four years ago.

Once I got over the gut punch, "VETO!" became a running joke between me and my husband. He regularly vetoes broccoli and cauliflower Andy and I never had Veto Power, though that's mainly because we realized having it was no guarantee it would work - and *not* having it wouldn't stop either of us from throwing a fit if we disliked someone. So the idea that it was one little word from his wife that caused my ex to dump me, seems sort of funny in retrospect.

I hear you on the veto getting in the way of working through problems. I've been uncomfortable with metamours, and while I'm not sure how much personal growth that has prompted - I'm pretty stubborn - it has definitely taught me how to have better boundaries.

 

[breathemusic]

Once I got over the gut punch, "VETO!" became a running joke between me and my husband. He regularly vetoes broccoli and cauliflower

Love it! I do something similar with Sudo except the running joke for us is either "Red" as a reference to BDSM safe words, and "Divorce." Not that we're married since he's already married and he just thinks of me as a co-primary. But I call "Red" when he tries to tickle me or other silly things. Or if I find out he hates a food I really love, etc. I'm always saying "divorce!" and he does likewise.

He also is a HUGE fan of Costco, so he's always threatening to "return" me to Costco since they'll let you return anything after just about any length of time....

 

[opalescent]

I call out 'hard limit!' to some things, like broccoli...

 

[KC43]

Broccoli is good when steamed with General Tso sauce. Just saying.

Veto power... I think when Hubby and I first opened the marriage, we reserved the right to put people on a DNF (do not fuck) list. But they had to be put on that list up front, not after one of us had become involved with them. The one exception turned out to be the one woman Hubby actually did fuck, who then insulted me to her boyfriend and mine and told them she wanted to break up my marriage because Hubby was "a creep" and she hated me and thought I was a whore.

But actually, by the time I found out about that, she was already on Hubby's DNF list because he lied to me about her. Twice. The first time, I told him if he lied again I would have to re-evaluate our marriage. The second time, I told him he was damaging our marriage because of her and I wasn't going to stay in a situation like that, so he needed to examine his priorities. He did, and chose not to have any other partners at all after that. I don't see that as me vetoing Betty... I was vetoing Hubby lying *about* Betty. He chose to stop seeing her so he would stop lying about her, and then extended it to deciding not to see anyone else because he didn't trust himself not to screw things up with me.

The other people we put on each other's DNF lists back then were people the other one wouldn't have touched anyway, like a guy who was disrespectful to me and a woman who had a reputation among the group we were part of for having sex with pretty much every guy she met--often on first meeting (which isn't by itself a problem, I've done that too) with no protection and no talk about sexual health.

I've given Hubby the option a couple of times to put a kibosh on my connections with other guys, and he has always refused to do so. He says even though he hates seeing me hurt, he would rather I be hurt by my own choice than not hurt because he gives me an order.

Woody had an issue with the idea of me getting involved with SciFi as an FWB several weeks ago, but he didn't tell me I couldn't; we don't have that type of relationship. He just expressed his concerns and told me to think about it carefully. I ended up deciding not to go there, but it was my choice. Likewise, because of current events and my own perceptions and feelings, I have an issue with Highlight. I have expressed the issue to Woody in the spirit of being fully honest, and have made it clear that it's almost entirely about *my* perceptions and feelings, not *against* her. I didn't--and never will--tell him not to take her back if she wants to get back together, because that isn't my place. If I have a problem with their relationship, it's on me to leave my relationship with him, not on them to not have a relationship because I don't like it.

 

[Ravenscroft]

fallacious bases

she got upset because he was looking at naked pics I sent while they were on vacation

So... you sent the photos knowing they were together... or he was looking at photos (that you'd sent previously) while he was supposed to be with her? Either way, it kinda sounds like she'd have reason to feel that this was a deliberate intrusion into "him/her time."
________________

As for "what's so wrong with Veto Power?" Well, you cover it in your two scenarios, where you've stacked the proverbial deck.

Central to polyamory (as a philosophy rather than the catch-all term for nonmonogamy) is communicaton, & by extension stuff like dialogue & discussion & negotiation & reasoning & problem-solving & compromise.

The veto is a flat NO. Absolutist, fiat, a "from on high" decree, no room for discussion, period.

By definition, veto power is anti-polyamory.
________________

Your scenarios are BOTH vetos, with one described using "nice" words -- like "tell," "explain," "decide" -- that were left out of the other description. That's the only significant difference.

To say "he can choose togo along with my veto" is (at best) disingenuous. If I raise a pistol, fire a shot past your ear, then politely ask for your money, how much "choice" do you have in the matter?

 

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

So... you sent the photos knowing they were together... or he was looking at photos (that you'd sent previously) while he was supposed to be with her? Either way, it kinda sounds like she'd have reason to feel that this was a deliberate intrusion into "him/her time."

They were old pictures, I don't know why he was looking at them while he was with her on vacation. Well, I can guess, lol.

Your scenarios are BOTH vetos, with one described using "nice" words -- like "tell," "explain," "decide" -- that were left out of the other description. That's the only significant difference.

I'm guessing you would suggest the partners talk it through instead. Which, yeah, is ideal. I'm a big fan of talking shit to death. But it doesn't always mean you find a solution.

I can't imagine ever using the term veto with a straight face. But I can imagine plenty of cases where I would say, that relationship ends, or I'm outta here. You're saying those are basically the same. Which was the point of my original post (although others have given great reasons why they're *not* the same.) But what's the other choice? Disappear in the night without telling anyone why you left?

To say "he can choose togo along with my veto" is (at best) disingenuous. If I raise a pistol, fire a shot past your ear, then politely ask for your money, how much "choice" do you have in the matter?

I'm honestly not following this analogy I don't have any authority over my husband, or any control over his actions. I can say veto all I want, but I can't actually *force* him to break up with someone. The only consequence to him if he ignores my attempt at a veto is the loss of our relationship. Soooo... it does seem to me like he has a choice.

 

[Tinwen]

He meets New Girl. I don't like her. I veto her.
...
He meets New Girl. I don't like her. I tell my husband I'm uncomfortable with the idea of him dating New Girl. I tell him I can't be in a relationship with someone who's also dating New Girl. I explain that if he continues to see her, I can no longer be with him.

I take parts of the two scenarios you wrote where I see the difference.
In the first scenario it's totally straightforward - it's possible for the primary to pull veto for whatever reason. The hinge is expected to follow.
In the second scenario the primary has to first make the conscious decision, that if the new partner stays, he/she is leaving. If the decision is not just manipulative, I see a huge difference between those two. You think tripple as much before you actually leave a partner then before you veto some other relationship.

 

[AlwaysGrowing]

We say "cacao" like the Portlandia skit about safe words. lol

On topic... I've been vetoed as well, and agree that it's really a semantics thing. Veto sounds authoritarian, but either way it's an ultimatum and a choice: new partner or established partner.

I used to hate on veto power, but then I realized that even though I haven't expressly done so, both of my current partners would have it. If they were genuinely uncomfortable and unable to get over issues with a new partner, I would more than likely dump the new person. Unless it was something incredibly ridiculous that made me lose enough respect for my established partner that I no longer wanted to be with him. I would imagine that's the case for most poly people who have fairly entangled commitments. Probably less so for solo poly and relationship anarchists.

 

[GreenAcres]

I used to hate on veto power, but then I realized that even though I haven't expressly done so, both of my current partners would have it. If they were genuinely uncomfortable and unable to get over issues with a new partner, I would more than likely dump the new person. Unless it was something incredibly ridiculous that made me lose enough respect for my established partner that I no longer wanted to be with him. I would imagine that's the case for most poly people who have fairly entangled commitments. Probably less so for solo poly and relationship anarchists.

I think this is also part of the problem with "veto" power. In almost all the cases I've seen it used (including on me), it's not genuine, unsolvable issues that directly impact the "established" partners in very negative ways (ex: hardcore illicit drug use by the new partner in front of the children, crazy behavior directly like showing up at established partner's place of employment, etc). I doubt anyone would balk at "veto" power in cases like those (though my next question would immediately by why in the hell the established partner would stay in a relationship where their partner had to be told to get rid of a partner that was so detrimental, but that's another post, I suppose). It is my guess that, even though it's a "veto," the partner using that card would also likely leave or take other action if the hinge didn't leave the crazy-making relationship

Obvious crazy and possibly dangerous instances like those aside, most issues are either cases of sloppy hinging or jealousy and insecurity by the established partner. And, anecdotaly at least, it's a much higher percentage of women in an established couple than men that exercise it rather than deal with their own shit (ex: "she's too pretty," "you love her too much," "she doesn't love me, too!" etc.--yeah, I've had every single one of these used on me at some point). Rather than working on themselves, or with their partner, to resolve the sloppy hinging or their own insecurities, they pull a veto. It is true that the hinge doesn't technically *have* to listen, but given that the new person is, well, new, there is generally a lot less to pragmatically lose. And, often, the hinge feels a sense of responsibility and guilt, since veto was a "promised right." The party pulling the veto card has no intention of problem solving, or of making the sacrificing the relationship if the hinge doesn't leave the newer person. The veto-puller is controlling the actions of another so they, themselves, don't have to experience any discomfort or do any self-work, and very rarely do they give two figs about their partner's feelings or their meta's.

I am a small sample, and I am sure that veto sometimes gets used in a way that is entirely justifiable; but, in most of the experiences I know of IRL, and on this board, that is a very small percentage. So, I think the difference in your two scenarios is that one of them is likely to be used to avoid "icky" feelings and control another person, while the other is making a decision about what is best for yourself and allowing the hinge to make a decision based on that knowledge.