Veto Experiences in Polyamory

It isn't the nasty remarks alone

My impression is that if you look at the comment section on almost any video you will find nasty remarks. The internet abounds with jerks. I generally don't bother with comment sections.

Leetah

Unfortunately these nasty remarks are used to reinforce that poly families are immoral and most importantly a poor environment to raise children. There is nothing wrong with the nasty remark per se but the problem is when these nasty sentiments collectively reinforce to many judges that children have no business in poly families and allow a former spouse to gain custody of them. I have read several articles that point to this fact.
 
Unfortunately these nasty remarks are used to reinforce that poly families are immoral and most importantly a poor environment to raise children. There is nothing wrong with the nasty remark per se but the problem is when these nasty sentiments collectively reinforce to many judges that children have no business in poly families and allow a former spouse to gain custody of them. I have read several articles that point to this fact.

That's so tragic. And I'd say it's a significant civil rights issue. It's part of the next wave of civil rights issues. Or it should be.
 
But the blanket veto power — described by Franklin Veux — is totally different. I sobbed when I listened to that part of his audiobook. Allowing your wife to tell you you may never speak to someone again? With no reason? And not allows to give the other partner a reason? That is just fucking toxic. I lost a lot of respect for him for having gone along with it. That is batshit crazy. Even a poly newbie should know that — and he had been poly even before marrying his wife. There is no point to that level of cruelty.

Wow. That is AWFUL. I've been vetoed once and it was really painful but it would have been a thousand times worse had my ex-friend not tell me why and agree to have occasional contact to sort things out. And yeah, he was a platonic friend, not a lover or anything like that, even... but his wife was way too jealous nevertheless and he chose to drop our friendship because she insisted so.

I get why people get burned by couples and are vary to engage in relationships with a person who's been in a mono relationship for a very long time. Now I do not even want to be friends with such people. And this is not the first time where my friendship with a man has been limited by his marriage/relationship. And I'm not talking about intense friendships here rather than, for example, just having a coffee with me has been a no-no because the wife might kick a fuss.

*sigh*
 
The problem is that if you're telling your lover, "I can't stand her, you aren't allowed to see her," you are controlling two other adults who aren't getting a say in the matter. Controlling other people just plain isn't okay. What my partners do in their other relationships is not a thing I have the right to control. I have the right to *request*, as in "I really have a hard time dealing with her, and would prefer you not see her." I have the right to set a boundary *for myself*, as in "She's toxic for me, and if you're seeing her, I'm not sure I would be able to continue our relationship." But I emphatically do NOT have the right to say, "She sucks, you aren't allowed to have a relationship with her."

That's what a veto amounts to. "*I* have a problem, so *you* have to change your behavior and do what I say." Which is bullshit. We're adults. We're each responsible for our own choices and emotions. We don't have the right to make *other people* responsible for us.

(And if you don't get on with someone, why on earth would you be talking to them in the first place, let alone having them tell you they're boning your boo?)
"You have the right to *request*. Well obviously I suppose.

There is nothing stopping my partner from sleeping with whoever she wants even if its someone who I dislike. Its not like I'm going to cause her any distress over it, but it would cause me to be greatly sad around her, unloving, and probably unable to perform in bed for her. It works both ways entirely equally.
 
Yes, it does work both ways. And your reaction to your partner sleeping with someone you don't like might be understandable, depending on the level of dislike. (*Personally*, if my reaction to one of my partner's other partners was that strong, I would just end my relationship with my partner; otherwise, it really isn't my business and it really doesn't affect me as long as I don't have to be around the person I don't like. But that's me.)

However, you say there's nothing stopping your partner from sleeping with someone you don't like. You say you won't cause her distress over it.

In a veto... there IS something stopping someone from sleeping with someone their partner doesn't like. Their partner IS causing them distress over it. In your scenario, regardless of what your reaction is, it sounds like *you* are taking responsibility for it. You aren't telling your partner "I don't like them, so you can't fuck them." You might tell your partner, "I don't like them, and I'm going to feel sad around you if you have sex with them and might not be as willing to have sex with you," but that isn't a veto. That's a simple statement of cause and effect.

Having the right and ability to make a certain choice doesn't relieve one of the consequences of that choice. In your scenario, your partner can make whatever choice she wants, she just might have to deal with consequences she won't be happy with. It's still her choice. But in a veto, that choice is taken away. In a veto, it isn't, "It's up to you, but here's what might happen if you do it." It's "It's up to ME what YOU do, and I say you can't do it, because I don't want you to."

The "It's up to you, but there might be consequences" isn't the problem. The "Your actions are up to ME, and I say no," is the problem, especially when a third party gets caught in the crossfire and has their relationship destroyed by someone who isn't directly involved in it.
 
Well this video has a very high number of nasty remarks. To be fair they do cite their reasons on why they oppose poly, so I think it is necessary to debunk their reasons but I should expect any "debate" about poly to have a strong majority of anti-poly people who feel offended by poly. Thus, it will result in many nasty remarks.

I don't think there is a great amount of self doubt. They are convinced that poly people are lying to themselves and deep down know that poly is a unhealthy lifestyle and polyamorists are truly unhappy. They claim they know this from polys' lack of "confidence" during the debate. The bottom line is no anti-poly can prove that you can not ROMANTICALLY love more than one person at the same time. Anti-polys are ONLY effective in expressing how they FEEL. They have the intuition that tells them loving more than one person is impossible, they do not KNOW this as a FACT.

The anger has to come from somewhere. I can say I am poly and list several reasons why mono doesn't work for me. But someone telling me they are mono doesn't make me angry. Why should I care? Why do they care? So why are they angry?
 
The anger has to come from somewhere. I can say I am poly and list several reasons why mono doesn't work for me. But someone telling me they are mono doesn't make me angry. Why should I care? Why do they care? So why are they angry?

For millennia, the dominant culture (initially manifest as religious in nature and structure) sought to constrain, contain and regulate erotic energy as one of its primary cultural and social functions. Now that most of us are in some sense modern, and religion has less of a hold on culture than it once did, the residue of this program remains in the social / cultural body of the collective. The same fearful attitude that religious people cultivated toward erotic energy lives on. And fear often leads to anger, and resentment -- even hatred. Not to mention feelings of moral obligation, such as the supposed moral obligation to continue containing and controlling erotic energy (often through shaming).

In other words, just because we're not quite so much under the thumb of religious authorities as we once were, their program of drenching erotic energy in fear and shame continues to shape the dominant culture. The concept of the internalization of the oppressor (the "inner cop" and the "inner prison guard / warden") may prove useful here.
 
KC43, I really do appreciate what you're saying. And I realise its a LOT to talk about.

Myself though, born in 1981 into a British culture of a time when there was almost no one who was practising any religion, until after the USA 9/11 attacks.
At that point after the 9/11 attacks I think the world ended.
Religion, God and such has since become more victorious in enforcing people to believe in some BS religion. Like seriously, how can anyone these days still believe in some mythical God.

Before I was born my parents had lost a young daughter to brain tumour.
Surely, no one, at all, even slightly, will offend me by saying things like how "that was God's plan".

If you believe in God then you are evil.

For me, ANY so-called "GOD" stopped existing when ANY child died from ANY natural cause. And if you still follow "God" then you really are evil. There is no bigotry about that opinion or theory, that is plain and utter common sense.
 
I'm not sure what God and religion have to do with a human being having, or trying to have, the right to control what another human being does. Could you explain?
 
I'm not sure what God and religion have to do with a human being having, or trying to have, the right to control what another human being does. Could you explain?
Any God and any religion is heavily influenced into influencing our way of life.
Fact = religious endocrine, its existed for thousands of years.
Not my opinion, its just fact. That is western civilisation.
It doesn't matter what I say there will always be people who disagree with this in some way or another. Which is why I've given up on being a British patriot.

The entire world is about to embark on extreme environmental hardship. And yet all we're concerned about is women gaining a career.

ALL life is doomed. Its sadly that simple.
 
The entire world is about to embark on extreme environmental hardship.

That is a fact. We don't yet fully understand just how severe it may be; but that is a fact.

And yet all we're concerned about is women gaining a career.

This is not a fact.

ALL life is doomed. Its sadly that simple.

This, too, is not a fact. All known life is imperilled, however. That is a fact.

Google "extinction rebellion".

Extinction Rebellion - Democracy Now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymoxkAoYCuo
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what God and religion have to do with a human being having, or trying to have, the right to control what another human being does. Could you explain?

Religious people have for millennia claimed Ultimate Authority In All Things (UAIAT). Religious people are very, very interested in what we do with our genitalia and how we experience pleasure in our existence. They'd like to have us experience pleasure only when suppressing or repressing our erotic energy, generally. It's a lucrative and powerful business for them. They need us to feel shame 24/7. It's what they do. It's how they accrue power.
 
Moralist Mono Logic Explained NOT Justified!!

The anger has to come from somewhere. I can say I am poly and list several reasons why mono doesn't work for me. But someone telling me they are mono doesn't make me angry. Why should I care? Why do they care? So why are they angry?

It is because they don't think polyamory and mono are equal moral preferences. Furthermore, they perceive the reasons that you provide for why mono doesn't work for you are just "EXCUSES" not to "commit" and at the very most have sex with ONLY your partner. Keep in mind these same people are not outraged by couples who go on TV and say they have a sexless and happy marriage. So commitment really means refrain from having sex with other people outside your serious relationship especially marriage.

They also focus on poly because they know plenty of their folks have "temptations" to have affairs. If we convince people who are already tempted to "cheat", then we are participating in influencing a lot of heartbreaks. This is where I think their anger comes from. I can only explain their stupidity. I can not justify it.
 
It is because they don't think polyamory and mono are equal moral preferences. Furthermore, they perceive the reasons that you provide for why mono doesn't work for you are just "EXCUSES" not to "commit" and at the very most have sex with ONLY your partner. Keep in mind these same people are not outraged by couples who go on TV and say they have a sexless and happy marriage. So commitment really means refrain from having sex with other people outside your serious relationship especially marriage.

They also focus on poly because they know plenty of their folks have "temptations" to have affairs. If we convince people who are already tempted to "cheat", then we are participating in influencing a lot of heartbreaks. This is where I think their anger comes from. I can only explain their stupidity. I can not justify it.

All of which is ironic when poly people actually commit to more than one person. I've had this conversation with mono people before.
 
Any new insights about views of infidelity by monos

All of which is ironic when poly people actually commit to more than one person. I've had this conversation with mono people before.
Have you ever asked them why sexless marriages are loyal? I know I provided my theory but I was wondering if you heard any different insight.
 
Have you ever asked them why sexless marriages are loyal? I know I provided my theory but I was wondering if you heard any different insight.

I've never asked why. I have to assume it's because there is more to marriage than just sex.
 
Having a "messy person list" is different, there you know ahead of time not to get involved with someone in the first place.

I really like that terminology. The ones that were on my wife's list are very logical, ones I don't think reasonable people would disagree about.

But there is an additional virtue my wife has that she is better than me about. She has way better radar. She seems to read people, to judge character with less blindness to bullshit. A better B.S. detector.

You know, just maybe I get distracted by the tight shorts.

If the hairs on the back of my wife's neck stand up when they meet, this is my honey's detection system blinking red: "Warning Will Robinson"!

She doesn't mind polyamory, but she would not want me mixed up with someone who is going to cause us harm.
 
Yet they freak out about sex outside of marriage

I've never asked why. I have to assume it's because there is more to marriage than just sex.

Yet they get in a tizzy fit if you have sex outside of marriage. Vanilla monos simply frustrate me! :mad:If sex is not that fucking important in marriage why is it so important to refrain from outside of marriage? It's somewhat a rhetorical question but if you have an answer, I more than willing to listen. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I am afraid to ask a anti-poly mono because he/she is going to give a glib but nonsensical answer.
 
Yet they get in a tizzy fit if you have sex outside of marriage. Vanilla monos simply frustrate me! :mad:If sex is not that fucking important in marriage why is it so important to refrain from outside of marriage?

The simple answer is that children result from intercourse. So if a woman strays she could get pregnant by her lover. Then there is an "illegitimate" child to deal with. In a legal marriage, the husband is deemed the legal father of his wife's child, even if he didn't provide the sperm to fertilize her egg.

Not so much now, but in the not so distant past, and for thousands of years before that, most men did not want to raise another man's biological child. This is why polygyny was legal in ancient Judaism, but polyandry wasn't. This is given a spin in Genesis, which was written down in about 700BCE. Yahweh cursed Eve when she took the fruit of knowledge from the tree, as encouraged by the serpent. Yahweh decreed to Eve (and all women): "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Obviously today with contraception, intercourse usually does not result in a child. But old standards die hard. Men still have a degree of possessiveness over their wives. It wasn't at all long ago that women were the legal possessions of their husband (as were their children). And if a woman is dependent on her husband to provide funds for her and their children to live on, it's a matter of practicality that she doesn't want him to have children by other women, draining the family bank account.
 
Yet they get in a tizzy fit if you have sex outside of marriage. Vanilla monos simply frustrate me! :mad:If sex is not that fucking important in marriage why is it so important to refrain from outside of marriage? It's somewhat a rhetorical question but if you have an answer, I more than willing to listen. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I am afraid to ask a anti-poly mono because he/she is going to give a glib but nonsensical answer.

Boy, in the context of sexless marriages and beta males this is soooo classic.

I'll call and raise you one. The sexless marriage where pornography is policed, your language, etc. And she's got boxes of romance novels. Goes ballistic if you look at them.

I don't live like that but I sure hear about it. It's amazing to me what guys in the wealthy nations, and only in very recent history, have decided to put up with. Logically, it is backwards.

Sex is medically proven to improve health, fight disease, add to longevity, raise happiness and satisfaction with life. The lack of it does the opposite of all those things.

No big deal? Oh, dying 10 years earlier, a broken hollow spirit, no biggie.

Being miserable! Yay!

I have found that some countries are producing marvelous relationship partners and others are producing narcissistic, spoiled, and privileged drama queens/kings. Not serious people, no gravitas. Tide Pod Challenge Darwin Award candidates.

I don't want to say more than that. Might offend some tender sensibilities. But where I live overseas, I am expected to behave exactly as I do. There is nothing to explain. It's plain vanilla poly. Our president will tell it to your face and laugh at you for fainting on your couch about it. His popularity with his people is unparalleled across the globe, and for just that reason. We sure love him.
 
Back
Top