Veto Power

[IndieSolo]

OnceandFuture, while it is true that equal and fair are two different things, I think you've missed Ravenscroft's point completely.

An egalitarian approach to poly means that each person with whom one is involved is treated equally as the autonomous human beings they are, each with a right to feel what they feel, to be treated with respect, to be able to speak up and be heard, and to be treated with compassion and kindness. When one partner has veto power over another, that is unequal -- and quite unfair to the one who has no say, as well as unkind, disrespectful, and a very shitty thing to do. Who in their right mind would enter into a relationship with anyone knowing from the start that that person's spouse or partner has been granted the authority to banish them from the relationship, based on any whim? Veto policies automatically say, "You don't matter to me as much as my partner does," and "Your needs and preferences are not as important as my partner's." And issuing a veto after two people have become close or fallen in love is simply cruelty.

The Signal is a hypocrite if her argument is that she entered your relationship with an agreement to be monogamous and now you're backing out if you want to be a polyamorist. She had a relationship with The Star, too. She was poly, but now that doesn't suit her, gee whiz. So, in her insecurity, mistrust, and desperate need to control YOU -- instead of looking at her insecurities and working on them -- she wants to be able to veto someone, which is basically dictating what a person with whom she is NOT in a relationship what they can and cannot do or have in their life. That is bullshit. She doesn't trust you and she doesn't trust herself, and she certainly doesn't trust other women - but will wielding veto power take care of her trust issues? No, not at all. She is only hurting everyone, including herself, as she is only stunting her own personal self-growth by hiding out behind the veto and not looking at why she thinks she needs it.

I'm not saying she has to agree to a poly arrangement at all. She could say she needs time to discuss and think about poly, and take a year or longer or whatever to work on her issues, and decide she only wants monogamy and that is it, but then you will both have to choose whether to stay or walk. But don't institute a veto policy, because all it provides is a false sense of security and in the end, no one has the right to be a dictator over anyone else. Your situation is very, very sad to me. You are allowing her to squash who you are, out of fear of pissing her off because she has rages and meltdowns, and you justify it over and over again instead of opening your eyes to the reality of what she's doing.

 

[Spork]

I would enter into a relationship where veto power existed. I don't want to have it myself, but if Hefe or Fire told me that they have an agreement that one has the ability to veto partners for the other (they are the married ones in my quad) I would nod and say, hey that's fine, and I'd assume they're just looking out for each other. Having an eye on one another's blind spots. I do not expect to have equal standing with either of them in comparison to their relationship with one another. I've been around since last August, and they've been together like 13 years or something? And are legally married, affairs and families all intermixed after all this time... But it's not a competition!

As a matter of fact, I would be shocked if Fire were to tell Hefe she didn't want him to see a certain someone else, if he'd defy her wishes. He's just that devoted to her, at least from what I see.

And I don't feel like there's anything unfair or bad or less than absolutely beautiful in any of that. Fire's power in her relationship with Hefe doesn't bother me at all. But it would make me VERY sad and hurt if I found out that she didn't like me. If that were the case, I'd vanish and I wouldn't want to continue to just be in a relationship with Hefe. I couldn't be involved in the same relationship-scene with someone who doesn't like me, with icky conflict vibes floating around.

So for me personally, the existance of veto power is irrelevant. If someone is thinking and feeling the kind of negative stuff in my direction that would make them WANT to veto me, then I'd want nothing to do with it.

That is just me.

But again, I really do embrace the "Your relationship style is not my relationship style and that's ok" thing...most of my talk here has been "devil's advocate." It's one thing to say that something doesn't fit with your personal relationship ethics, but I'm not going to agree with those who say that anyone who needs veto power is too insecure, immature, or whatever and shouldn't be doing poly at all. I don't really care what other people are doing in their relationships, especially if everyone involved is groovy with it. I'm only interested in keeping my own sane and sound and happy.

 

[PinkPig]

So for me personally, the existance of veto power is irrelevant. If someone is thinking and feeling the kind of negative stuff in my direction that would make them WANT to veto me, then I'd want nothing to do with it.

That is just me.

This. Blue was involved with a woman last fall who wanted a dadt kind of arrangement regarding me...like to the point of more or less wanting to pretend I didn't exist. It made me hugely uncomfortable and I'd never even met her. I stuck it out because it's not Blue's usual style and I was hoping it would resolve...which it did. I have no desire to be involved with someone if their OSO has animosity or ill feelings towards me. Goes against the kitchen table poly I prefer.

On a side note, it's ironic this issue came up because I have been talking to a lovely transwoman...we were at the point where I'd usually want to meet...until I found out that her live-in partner prefers DADT style relationships and has veto power! No thank you!

 

[Ravenscroft]

secret compartments, bah!

Hm -- yah, for some reason I never thought of how DADT fits into this. Still learning.

When Anna & I were working to formulate our (for lack of a less grandiose term) vision for responsible nonmonogamy,* she spotted a Personals ad in one of the local a&e weeklies: an open-marriage discussion group was starting up.

Summarizing the event, there was** ten people there, & we all had a nice evening exchanging experiences & ideas. It clearly wasn't swinging (no judgment, just not what we were looking for), & the couple that hosted it in their home inspired us to be open about our lifestyle.

The host couple was clearly interested in dating us, to see if anything developed, & they weren't unattractive... but then they casually mentioned they had a DADT policy. Both Anna & I quizzed them (politely) about how this worked & why it was necessary, but, in the end, it killed any interest we'd had in them.

On the way home, the two of us compared notes. Far as we could tell, if something had developed, not only would they have worked to keep the metamour away from the spouse, but they would've expected that Anna & I wouldn't discuss THEM. Being "total disclosure" maniacs, that simply didn't line up with US.

(And many times, if one of us was having doubts/problems with a lover/friend, we'd turn to each other for advice & input. Free-flowing communication is NOT the wearying burden some make it out as.)

FWIW, in those early days, we did consider a "veto option."*** After we let it marinate awhile, I finally said, "Look: I trust you, so I trust you. If we need to use a veto, then what were doing is in trouble already." It looked to add complexity for little upside, & (like DADT) leave plenty of cracks for doubt, distrust, miscommunication, & general bad feelings to crawl in.
________________
* -- this was 1983 or 1982, years before Diana Zell coined "polyamory." We were in touch with Kerista, but certain that we weren't reinventing polyamory, so THAT term was off the table, as well as "group mariage" & "open marriage." Though some people STILL gripe about it being a bastard word, polyamory is the second-closest fit we ever found, but less bulky than intimate network.
** -- "were"? I never get that right.
** -- matter of fact, I think it was Anna who offered me that poison pill. The memory is rusty; I haven't revisited it much.

 

[Ravenscroft]

and then there's...

If it hasn't been brought up, let's also consider that veto (& DADT) also support that other poly bugaboo: couple-front ("couple-privilege") thinking.

The EJECT button is put in place specifically to place "the couple" in a position superior over all other relationships, actual or potential, past/present/future.

Worse (by my standards), even if veto is granted to both parties, the one who is most insecure actually has vastly greater power... even if that's the one that has ALL the outside relationships.

I mean, really, it's just inept D/s. Or maybe very unimaginative s-m.

 

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

So for me personally, the existance of veto power is irrelevant. If someone is thinking and feeling the kind of negative stuff in my direction that would make them WANT to veto me, then I'd want nothing to do with it.

I have no desire to be involved with someone if their OSO has animosity or ill feelings towards me. Goes against the kitchen table poly I prefer.

Yes, exactly. Even if there is no veto power - even if there is no "him or me" ultimatum - having a metamour who dislikes you can make life miserable. Taking away the veto option doesn't fix the underlying insecurity and desire to control ones partner. Sometimes I think it's easier to be vetoed (or at least hear the truth about how your metamour feels about you) than to put up with months of passive aggressive manipulation and power plays.

Ironically, enacting a partner-specific DADT policy is sort of our version of a veto. It's our "nuclear option"... I'd never feel that I could tell a partner to break up with someone, but I'd be ok saying, "I am uncomfortable with that relationship to the point where I can't handle hearing about it, keep it out of our shared space and time, and don't share anything with me about it beyond need-to-know health stuff." Andy got to that point with one of my exes, and it did prompt me to end things... Basically it was a wake up call to how shitty the relationship had become.

 

[Spork]

If it hasn't been brought up, let's also consider that veto (& DADT) also support that other poly bugaboo: couple-front ("couple-privilege") thinking.

The EJECT button is put in place specifically to place "the couple" in a position superior over all other relationships, actual or potential, past/present/future.

Worse (by my standards), even if veto is granted to both parties, the one who is most insecure actually has vastly greater power... even if that's the one that has ALL the outside relationships.

I mean, really, it's just inept D/s. Or maybe very unimaginative s-m.

I dunno, again, I actually don't have an issue with some of the couple privilege that my married couple of lovers has. They are a beautiful couple. I EXPECT a different commitment level between them, than between either of them and me, or with our other love, Analyst. Fire had a boyfriend previously who began jockeying for position with Hefe, wanting to be Fire's primary and acting competitive. That relationship ended badly. Lots of hurt on all sides. Analyst and I respect Fire and Hefe's marriage. Neither of us are trying to compete with it. But, too, neither of us are trying to "escalator" with either of them (move in or advance to lifelong commitments.)

Like something else I read somewhere, a question about "primaries" and "secondaries"...a primary is someone who, if you move far away, is going to move with you. If Fire and Hefe moved (and they might one day) neither Analyst nor I would necessarily go with them, unless we'd been considering it independently as a life choice of our own.

And as Texlahoma says, if either of them had a serious problem with either of us...I'd much rather get a veto than become a source of ongoing strife for them. Especially if a veto event allowed me to at least continue to be a friend.

If for instance Fire decided that the lifestyle was just too much to handle, her life is stressful with health, work, and family stuff, and needed them to close for a while, I'd rather she speak up, lay down the law, and do what's best for herself and her marriage, than try to just put up with it and harbor unspoken (and growing) bad feelings that would ruin our relationships eventually anyways. I would not remotely feel like the poor little secondary who had no say in the matter, or a victim of any couple privilege.

 

[Ravenscroft]

a primary is someone who, if you move far away, is going to move with you.

Huh. Never seen THAT one before. Seems to say there's no bilocated primary relationships, whether a block or a thousand miles apart.

Well, first let me say that whatever works for YOU is a GOOD thing. No, really, I'm not being sarcastic. You're clearly a calm, intelligent adult, with a solid grip on what you want from life.

However, you present a false dichotomy.

if either of them had a serious problem, I'd much rather get a veto than become a source of ongoing strife.
If for instance Fire decided that the lifestyle was just too much, I'd rather she speak up, lay down the law, and do what's best for herself and her marriage, than try to just put up with it and harbor unspoken (and growing) bad feelings that would ruin our relationships eventually anyways.

You present two extremes on a continuum, then say these are the only choices available.

A veto is NOT "speaking up" -- press the button & SCHWOOP you're out the airlock before you've got time to say "wha-?"

Having the spine to "speak up" & say, "y'know, you're like super fab & spiffy, but I'm having problems & it's just too much for me" is NOT A VETO. Even if there's no wiggle-room, it's still an attempt at Adult/Adult connection in a manner both intellectual & affectional.

And you seem to be saying that "without veto power, Fire would cease communication & openness" & become a ticking bomb. Is she that inherently distrusting... or is it you that doesn't trust HER to be honest & thorough? Do you believe that if she didn't have the nuke, then YOU would run riot?

 

[GreenAcres]

I've been involved with couples (one or both members) with veto power who I had zero interest in any kind of escalator with. I was a newbie then. Now, no way. It's not because I think I should have equal standing with a partner who has been there for years, or that I expect or want priority equal to or over longer-standing or more entwined relationships (I don't). It's because I don't have the resources of time or extra emotional energy to put into a relationship that can be ended by someone who has absolutely nothing to do with me. Why would I? I wouldn't get involved with someone who's mom can tell them to stop dating me, either.

Knowing a potential meta has veto power tells me all I need to know: the people involved lack trust and security, and whether that is because of personal, internal insecurities, or because of past transgression that breached their trust, it doesn't really matter. They're clearly not a couple I want to be involved with, and it's not because I don't understand that a married couple, or one with a house and kids, or whatever, is going to be more "primary." So, from that perspective, it's more helpful to know a meta has veto power than to deal with passive-aggressive crap for months on end until it gets overwhelming (enter my last meta...ugh). At least, if the veto power is stated up front, I can choose to move on before becoming attached.

Look, I like the idea of kitchen table poly. I even like the idea of triads and quads.But, I don't want my relationship held hostage to baggage I have no part in.

 

[Spork]

That "if somebody moves" thing, I saw as just an example of commitment levels and I think it was months ago in another thread here someplace or else another poly blog site. One bit of a much larger conversation.

I do remember the "voice" it was presented in was, the writer was describing how THEY defined primary/secondary/tertiary. And it fits this scenario, because if one of (Fire/Hefe) made the decision to move, it would be a joint decision and they'd both move...like most married couples I know would do.

And as to the false dichotomy... Fire does in fact tend to bottle things up, sometimes to her own breaking points. She is afraid of exposing her loved ones to "ugly" emotional behavior (despite that I have pointed out I'm hard pressed to find anything ugly about her, her feelings, her anything ever) so she does sometimes cope without communicating. We'll know something is wrong, but she doesn't want to talk about it. Maybe she'll find words later, maybe not. I could imagine her developing some kind of overload or issue and trying too hard to just deal with it, when she'd be better served by saying, "I can't, we can't, it needs to stop" if that were the problem.

Again, I'm saying if it came right down to it, I'd rather an abrupt end to the relationship in which I had no say, if it still allowed room for us to be friends later, than a drawn out end (because let's face it, if one person WANTS an end, it's likely only a matter of time) that destroys the possibility of friendship afterwards. And sometimes all of the adult communication in the world can't save you if someone just doesn't like you or want you in their lives. I would NEVER want to wear out my welcome in a meta's life-space that way.

Though I do have to say I think that the veto concept does give a slightly cowardly excuse to the hinge to not own a breakup. Breaking up with someone is unpleasant. Being able to say "Yeah, this wasn't my choice, my wife is making me break up with you. So sorry." could be something of a cop-out.

 

[Tinwen]

That "if somebody moves" thing, I saw as just an example of commitment levels and I think it was months ago in another thread here someplace or else another poly blog site. One bit of a much larger conversation.

A whole long discussion: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73339
But it's an internet meme, I don't know the original source, but I've seen it outside of this forum.

 

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

Though I do have to say I think that the veto concept does give a slightly cowardly excuse to the hinge to not own a breakup. Breaking up with someone is unpleasant. Being able to say "Yeah, this wasn't my choice, my wife is making me break up with you. So sorry." could be something of a cop-out.

This is the only thing that really bugs me about veto. Though, honestly, it bugs me the same whether there was really a veto, or it's being used as a cover. My biggest annoyance in life is when people refuse to own their own decisions.

Oh, so your wife is going to keep you chained up in your room for the rest of your life? Because otherwise, no, she didn't *make* you break up with me. Even if you did promise her veto power - if we've been together more than a month, I'm sure you've promised me stuff, promises you're now breaking. "My wife wants me to stop seeing you, so to keep her happy, I've decided to end our relationship." The end result is no different than "my wife is making me..." , but at least it's taking some ownership of the situation.