In our case, yes, there is some "keep the marriage together" involved with Hubby's and my agreement. When I moved Alt and Country down here to form a household with Hubby, he and I made certain promises to them, chiefly that they would not have to move house again and would not be put through a second divorce (I'm divorced from their father). So when Hubby and I opened the marriage, we believed we had to make some agreements and arrangements to ensure that we would keep our promises to my kids.
If S2 *wanted* to be able to veto potential other partners of mine, I would give him that power, as long as it was reciprocal. He and I don't have a "veto power" agreement because he doesn't want one. He's not reluctant about the idea that Hubby *in theory* could veto S2 as a partner for me; S2 considers that common sense for a marriage where kids are involved.
On the other hand, my first boyfriend under this dynamic, Guy, and I *did* agree to veto power over each other's other partners. He had the same right as Hubby.
For us, though, it isn't an arbitrary thing. Part of the agreement is that we can only veto someone if there is a strong, valid reason; and the veto can be negotiated. For example, Hubby and Guy vetoed an FWB I'd been seeing because we found out that FWB was using me as a backup plan; he was breaking plans with me to see other women, and then calling me when he couldn't get anyone else to hook up with him. And telling several of our mutual friends that I was just "there when I can't find anyone else to fuck." Hubby and Guy felt that was extremely disrespectful and hurtful to me, so veto went into effect. (I'd decided on my own to be done with FWB anyway.)
For both Hubby and Guy, I vetoed a woman from the dating site we belong to because she has a reputation for trying to break up marriages. (Hubby and Guy had already decided not to accept her propositions; for that matter, so has S2.)
I don't consider the veto power a sign of distrust. It's more a "I feel really strongly against you being with this person, so I need to go a step up from just saying I'd rather you not." And in reality, everyone that Hubby or I has vetoed for the other has turned out to be someone the other didn't want to be involved with anyway.
If S2 *wanted* to be able to veto potential other partners of mine, I would give him that power, as long as it was reciprocal. He and I don't have a "veto power" agreement because he doesn't want one. He's not reluctant about the idea that Hubby *in theory* could veto S2 as a partner for me; S2 considers that common sense for a marriage where kids are involved.
On the other hand, my first boyfriend under this dynamic, Guy, and I *did* agree to veto power over each other's other partners. He had the same right as Hubby.
For us, though, it isn't an arbitrary thing. Part of the agreement is that we can only veto someone if there is a strong, valid reason; and the veto can be negotiated. For example, Hubby and Guy vetoed an FWB I'd been seeing because we found out that FWB was using me as a backup plan; he was breaking plans with me to see other women, and then calling me when he couldn't get anyone else to hook up with him. And telling several of our mutual friends that I was just "there when I can't find anyone else to fuck." Hubby and Guy felt that was extremely disrespectful and hurtful to me, so veto went into effect. (I'd decided on my own to be done with FWB anyway.)
For both Hubby and Guy, I vetoed a woman from the dating site we belong to because she has a reputation for trying to break up marriages. (Hubby and Guy had already decided not to accept her propositions; for that matter, so has S2.)
I don't consider the veto power a sign of distrust. It's more a "I feel really strongly against you being with this person, so I need to go a step up from just saying I'd rather you not." And in reality, everyone that Hubby or I has vetoed for the other has turned out to be someone the other didn't want to be involved with anyway.