I'm married (20+) and I've had a boyfriend for 2 years. My husband has also had a girlfriend for 2 years. There is a another guy I'd like to go out with. My husband said he only needs to meet the guy if I'd like him to. My boyfriend doesn't want me going out with the guy unless we all go out together first. Is this typical in poly relationships? Should your partners have the power to veto a new partner?
Current partners meeting a new partner
- Thread starter tocodo
- Start date
Emm
Stealth Mod
Unfortunately veto is common, but I wouldn't say it's "typical". Personally, I won't get involved with someone if I know their partner has explicit veto power*, and I certainly wouldn't agree to give someone the authority to call veto on anyone I choose to date. Either they trust me to make good decisions or they don't.
Having said that, I have no problem with my partners wanting to meet my other partners, or even with listening if there's something that concerns them about the new guy which I might have missed. They just don't get to make my mind up for me.
* Defined as the ability to arbitrarily say "stop" and expect the other relationship to cease without the requirement for any reason to be given or discussion to be had.
Having said that, I have no problem with my partners wanting to meet my other partners, or even with listening if there's something that concerns them about the new guy which I might have missed. They just don't get to make my mind up for me.
* Defined as the ability to arbitrarily say "stop" and expect the other relationship to cease without the requirement for any reason to be given or discussion to be had.
Last edited:
WaffleBattleBlues
New member
I don’t allow veto power in my relationships. I won’t allow it for myself either. The way I look at it, veto is just an easy-out to not deal with feelings of inadequacy or jealousy. These cannot be swept under the rug. They don’t go away.
Sometimes veto can be expressed as a lover’s concern for your well-being. Especially with men. We have a tendency to be protective of those we love. I don’t want my wife dating someone who is dangerous or hurtful. But at the same time this is just an open conversation with my wife. I can express my concerns and have them heard without wielding some veto power.
A veto is really an ultimatum. Your BF is saying, “End this new relationship or we are finished.” You probably wouldn’t put up with that from your BF, if he vetoed your husband. Why put up with it over a new relationship? You can say they aren’t the same, but they really are. All three men are choices you made for yourself and those choices are important. A BF deciding they want to take that choice away from you because of some emotional problem they have shouldn’t be allowed.
I think, as human beings, we have a tendency to believe we have no choice. But Poly is about having choice. It’s about being open, but it’s also about setting boundaries. You’re current BF should know your feelings on the matter. My choice would be to not allow a veto, even if that means ending the current relationship.
And not for nothing, but from what you said, you haven't even been on a date with this new guy yet. You haven't even had the chance to decide if this new person is someone you would consider having an actual relationship with. So, I'm suspicious of why your current BF needs to meet him first.
It just seems a bit controlling to me. I might want to meet my 16yo daughter's date, but that's because she's not an adult yet. My wife, on the other hand knows what she's doing.
Sometimes veto can be expressed as a lover’s concern for your well-being. Especially with men. We have a tendency to be protective of those we love. I don’t want my wife dating someone who is dangerous or hurtful. But at the same time this is just an open conversation with my wife. I can express my concerns and have them heard without wielding some veto power.
A veto is really an ultimatum. Your BF is saying, “End this new relationship or we are finished.” You probably wouldn’t put up with that from your BF, if he vetoed your husband. Why put up with it over a new relationship? You can say they aren’t the same, but they really are. All three men are choices you made for yourself and those choices are important. A BF deciding they want to take that choice away from you because of some emotional problem they have shouldn’t be allowed.
I think, as human beings, we have a tendency to believe we have no choice. But Poly is about having choice. It’s about being open, but it’s also about setting boundaries. You’re current BF should know your feelings on the matter. My choice would be to not allow a veto, even if that means ending the current relationship.
And not for nothing, but from what you said, you haven't even been on a date with this new guy yet. You haven't even had the chance to decide if this new person is someone you would consider having an actual relationship with. So, I'm suspicious of why your current BF needs to meet him first.
It just seems a bit controlling to me. I might want to meet my 16yo daughter's date, but that's because she's not an adult yet. My wife, on the other hand knows what she's doing.
Hi tocodo,
It sounds like your boyfriend is declaring an ultimatum. Either you all go out together first, or you don't go out with the new guy at all. And if you go out with the new guy without all going out together first, then I guess your boyfriend will break up with you? I don't know how adamant he is about his position.
The general idea behind formal veto power is that you agree to dump a partner if your other partner ever says so. So, you have already agreed to a breakup ahead of time, and your word is at stake. An ultimatum is a little different, although a veto can lead to an ultimatum when things play out in reality.
Veto power is generally discouraged in poly circles, although some people have veto power and it works for them. In your situation I guess I would ask if you want to go out all together at first. If you don't want to do that, then you have a hard conversation to have with your boyfriend. It's up to you.
I tend to think you should just be able to go out with the new guy, without involving your boyfriend. But then that's me.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
It sounds like your boyfriend is declaring an ultimatum. Either you all go out together first, or you don't go out with the new guy at all. And if you go out with the new guy without all going out together first, then I guess your boyfriend will break up with you? I don't know how adamant he is about his position.
The general idea behind formal veto power is that you agree to dump a partner if your other partner ever says so. So, you have already agreed to a breakup ahead of time, and your word is at stake. An ultimatum is a little different, although a veto can lead to an ultimatum when things play out in reality.
Veto power is generally discouraged in poly circles, although some people have veto power and it works for them. In your situation I guess I would ask if you want to go out all together at first. If you don't want to do that, then you have a hard conversation to have with your boyfriend. It's up to you.
I tend to think you should just be able to go out with the new guy, without involving your boyfriend. But then that's me.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
I don't think your boyfriend should have the right to dictate that you can't go out with someone else unless he meets them, but to some extent his reason for wanting to meet the other guy matters. Does he want to be able to say "Nope, don't like him, you can't see him", or does he just want to get a sense of who the guy is and whether he's a safe person for you, and, as Hubby once put it, "be able to pick him out of a lineup"? (Hubby was joking. I'm not sure my then-boyfriend was amused.)
I don't have, and wouldn't accept any of my partners having, veto power in terms of saying "you can't see this person." I do have "veto power" in the sense of "you can't see this person *when I am present*", though I don't even phrase it that way, I say "If this person is going to be there, I won't be." To me, it's wrong to try to enforce or restrict something in a relationship you aren't part of, when it impacts a person who doesn't get to be part of the discussion.
I don't have, and wouldn't accept any of my partners having, veto power in terms of saying "you can't see this person." I do have "veto power" in the sense of "you can't see this person *when I am present*", though I don't even phrase it that way, I say "If this person is going to be there, I won't be." To me, it's wrong to try to enforce or restrict something in a relationship you aren't part of, when it impacts a person who doesn't get to be part of the discussion.