New to poly

[Godfather76]

Being that your wife is looking for a "jock" as you put it there's a good chance that you're not going to see eye to eye on a lot of things. As long as he is a good person and treats your wife well it shouldn't matter if you're buddies or not.

I have also promised to lower my standards some, for this very reason. I don't plan on being strict. And as others have said, I'm an adult and can get along with most anyone. I plan on doing so. I guess friends is less important than respect, but a little of both would be nice.

 

[Godfather76]

I agree that you don't have to necessarily get who your partner is with. Or particularly like them. But yes respect is good (which requires having an open mind). Sure it would be nice if everyone could hang out, but that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement.

I do have to throw in that sometimes an objection to or "bad feeling" about a metamour is for good reason. You need to have the openness with your partner to be able to discuss concerns and have them at least consider them, without disregarding your feelings. And you need to be able to really look at your feelings and discern what is a valid concern and what is just something that person does that's not the way you would, or that you disagree with.

I know we'd like to think everybody out there is honest, has good intentions, and is healthy. That, unfortunately, is not always the case and I think that having some discernment in that area is a good thing.

This is our reasoning, pretty much exactly.

 

[IndieSolo]

Yeah, veto power. Kind of. Like, "I can veto if I promise to hear you out." We want to all be friends and sometimes people just rub other people the wrong way. We want to each have the power to say, "No. I don't want to be friends with that person." For the most part, we love each other and would know ahead of time whether or not someone will click well with the other of us.

I wouldn't call that veto power. Veto power is not just that one partner says they cannot be friends with the other's potential OSO; it is that they forbid (veto) their partner's choice to even be in a relationship with them. As others have said here, one doesn't need to like or be friends with their partner's OSO for the poly tangle to succeed and make everyone happy. Are you saying that each of you reserve the right to tell the other not to get involved with someone if you don't like them? If it's just to voice your concerns, that's reasonable and fair -- but a veto makes people seem... disposable, and elevates one relationship over another.

Good thread about it here: Veto Power...?

 

[affablegreen]

I just wanted to add:

"...some guidance as to why I feel so exhilarated but cannot, for the life of me, say why."

I know what you mean. Go with it. Change, and new possibilities! You have the chance to see the person you love explore and be happy! And maybe answer some deep calls within yourself, too! Those are exhilarating things. Scary, too. But if we are all as honest as we can be about our intentions (its really hard!), the growth can bring everyone forward to the next level of being who we are.

(I am sometimes ridiculously optimistic, but I really do believe this.)

 

[sagency]

In my first marriage, the we had veto power--the ability to deny a partner from getting involved with another person. I never used it, and she used it almost constantly. It wound up becoming a source of severe friction between us because it had turned us into a de facto swinger and a mono.

Comparatively, K and I have been together now for slightly longer than that total relationship lasted (and married for the last year and a half), and I never suggested veto power to her. K is solidly mono, and I now (compared to earlier when I didn't know the terminology) openly self-identify as poly. We never discussed veto power because K and I are very blunt and open in our communication. If she has an objection ("She is nice, but she needs to sort her home situation out before you proceed," for example.), she states what it is and why it's a problem. Having K around also encourages me to have quality standards such that I'm not as willing to accept crazy situations or someone who just patently would irk K. (Luckily we are similar in what irks us, so this is not a big stretch.) By me taking K's feelings into consideration and her proactively and clearly raising and detailing any objections, we are able to proceed with few major issues.

I'm not saying that the concept of veto power is a bad idea. I just found that clear communication and consideration means that veto power is moot. And a veto without an explanation is a definite sign of poor communication (a poly no-no) and likely a sign of some deeper issue.

Best of luck.

 

[Godfather76]

In my first marriage, the we had veto power--the ability to deny a partner from getting involved with another person. I never used it, and she used it almost constantly. It wound up becoming a source of severe friction between us because it had turned us into a de facto swinger and a mono.

Comparatively, K and I have been together now for slightly longer than that total relationship lasted (and married for the last year and a half), and I never suggested veto power to her. K is solidly mono, and I now (compared to earlier when I didn't know the terminology) openly self-identify as poly. We never discussed veto power because K and I are very blunt and open in our communication. If she has an objection ("She is nice, but she needs to sort her home situation out before you proceed," for example.), she states what it is and why it's a problem. Having K around also encourages me to have quality standards such that I'm not as willing to accept crazy situations or someone who just patently would irk K. (Luckily we are similar in what irks us, so this is not a big stretch.) By me taking K's feelings into consideration and her proactively and clearly raising and detailing any objections, we are able to proceed with few major issues.

I'm not saying that the concept of veto power is a bad idea. I just found that clear communication and consideration means that veto power is moot. And a veto without an explanation is a definite sign of poor communication (a poly no-no) and likely a sign of some deeper issue.

Best of luck.

So very well put. This is exactly what we're going for. So... no veto power. haha Just communication. Sometimes labeling things makes it worse.