Advice on not screwing up a newly-opened marriage

[sevechten]

I've been in a faithful, monogamous relationship with Paige for around 20 years. We have occasionally talked about boundaries and other people. The rules evolved from "If you were to cheat once, I probably wouldn't leave," to an explicit "Don't ask, don't tell." I never met anyone else under those rules because I never found an opportunity that could be taken without deception. At minimum, I'd have to lie about where I was going.

Recently things have changed significantly in a short time. Listening to a Dan Savage podcast sparked another discussion about Paige's fears and how to reduce them, with the result being that I can openly look and date, with her full knowledge and cooperation, but be subject to her veto. Paige prefers to remain mono for now, possibly forever.

I updated my profile on a couple of sites, and was contacted by Phoebe, a woman in a long-term poly relationship. I initially misunderstood, and thought she was recruiting for a local poly group, rather than being specifically interested in me. We got that straightened out, exchanged texts and emails for a while, and Paige and I met Phoebe and her husband. That went very well, so Phoebe and I are going to meet for lunch in a week or so and see where things go.

The relationship with Paige appears to be heading in almost the exact direction I really wanted. I thought I was going to have to settle for very casual outside relationships with little emotional connection in order to keep Paige from worrying. Since Phoebe's primary relationship is also well established and long term, that's much less of a worry for Paige.

Part of me thinks this is too good to be true; there's got to be a catch. I guess what I'm looking for is advice on how to make this go as smoothly as possible. Any obvious mistakes I appear to be making, or things I'm overlooking?

 

[AnnabelMore]

The only thing that I see as a potential problem is the veto thing. An initial veto power, as in "Please don't start dating her, she skeeves me out," can be a great idea. But if Paige is expecting that she can say at the 6-month mark, "Actually, this is bothering me more than I thought. I'm calling in the veto. You have to stop seeing her," that could really mess up all the relationships involved.

If you refuse, you'll be breaking your agreement with her. If you comply and find yourself broken-hearted, you could end up being resentful in a way that's very damaging to your marriage.

Much better, in my opinion, to leave it up to a matter of discussion. You can say, "You know you're my first priority, and if a particular outside relationship or poly in general was endangering our marriage in a way we couldn't resolve, I fully believe I would end it to keep us together," which would be subtly but importantly different from, "You have the right to end my outside relationships whenever you choose."

Otherwise, looks great! For helpful basic do's and don'ts, have a read through some of the beginner's resources at www.morethantwo.com. Good luck!

 

[sevechten]

With the dynamic of our marriage, I think the absolute veto is necessary, and I trust that it won't be abused. Based on our history in other areas, she is extremely unlikely to use the veto unfairly or without discussion, or even sometimes when she should. Rather it will make it more likely she will bring up issues that bother her while they can still be fixed.

 

[AnnabelMore]

Well, that sounds good, then.

 

[redpepper]

Vetoes are not something I advise. They are very tricky. On the outside, they appear to create some stability and control of emotions and what happens, but when it comes down to actually using them, they cause more damage than good.

My experience with them has taught me that I prefer to trust that my partners will consider my boundaries and opinions and make a decision that is good for all of us, rather than for just themselves. There have been times where I have had the need to point out different ways of seeing my partners' love interests that have meant they have ended a relationship because they hadn't noticed, but I have never said flat out that they cannot see them because I said so. Because we trusted each other and had each other's best interests in mind, including the other person involved, a choice was made out of that, not out of an imbalance of control.

I have found that vetoes create deception. Communication goes well until the one that has veto rights decides they don't want their partner to see a person, put their foot down and then the communication stops and feelings, thoughts, negotiating boundaries are not discussed anymore. The idea is to keep talking. Vetoes keep that from happening, in my experience.

There is also the other person's feelings to consider. How would it feel to know that someone has vetoed you? Very hurtful. To me, polyamory is about creating more love and connection, not leaving people wounded and more damaged. Sure, maybe the person is considered to be less than perfect by the partner that has veto power, but that doesn't give them a right to express that openly to them by saying, "Sorry sucker, you're out!"

I would suggest that you create boundaries that address Paige's need to take things slowly, be involved enough to know who you are interested in, what she would like considered if she is struggling, and how to make sure anyone you are interested in spending time with is treated with respect, regardless of whether they are a good match for you.

Dating other people is a group effort between all involved, not a couple calling all the shots and the new person just sucking it up and taking the dregs of what they get, in my opinion. People deserve and are entitled to love, support, caring, consideration and respect for who they are and what their life experience has brought them. Honouring them right from the beginning in this way means that in turn, it is given back. It's a good foot to stand on when starting a new relationship, I think. It's served me well, anyhow.

 

[IndieSolo]

I personally will never get involved with a guy whose spouse has veto power. I never want to be discarded to appease someone else's insecurities. If someone has a veto agreement with their spouse/SO, then I know they will always put that relationship above all others and ultimately wouldn't give a crap about my place in his life. I think when a couple opens up to poly, each needs to acknowledge that where hearts are involved, other individuals they have relationships with may eventually reach a place where they are as important and cherished to them as their existing partner is. A veto policy leaves no room for that.

Since Paige is someone who also has a spouse, the above may not be an issue for her, but she could still feel really shitty if down the road, Phoebe gets upset about something and vetoes your relationship. A veto for dealing with jealousy or avoiding the complications of feelings is like putting a band-aid on a broken bone.

 

[sevechten]

Since Paige has a spouse, the above may not be an issue for her, but she could still feel really shitty if down the road, Phoebe gets upset about something and vetoes your relationship. A veto for dealing with jealousy or avoiding the complications of feelings is like putting a band-aid on a broken bone.

Some good points here. I'm discussing them with Paige, as well. I'm not going to ask her to give up veto, but she's agreed to try to work things out first, to bring up issues early enough that there's still room to fix them before vetoing, if at all possible.

Especially this early into opening our relationship, there's not a lot of practical difference between veto and trusting to respect boundaries and opinions. I'm trusting her to respect boundaries and opinions before vetoing, but there's no guarantee that she can handle an open relationship at all, and our agreement was to try it, not that once she said yes we could never go back to a mono relationship.

Before all of us met, Phoebe admitted that she was somewhat concerned that it was Paige's and my first time in an open relationship. She's aware of my agreements with Paige, and is okay.

Since it will be a week or so before Phoebe and I are alone together for the first time, this may all be moot. We get along online, so far, but that doesn't mean we will have romantic chemistry.

 

[IndieSolo]

... there's no guarantee that she can handle an open relationship at all--and our agreement was to try it, not that once she said yes we could never go back to a mono relationship.

I understand that, but think about the people you would be "trying it" with - people who are real flesh-and-blood human beings with desires, wants, needs, and whose feelings can be hurt. They are not there to be experimented on. Since you said you didn't want to "settle" for "very casual outside relationships with little emotional connection," I think you get what I'm trying to say, and why a veto, for many people, would be at odds with developing real, loving, caring relationships.

I would also add that, although it is perfectly reasonable to leave the door open as to whether polyamory is for you, and to be able to choose monogamy in your life again if you want to (which is what I do myself), it is still important (IMHO) if and when you do get involved with an additional partner, that you go "all in." I mean, it's like any other relationship when it just starts out, there's a giddiness and a hesitancy at first, an "Is this really happening?" feeling, but then you go deeper and you invest in it fully, because to hold back would be unfair to the other person (and to yourself). Of course, there are no guarantees that any relationship will last, whether poly or mono, and I'm projecting into the future a bit (you're not even sure if there is chemistry between you and Phoebe yet!) but as long as you are willing to dive in fully and wholeheartedly, I think you will both give and get the best in "loving more than one."

 

[dingedheart]

What are the parameters of the veto power? Too good looking (hot), too young (hot), too stacked (hot), overall way too sexy (hot), too funny, too smart, too good a cook, or simply a bad vibe or personality traits, annoying laugh, excessive hair flipping, etc.?

The "veto" concept gives the illusion of some control of how far things can comfortably go, or a possible replacement threat. But in reality, it's just an illusion. Most people can't turn off feelings because someone else told them to.

Good luck.

 

[SourGirl]

Some good points... I'm discussing them with Paige. I'm not going to ask her to give up veto, but she's agreed to try to work things out first, to bring up issues early enough that there's still room to fix them before vetoing, if at all possible.

You seem to have a good head on your shoulders. If you and Paige are really as tight with each other as it appears to be, I don`t see a problem with this particular veto. Vetoes are *usually* used by those that feel out of control, and as previously mentioned, can be a type of deception.

However, the flipside of that is there are people who have just as much fear of dealing with the reality of relationships ending, and try to make vetoes look worse then the actual.

One step at a time looks about right for your situation. Your wife has a history of coming through, and finding new milestones in this as she is ready. I think you are right to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The other thing to think about is your own abilities. Making sure you are straightforward with both yourself and those you get involved with, and it will help in the long run, as far as vetoes are concerned.

So take the time to learn exactly what type of scenarios could be vetoed. Also take the time to learn 'why' someone panics and calls a veto. Most times I see one person scream veto, and the other does as told, immediately. I think it would do people some good to 'sit on a situation' for a week or two, and see if they still feel the same.

Once upon a time, my hubby vetoed a relationship I was in, and I was glad he did. I had become caught up in trying to 'make' a relationship work, long after knowing the person didn`t deserve me.

Another time he asked me to end a relationship out of his own fear and panic. I said no. We worked through that.

So, sometimes it really is in one's best interest. Other times, definitely not.

As for the point of the post... 'screwing up' is going to happen. Some relationships just gel, and some are only meant to last a short period of time. Don`t forget the feelings of all involved, and weigh your actions with respect for all parties involved, including yourself.

... and for the love of donuts, have FUN! This shit gets far too serious!

 

[redpepper]

Vetoes are *usually* used by those that feel out of control, and as previously mentioned, can be a type of deception.

This, to me, is what a veto is. That is the description I know, anyway. Someone who is struggling and asking their partner to go slow, consider their opinion, and perhaps adjust whom they spend time with as a result, is stating their boundaries. If Sevechten trusts Paige to realize he is going on a path that is his own, and that she will not be unwise with her requests, then that is not a veto. Vetoes are essentially ultimatums-- my way, or your new love is out!

 

[SourGirl]

Vetoes are essentially ultimatums-- my way, or your new love is out!

I think that is what vetoes have... become? They have a very narrow meaning now, based on the abuse of the term.

Until I came to this poly board, I wasn`t aware that vetoes were this horrid thing. Thinking back, the only people I knew that used it were in new relationships, 6 months and under. Those over the 1-year mark tended to just naturally work things out. I never knew of a situation where a veto was used after a long period of time together. Once everyone hit the point of 'We're invested,' I never heard those types of ultimatums used.
My poly-type experiences before I came to this board make me feel like I lived in some parallel universe.

General comment: If the definition is a very specific meaning, maybe Sevechten just needs to use a different label. It looks like he has a wife who has some boundaries, and as she feels comfortable, she takes it upon herself to open up.

He trusts her, and obviously she trusts him. I'd hate to see that killed, all because of a distaste for a word and the advice it brings.

 

[redpepper]

My concern for Sevechten using the word veto for something that is more commonly seen as a boundary issue is more directed towards the possible partners he will attract.

Veto is kind of old-school now, I think, and is used as a distasteful word for "ultimatum." It's come a full turn since three years ago, even, as have many terms commonly used in polyamory. I don't see a problem with using it if there is an explanation behind it, but frankly, if someone I was dating said they had a veto agreement with their spouse, I would not hear beyond that, and quite easily assume the rigid version of the common meaning at this point in time.

I would assume that if I didn't behave I would be told to leave, regardless of my feelings, investment and time. I'd be one foot out the door already. I would hate to see that happen for the OP simply because he used the word "veto" when, to me (and generally others, too), he is talking about his wife's perfectly normal and reasonable boundaries.

Really, though, it's up to you, Sev. Just trying to educate here. Take want you want and leave the rest.

 

[sevechten]

I'd be one foot out the door already. I would hate to see that happen for the OP simply because he uses the word "veto" when... he is talking about his wife's perfectly normal and reasonable boundaries.

It's up to you, Sev. Just trying to educate here. Take want you want and leave the rest.

I'm here to be educated. I love my wife, and I'm lucky to have met Phoebe, even if we never move beyond friendship. I talked to Phoebe tonight, we discussed what I mean by veto, and she's okay with it. She says it's not that far from her agreements with her husband.

I'm probably not going to change the agreement with Paige, although I may discuss it in different terms to others. I don't want to mislead new people I meet in either direction, and if 'veto' has a different meaning in this context, maybe a more detailed explanation is necessary.