I did the veto thing. (Gasp! I know.)

I still think that you are putting the responsibility on the third party, nor yourself nor husband. How many of the issues really derive from the girlfriend?

Your husband is completely in control of when he fights with her, right?

As far as the drinking, is it a situation where she is a heavy drinker? Is she encouraging him to hang out in bars? Would you prefer someone who doesn't drink?

But again, what I see is neither of you taking responsibility for your own actions, and blaming it on a third party. I am not criticizing. I'm trying to help.

I recently learned, and I believe, that it is within our total rights as humans to set boundaries. Without explanation. What this means (and people have discussed this a lot here) is to stop attempting to control the other person, but clearly define what you will and will not take, and walk off if a boundary is crossed.

I also am not putting people down, but I DO NOT UNDERSTAND "vetoing" at all. I do understand it if the model you have is a truly polyamorous family, where you hope to bring others into your life. I thin Dagferi and RedPepper have this kind of marriage. However, if you have a primary and your arrangement is just to love or date others - how does vetoing make sense? I identify more as "open marriage" than poly. My husband and I date whomever we want. Most of the men I go on dates with, he never even meets.

Our particular marriage was about opening up freedoms and being ourselves, exploring our sexuality apart from each other and gaining autonomy. If either of us had veto power, this would just work against our original idea. Totally.

The interesting thing is that I probably would veto my husband's gf. She has pretty terrible communication skills, is weird with boundaries, has terrible intimacy issues. My husband totally would have voted my two loves, who were: 1. a bipolar very young alcoholic, and 2. a married cheater. But our relationship is about letting each other grow.
 
So basically, you didn't veto the girlfriend; you vetoed your husband's ability to have a girlfriend. Sucks that the girlfriend got caught up in your power play when she did nothing wrong. I hope in the future you're more forthcoming with anybody that he happens to be in a relationship with. Let them know that they may get kicked to the curb if your husband doesn't act right.
 
WhatToDo said:
So basically, you didn't veto the girlfriend; you vetoed your husband's ability to have a girlfriend. Sucks that the girlfriend got caught up in your power play when she did nothing wrong. I hope in the future you're more forthcoming with anybody that he happens to be in a relationship with. Let them know that they may get kicked to the curb if your husband doesn't act right.
Click to expand...

NOT cool. People's lives and situations cannot be distilled down to a couple of sentences and then summarized with judgement. This is a place for support. If you want to challenge the OP's thinking, then fine, but a personal attack with a flip and sarcastic tone is just plain mean.
 
I completely agree with Dana. The OP was really brave to post what she did, knowing full well that many here merely read the word "veto" and start foaming at the mouth.
 
Dana said:
NOT cool. Peoples live's and situations cannot be distilled down to a couple of sentences and then summarized with judgement. This is a place for support. If you want to challenge the OP's thinking, then fine, but a personal attack with a flip and sarcastic tone is just plain mean.
Click to expand...

It didn't sound like a personal attack to me. It was a great summary of what the OP wrote in multiple posts on this thread. And I agree that the OP's partner needs to inform future potential partners of this arrangement that they have. They really need to be aware that they indeed might be dumped because the OP is mad at her partner. It's only fair, IMO. It's hardly a judgement to advise the OP to do the right thing.
 
WhatToDo said:
So basically, you didn't veto the girlfriend, you vetoed your husband's ability to have a girlfriend. Sucks that the girlfriend got caught up in your power play when she did nothing wrong. I hope in the future you're more forth coming with anybody that he happens to be in a relationship with. Let them know that they may get kicked to the curb if your husband doesn't act right.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in regard to your distaste of the veto rule, I believe she stated that she did make the rule clear to her partners so they could make an informed choice. However, her husband did not provide the same courtesy to his gf. It's not really theveronica's responsibility to do so.
 
Inyourendo said:
It didn't sound like a personal attack to me. It was a great summary to what the OP wrote in multiple posts on this thread. And I agree that the OP's partner needs to inform future potential partners of this arrangement that they have. They really need to be aware that they indeed may be dumped because the OP is mad at her partner. It's only fair, IMO. It's hardly a judgement to advise the OP to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

The right thing? I hesitate with the use of such language. It implies that I know enough about any given dynamic to have all the answers. I don't have that kind of hubris. And that sort of communication will only shut the OP down. An open dialogue requires some grace and humility. People can't learn when they get their hands slapped for asking honest questions. I'm not in this to prove what I know. I'm here to learn.
 
theveronica said:
I am not looking for a pat on the back. I am okay with you guys telling me that I was wrong. I just need... I don't know, a fresh perspective.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like the OP is able and willing to accept blunt opinions. No one here needs to scold other members for coming on stronger than they think an offer of one's viewpoint should be. If anyone needs to be asked to tone their responses down, we Moderators will handle that. Thanks!
 
While it is the role of the moderators to look for egregious violations, it is our individual responsibility to take ownership in this community. I simply am stating that I wish for a community with a greater sense of grace and kindness. I get enough hostility *out there* when often put in defense of my personal life. I would like this to be a place where I can come to the group for a real conversation without a rush to judgment, knee-jerk oversimplification of my experience, or a reprimand for being honest. The OP had real concerns that were complex. I'd like to elevate the conversation, instead of assigning quick blame and pointing fingers. That is all.
 
I have no positive or negative reaction to the word veto. The way I have seen it used here is for a metamour that the spouse isn't comfortable with for whatever reason. Fine, I get that. The point of my response was that the girlfriend did nothing wrong, from what has been written here. She got caught up in the wash from the original relationship. I have a problem with that, from the girlfriend's perspective. She could have been on her best behavior and gotten axed simply because the wife was uncomfortable with the husband's actions.

Sorry if it seemed harsh, that was not my intent at all. Simply looking at it from the root of what I read. "Husband does not act well with girlfriend. I am going to remove the girlfriend from the situation." I wonder how the OP would feel if her husband did the same thing to her?
 
Yes, I agree. I have been the "girlfriend" in that dynamic. In my relationship, I have found that attempts to take on new relationships while existing relationships are in a period of instability results in huge problems. I got "dumped" out of a triad once with a married couple because they were in distress and needed to "circle the troops," as it were, to try and save their marriage. Their marriage didn't survive, but at least I knew I didn't contribute to their problems. Well afterwards, I was able to reconnect with one of them, and we still maintain a platonic friendship.

I have, however, also been in situations where a "metamour" was outright trying to sabotage my marriage by threatening my job, privacy, children. Ugly stuff. I may have exercised a veto in one such situation if my husband hadn't ended it on his own. The trouble occurs when one person in a dyad sees the need for a veto, and the other one is too emotionally invested to see the need until after damage is done. This is when things really get messy and where I generally "vote myself off the island" in lieu of exercising a veto. It's truly a lose-lose dynamic.
 
I think there can be an attitude amongst certain non-monogamous folk concerning secondary-style partners. It's as if everyone obviously makes maintaining that relationship a priority, so the secondary just knows that they are in a precarious position. When they are dropped, it's almost a shock that they are upset, like this was a "normal" relationship to begin with. It's like they expect the person to react like a dumped mistress would. Sort of like, "Well, I always knew I was the bit on the side, and if shit hit the fan, I'd be the one to go."

The primary relationship is sacred, regardless of how miserable it makes the people even remotely involved with it, or how much anyone has to sacrifice. Anyone who doesn't understand why a primary relationship is the priority is obviously delusional, has some sort of social development issues, or is some sort of cow-person.
 
I agree, London. It's for this reason that my two current partners don't do hierarchical poly. My husband describes it as "each relationship standing or falling on its own," so it's not really prioritizing the marriage above other relationships either. But there is, at times, overlap when one relationship encroaches upon and actually does damage to another. That's when it gets dicey. I personally don't like the primary/secondary/tertiary language, but I understand that some people require labels.
 
But there is at times, overlap when one relationship encroaches upon and actually does damage to another. That's when it gets dicey.
Click to expand...

No. See, what happens is that someone fails to maintain their relationships in a way that prevents them from negatively impacting on each other. The "leaky hinge" thing. The solution to that is for the hinge to stop leaking. Sure, good partner selection means there will be less to leak, but you can still spill positive things from one relationship and it cause negativity in the other. Oversharing about sex is an example. Unless the plan is to close the relationship completely, or the hinge understands their flaw and feels they can only work on it efficiently if they end the other relationship, I still see no reason to even "dice" with a veto. It isn't the solution. Not if poly is part of your long term plans.
 
Personally, I would never get involved with anyone whose partner has veto power - never, ever, ever. I simply cannot fathom how any sane and rational person who has a partner and embraces polyamory could possibly think that any involvement their partner has with other people should not change the dynamic of their relationship. Basically, the kind of protectiveness that establishes a veto tells me that at least one member of the couple is not ready nor able to handle polyamory.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if "veto" is more common for people newer to poly as a means of maintaining some control over the pace of it all. Like I said, I don't exercise veto in my relationships and I don't really care for the term. But...if somebody I'm seeing is with somebody toxic, then I will make the choice I need to for my own well-being. It's not leveraged as a threat, but is sometimes necessary. Once a paramour goes to crazyville and threatens to take me and my children with them, I have to tap out.
 
Dana said:
I wonder if "veto" is more common for people newer to poly as a means of maintaining some control over the pace of it all. Like I said, I don't exercise veto in my relationships and I don't really care for the term. But...if somebody I'm seeing is with somebody toxic, then I will make the choice I need to for my own well-being. It's not leveraged as a threat, but is sometimes necessary. Once a paramour goes to crazyville and threatens to take me and my children with them, I have to tap out.
Click to expand...
Why would you stay with someone who would do that, anyway? I couldn't live with that threat of insecurity.
 
Dana said:
I wonder if "veto" is more common for people newer to poly as a means of maintaining some control over the pace of it all.
Click to expand...

I think so. You tend to see, 'OMG, I used a veto! Now what???' somewhere after 'We opened up our marriage x months ago...'
 
London, just to clarify: I have never stayed in such a situation. I've walked away every time. By the time this sort of damage has occurred, it is usually a foregone conclusion. You are correct. A relationship (in my experience) can't survive this sort of toxicity. Sometimes though, there are warning signs somewhat earlier that go unnoticed/unheeded because people are in some sort of NRE induced cognitive fog. I will point ahead and say "Hey look, a giant train and it's headed right this way. Perhaps we should step off the track." At which point, NRE junkie with temporarily low IQ says, "Why no, I'm *insert superhero of the week* and I got this." Yeah...not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top