I have written in the past about the concept of “veto” in polyamory; specifically, about relationship agreements, common in polyamorous relationship circles, which allow one’s partner to say “I don’t like you dating so-and-so. I forbid it. Your relationship with so-and-so is now over.”
I am no great fan of such rules, as long-time readers of this blog will no doubt be aware. Really long-time readers will also be aware that I have come from relationships which did permit veto power, and my thinking about veto has changed over time.
Today, something I read over in Greta Christina’s blog, in a post not directly related to polyamory at all, really crystallized for me just how much my attitude toward veto has changed. She wrote:
I’m not even going to get into the borderline-evil concept that people in relationships have veto power over their partners’ friends. This is just R-O-N-G Rong, stupidly and evilly wrong, in all but the most extreme circumstances. (“My partner is making friends with the man who tried to murder me.” Okay, you have veto power. Everyone else, shut up. Your partner is a free agent, with the right to make their own damn friends independent of you.)
Now, she was writing about friendships, not romantic relationships. But in thinking about the post, I realized something I haven’t put into words yet:
I have come to believe that veto power in romantic relationships, too, is a borderline-evil concept, that is in practice stupidly and evilly wrong.
I’m sure that’s probably pissed off at least some of you. Believe me, I know how seductive the idea of having a veto is, and how reassuring it can be. It calms all kinds of fears; it makes things seem less threatening; it gives you an out–if that other person starts stepping on your toes or making you feel displaced, one word and he’s gone.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s stupidly and evilly wrong.
Earlier today, in a different forum, I read a post by a person who wrote “I’m a big fan of veto power – I have four kids and nothing should be allowed to break up my primary relationship, since it will affect them more adversely than anyone else.”
This is probably the most common reason I’ve seen put forth for veto–the idea that it will prevent anyone else from breaking up a relationship. Emotionally, it feels seductive, and it seems to make perfect, brilliant sense; if I share my partner with Bill, and Bill comes to replace me in my partner’s heart, that’s bad, right? But as long as I have veto, I just say the word and Bill is gone. Problem solved; relationship saved; threat neutralized. Right?
Well, no.
For starters, if you’re relying on a rule to save your relationship, it’s already one-quarter doomed. A relationship agreement can not prevent a person from breaking a relationship agreement; if it could, no relationships would ever fail.
More to the point, though, it misses something I think is much more obvious, and much more important. It starts from the assumption that new relationships are a threat; if I allow my mate to become intimate with someone else, this will, of necessity, endanger me. Our relationship will surely fail if I don’t put it on a tight leash. Without a veto, this “polyamory” stuff is scary and hazardous and I need veto or else my partner will leave me.
So the million-dollar question is, if you believe that, why be polyamorous in the first place?
Because here’s a nasty little truth, you see: If you share your partner with Bill, and Bill comes to replace you in your partner’s heart, and you feel threatened and defensive so you order your partner to end the relationship…what makes you think your partner will obey? After all, by the time Bill has become a threat to your relationship, it’s already too late, right? If your relationship is so feeble that someone else can just slide in and usurp you that easily, why would your partner listen to you?
There is an assumption at work here which I find kind of interesting. It’s the assumption that one’s partner will, if left to his own devices, leave.
There’s a profound lack of trust there. The psychological comfort of veto is born of mistrust, insecurity, and fear. It is birthed in the fires of a belief that my partner does not want to be with me, not really. My partner is only with me because nobody better has come along; our relationship is tenuous; I can not trust my partner to make decisions which honor and respect our relationship. I need the power to compel my partner to be with me, because without that power, it’s all over.
In short, I must use veto power to save my relationship, because without veto, my partner won’t choose to save my relationship.
And that’s a little fucked up.
Here’s another idea to try on for size: If your relationship is healthy and good, you don’t need veto. If your relationship is not healthy and good, veto won’t save it.
Because that’s the way of it, seriously. People stay in relationships not because rules tell them to stay, but because they choose to stay. If your partner no longer loves you, vetoing Bill won’t make your partner love you. If your partner doesn’t want to be with you, then veto won’t make your partner want to be with you. If your partner wants to replace you with a better model, then veto won’t, and can’t, prevent that.
Sorry, but it’s true. Having a veto arrangement feels good; it makes you feel safer and more secure. But the feeling is a lie. It does not provide real safety or real security. In the end, your partner loves you, or doesn’t; your partner wants to be with you, or doesn’t; no rule will make the difference.
It might, however, chase your partner away.
If veto rules only offered the psychological illusion of security, and that’s all they did, they’d be fine. People wrap themselves in illusory security for the sake of their own mental health all the time.
But here’s the thing. Veto rules have consequences–some of them subtle, some not so subtle. And those consequences can corrode your partner’s relationships and your own.
I’ve talked before about the slow, far-reaching damage that can be done to a relationship by veto; how every time you kick someone your partner cares about out the door, you hurt your partner, and how the long-term accumulation of hurt can undermine and poison your relationship with your partner. In the end, that’s one of the single biggest factors in my own breakup with my ex-wife; the gradual accumulation of a series of hurts, inflicted, ironically, in the name of “protecting” our relationship. So I won’t go over that again.
What I will do, though, is something that I scarcely ever see done, and talk about things from the perspective of the third person, the one to whom the veto can, theoretically, be applied.
People seldom do this. I’ve seen this, in books and in conversations and in all the relationship rules I’ve heard about. Over and over, people approach polyamory with no though to the needs or feelings of the newcomer to the relationship.
And that’s a little fucked up, too.
When you’re terrified of losing something, it can be all too easy to become so wrapped up in that fear that you become blind to the consequences of your actions. If you truly believe that polyamory might mean the end of your relationship, it’s easy to chase security so hard that you become blind to your own selfishness. A veto arrangement is the equivalent of opening your front door to a guest, shotgun in the crook of your arm, and saying “Welcome! Come on in! Make one wrong move and I’ll splatter your brains out the back of your head. I just baked a pie; would you like some?”
Radical thought, here: The new people coming into your relationship are human beings. They have rights, and they are entitled to being treated with respect and compassion. They are not The Enemy. They are not faceless demons of your subconscious; they are not the physical embodiment of your insecurities and your abandonment fears. A little respect goes a long way.
To be the third partner in a relationship that permits veto is to have the sword of Damocles hanging over you. You think you’re insecure? You think that polyamory sounds threatening and scary to you? Imagine how it feels to the person who’s told, “One word from that person over there and I am obligated to kick you to the curb. That person has absolute right, without appeal, to take away anything you build with me, in an instant, for any reason or no reason at all. Just sayin’.” How well do you suppose those shoes fit?
You think you’d feel good if your lover said that to you?
One of the biggest fears that many folks face is the fear of being old news. Everyone who’s ever fallen in love knows the giddy rush that comes with a new relationship; there’s a time when your lover is bathed in light, and every blink of your lover’s eyes makes your heart go pitter-pat.
When you’ve been with someone for a while, the glow fades. Then along comes someone new, and you get to watch your lover fall in love all over again, only this time it’s not with you. You’re the old news now; you’re not all shiny any more. You’re the person who leaves dirty dishes in the sink or doesn’t take the trash out or does all those other not-perfect things that not-perfect humans do; and you can’t compete with the shiny, right?
And veto is the only way to cut through the shiny if things go seriously off the tracks, right?
Okay, let’s flip that around. You’re the new guy coming into a relationship; you don’t have anything yet. You’re confronted by a person who has a history with your new love; someone who your new love has dedicated time and effort with; someone with whom your new love shares a thousand smiles and a million little secret experiences, a long list of in jokes and pleasures and intimacies great and small. This person owns a piece of your new love’s heart that you can’t even begin to guess the shape of.
Who’s at a disadvantage now?
Yes, the new shiny is fun, while it lasts. Yes, it’s intoxicating. Yes, your lover is getting wrapped up in feelings that you’ve lost, and is going to be enraptured with this new person in ways that he’s not enraptured with you any more. Guess what? That’s nothing compared to what you have. The weight of history you share with your lover is something that new person feels more profoundly than you feel the lack of shiny, believe me.
Even if you do everything in your power to make that person feel welcome–and by the way, veto ain’t a way to do that–the fact is your shared history is something that is always going to be there. It is always going to be the subtext of that person’s relationship with your lover. You don’t even need to trot it out and rub the new guy’s face in it; it’s there. If anyone has cause to be intimidated, it’s him, not you.
The new shiny can, to be sure, make folks lose their heads and make decisions they might not otherwise make. I’ve seen many folks use this as a justification for a veto arrangement. “Hard to get past that new relationship energy,” I’ve been told. “Might need a veto power just to keep things from getting all whack and heading over the cliff.”
What about communication, instead? Not having veto does not mean not having a voice. You know how to talk to your lover, right? Do it!
Look, not everyone in the world is a good person, I know that. Not everyone acts in good faith; not every connection works out; not every relationship is positive and healthy. That’s the way it is. Every so often, it might come to pass that your lover makes a poor choice; good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgment.
Here’s a thought: Assume that your lover wants to make good choices. If you see problems, say so. Explain your concerns. Treat your partner like a functional adult.
One of the most evil, insidious things about veto is the way it infantilizes grown adults. Veto is, by its nature, the antithesis of maturity. Where adults make their own decisions, veto assumes that people cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves. Where adults try to choose what’s right for themselves and their partners; veto assumes that people must be held in check, or they will run off and destroy their existing relationships. Where adults exchange ideas freely as equals, veto terminates conversation. Veto arrangements deprive those who agree to them of the one quintessential defining element of adulthood: self-determination. They reduce the person bound by veto to the status of a child, and the person holding the veto to the status of a caretaker, not a partner in a relationship freely chosen between equals.
All that, and they don’t even do what they are intended to do. The person who obeys a veto is a person who is already committed to making the relationship work! Obeying a veto is painful–more painful than the person pulling it out is likely to realize.
If your partner is committed to making your relationship work, veto is unnecessary. If your partner is not committed to making your relationship work, veto is worse than useless.
It occurs to me that the desire for giving someone veto power should also be examined. Possibly this might make someone feel secure in that they need not let their OWN conscience be their guide (“I’ll just let my wife/bf be the judge”).
I’ve been in the unpleasant position of knowing my partner would LOVE for me to exercise a veto I absolutely will not give, because they don’t have the courage to make their own decision. Advice, yes. Veto, no, never. Talk about the fast-track to codependence…
I’ve been on the other end of this one… where I was offering an in-theory veto right that my partner refused to accept. And, in hindsight, I think that there was an element of this there – me wanting to absolve myself of the responsibility.
“Assume that your lover wants to make good choices.
Explain your concerns. Treat your partner like a functional adult”
I cant argue with that – its excellent advice.
I think there’s a certain amount of truth to that, really. A veto can become a passiv way of avoiding making a decision or taking responsibility for the decision, and that sounds kinda fucked up, too.
It occurs to me that the desire for giving someone veto power should also be examined. Possibly this might make someone feel secure in that they need not let their OWN conscience be their guide (“I’ll just let my wife/bf be the judge”).
I’ve been in the unpleasant position of knowing my partner would LOVE for me to exercise a veto I absolutely will not give, because they don’t have the courage to make their own decision. Advice, yes. Veto, no, never. Talk about the fast-track to codependence…
Well, you know I’m not a veto fan, meeself. And I am a parent.
I’m also of the opinion that divorces or lots of household strife really do a kid little good. (‘Course being in a quad that broke up by sections, my kids have been through two parents leaving already).
Even so…
The veto will do no good here. None. It doesn’t address the problem, but it might START one.
http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/03/18/ That’s my rant.
Well, you know I’m not a veto fan, meeself. And I am a parent.
I’m also of the opinion that divorces or lots of household strife really do a kid little good. (‘Course being in a quad that broke up by sections, my kids have been through two parents leaving already).
Even so…
The veto will do no good here. None. It doesn’t address the problem, but it might START one.
http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/03/18/ That’s my rant.
Thanks for posting this. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concise explanation of why veto is bad.
I also found it interesting that about a quarter of the way in, I was thinking,”huh. Veto is security theatre. Nifty.”
š
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concise explanation of why veto is bad.
Okay, that made me laugh.
Well, when you put it in perspective of the amount of ground covered by the very concept of veto, I think it was reasonably concise.
Not as concise as E=MC2 perhaps, but not bad š
Thanks for posting this. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concise explanation of why veto is bad.
I also found it interesting that about a quarter of the way in, I was thinking,”huh. Veto is security theatre. Nifty.”
š
Any thoughts on the use of a veto before a relationship starts? The “I’d rather you not sleep with that guy/girl” before anythings has happened.
There is a difference between one person looking at her partner’s potential love interest and seeing future problems, explaining why the new girl might not be such a great choice, and the partner agreeing that the potential damage is not worth the shiny and choosing to avoid that relationship himself …
and someone saying “I don’t care if you like her, I forbid you to have sex with her and that’s that”.
Whether the shared partner has already developed feelings for the new or not doesn’t prevent him from being treated like a child who cannot make his own decisions and requires someone else to tell him what to do.
It might hurt more emotionally to lose someone you already love, the long-term damage of repeatedly prohibiting your partner from experiencing new relationships even when he sees nothing wrong with them can hurt the pre-existing relationship just as much.
Agreed — I am opposed to veto power for existing relationships, but I do think that your partner should have some voice in saying “I am deeply uncomfortable with the person who you are thinking of involving our lives with.”
OTOH, the partner always has the option of saying “If you get involved with this person who I have serious reservations about, I can no longer continue my relationship with you.” It’s the ‘veto’ used properly — saying that it’s a hard limit for YOU, not a ‘rule’ imposed on the other person.
Thing is, you have to MEAN it — and it’s not something that you’d want to do more than once. A partner who consistently chooses relationships that make you so uncomfortable that you’d want to leave . . . means that you and your partner may have a fundamental issue that needs addressing.
But, yeah — if my husband tried to “veto” my existing relationships, I’d be out the door like a shot. I’m involved with real people, and I love and care about them, too.
— A <3
You’re confusing rules-based with consequence-based. A veto is saying “I forbid you”. A consequence is saying “this situation makes me so uncomfortable, the consequence could be me leaving” and then the partner MAKING HIS OWN DECISION to refrain or not based on the consequence.
If you’re not imposing a rule on someone else, it’s not a veto.
We’re essentially in agreement, but we have a difference in semantics.
*nodnod* I agree — we are in agreement that a rules-based veto is a bad thing for a reltaionship. I just wanted to point out that there *is* a difference between saying that something is a hard limit for you (which could result in you choosing to leave the relationship), and saying “You have to end this other involvement to maintain the relationship.”
Even though the result may be the same (the relationship is/is not maintained), one version allows the partner to make a decision, whereas the other version is making the decision FOR your partner.
— A <3
Yes, the word “veto” can be semantically loaded and risks being misunderstood. I personally still call it a “veto” if what I’m declaring is that I will likely (not necessarily, for one can never know for sure, but likely) be made too uncomfortable to remain happy in my relationship with a partner if that partner starts a relationship with a certain particular someone(s) else.
In committed partnerships– “marriages” in the meaningful sense if not the legal one– I strongly believe that this kind of “veto” is not only sensible but fully respectful and healthy.
To me, a marriage means that all partners to the marriage agree to make major decisions by full consensus. If anyone objects or has significant concerns about a major decision that will affect all partners, and reasonable discussion is unable to resolve the disagreement or ease the concerns, then that effectively ought to veto the decision.
To me, the above is a core expectation of a modern marriage. It is not appropriate– not a respectful partnership– if one person alone and unilaterally (not necessarily the same person in all cases) decides things such as what city the family will live in, how many children the family will have, who should take certain jobs, etc.
However, if the above rule were also applied to every minor decision, not just major decisions, that would be micromanaging and overly controlling of one’s spouse(s).
Does one spouse starting a relationship with somebody else constitute a major decision or a minor one? Personally, I consider such an action “very major,” with immediate and significant effects on everyone in the family and also the potential for considerably greater consequences to everyone as the relationship unfolds. To me, then, such a decision ethically demands full spousal consensus. That effectively means allowing any spouse to “veto” new relationships on a case by case basis.
Yes, the word “veto” can be semantically loaded and risks being misunderstood. I personally still call it a “veto” if what I’m declaring is that I will likely (not necessarily, for one can never know for sure, but likely) be made too uncomfortable to remain happy in my relationship with a partner if that partner starts a relationship with a certain particular someone(s) else.
That is one way to interpret “veto,” though it’s probably outside the definition of “veto” I’m using in this article.
Most often, explicit “veto” arrangements in a relationship, at least in the relationships I’ve seen and heard about, are relationships which give one party blanket power to forbid another party from some course of action. In that sense, the defining element of veto is the abrogation of the right to make a choice to someone else.
I get what you’re saying here, and at the end of the day I tend to think it’s really the most healthy way to run a relationship.
The kind of thing you’re talking about is less “I forbid you to do X” than it is “I am uncomfortable if you do X, and if I am sufficiently uncomfortable I may not be able to stay with you.” The distinction between the two is subtle, but I think it’s more important than just semantics. The first, more straightforward kind of veto removes one’s ability to make decisions; the second does not do that, it simply communicates the idea that one’s choice may have consequences. If I say to you “You may make the choice that seems best to you, but I reserve the right to leave if your choices make me uncomfortable,” I’m still respecting your right to choose, and not seeking to make the choice for you.
I’m not sure the term “veto,” at least in the meaning of “forbid,” is ever a good idea.
I’m certainly on board with the notion that everyone should be able to speak up about things that impact them. If I’m starting nw relationship, my existing partner can and should say “Hey, I don’t really like her, and here’s why” if they see a problem.
But I wouldn’t interpret that as a partner forbidding the relationship.
Now, if I care about the happiness of my partners (which I do) and I respect their judgement (which I do), I’d listen to what they had to say. Ultimately, though, I would take their words as advice, not veto; the responsibility for making the final call rests with me.
The defining element of “veto” as I use the word here is that the final call rests with the person making the veto, not the person being vetoed. (You can argue that the final call always rests with the person being vetoed because the person being vetoed can always just say “STFU” and leave the relationship–which sometimes happens–but that’s not the way veto agreements are intended.)
In fact, my partner and I have dealt with this. Before I explain, let me say that I believe in communication and discussion – NOT veto power.
He was entertaining deepening a relationship with someone he knows from online. We discussed it, and decided she would not be a good “permanent” third because of things she chooses to be involved with, but that she may be a good “play partner” without the deeper involvement. We’re on the same page when it comes to looking for more “permanent” partners so this discussion came about effortlessly and naturally.
I would never dream of “vetoing” anyone and I don’t feel such a thing is necessary if you have full trust flowing both ways and therefore communicate freely. I feel secure that my partner won’t “replace” me. That’s not what it’s all about, at least in our relationships.
L
Any thoughts on the use of a veto before a relationship starts? The “I’d rather you not sleep with that guy/girl” before anythings has happened.
There is a difference between one person looking at her partner’s potential love interest and seeing future problems, explaining why the new girl might not be such a great choice, and the partner agreeing that the potential damage is not worth the shiny and choosing to avoid that relationship himself …
and someone saying “I don’t care if you like her, I forbid you to have sex with her and that’s that”.
Whether the shared partner has already developed feelings for the new or not doesn’t prevent him from being treated like a child who cannot make his own decisions and requires someone else to tell him what to do.
It might hurt more emotionally to lose someone you already love, the long-term damage of repeatedly prohibiting your partner from experiencing new relationships even when he sees nothing wrong with them can hurt the pre-existing relationship just as much.
Vetoes aren’t for me, but it’s not because I think they’re evil and wrong — it’s because I cannot honestly say, “If you want me to end something, I will end it.” Some people can honestly say that. Some people really do put their primary relationship that far above their other relationships. They are really able to say, “I would like to be with this person, but my being with this person is doing great emotional harm to you, and so I will no longer be with this person and not suffer great emotional harm.” As long as they tell their secondaries in advance that that’s the deal, I don’t see the problem.
Also, fear of abandonment is not the only possible reason for a veto.
That’s an important point to consider, MHO. I think I brushed up against it in my comment below, but it could probably stand a bit more attention.
I think Tacit’s still on track with, “If your partner’s commited to making your relationship work, veto is unneccessary” and probably harmful, because a functional relationship will have more mutual methods of addressing ALL the problems which a less-functionl one might be tempted to “solve” with veto.
Fear of abandonment isn’t the only possible reason for a veto, but here’ shte million-dollar question: Can you name another reason for veto which can not be discharged simply by communication in a way that makes a person’s feelings clear but doesn’t forbid a course of action? That is, what function does veto serve that “Honey, look, this is making me unhappy, here’s why it’s making me unhappy, please think about that when you make your choices” does not serve?
I just think you’re misunderstanding what people mean when they say they have a “veto.” Let’s say my sweetie and I agree on a veto. What that essentially means is, “If you tell me one of my relationships is making you very unhappy, I agree to end it, because I prioritize your happiness above my own, or because your happiness is so central to my own, or because your role in my life is of the utmost importance, etc. etc.” What function does that serve? It allows people to have a general idea of what may happen in the future. Which is nice. Especially if you’re strongly invested in couplehood, which a lot of poly people are.
I suppose I don’t see anything wrong with a “veto” that is freely offered. The vetoes that seem to lead to drama are the ones that are acceded to under duress.
I just think you’re misunderstanding what people mean when they say they have a “veto.” Let’s say my sweetie and I agree on a veto. What that essentially means is, “If you tell me one of my relationships is making you very unhappy, I agree to end it, because I prioritize your happiness above my own, or because your happiness is so central to my own, or because your role in my life is of the utmost importance, etc. etc.”
I guess I don’t see a difference between that and an agreement that says “tell me how you feel, and because your feelings are important to me, I will make my decisions accordingly.”
Most often, when I have seen people use veto power in a relationship (and certainly when i have had lovers ask me for veto power in my relationships), what they are talking about is something very, very simple: “I have the unilateral power to forbid you to be in or continue a relationship as I see fit.”
I see a distinction between that and “I will tell you how I feel about what you are doing, and let you choose as you see fit; I believe that my feelings are important to you and that you will make choices that honor my feelings.”
Do you see the distinction?
What function does that serve? It allows people to have a general idea of what may happen in the future. Which is nice. Especially if you’re strongly invested in couplehood, which a lot of poly people are.
I submit that that function is an illusion. If Alice ad Bob are a couple, Alice may want veto power so that she has a feeling of safety and continuity with Bob, but the feeling that veto gives her–powerful and reassuring as it is–is a myth. If Bob truly is honorable and truly is dedicated to Alice, then Alice does not need the unilateral authoority to forbid Bob to do something, because Bob cares about Alice’s happiness and will freely choose to do things that maximize Alice’s happiness. All she needs to do is communicate.
If, on the other hand, Bob is a bastard sunuvabitch who doesn’t give a toss about Alice, then if Alice does pull out her veto, what makes her think that Bob’s not going to say “STFU, I’ll do what I want to do”?
That is, a veto (in the sense of “unilateral ability to forbid a course of action”) only works if the people agreeing to it are honorable–and if the people are honorable, it’s not necessary.
I suppose I don’t see anything wrong with a “veto” that is freely offered.
You get into a sticky wicket here, though. If Alice and Bob are a couple, and Alice gets involved with Bill, is Bill a free participant in that agreement? After all, it arguably affects Bill more than it affects anyone else!
And that still leaves the problem that veto can destroy the very security it is intended to preserve. Whether they are devoted to the idea of couplehood or not, if Bob pulls out his veto power often enough, he’s going to undermine his relationship with Alice eventually. Even if Alice agreed to it. When people are involved in romantic relationships, ending those relationships hurts. Hurt your lover enough times–even if your lover 100% agreed to it freely, even if you believe that your motivations are faultless and your reasons are just–and you’re going to damage your relationship.
but a person *choosing* to end a relationship because of the “great emotional harm” that relationship will cause a partner is not the same thing as said partner saying “I will now end your relationship for you because you are unable and/or unwilling to end it yourself. I have the power to make you do something you will not choose to do.”
Also, telling the secondary in advance “your relationship will never be important enough and will always hinge on someone else’s opinion of it. It doesn’t matter how you or I feel about us in the future, you are completely irrelevant in this relationship because you do not posess the power to have any input in how this relationship looks. It has been decided before we ever met what your relationship with me will look like and if this bothers you in the future, that’s too bad because I told you about it up front” does not excuse this kind of unethical behaviour. And that is exactly what a veto says to the new secondary.
That is completely disrespectful to the secondary as a human being, not just the real priority a “primary” relationship might naturally have over a “secondary” relationship. Even secondaries deserve to have some input into how their relationships look. It doesn’t matter if the secondary agrees to a secondary relationship, the veto effectively says the secondary’s input is irrelevant.
No one has the power to end a relationship for someone else. Period.
That’s kind of the point. And I’m done repeating myself
So vetoes are evil, but vetoes don’t exist?
Right. Makes perfect sense.
You’re deliberately misunderstanding me. I’ve said several times that the illusion of power is part of the problem.
Now please fuck off and leave me alone
You’ve ordered me to leave you alone, so I clearly have no choice but to comply!
No one has the power to end a relationship for someone else. Period.
I agree. In fact,t hat’s the central thesis of my entire post.
I think one confounding issue is that people will often use the concept of being able to express themselves inside a relationship as “veto.” Veto in its purest sense–and, in my experience, veto as it is most often put into practice in the context of polyamorous relationships–is exactly what you’re talking about here: the power to end another person’s relationship unilaterally.
It is this concept, the power to end another person’s relationship unilaterally, that I describe as “borderline-evil, that is in practice stupidly and evilly wrong.”
T other things that you and several of the other commenters have talked about, such as the right to say “Look, this is hurting me, if you care about my happiness it’s important for you to hear what I say,” I see as distinct from veto. Perhaps it’s important that I make more clear that I’m talking about veto in a specific and narrowly-defined sense of the word.
Vetoes aren’t for me, but it’s not because I think they’re evil and wrong — it’s because I cannot honestly say, “If you want me to end something, I will end it.” Some people can honestly say that. Some people really do put their primary relationship that far above their other relationships. They are really able to say, “I would like to be with this person, but my being with this person is doing great emotional harm to you, and so I will no longer be with this person and not suffer great emotional harm.” As long as they tell their secondaries in advance that that’s the deal, I don’t see the problem.
Also, fear of abandonment is not the only possible reason for a veto.
Thank you for a well written, insightful post, and giving me cause to examine my own past and future motives with this particular clause.
I mostly reserve it for someone I consider a drama-whore or/and unstable, but I’m going to have to think on this more.
Thank you for linking to this.
tacit this was an eloquent and thoughtful dissemination of some things that I had not colesced into being. Thank you.
Thank you for a well written, insightful post, and giving me cause to examine my own past and future motives with this particular clause.
I mostly reserve it for someone I consider a drama-whore or/and unstable, but I’m going to have to think on this more.
thank you for sharing!
Great post. I’ve been trying to figure out how to explain my feelings on the idea of “veto power” in a poly relationship. You really summed it up for me. Thanks!
thank you for sharing!
What about the idea of veto being the safeword equivalent for the poly world? What are your thoughts on that?
(drifting in from…)
I think the similarity is purely coincidental. Consider:
1. Safewords are generally temporary; veto is generally permanent.
2. Safewords are for the heat of the moment; veto is (somewhat) considered – passion vs drama.
3. Safewords involve only the two (usually) immediately involved. Veto is imposed from the outside by a third party.
Just because they’re both alternative relationship controls doesn’t mean they work anything alike.
Wonderful breakdown. Things that superficially resemble eachother are often confused for each other, particularly when the intent is misunderstood.
For example, a flogging in a BDSM context has absolutely nothing to do with slavery or abuse, all superficial similarities aside.
Asking my partner to stop doing something that physically or emotionally hurts me beyond the “good pain” is very, very different from me ordering my partner to stop doing something to someone else when both he and she want to do it. One is self-preservation that does not impact anyone else, the other is treating my partner as a child who cannot make his own decisions and the metamour as a non-human who doesn’t deserve to have any say in her relationship.
OMG! *icon love*
And just for that, and for YOUR icon, listen to the song “George”, by The Wet Spots.
Not work safe, of course. Unless your workplace is GGG.
Oh, that’s *awesome*!!!
OMG that’s AWESOME! I’m familiar with The Wet Spots but I hadn’t heard that song.
1. Safewords are generally temporary; veto is generally permanent.
From experience, I dispute that statement – once a safeword is used ALL action is stopped and a discussion takes place, a decision is made whether the action will continue then, or ever.
2. Safewords are for the heat of the moment; veto is (somewhat) considered – passion vs drama.
Safewords can be in the heat of the moment. They can also be called when one sees something is off, or wrong, (hey, my toe is stuck) when you feel badly (I suddenly don’t feel great) or there’s some sort of concern (there’s a bee in the room, and you haven’t seen it).
3. Safewords involve only the two (usually) immediately involved. Veto is imposed from the outside by a third party.
Safewords are used on scenes with any number of people involved. There are even ‘safewords’ in the form of a designated and trained monitor (Dungeon Monitor) who are permitted to, in effect, call ‘safeword’ on someone else entirely and interfere/ intercede/ assist with someone’s actions that may be unsafe, cause trouble, cause something unexpected to happen. I can call ‘safeword’ on that couple over there by approaching the DM and pointing out my concern for him/her to address.
My thought was that it’s possible that a ‘veto’ doesn’t have to be an ugly drama steeped control. Maybe if we could look for the positives, and the commonalities/ similarities, maybe it’s possible for a ‘veto’ to be more akin to a the security of a safeword.
Just a half baked thought.
A safeword (and I assume you’re using that in a BDSM context as in standard “green yellow red” kind of thing) is designed so the person, usuaully the bottom of the equation, has “end control” over what is happening to their body during a scene, and the top has a final reference, if you will.
Veto, on the other hand, is when you want to do something and someone else says no, you can’t do it, and that’s the law.
Very different context, and application as I see it.
You have the right to say, “RED! Do not cover me with cucumbers and sing the Star Spangled Banner!” because it’s your body, even if it effects the people around you in whatever way.
But do you really have the right to tell another living being, especially one you love and respect, what they can and cannot do with their body, mind, heart and soul? When they willingly share such things with you as well?
A pull for veto just smacks of the illusion of control, which often does more harm than good. It is a false sense of security that can keep you from recognizing the parts of your life that may need focus. ANd you may also be robbing others of similar opportunities. I do not think I would wish such a limited life on people I disliked, much less those I love.
What do you think about such things?
“What do you think about such things?”
I use a safeword because it is my body, but also because it’s my responsibility to my partner to call attention to things that require a safeword. I safeword not because I have ‘end control’ but because I see things differently than he will, even if he’s the most attentive top in the world. I safeword because not doing so can cause damage to my self, my mind, our connection, our communication, and our relationship. If I fail to safeword when I experience the need, I play a significant part in the damage to ‘us’. In our intimacy, I am given the right to call a stop to what he is doing, just as I have given that right to him precicely BECAUSE we willingly share those things so deeply and because that sharing of body, mind, heart and soul interact with me and mine.
I don’t use a safeword lightly. There are still those in the ‘community’ that argue it is weak to use a safeword, though it is growing in acceptance, especially for new or inexperienced couples. I’ve used it twice in 10 years of intense situations. I don’t use it lightly because it is significant it’s the pause button on EVERYTHING, no questions asked, in order to take time out to talk.
In considering the role of a safeword in this context, it would seem to me that ‘veto’ could be used in a similar manner – a poly safeword. My thought is that perhaps ‘veto’ does not have to be an ugly thing; perhaps it can be the pause button that creates, unquestioningly, a pause, and talk time – especially for those new to poly relationships.
*shrugs*
Just a half baked thought.
As you’ve explained it, maybe some folks would be happy having a safeword in a poly format – one that means “right now, can’t deal, pause, I’m overwhlemed, get back to ya on it all” and, for that person, they can drop out “safely” of whatever’s going on at that moment- however, I think “veto” might not be it, simply because of what it means: I exercise power of you to stop everything now, and that is law. So… How about “Clockwork Orange” as a nice safe word? lol I mean, how many times does that ever come into casual, every day conversation? š
Thanks for the response, and the thought you put into it.
And thank YOU, for posing the question, it’s caused me to think critically about this stray thought, and to articulate the concepts to my partner.
Discussion is always good! š
Agreed. I think more folks should be open to the process, and it’s a shame so many feel threatened by it. This mechanism of debate, for lack of a better way to put it, has served me very well in my life. To be able to put a concept or idea on the table, gather a bunch of folks who are all quite different from me and each other, and laughingly yell “FIRE AWAY!” is amazing. To shoot at a theory until you have something living and breathing? That’s valuable. Saves a lot of time, effort and energy, too.
If you don’t mind and when you have time, I’d like to continue this discussion if you’re okay with that. I have some ideas and questions I wanted to put out there and yell “FIRE AWAY!” and yoru brain is a most welcome addition.
Unfortunately, debate is an art many have lost the skill for, in general. It’s a shame, really.
I’m always interested in good debates, and nice meaty subjects that keep my brain going. I’d be happy to continue the discussion – though you may appreciate it taking place in your virtual space, rather than mine (I’m open to either, but am also cognisant that my LJ won’t be comfortable for everyone to experience, so I shall leave it to you to determine if you’d like to ‘friend me’).
Wow, that is really thoughtful of you, thanks so much!
I gather you’re BDSM-oriented. If so, you’ll find me kink-aware, kink-friendly and hopefully somewhat not kink-ignorant, so it should be all good and I look forward to being able to have more discussions in such topics. Perhaps I will read your blog over a ncie cup of tea or two over the holiday week end – muhaha! š
Oh, if I’ve misunderstood, please let me know!
However, I wanted to do two thigns – 1) continue the poly discussion here (I gots questions and thoughts!) and B – also invite your thoughts and ideas ito the post I’m writing in my blog.
It’s about control, which seems to be the year’s theme as I look around me (maybe it’s the challenge of having new eyes to look at an “old” subject, or I could be just letting the monkeys type again! lol)… Several folks who choose to jump into the flying monkey sessions on my blog are kink-involved, and that can be an aspect to consider.
In any event, I will proceed with 1 next and eventually post B. You are soooooo invited. š
Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Okay, it might be a bit confusing, but I’m jumping back up here again. (Jump with me!) I’d like to discuss some things you bring up so I can better understand, and it may seem like I’m taking a tangental left but hang with me here. (Oh and I do have tea right now – ha!:) )
I have great familiarity with the concept and use of safewords in the BDSM context. For the record, I’m not of the opinion it’s weak to word on something. But in my mind, this talk was about using the word veto as a safety factor in poly relations, and I’d like to go deeper on this, and background might help us do better here.
You should probably know the whole veto concepts pisses me off, and just leaves me… well… sad, then empty.
It implies that someone can “make” me not do something I am doing. It takes away my free will when that wasn’t or perhaps shouldn’t be part of the deal. It means I am not trusted to make decisions. It means I must live in fear that my partner will “veto” someone I love, or am coming to love, and suddenly I have an ultimatum on my hands. Or that I may be vetoed out because someone else has a hangnail they ain’t takin’ care of.
Vetoes aren’t always honest, meaning not everyone calls it what it is. It’s uncomfortable. Some people imply it, some deny it, but it is what it is in any language: Someone trying to control you.
Understand, I really don’t like ultimatums. Giving me an ultimatum is a lot like telling me you don’t want to be involved with me anymore. It means you’re trumping my ass. It means you think you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do, and who I can and cannot do it with. While I want the input of others, my mind is mine to use or abuse, and those decisions belong to me.
So yeah, I feel it’s my life, one I’ve chosen to share with you, and the instant I even sniff an ultimatum, it’s like this reflex mechanism that causes me to literally start ticking off the reasons why I’m with you in the first place and, more often than not, you’ll see the back of me.
And it will hurt. Not just hurt you, but me. Just cos I’m walking away and you can only see the back of me don’t mean I’m not crying when I’m doing it. And, frankly, I think the whole thing sucks.
I may not like everyone you choose to spend your time with, and I don’t expect to. It’s just not realistci to like everyone and, quite frankly, sometimes it’s internal and all about what someone represents to you rather than who they are, and often says more about where you’re at than what’s actually going on externally.
But own it. Say “I need to figure out what this is about for me” and then go do it. Do the real work? Enjoy the real rewards. Take short cuts? You cheat yourself, and everyone around you of the experiences they’re in it for.
Yeah, life’s messy. Safewording can be handy in any arrangements. My sister jokes with me and says my life safeword is a phrase called “I dunno, I’ll get back to ya” and she’s probably right. But guess what? I will get back to you. It might take five years, but it will happen. And I don’t need to engage the illusion of control or the elements of manipulation by pulling a veto to do it.
If I’m with you, I’m with you. Show me who you are so I can better love you, even if it means somebody walks away. We’re (usually) richer and betetr for it all in the end, right?
Now, what do you mean by “poly safeword”? Do you mean “a time out for you to get yourself together”, or do you mean “your partner stops everything going on that moment, even if it means disregarding someone else he or she is involved with”? Or is it something else entirely, which is wholly possible as at times I am dense like flourless chocolate torte. š
Okay, ready? NOW FIRE AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Woo hoo! š
PS: Your honest responses are what I’m after, whether you think I will like them/agree or not, and I thank you for them in advance. (I smile gently here.)
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Jumping with you…
Verb
1. to refuse consent to (a proposal, such as a government bill)
2. to prohibit or forbid: the Sports Minister vetoed the appointments [Latin: I forbid]
“It implies that someone can “make” me not do something I am doing.”
The reality I see is that we are ‘made’ to do things all the time. I choose to acknowledge this, and that others have influence upon me and my choices. My choices also influence them.
“It takes away my free will when that wasn’t or perhaps shouldn’t be part of the deal.”
The concept of free will bothers me greatly, in part because I often see it used as an excuse for being allowed to do as one pleases when one pleases. “I can express hate because I have free will” or “I can do x because I have FREEDOM”.
I’m told it’s a very Canadian way of looking at things… the idea of boundries to my rights. For instance, my right to free speach ends when it begins to infringe on another’s right to comfort, safety and life free from harm/persecution etc. Specifically, in my relationship, my rights to do as I please end when they begin to interfere with his needs, and should be given careful consideration when they interfere with his wants. I choose that set of rights and considerations when making the choice to build a relationship with my partner.
“It means I am not trusted to make decisions. It means I must live in fear that my partner will “veto” someone I love, or am coming to love, and suddenly I have an ultimatum on my hands. Or that I may be vetoed out because someone else has a hangnail they ain’t takin’ care of.”
Yes, if a veto is an ultimatum. I think it may be a logic error to assume that the definition of veto is an ultimatum. If I refuse to consent to my partner’s desire to dip me a tub of watermelon that is not an ultimatum. It is a veto, certainly (definition 1 above)
I don’t like ultimatums. They have no place in a mature adult relationship, ultimatums are something that children give, in the school yard sandbox. Communication theorists, and relationship councillors alike will tell you that the communication loop breaks when encountering the wall of an ultimatum. It is communication suicide.
Having said that, it is perfectly valid for someone to state their needs and explain that their needs are important enough that if they can not met, they will ‘vote with their feet’. That is a responsible and mature way to ensure your needs are met, if all other options fail. It is perfectly valid to refuse consent to something as well.
Because I am invested in and interested in preserving my primary relationship, I’m not interested in the idea of ‘veto’ being an ultimatum.
So, all this to say, the idea that a veto is an ultimatum confuses me. ‘Refusing consent to’ is not the same as ‘an ultimatum’. Perhaps instead of using the word ‘veto’ which has many confusing and maybe incorrect connotations/assumptions/ definitions, the use of a ‘poly safeword’ might be a compromise.
A poly safeword might be a time-out, it might be a ‘halt’ called on anything further with those involved, until discussions take place, it might be a barameter of someone’s distress. BDSM safewords are used for many different reasons as well, but the unifying concept is that everything stops until the talking takes place.
Ultimately a safeword is not an illusion of control, or an element of manipulation. A safeword is a life preserver for the individuals and relationship, it is a tool to ensure the healthy preservation of communication, it is a clearly defined and understood mechanism to assist, not destroy. The moment one is using the safeword as an excuse or shield for manipulation it is no longer a safeword, but plain ol’ manipulation.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Regarding your comments on free will, I think we rather agree.
I’m one of “those people” who believe the States need an accompanying Bill of Pesponsibilites to go with the privileges the Bill of Rights affords. (In short? You’re right to punch ends at my nose.) By no means am I using this argument to negate personal responsibility, although many of my arguments may infer one already has that firmly in place.
Barring extremeties (such as the previously mentioned risky behaviour scenarios like barebacking with HIV – who does this btw? lol Wow!) I’m talking about the power of veto here.
Having been on both sides of that coin (as the person who got a veto without it being called that, and as a person who people have come to with vetoes before – btw, that word just looks really wrong spelled out like that v-e-t-o-e-s, whew) I think I may have something to offer on the matter.
In my minf, if you need the power of a real veto, you’re probably not ready to take on what you’re contemplating. Because veto is about the power to be able to halt everything with a snap because you say so. I don’t mean in the context of a scene as a safeword, I mean in open relations, or even vanilla ones.
I think if you can’t say to someone – even in a messy mascara running snot bubbles coming out your nose kinda way which would translate into “Hey, wtf is that? Dude, we so gotta talk, lemme blow my nose, k?” – I’m not feeling so great about this, can we talk? then there’s something wrong.
Veto 2. to prohibit or forbid
Nobody has the right to a veto with me. Just trust me, I’ll earn it, and talk to me. Or else what’s the point?
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
I think we’ve found the distinction then, even approaching it from two different perspectives.
Both of us seem more comfortable with the first definition ‘to refuse consent to’ but not ‘to prohibit or forbid’. The defining difference between the two is that the first, I have responsibility and choice over me, and in the second, I am extending that responsibility and choice over onto another person.
So that begs the question: do those who are uncomfortable with the definition #2 have issues, difficulties, problems or concerns about control? Is the core of this about control?
*grins*
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
I believe you have the right to decide “not for me, ain’t gonna do it” for yourself, but you don’t have the right to look at your partner’s relationship with someone else and decide “nope, ain’t gonna happen, end of it cos I say so.”
That’s been the bottom line for me, and what veto means, spoken or otherwise. And it’s not that I’m uncomfortable with any definition, it’s that the word veto means you get to control my life, and my relations with others, and the other person involved doesn’t get a say in what’s rightfully theirs to call.
In short, you don’t get to pull the plug on my girlfriend. We decide that, not you. WHat you decide is whether or not you want to be involved with me and how, and that is definitely your right.
It’s about empowerment and trust. If I am with you, I want you to be the best you that you can be. Sometimes, I guess you walk through tough times to do it, but you come out of it hopefully better and stronger. Not everything feels so great sometimes, ya know? But that’s okay. I think most experiences have value.
My problem with veto is the same as “we swing, but our limits are we don’t love them or kiss them on the lips”. O-kay. The illusion of control is not the answer to the reality of fear and often gives the false sense of security that leaves your backside wide open to what can really damage what you’re building. Not a super good way to be proactive, or build the kind of flexibility and good will it takes to navigate tougher times.
A friend of mine reminded me of somethign I’d said a few years ago. “If poly means many loves, then where’s the love in veto?” Because we all matter or we don’t, and if we don’t I don’t wanna do it cos there’s no damn point.
On the plus side, think of it this way: If you were my girlfirend’s girlfriend and I didn’t like having you around for whatever reason, I would not turn around and tell her “You can’t see that woman anymore” and you wouldn’t lose someone you love because I didn’t take her up on her offer for veto power. Isn’t that nice to know?
By the way, I’m surprised and pleased to hear from you again. Thanks for writing.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Both of us seem more comfortable with the first definition ‘to refuse consent to’ but not ‘to prohibit or forbid’.
I refuse to consent to anyone being able to prohibit or forbid me from being involved with someone else I choose to be involved with, said the Chesire cat. š
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Having said that, it is perfectly valid for someone to state their needs and explain that their needs are important enough that if they can not met, they will ‘vote with their feet’. That is a responsible and mature way to ensure your needs are met, if all other options fail. It is perfectly valid to refuse consent to something as well.
I’m really not sure how this is any different from an ultimatum.
You state your needs, your partner doesn’t meet your needs, you leave. That’s what an ultimatum is–if you don’t meet my needs, then I’ll leave you.
‘Refusing consent to’ is not the same as ‘an ultimatum’.
I like the way you put this, because that’s how vetoes have worked in my relationships. Basically the vetoer is saying, “I no longer consent to allowing the other relationship negatively affect my relationship.” There’s still an underlying ultimatum there, however: end the relationship, or I will have to leave.
I don’t think ultimatums are terrible things. I think using them willy nilly is bad. But everyone on this planet has limits, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying, “This is my limit–cross it and I will have to leave.”
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
“I’m really not sure how this is any different from an ultimatum.”
I see this as ‘refusing consent to’ which is a ‘right’ that everyone has.
Cause and effect exists. You do this, and I’ll do this. Poke me, and I’ll feel it, maybe even move away from it. The fact that I have that right to move away isn’t an ultimatum. Nor is telling you that I may need to move away from your poke an ultimatum.
To use me as an example, I need to trust my partner deeply, in part because of how our relationship works and the things we do. If that trust is broken the cause to that effect might be that I have to choose whether to stay in the relationship, or not. An ultimatum, IMO, is more about weilding that choice maliciously, or manipulating the other’s choices by rubbing their nose in the fact that I have this choice.
Laying one’s cards on the table, informing the other person that the issue is important enough that the cause and effect may well be you exercising your choice to refuse to consent to the situation, is valid in discussion between adults.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
An ultimatum, IMO, is more about weilding that choice maliciously, or manipulating the other’s choices by rubbing their nose in the fact that I have this choice.
Ah okay, thanks for clarifying.
We don’t disagree in general, we just define “ultimatum” differently.
In considering the role of a safeword in this context, it would seem to me that ‘veto’ could be used in a similar manner – a poly safeword. My thought is that perhaps ‘veto’ does not have to be an ugly thing; perhaps it can be the pause button that creates, unquestioningly, a pause, and talk time – especially for those new to poly relationships.
I think it depends a great deal on the context in which this safeword might be used. One thing which does concern me is that calling a unilateral halt, even a temporary one, on someone else’s relationship may damage that relationship, and even in a limited context it can create a profoundly disempowering effect for the third person involved. No matter how you slice it, if Alice and Bob are involved, and Bob calls even a safeword “timeout” on Bill’s relationship, Bob is unilaterally exerting control over Alice and Bill, rather than negotiating with Alice and Bill. Bill might reasonably find this offputting at best.
I tend to agree witht he posts above that veto doesn’t really map onto safewords well.
I tend to see, and use, safewords in a much more limited scope or context. A better way to map safewords onto relationship agreements might be to say to a partner, “Look, I don’t want you to have unbarriered sex with so-and-so until we’ve had a chance to talk about STD testing and sexual history,” rather than “I forbid you to see so-and-so”. That is, it’s a way to put the brakes on a particular expression, for a specific reason directly related to health and well-being.
What about the idea of veto being the safeword equivalent for the poly world? What are your thoughts on that?
As someone who’s been in a polyamorous relationship for nine years, I think this line alone, sums it up best.
As someone who’s been in a polyamorous relationship for nine years, I think this line alone, sums it up best.
I think a veto to a relationship that already exists is stupid. You’ve outlined the many reasons already why.
Personally I think the only time it would be appropriate is when it’s a relationship that hasn’t started yet (or has barely started). Though I think just saying “I don’t like X. Don’t date her/have sex with her/etc” is radically different from “X makes me [bad feeling], I don’t like the idea of you dating X.” I think most reasonable poly folk would be able to take that information and examine whether or not their partner’s feelings are true and/or bother them. And then go from there.
But just saying “Stop!” and the OSO is gone… rubbish.
Just so. Particularly when you say “I think most reasonable poly folk would be able to take that information and examine whether or not their partner’s feelings are true and/or bother them. And then go from there.”
That opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms, though, which might be fun to pursue. So if you don’t mind me picking at that thread a bit…
A common thing I’ve heard in the poly community is “your feelings are always valid.” I don’t believe that’s true, at least not for a definition of “valid” that means “truthful.” For example, i think it’s quite possible for a person to have a feeling of insecurity–“I think you want to leave me for Bob, because Bob is smarter than I am,” for example–and to have that feeling be completely false in the sense that the person’s partner really doesn’t want to leave him for Bob.
So I think that the notion of saying “I feel bad about X, therefore you should stop X” can be a very dangerous one. I think that a reasonable person will say “Okay, let’s talk about why you feel that way, and see if we can get at the roots of whatever underlies those feelings,” but I don’t think a reasonable person should necessarily be expected to say “Okay, I won’t do X any more”.
I think there may be situations where one person says “I feel bad when you do X” and the other person may continue to do X anyway, even if the second person genuinely cares about the first person’s feelings. I think that a wise and compassionate person will seek to alleviate the fears of his partner, and will be willing to do whatever he can to allay those bad feelings, but that doesn’t always necessarily mean stopping X.
And I also think that there are situations where one person can say “I have bad feelings if you do X, so stop doing X”, and the other person may actually do more harm than good by not doing X. When dealing especially with fears and insecurities, there are times that giving in to them or steering a relationship around them rather than dealing with them directly actually makes them stronger.
I think a veto to a relationship that already exists is stupid. You’ve outlined the many reasons already why.
Personally I think the only time it would be appropriate is when it’s a relationship that hasn’t started yet (or has barely started). Though I think just saying “I don’t like X. Don’t date her/have sex with her/etc” is radically different from “X makes me [bad feeling], I don’t like the idea of you dating X.” I think most reasonable poly folk would be able to take that information and examine whether or not their partner’s feelings are true and/or bother them. And then go from there.
But just saying “Stop!” and the OSO is gone… rubbish.
um…
YES
entered a quad with veto power, other woman took over, I veto’d. I’m now divorced, her husband split, and her and my ex have been together for 2 years.
Veto wasn’t going to save anything and truly only gave me a false sense of security when I should have been planning an escape route. In my case all it did was delay my escape.
um…
YES
entered a quad with veto power, other woman took over, I veto’d. I’m now divorced, her husband split, and her and my ex have been together for 2 years.
Veto wasn’t going to save anything and truly only gave me a false sense of security when I should have been planning an escape route. In my case all it did was delay my escape.
(drifting in from…)
I think the similarity is purely coincidental. Consider:
1. Safewords are generally temporary; veto is generally permanent.
2. Safewords are for the heat of the moment; veto is (somewhat) considered – passion vs drama.
3. Safewords involve only the two (usually) immediately involved. Veto is imposed from the outside by a third party.
Just because they’re both alternative relationship controls doesn’t mean they work anything alike.
but a person *choosing* to end a relationship because of the “great emotional harm” that relationship will cause a partner is not the same thing as said partner saying “I will now end your relationship for you because you are unable and/or unwilling to end it yourself. I have the power to make you do something you will not choose to do.”
Also, telling the secondary in advance “your relationship will never be important enough and will always hinge on someone else’s opinion of it. It doesn’t matter how you or I feel about us in the future, you are completely irrelevant in this relationship because you do not posess the power to have any input in how this relationship looks. It has been decided before we ever met what your relationship with me will look like and if this bothers you in the future, that’s too bad because I told you about it up front” does not excuse this kind of unethical behaviour. And that is exactly what a veto says to the new secondary.
That is completely disrespectful to the secondary as a human being, not just the real priority a “primary” relationship might naturally have over a “secondary” relationship. Even secondaries deserve to have some input into how their relationships look. It doesn’t matter if the secondary agrees to a secondary relationship, the veto effectively says the secondary’s input is irrelevant.
Wonderful breakdown. Things that superficially resemble eachother are often confused for each other, particularly when the intent is misunderstood.
For example, a flogging in a BDSM context has absolutely nothing to do with slavery or abuse, all superficial similarities aside.
Asking my partner to stop doing something that physically or emotionally hurts me beyond the “good pain” is very, very different from me ordering my partner to stop doing something to someone else when both he and she want to do it. One is self-preservation that does not impact anyone else, the other is treating my partner as a child who cannot make his own decisions and the metamour as a non-human who doesn’t deserve to have any say in her relationship.
OMG! *icon love*
“Not having veto does not mean not having a voice.”
Amen. We don’t do have vetoes and we don’t need them. Ever.
There have been occasions where one of us was interested in someone and the other voiced an opinion about that person, but ultimately the choice belongs to the person wanting to persue a new relationship. And that’s how it should be.
“Not having veto does not mean not having a voice.”
Amen. We don’t do have vetoes and we don’t need them. Ever.
There have been occasions where one of us was interested in someone and the other voiced an opinion about that person, but ultimately the choice belongs to the person wanting to persue a new relationship. And that’s how it should be.
Bravo
Bravo
I’ve never been in a poly relationship but have been in relationships where my partner had veto on certain things – I always felt it was wrong, totally and utterly but could never actually explain why, and so was never able to get rid of it. You’ve just put into words everything I was feeling but couldn’t explain. Thank you!
I’ve never been in a poly relationship but have been in relationships where my partner had veto on certain things – I always felt it was wrong, totally and utterly but could never actually explain why, and so was never able to get rid of it. You’ve just put into words everything I was feeling but couldn’t explain. Thank you!
And I’m going to add you if that’s ok š
Absolutely…welcome board!
And I’m going to add you if that’s ok š
I’ve been on the other end of this one… where I was offering an in-theory veto right that my partner refused to accept. And, in hindsight, I think that there was an element of this there – me wanting to absolve myself of the responsibility.
“Assume that your lover wants to make good choices.
Explain your concerns. Treat your partner like a functional adult”
I cant argue with that – its excellent advice.
And just for that, and for YOUR icon, listen to the song “George”, by The Wet Spots.
Not work safe, of course. Unless your workplace is GGG.
The only possibly healthy use for “veto” that I see, is in a relationship that doesn’t otherwise need it (both parties committed to making relationship work and fostering mutually healthy change)… as a tool for temporarily reducing variables while some issue is worked out, which the folks who have the veto agreement have prioritized higher than expanding relationships. The limited duration and problem-solving goals are KEY to working it healthily.
Some people would consider that those factors make it not really a “veto”.
Examples in use: One partner could “veto” another’s friendship with the axe murderer: “Bob, I’m concerned for your–and my–safety. I don’t want you seeing Janet AT ALL until I’ve had a chance to show you these news reports about her killing spree, and discuss how to respectfully reconcile need for autonomy with fear for our lives. If you can satisfy my concerns that the electroshock therapy worked and Janet is now a really great person, I’ll reconsider my concerns; If you can’t convince me she’s no longer murderous, and you remain interested in spending a lot of time with her, we’ll need to talk about changing the structure of our relationship; I’m not comfortable being as involved with her as I am most of your friends.”
Or the example about ‘breaking up the family’: “Sue, I’ve noticed you’re spending a lot of time with Marla lately, so that it’s interfering with the responsibilities you agreed to take on with Tadpole and Rugrat. When I ask to talk to you about re-negotiating parenting responsibilities, you always have a date with Marla at any time we might talk. I’m invoking our veto agreement and asking you not to see Marla until we can work out a plan to keep the kids taken care of while you’re getting to know Marla.”
Yeah, probably not what most people call a veto.
But seriously, does anyone think the “real” veto, the “You will not see X again, because I said so!” actually works?
Not: works=contributes to functional relationship, because obviously not. I mean, works=stops Y from seeing X.
Short of physical restraint, you can’t stop people from something they want to do, just influence easier/harder/sooner/later/level of drama & involvement.
If I understand correctly, for most people the distinction between a veto and a “voice” is in who has the final say, after all the discussions and attempts to convince one another. I don’t think anybody says “you’re going to do X because I said so” and expects it to work. Correct me if I’m wrong…
-Ola
Actually, people do think that, and that’s the problem. It’s a big thing I see in monogamous relationships (note, I did not say ALL mono relationships).
What it means is that Girlfriend, let’s say, has ordered Boyfriend not to hang out with Buddy. Boyfriend refrains, not because he wants to, but because Girlfriend said so. Not because they had a discussion where Girlfriend explained the bad influence of Buddy, that he makes passes at her and makes her uncomfortable, and she will have to leave the relationship if Boyfriend continues to see Buddy. No, she told Boyfriend in the manner of a parent giving orders to her children, that he will not do something he *wants* to do simply because she said so.
I have really heard things like “I’d so hit that, but the wife won’t let me”, as if he accepts that she can control his behaviour. I would be completely offended if my partner ever suggested that I won’t “let” him do something the way my parents wouldn’t “let” me stay out late on school nights. I don’t “let” them do anything, they choose to do or not do whatever they want. Yes, they factor in my feelings about the activity into their decision-making proces, but I don’t “allow” them to do things or not do things.
The reality is that veto power is an illusion because it *does* depend upon the other person’s willingness to follow the rules – hence tacit’s comment about not needing rules when your partner is considerate and rules not being effective if he’s not. So, because it’s an illusion, holding onto veto power is inherently damaging because it infantilizes the partner and ultimately can’t really give the amount of control one believes one has.
But, unfortunately, lots of people really do think that their relationship actually *does* give them “control” over another person’s behaviour, and simply dictating an order requires obedience on the part of the partner because that’s the nature of the relationship agreement.
A consequence-based relationship recognizes that we are adult individuals who are capable of making our own decisions and *requests* that our partner consider our feelings, and said partner is supposed to be actually worthy of such trust by *actually* considering our feelings and choosing *all by themselves* that they would prefer not to experience the consequence of us leaving.
Yep, I would tend to agree that the things you’re describing aren’t “vetos” in the sense that I am using “veto.”
In a situation where person B raises a concern, but the decision still rests with person A, I would say that person B has not issued a veto on person A. Like I said somewhere up there in another comment thread, the defining element for “veto” as I’m using it here is the authority vested in one person to unilaterally forbid some course of action of another person.
To answer your question, though: Yes, a surprisingly large number of people–including both people I know personally and people I have in the past been in a relationship–do sincerely believe that veto in the sense of “You will not see X again, because I said so!” actually works.
The only possibly healthy use for “veto” that I see, is in a relationship that doesn’t otherwise need it (both parties committed to making relationship work and fostering mutually healthy change)… as a tool for temporarily reducing variables while some issue is worked out, which the folks who have the veto agreement have prioritized higher than expanding relationships. The limited duration and problem-solving goals are KEY to working it healthily.
Some people would consider that those factors make it not really a “veto”.
Examples in use: One partner could “veto” another’s friendship with the axe murderer: “Bob, I’m concerned for your–and my–safety. I don’t want you seeing Janet AT ALL until I’ve had a chance to show you these news reports about her killing spree, and discuss how to respectfully reconcile need for autonomy with fear for our lives. If you can satisfy my concerns that the electroshock therapy worked and Janet is now a really great person, I’ll reconsider my concerns; If you can’t convince me she’s no longer murderous, and you remain interested in spending a lot of time with her, we’ll need to talk about changing the structure of our relationship; I’m not comfortable being as involved with her as I am most of your friends.”
Or the example about ‘breaking up the family’: “Sue, I’ve noticed you’re spending a lot of time with Marla lately, so that it’s interfering with the responsibilities you agreed to take on with Tadpole and Rugrat. When I ask to talk to you about re-negotiating parenting responsibilities, you always have a date with Marla at any time we might talk. I’m invoking our veto agreement and asking you not to see Marla until we can work out a plan to keep the kids taken care of while you’re getting to know Marla.”
Yeah, probably not what most people call a veto.
But seriously, does anyone think the “real” veto, the “You will not see X again, because I said so!” actually works?
Not: works=contributes to functional relationship, because obviously not. I mean, works=stops Y from seeing X.
Short of physical restraint, you can’t stop people from something they want to do, just influence easier/harder/sooner/later/level of drama & involvement.
That’s an important point to consider, MHO. I think I brushed up against it in my comment below, but it could probably stand a bit more attention.
I think Tacit’s still on track with, “If your partner’s commited to making your relationship work, veto is unneccessary” and probably harmful, because a functional relationship will have more mutual methods of addressing ALL the problems which a less-functionl one might be tempted to “solve” with veto.
My partner and his other SO aren’t big veto fans and we’ve handled the various bumps in our road pretty well. But so much of what I see in poly is geared toward primary couples–I rarely see anything that explores the reasons a new partner would feel insecure. The shadow of the veto (or the non-veto veto) is one of my biggest recurring irrational fears, no matter that it has no basis in the reality of my actual relationship. With your wonderful description of that fear, I can do battle with that closet-monster much more effectively.
My partner and his other SO aren’t big veto fans and we’ve handled the various bumps in our road pretty well. But so much of what I see in poly is geared toward primary couples–I rarely see anything that explores the reasons a new partner would feel insecure. The shadow of the veto (or the non-veto veto) is one of my biggest recurring irrational fears, no matter that it has no basis in the reality of my actual relationship. With your wonderful description of that fear, I can do battle with that closet-monster much more effectively.
Thank you, Franklin, for explaining it so clearly, as always.
“People stay in relationships not because rules tell them to stay, but because they choose to stay. If your partner no longer loves you, vetoing Bill won’t make your partner love you. If your partner doesn’t want to be with you, then veto won’t make your partner want to be with you.”
Ramen š
The thing with veto is that it is terribly wrong in context of friendships and loves for exactly the same reasons (OK, for even more reasons) that it is terribly wrong in all other contexts. For example, it is very important for my life what job my BF has, or what books he reads, or where he chooses to live, or whatever. Of course, whom he loves is very important, too (most important, probably). And, as you said, I have a voice in all these things: I can communicate my opinion, and my concerns. But I cannot make decisions for him, I cannot tell him: “OK, you’re going to be a computer programmer”, or “You’re going to never speak with X again”. For all the reasons you said, and the additional one that, ultimately, I don’t want him to do anything in this life that he himself does not see as the best choice available for him. I want him to make the best choices, for himself — that’s in the core of my love and respect for him. If I fail to convince him, then I prefer for him to make the mistake, to hurt me, even hurt himself — but not do something just because someone else said so.
Actually, I think it is unethical to give someone veto power. It’s a bit like signing an empty sheet of paper — you agree to give up your power of doing the best thing, according to your opinion. You agree, in advance, to give up your own rational and moral judgment of a situation in favor of someone else’s. And that’s just wrong, isn’t it? (It surprises me that many people see this sort of behavior as an embodiment of “real love”: the “I’ll do anything for you” trope).
Sorry, forgot to sign!
-Ola
Thank you, Franklin, for explaining it so clearly, as always.
“People stay in relationships not because rules tell them to stay, but because they choose to stay. If your partner no longer loves you, vetoing Bill won’t make your partner love you. If your partner doesn’t want to be with you, then veto won’t make your partner want to be with you.”
Ramen š
The thing with veto is that it is terribly wrong in context of friendships and loves for exactly the same reasons (OK, for even more reasons) that it is terribly wrong in all other contexts. For example, it is very important for my life what job my BF has, or what books he reads, or where he chooses to live, or whatever. Of course, whom he loves is very important, too (most important, probably). And, as you said, I have a voice in all these things: I can communicate my opinion, and my concerns. But I cannot make decisions for him, I cannot tell him: “OK, you’re going to be a computer programmer”, or “You’re going to never speak with X again”. For all the reasons you said, and the additional one that, ultimately, I don’t want him to do anything in this life that he himself does not see as the best choice available for him. I want him to make the best choices, for himself — that’s in the core of my love and respect for him. If I fail to convince him, then I prefer for him to make the mistake, to hurt me, even hurt himself — but not do something just because someone else said so.
Actually, I think it is unethical to give someone veto power. It’s a bit like signing an empty sheet of paper — you agree to give up your power of doing the best thing, according to your opinion. You agree, in advance, to give up your own rational and moral judgment of a situation in favor of someone else’s. And that’s just wrong, isn’t it? (It surprises me that many people see this sort of behavior as an embodiment of “real love”: the “I’ll do anything for you” trope).
Sorry, forgot to sign!
-Ola
If I understand correctly, for most people the distinction between a veto and a “voice” is in who has the final say, after all the discussions and attempts to convince one another. I don’t think anybody says “you’re going to do X because I said so” and expects it to work. Correct me if I’m wrong…
-Ola
Only one veto works to my knowledge.. Packing up and taking care of the one person you have to live with until you die. Yourself.
This is, of course, the last choice on the list and purely survival oriented.
Yep, I agree with you absolutely 100%. In the end, that’s the reality.
That’s partly the point when I say that if the people are honorable, veto is unnecessary and if the people are not honorable, it’s useless. In the end, person A will only abide by person B’s veto if person A is honorable…
Ideally, in a relationship, the point at which one person feels the need to pack up and leave shouldn’t be arrived at by surprise. Ideally, the people involved will talk to each other enough so that if Bob is unhappy with Alice’s relationship with Bill, then Alice will know that, and understand why, before Bob is putting his clothes in the suitcase.
Only one veto works to my knowledge.. Packing up and taking care of the one person you have to live with until you die. Yourself.
This is, of course, the last choice on the list and purely survival oriented.
Do you mind if I link to this and/or crosspost in my lj?
Thanks, -B
Not at all! š
Do you mind if I link to this and/or crosspost in my lj?
Thanks, -B
I am reminded about my conversation with my partner when they expressed the desire of veto power over my relationships and I explained that was the equivalent of asking for a divorce.
Ooooo nice! I got the link to this through a friend and it’s great! My relationship is interesting- he is monogamous, but free to do whatever he would ever want to do with anyone at any time. Now, I KNOW he occasionally has bad judgement and his desire to please overshadows his sense of self preservation and I have to bonk him over the head about it. However, even in those cases I would find the concept of veto to be horrific. I can share, judge, explain and guide- but to make his choice for him is so wrong for all the reasons listed here.
For me, to love someone means to encourage them to be true to themselves, even if means not being with me.
Indeed. I love them and want the highest and best for them.. AND I would LIKE to be around to see it and share in it. š
When we were newly married we watched a show where the man was cheating in the monogamous relationships and snuck home and climbed into bed while she pretended not to know and to be asleep.. I turned to my new husband and said if you want to sleep with another person.. we’ll talk.. and see what we can do. If you cheat on me with another person – I will divorce you.. If you ever come into my bed after fucking another woman without showering first..? – I will kill you. *smiles sweetly*
I am reminded about my conversation with my partner when they expressed the desire of veto power over my relationships and I explained that was the equivalent of asking for a divorce.
I’m at work, Franklin, and it’s a bit of a busy day but this post caught my eye, specifically I have come to believe that veto power in romantic relationships, too, is a borderline-evil concept, that is in practice stupidly and evilly wrong. Just wanted to drop a note to tell you I AGREE with this (wtf is veto power? another way to control what you can’t? um, yeah, right.) and I’ll read more when I have the time. Thanks for such interesting (and relevant) posts. You keep writing, I’ll keep reading.
I’m at work, Franklin, and it’s a bit of a busy day but this post caught my eye, specifically I have come to believe that veto power in romantic relationships, too, is a borderline-evil concept, that is in practice stupidly and evilly wrong. Just wanted to drop a note to tell you I AGREE with this (wtf is veto power? another way to control what you can’t? um, yeah, right.) and I’ll read more when I have the time. Thanks for such interesting (and relevant) posts. You keep writing, I’ll keep reading.
Pardon the multiples here, but I’m reading this in pieces during the ebb and flow of work….
Over and over, people approach polyamory with no though to the needs or feelings of the newcomer to the relationship. And that’s a little fucked up, too.
Having been that “new person” I can tell you it’s a little more than fucked up; it’s insulting to everyone involved. That underlying mentality can manifest itself in such “interesting” ways, not always evident or easily identified.
After all, what does that say about the already established folks? What does it say about the new person, accepting that is the way it’s been and then questioning it?
Yep, makes for some tricky steppin’ most folks can (and probably should) live without.
Pardon the multiples here, but I’m reading this in pieces during the ebb and flow of work….
Over and over, people approach polyamory with no though to the needs or feelings of the newcomer to the relationship. And that’s a little fucked up, too.
Having been that “new person” I can tell you it’s a little more than fucked up; it’s insulting to everyone involved. That underlying mentality can manifest itself in such “interesting” ways, not always evident or easily identified.
After all, what does that say about the already established folks? What does it say about the new person, accepting that is the way it’s been and then questioning it?
Yep, makes for some tricky steppin’ most folks can (and probably should) live without.
To be the third partner in a relationship that permits veto is to have the sword of Damocles hanging over you. You think you’re insecure? You think that polyamory sounds threatening and scary to you? Imagine how it feels to the person who’s told, “One word from that person over there and I am obligated to kick you to the curb. That person has absolute right, without appeal, to take away anything you build with me, in an instant, for any reason or no reason at all. Just sayin’.” How well do you suppose those shoes fit? You think you’d feel good if your lover said that to you?
What about when that’s not said (or even if the opposite is stated) but it’s the reality just the same?
The last important thing I stated prior to the break up the above sentiment references: “The way it all goes down makes me feel disposable, I don’t like it, it shouldn’t be this way and I’m gonna trust my gut on this one.”
That, as they say, was that for me. That day’s laughingly referred to as “Untitanic Day”, or the day I hit an iceberg and decided not to go down with the ship.
To be the third partner in a relationship that permits veto is to have the sword of Damocles hanging over you. You think you’re insecure? You think that polyamory sounds threatening and scary to you? Imagine how it feels to the person who’s told, “One word from that person over there and I am obligated to kick you to the curb. That person has absolute right, without appeal, to take away anything you build with me, in an instant, for any reason or no reason at all. Just sayin’.” How well do you suppose those shoes fit? You think you’d feel good if your lover said that to you?
What about when that’s not said (or even if the opposite is stated) but it’s the reality just the same?
The last important thing I stated prior to the break up the above sentiment references: “The way it all goes down makes me feel disposable, I don’t like it, it shouldn’t be this way and I’m gonna trust my gut on this one.”
That, as they say, was that for me. That day’s laughingly referred to as “Untitanic Day”, or the day I hit an iceberg and decided not to go down with the ship.
I agree fully with this, “If your relationship is healthy and good, you don’t need veto. If your relationship is not healthy and good, veto won’t save it.”
My long running statement on veto power has been this: It exists whether tacitly or explicitly discussed. Veto power is effectively “End this other relationship or I am leaving”; it is the last ultimatum. Now the assumption is that the older relationship is the more likely to survive this ultimatum then the newer relationship, but this need not necessarily be the case. And this is what happens when the veto gets ignored, the ultimatum gets called “Okay, leave.”
Yes, there is communication that happens before you get to that point. I will not deny that. However, I also trust my partners to love me and want what is best for me. Which means when one of them says, “You know, this is probably not a good idea,” I’d best a better argument than “But this is fun/what I want”.
None of us have veto power explicitly; however, we all acknowledge, the fact that it exists implicitly in the fact that everyone’s participation in the relationship is voluntary.
I should have read this before making my comment below. I pretty much say the same thing, only wordier. š
My long running statement on veto power has been this: It exists whether tacitly or explicitly discussed. Veto power is effectively “End this other relationship or I am leaving”; it is the last ultimatum. Now the assumption is that the older relationship is the more likely to survive this ultimatum then the newer relationship, but this need not necessarily be the case.
Yep, and yep.
It surprises me sometimes that this is not self-evident, and I do wonder why that is. For quite few folks of my acquaintance, the notion that one person has the power to compel or forbid another person’s behavior seems eminently reasonable; to me, this power seems largely illusory. In the end, unless you’re holding a gun to someone’s head, you have no power over that person save for what that person gives you.
I’ve personally known a lot of folk who arrange veto in such a way that it can be invoked without appeal for any reason, or even for no reason at all. This sort of veto seems to me to be more common among folks new to polyamory than among folks who’ve been functionally poly for a long time, though I’ve seen it in both. For me, if a partner says “You know, I think wht you’re doing isn’t a good idea,” I better have a better answer than “but it’s fun”…but at the same time, they’d better be able to answer “Why isn’t it a good idea?” as well.
Because most people don’t think.
When my (first as I now have two) wife and I were gettin’ into the poly pool, my friends, all who were vanilla at that time, asked why I’d let her go play with other men. I’d give them two responses, the classic, “We love who we love, and I’m okay with that” and the cynical, “We love who we love, and if she was going to leave me for another man there’s nothing I can do to stop her. Nor would I want to.”
As far as the the rest of it goes, there’s an awful lot of people out there who are not good relationship material, who will have dramatic relationships full of fury and thunder especially when they end, but throughout their life, these people are not constrained to monogamous relationships, or as the snark goes, “Relationship Broken – Add More People”.
I agree fully with this, “If your relationship is healthy and good, you don’t need veto. If your relationship is not healthy and good, veto won’t save it.”
My long running statement on veto power has been this: It exists whether tacitly or explicitly discussed. Veto power is effectively “End this other relationship or I am leaving”; it is the last ultimatum. Now the assumption is that the older relationship is the more likely to survive this ultimatum then the newer relationship, but this need not necessarily be the case. And this is what happens when the veto gets ignored, the ultimatum gets called “Okay, leave.”
Yes, there is communication that happens before you get to that point. I will not deny that. However, I also trust my partners to love me and want what is best for me. Which means when one of them says, “You know, this is probably not a good idea,” I’d best a better argument than “But this is fun/what I want”.
None of us have veto power explicitly; however, we all acknowledge, the fact that it exists implicitly in the fact that everyone’s participation in the relationship is voluntary.
A safeword (and I assume you’re using that in a BDSM context as in standard “green yellow red” kind of thing) is designed so the person, usuaully the bottom of the equation, has “end control” over what is happening to their body during a scene, and the top has a final reference, if you will.
Veto, on the other hand, is when you want to do something and someone else says no, you can’t do it, and that’s the law.
Very different context, and application as I see it.
You have the right to say, “RED! Do not cover me with cucumbers and sing the Star Spangled Banner!” because it’s your body, even if it effects the people around you in whatever way.
But do you really have the right to tell another living being, especially one you love and respect, what they can and cannot do with their body, mind, heart and soul? When they willingly share such things with you as well?
A pull for veto just smacks of the illusion of control, which often does more harm than good. It is a false sense of security that can keep you from recognizing the parts of your life that may need focus. ANd you may also be robbing others of similar opportunities. I do not think I would wish such a limited life on people I disliked, much less those I love.
What do you think about such things?
Excellenbt article, very well stated. We don’t employ veto in our relationships…the chance to create the real relationship killer, resentment, is far too high. Rather, we give our opinions and they’re taken under advisement. We communicate, but yes, above all we trust.
Thank you for the very clear commentary
Excellenbt article, very well stated. We don’t employ veto in our relationships…the chance to create the real relationship killer, resentment, is far too high. Rather, we give our opinions and they’re taken under advisement. We communicate, but yes, above all we trust.
Thank you for the very clear commentary
Ooooo nice! I got the link to this through a friend and it’s great! My relationship is interesting- he is monogamous, but free to do whatever he would ever want to do with anyone at any time. Now, I KNOW he occasionally has bad judgement and his desire to please overshadows his sense of self preservation and I have to bonk him over the head about it. However, even in those cases I would find the concept of veto to be horrific. I can share, judge, explain and guide- but to make his choice for him is so wrong for all the reasons listed here.
For me, to love someone means to encourage them to be true to themselves, even if means not being with me.
Agreed — I am opposed to veto power for existing relationships, but I do think that your partner should have some voice in saying “I am deeply uncomfortable with the person who you are thinking of involving our lives with.”
OTOH, the partner always has the option of saying “If you get involved with this person who I have serious reservations about, I can no longer continue my relationship with you.” It’s the ‘veto’ used properly — saying that it’s a hard limit for YOU, not a ‘rule’ imposed on the other person.
Thing is, you have to MEAN it — and it’s not something that you’d want to do more than once. A partner who consistently chooses relationships that make you so uncomfortable that you’d want to leave . . . means that you and your partner may have a fundamental issue that needs addressing.
But, yeah — if my husband tried to “veto” my existing relationships, I’d be out the door like a shot. I’m involved with real people, and I love and care about them, too.
— A <3
Oh, that’s *awesome*!!!
You’re confusing rules-based with consequence-based. A veto is saying “I forbid you”. A consequence is saying “this situation makes me so uncomfortable, the consequence could be me leaving” and then the partner MAKING HIS OWN DECISION to refrain or not based on the consequence.
If you’re not imposing a rule on someone else, it’s not a veto.
We’re essentially in agreement, but we have a difference in semantics.
*nodnod* I agree — we are in agreement that a rules-based veto is a bad thing for a reltaionship. I just wanted to point out that there *is* a difference between saying that something is a hard limit for you (which could result in you choosing to leave the relationship), and saying “You have to end this other involvement to maintain the relationship.”
Even though the result may be the same (the relationship is/is not maintained), one version allows the partner to make a decision, whereas the other version is making the decision FOR your partner.
— A <3
Actually, people do think that, and that’s the problem. It’s a big thing I see in monogamous relationships (note, I did not say ALL mono relationships).
What it means is that Girlfriend, let’s say, has ordered Boyfriend not to hang out with Buddy. Boyfriend refrains, not because he wants to, but because Girlfriend said so. Not because they had a discussion where Girlfriend explained the bad influence of Buddy, that he makes passes at her and makes her uncomfortable, and she will have to leave the relationship if Boyfriend continues to see Buddy. No, she told Boyfriend in the manner of a parent giving orders to her children, that he will not do something he *wants* to do simply because she said so.
I have really heard things like “I’d so hit that, but the wife won’t let me”, as if he accepts that she can control his behaviour. I would be completely offended if my partner ever suggested that I won’t “let” him do something the way my parents wouldn’t “let” me stay out late on school nights. I don’t “let” them do anything, they choose to do or not do whatever they want. Yes, they factor in my feelings about the activity into their decision-making proces, but I don’t “allow” them to do things or not do things.
The reality is that veto power is an illusion because it *does* depend upon the other person’s willingness to follow the rules – hence tacit’s comment about not needing rules when your partner is considerate and rules not being effective if he’s not. So, because it’s an illusion, holding onto veto power is inherently damaging because it infantilizes the partner and ultimately can’t really give the amount of control one believes one has.
But, unfortunately, lots of people really do think that their relationship actually *does* give them “control” over another person’s behaviour, and simply dictating an order requires obedience on the part of the partner because that’s the nature of the relationship agreement.
A consequence-based relationship recognizes that we are adult individuals who are capable of making our own decisions and *requests* that our partner consider our feelings, and said partner is supposed to be actually worthy of such trust by *actually* considering our feelings and choosing *all by themselves* that they would prefer not to experience the consequence of us leaving.
I would actually argue that all relationships–poly or mono–already have veto power, whether it’s agreed to or not.
Ultimately, even if your partner agrees that you have veto power, you can’t force them to do anything. What a veto really means is, “If I ask you to give up so-and-so, and you don’t do it, then I will leave you.”
Well all hold the power to leave our partners, and always will. The veto power is always there, and we all need it even if we think we don’t. I have committed to stay with my husband “till death do us part” and I consider leaving him to be a very last resort, but there are things he can do that would make me say, “Either you stop, or I walk.” Molesting children, heroin addiction, bareback orgies with the local HIV+ club, etc.
I would “veto” any of those behaviors, and furthermore, if my husband was dating someone who was engaging in those behaviors, I would also “veto” them, in the sense that I would say, “I’m asking you to stop dating this person because it could endanger my health or well-being. If you don’t leave them, I will have to leave you.” It doesn’t matter if we agreed to give me veto power or not. I always have the option to walk away.
So I see giving veto power as more of a symbolic thing, because technically it’s already there. Giving veto is making a commitment that I will prioritize my primary partner’s needs (and they do have to be needs) over a new relationship. It’s kind of like wedding vows. They can’t actually prevent you from divorcing, but many people find comfort in formalizing that commitment. You don’t need veto power, or wedding vows, to have that level of commitment and thoughtfulness. But it isn’t necessarily harmful, and can remind people to really think about what they are committing to.
And you say that veto power indicates a lack of trust, but I can see the opposite being true, as well. I have given my husband veto power in my relationships before, precisely because I do trust him. I trust him not to ask me to leave someone just because he’s feeling insecure or selfish. I trust him only to use that sort of power as a very last resort, when he feels that if I don’t end a relationship he will have to end ours. There was a time when he should have used his veto power (I was deep in NRE with someone who was working some hardcore emotional manipulation on me and causing damage to my marriage as a result), but he didn’t.
Yes, giving someone veto power is really just a security blanket, an illusion. That doesn’t always make it an inherently bad thing. Human beings aren’t perfect, especially where emotions are concerned. I don’t ask my partners to be emotionally perfect (just as I expect them to tolerate my own imperfections). Why not offer up that symbolic security blanket if it helps my partner, and I trust him enough not to abuse that security blanket? And why would I be with them if I didn’t? Because anyone willing to abuse me with their veto power would find a way to abuse me without it.
Amen. And note that both of us are were more wordy than this guy.
He has out-pithied the both of us.
A veto does not mean “I ask you to do X or the consequence will be me leaving”. That’s a consequence. If you’re using veto in that sense, you’re using the wrong word. What you are talking about is a consequence-based relationship. Veto falls under “rules-based relationships”. The veto is someone making decisions for you. A veto says “You will do X”, not because there is a “consequence” if you don’t, but because I have so commanded and you are under my power to obey by right of this relationship agreement and there is no possibility of you not doing it.
You might believe that giving your husband veto power shows your trust in him, but his acceptance of that veto power says he doesn’t trust you to be able to make responsible decisions on your own. It doesn’t matter if it’s only used in “extreme situations”, he believes there is some situation where you cannot be trusted to behave in an ethically responsible manner.
And, apparently, he was right.
It’s not about being “perfect”, it’s about viewing your partner as an adult and an individual who does not require a third party to control their own behaviour. Trusting someone to behave ethically doesn’t mean you expect they will *never* do something stupid, but a veto means you assume they *will* do something stupid and only you can prevent that because they can’t think for themselves.
Okay woops you kinda answered part of my last post to you over here. Sorry (if sorry applies), or maybe it’s just a case of inspired minds!
I read what you say above and to me this is not a veto. Veto means “I trump your backside and it all completely halts.”
The things you list as truly risky behaviours (that effect health and, in advertantly, the health of others) are commonly referred to as deal breakers, or bottom lines, where I come from and a bit of a different flavoured tottsie pop, if you will.
I see this becoming a nitpicky and largely pointless semantic debate.
I use veto in my relationships, and I know others who do, and none of us intend it to mean, “I trump your backside and it all completely halts.”
So, to hear people who clearly don’t use vetoes defining what it means for the rest of us is presumptuous at best, and insulting at worst.
A veto in the sense that you imply is technically impossible, unless you are in the habit of chaining your lovers up in your basement. š And that’s what I’m getting at. Any reasonably intelligent person who enters into a veto arrangement fully recognizes that either partner always has the opportunity to leave. The veto is simply a promise, and promises can always be broken if the situation demands it.
If such a veto is in fact impossible, what is the point of debating it and trying to judge whether it’s good or evil?
(edited for bad HTML)
I see this becoming a nitpicky and largely pointless semantic debate.
Wow. Sorry to hear that.
I use veto in my relationships, and I know others who do, and none of us intend it to mean, “I trump your backside and it all completely halts.”
That’s good to know. Just so you know, when folks around me feel so inclined, we say “Objection!” , often followed by “Your honour” as one of us is a smart ass lawyer (and we got it from him). lol I like this a lot. It acknowledges your right to object without stepping on anyone else’s right to be, which, and I know you’re gonna hate this, is what I feel a veto, by definition, really does.
A veto in the sense that you imply is technically impossible, unless you are in the habit of chaining your lovers up in your basement. š And that’s what I’m getting at.
I doubt I implied anything. I actually said it, I think. And you just illustrated the point beautifully with the whole “chain ’em up in the basement” thing.
The veto is simply a promise, and promises can always be broken if the situation demands it.
A veto is a promise? You’ve lost me here. I don’t see that at all. Not by definition or by practice. Promises can be broken situationally? Oooooh, grey area. I like it for a discussion topic. We’ll have to go there sometime. But, for all intents and purposes, I make few promises as that is my word, and I tend to keep them. It’s a personal integrity thing, if you will.
If such a veto is in fact impossible, what is the point of debating it and trying to judge whether it’s good or evil?
I’m simply telling you that, by its actual definition and nature, it seems to be about power, the kind I think is dangerous for al the things it brings with it that we may be better off without, and that perhaps creating other more functioning behaviours would benefit us far more.
But if a veto is only defined and used how we please, why bother?
For the record, I never meant to irritate you and thank you for your time. Namaste š
Let me try this one more time (and then I promise I’ll stop!)
I think people in this thread are setting up a straw man argument. The argument goes like this:
A. Veto means forcing someone to comply with your will and taking away their freedom of choice.
B. Forcing someone to comply with your will and taking away their freedom of choice is unethical.
C. Therefore, using a veto is unethical.
Now, I don’t have an issue with that argument so far, particularly not part B. The problems I have are these:
1. Not all poly people who use vetoes define them using A.
2. A veto as defined in A. isn’t even possible.
I have used vetoes in my relationships and that is most definitely not how they have been used. It’s an agreement, freely entered into by all parties (including secondaries). We understand that a veto doesn’t take away the vetoee’s ultimate right to choose–it can’t (barring the whole chained-in-the-basement scenario). Then again, no relationship agreement does that. Despite that, we all still make them, and we make them because we trust our partners to stand by what they say they will do.
So basically, I see a whole lot of people here who don’t use veto defining what it actually means for those of us who do. And then when one of us (that would be me!) stands up and says, “No, that’s not how veto works for us at all” I get told, “Well then what you have isn’t really a veto.”
Well, by their definition I guess it isn’t. But then what are people really arguing against here? An abstract term that doesn’t get applied in real life and in fact can’t even exist, or veto as it’s actually used? Because arguing against the latter serves no useful purpose.
The fact is, “veto” as it’s applied in at least some, and probably many, poly relationships doesn’t remotely resemble the dictionary definition of the word. Now, you could legitimately argue that it’s a poor word choice and something else should be used instead, but it’s out there now and a lot of people are happy with it. The lay usage of a word often takes on a much different meaning than its technical (in this case, legal) counterpart.
IMO, if people are going to rant about the way poly folks use veto, it would make sense to find out how poly folks use veto. And that means more than just “how my insane, selfish and totally dysfunctional ex used it against me in the past.” One bad experience does not warrant a sweeping generalization.
And there’s the inherent superiority to it that irks me, too. This notion of, “Well, it’s not technically possible to force someone to do what you want so veto power is all an illusion.” There’s a definite implication on this thread that people who use veto are too stupid to realize this. We’re not. We enter into veto agreements knowing that they aren’t enforceable by anything other than our own willingness to leave (just like ALL relationship agreements–should we just stop making them?) We enter into veto agreements trusting the vetoer not to abuse the veto, and trusting the vetoee to value the relationship enough to abide by it. It’s the willingness to violate another person’s trust–not the veto itself–that determines whether a relationship is unhealthy.
I think I have rambled here long enough. If that doesn’t get my point across, perhaps I am not capable of doing so. Either way, I’m going to go have a holiday with my family. If you are USian, have a happy 4th!
I agree with everything you’ve said in this thread!
2. A veto as defined in A. isn’t even possible.
Agreed as I set out above.
IMO, if people are going to rant about the way poly folks use veto, it would make sense to find out how poly folks use veto. And that means more than just “how my insane, selfish and totally dysfunctional ex used it against me in the past.” One bad experience does not warrant a sweeping generalization.
Indeed. And if I were to have written this post on the basis of a single experience of my own in a single relationship, I would be reluctant to make the statements I’ve made.
But here’s the thing. The veto of the type I talk about in this post, the unilateral authority to forbid another person’s relationship, isn’t uncommon and isn’t the aberration, especially among poly newcomers.
It may be, especially if you’re accustomed to being around people who have significant experience with multiple relationships or people who’re accustomed to examining themselves and their relationships, that you haven’t encountered many folks who use veto in the way I describe. If so I congratulate you; you’ve been fortunate (or made good choices in friends and partners, or both).
The form of veto I’m talking about is, in my experience, depressingly common. I can name at least six people I know personally and well, just in the last couple of years, who believe that it is reasonable to exercise a relationship veto in the form of a unilateral control over the relationships of their partners. I have met many more people who believe in and use veto in this way at poly events and in poly groups, and it’s one of the most common things people ask me about in the email I receive from my poly site.
In my experience, this kind of approach to veto is more common among folks who are new to polyamory, and especially common among married couples who are new to polyamory and who have an extensive background in monogamous relationship but do not yet have any practical poly experience. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that this sort of veto arrangement is one of the single most common relationship agreements among such couples.
In the end, for people who do realize the illusory nature of such a unilateral veto power and who also understand that nobody can really control another person’s behavior anyway, the question I have is this: What is it that you would say distinguishes a veto from simply being wiling to listen to what your partner has to say? What definitional value does the word “veto” have, and what function would you say it serves (if any) that is not served simply by saying “Look, this person is making me unhappy, here’s why this person is making me unhappy”?
What is it that you would say distinguishes a veto from simply being wiling to listen to what your partner has to say? What definitional value does the word “veto” have, and what function would you say it serves (if any) that is not served simply by saying “Look, this person is making me unhappy, here’s why this person is making me unhappy”?
It’s a very subtle difference, for me.
To me, a veto is an agreement, a formalization of a commitment. I have voluntarily given my husband veto power in my relationships. He isn’t exercising unilateral control, because I chose to give him the right to make that decision. I have the right to make all of my decisions–including the right to cede certain decisions to my partner.
I gave him that power because I trust him not to use it unless he feels he has to leave me if I do not give up the other relationship. And in 10 years of being poly, he has never exercised veto power. When he’s unhappy about things, he talks to me and we work it out.
I also gave it to him recognizing that ultimately, he has no way to enforce that veto power other than leaving (he recognizes this too). My giving him veto power is really me making a promise: “If it comes down to either keeping a new relationship or keeping you, I will choose to keep you.”
My husband knows me well enough to know that when I make a promise, I keep it. He knows he doesn’t have to enforce his veto power, because I will enforce it–I will keep my word.
Anyway, it sounds like your experiences with veto are very different from mine, and I can see why you feel the way you do based on those experiences. I just have this policy that when people make sweeping generalizations about groups that I belong to, and those generalizations don’t describe me, that I speak up. š
I gave him that power because I trust him not to use it unless he feels he has to leave me if I do not give up the other relationship. And in 10 years of being poly, he has never exercised veto power. When he’s unhappy about things, he talks to me and we work it out.
Okay, so if I may, I’d like to ask a couple of followup questions about that.
1. What function does this veto serve? Why do you have it? Do you believe that its function, whatever that may be in your relationship, can not be served by a conversation between you and your partner as equals, rather than by veto?
2. What impact, if any, does this have on your other partners? Have they every expressed concern about beginning a relationship under the terms that permit it to be vetoed?
1. What function does this veto serve?
It serves the same function as any other promise. It’s a verbalization of a commitment. It serves the purpose of reminding and reassuring my partner that I prioritize our relationship.
Do you believe that its function, whatever that may be in your relationship, can not be served by a conversation between you and your partner as equals, rather than by veto?
Well, first of all, we don’t use veto to replace such conversations. So that conversation would still happen (actually, such conversations happen all the time. We discuss minor problems before they become big, which generally keeps anyone from ever feeling like they might need to use a veto).
So, is the veto necessary? No, but I never said it was. I do lots of things that make my partner happy that aren’t technically necessary, and vice versa. It makes him feel good and it hasn’t caused us any harm, so why not use it?
2. What impact, if any, does this have on your other partners? Have they every expressed concern about beginning a relationship under the terms that permit it to be vetoed?
No one has expressed concern about our veto policy so far. If they did, it would be something we all sat down and discussed. If my husband was adamant that he needed the veto, and a potential partner was adamant that they couldn’t function under one, then I would not pursue a relationship with that person. I don’t feel entitled to date everyone who interests me, nor are they entitled to date me.
I currently have one secondary partner whom I’ve been with for 4 years. He is married and both our spouses had veto power at the outset of our relationship.
Over time our relationship has deepened and so has our investment in and commitment to each other. As a result we have all come to the consensus that veto is no longer reasonable or realistic in this situation. My husband was actually the first person to bring it up because he wanted to make it clear that he would never ask us to break up. He trusts both of us to listen to his concerns and work with him if he becomes unhappy with any aspect of the relationship.
If someone came along today that I wanted to date, I wouldn’t do it without consulting both my husband and boyfriend about it. If either of them was opposed to the relationship, I wouldn’t pursue it. So I suppose they both have veto power where new relationships are concerned, not because they’ve asked for it but because I choose to give it. I’m not willing to risk either of those relationships to start something new.
I hope that answers your questions. Sorry to get so wordy–I feel like I should be able to say all this more succinctly but it’s not happening.
So, is the veto necessary? No, but I never said it was. I do lots of things that make my partner happy that aren’t technically necessary, and vice versa. It makes him feel good and it hasn’t caused us any harm, so why not use it?
hat still begs the question, though. Why does it make him happy? What is it about the notion of being able to control your relationship choices that gives him this happiness?
I don’t think the notion of being able to control my relationship choices makes him happy. It’s the fact that I have chosen–freely–to make him my top priority. If it ever comes to a point where I either need to give up a secondary relationship or lose my husband (and we have BOTH committed to doing everything we can to avoid letting things get to that point), I will make the choice of keeping him.
I would assume the fact that I prioritize my relationship with him so highly, coupled with the fact that I am willing to make sacrifices, if needed, in order to keep that relationship, makes him feel extremely valued. But that’s my guess–I’m not inside his head.
Do you thnk it’d be possible to make him feel valued that way without veto?
I’m sure it would.
Just a minor point
Promises can be broken situationally? Oooooh, grey area.
I think I gave the wrong impression in my comment and I wanted to clarify. I’m making a distinction between what’s possible and what’s ethical. It is always possible to break a promise, and that is what I meant. I do not believe that it is ethical, however.
I doubt I implied anything. I actually said it, I think. And you just illustrated the point beautifully with the whole “chain ’em up in the basement” thing.
ACK! The dear person sitting next to me just pointed out that I should probably clarify that, so maybe I should!!! D’oh – lemme try again.
I don’t – repeat do not – chain people in the basement. Not without their consent, anyway. It’s just poor manners.
I think a veto is a bad concept to apply in personal relationshops because, short of your illustration, it doesn’t really keep you safe, it just creates power-related issues that most people would rather eat live bees wearing razor blade jackets than deal with, and there’s got to be a better way of communicating our distress, discomfort or objections than applying a term that essentially means “I have the power to make you do what I want, when I want.”
Whew, sorry about that! š
**dies laughing**
I did not get the impression that you chain people up in the basement–no worries!
would actually argue that all relationships–poly or mono–already have veto power, whether it’s agreed to or not.
Ultimately, even if your partner agrees that you have veto power, you can’t force them to do anything. What a veto really means is, “If I ask you to give up so-and-so, and you don’t do it, then I will leave you.”
Well all hold the power to leave our partners, and always will.
Yep, exactly so. That’s right on the money.
But I wouldn’t call that a veto, and I’ll explain why.
The way I’m using the word “veto,” a veto is a unilateral authority over someone else’s behavior. When a person in a poly relationship says “I have veto over my partner’s other relationships,” most often (in my experience) what they mean is “I have the authority to forbid my partner from continuing a course of action.”
Now, it seems self-evident to me, and seems to be obvious to you if I read you correctly, that that power is an illusion. In the end, it simply isn’t real. We have power over ourselves, but absent guns and rope we don’t really have power over other people. If Alice says “I have veto over Bob,” and Alice believes that she can compel Bob to stop some course of action, Alice may be in for a surprise if Bob thinks otherwise.
The most important distinction between veto and any other arrangement that I see is veto assumes the power to make a decision for someone else; other arrangements do not.
For example, if you and I are involved, and I tell you “If you keep doing X, I will not be able to remain in this relationship,” I am acknowledging that the decision about doing X is yours. I’m telling you that your decision may affect whether or not our relationship is ongoing–but it’s still your decision to make.
With veto (as I am using the word in this post), I’m telling you that I have the right to make your decision for you; I’m saying that the authority to make the decision about your course of action rests with me, not with you.
Which is silly.
What you’re talking about–the right to let you know where I’m at, the right to end a relationship with you–isn’t veto precisely because it does not presume to make your decisions for you. It outlines the impact of your decisions on me, and outlines consequences to your decisions, so it may affect what you choose to do–but it does not presume to make the choice for you.
Does that make sense?
I would actually argue that all relationships–poly or mono–already have veto power, whether it’s agreed to or not.
Ultimately, even if your partner agrees that you have veto power, you can’t force them to do anything. What a veto really means is, “If I ask you to give up so-and-so, and you don’t do it, then I will leave you.”
Well all hold the power to leave our partners, and always will. The veto power is always there, and we all need it even if we think we don’t. I have committed to stay with my husband “till death do us part” and I consider leaving him to be a very last resort, but there are things he can do that would make me say, “Either you stop, or I walk.” Molesting children, heroin addiction, bareback orgies with the local HIV+ club, etc.
I would “veto” any of those behaviors, and furthermore, if my husband was dating someone who was engaging in those behaviors, I would also “veto” them, in the sense that I would say, “I’m asking you to stop dating this person because it could endanger my health or well-being. If you don’t leave them, I will have to leave you.” It doesn’t matter if we agreed to give me veto power or not. I always have the option to walk away.
So I see giving veto power as more of a symbolic thing, because technically it’s already there. Giving veto is making a commitment that I will prioritize my primary partner’s needs (and they do have to be needs) over a new relationship. It’s kind of like wedding vows. They can’t actually prevent you from divorcing, but many people find comfort in formalizing that commitment. You don’t need veto power, or wedding vows, to have that level of commitment and thoughtfulness. But it isn’t necessarily harmful, and can remind people to really think about what they are committing to.
And you say that veto power indicates a lack of trust, but I can see the opposite being true, as well. I have given my husband veto power in my relationships before, precisely because I do trust him. I trust him not to ask me to leave someone just because he’s feeling insecure or selfish. I trust him only to use that sort of power as a very last resort, when he feels that if I don’t end a relationship he will have to end ours. There was a time when he should have used his veto power (I was deep in NRE with someone who was working some hardcore emotional manipulation on me and causing damage to my marriage as a result), but he didn’t.
Yes, giving someone veto power is really just a security blanket, an illusion. That doesn’t always make it an inherently bad thing. Human beings aren’t perfect, especially where emotions are concerned. I don’t ask my partners to be emotionally perfect (just as I expect them to tolerate my own imperfections). Why not offer up that symbolic security blanket if it helps my partner, and I trust him enough not to abuse that security blanket? And why would I be with them if I didn’t? Because anyone willing to abuse me with their veto power would find a way to abuse me without it.
I think what a lot of people are mistaking for veto power is the ultimatum. That’s not a veto, that still requires the other partner to make his own choice.
A VETO IS A DECISION I MAKE FOR YOU.
I am not telling someone “make up your mind, me or her”, I am telling someone “you cannot have her”. He has no choice, he has no options. I have decided what he will do.
There is nothing unreasonable with setting your own boundaries and limits, discussing with your partner that a situation is unacceptable to you, and requesting that partner act in accordance with what you believe is the better path. But the moment you assume it is ultimately his choice to make is the moment it is not a veto. If there is a choice at all, it’s not a veto.
A veto removes the decision power from someone else. Before a new relationship, after it gets started, platonic friends, books, jobs, it doesn’t matter what the person is vetoing – a veto makes the decision for someone else.
And if that person is a legal adult and of sound mind, there is absolutely no reason to even believe that’s possible, let alone attempt to control another person to that degree.
Yes he does. He has the ability to listen to you or not. If I veto my wife’s choice in another partner, does she have to listen to me?
Nope. She can continue to see the other person, unless I physically restrain her, there is nothing stopping her, she can do so covertly, she can do so overtly, but there’s nothing stopping her.
If she ignores my veto, then I have to make a decision as to whether I can live with her ignoring my veto or not.
A veto is ultimatum. Otherwise, what is the weight for not going along with the veto? Where’s the enforcement?
A veto is not an ultimatum. An ultimatum is an ultimatum.
A veto is a veto. The “weight” is the belief of both partners that they have the ability to control the other. And that’s the point of the rant is that a veto will not actually stop someone hell-bent on breaking the veto. There *is* no actual enforcement because veto is an illusion.
But when both people actually believe they have the right and the ability to control the other person, that’s when vetos are used.
An ultimatum is the last straw in a situation that ultimately requires someone to make his own choice.
A veto does not give him that choice. He is simply ordered like a naughty child.
But when both people actually believe they have the right and the ability to control the other person, that’s when vetos are used.
It’s kind of insulting when someone who clearly doesn’t use vetoes tells those of us who do what we believe.
The person who gives veto power does have a choice. It’s just that the choice is made in advance: “If you ask me to give up a partner, I will do it.” That’s still a choice.
It’s like the difference between a D/s relationship and actual slavery. In the former, the sub makes a choice to enter into the relationship. S/he may choose to give up all future choices, but that is still his/her choice. The slave never gets a choice at all.
He has no choice, he has no options. I have decided what he will do.
Frankly, that’s not possible. Even if I agree to give you veto power, I can always change my mind if I feel it’s in my best interests. I might lose you in the process, but that could have happened without the veto power anyway.
Of course it’s not possible, THAT’S THE FREAKING POINT.
It is completely irelevant that the veto was agreed to voluntarily. The veto assumes that the person issuing the veto has the power to make decisions for someone else and that person has no further control over their own behaviour. Both the vetoer and the vetoee have agreed that the vetoee is not capable of making their own decisions, so the control is given to someone else.
Hence, tacit’s claim that if a relationship is healthy, a veto is not necessary, and if it’s not healthy, a veto won’t stop it.
It is completely irelevant that the veto was agreed to voluntarily.
I think it’s not only relevant, but crucial.
Let me put it another way. Based on‘s posts, I have gotten the impression that you are submissive (please correct me if I’m wrong, but hopefully the analogy will make sense anyway).
A lot of people have insisted to me that BDSM is nothing more than domestic violence with a fancy name. I have tried to point out to them that the difference between BDSM and abuse is that in BDSM, the submissive consents to everything that is done to him/her in advance.
If you enter a scene with a dom, and you state from the outset that you are ceding control to him/her, that is a choice. Even if the dom tells you to do something and you don’t really like it but you obey, it is consensual.
The same thing is true with a vetoer and a vetoee. The vetoee consents to ceding control–in that one area–to the vetoer. It’s a choice, just like a submissive makes a choice in deciding to give up control.
The veto assumes that the person issuing the veto has the power to make decisions for someone else and that person has no further control over their own behaviour. Both the vetoer and the vetoee have agreed that the vetoee is not capable of making their own decisions, so the control is given to someone else.
Wow, you are making an awful lot of assumptions about other people’s agreements here. Who are you to define what veto means for everyone who uses it? These assertions certainly aren’t true for my relationships!
As far as I know, there’s no one “official” definition of veto (in terms of poly relationships) any more than there is for, say, “primary.” I can’t speak for everyone’s veto agreements, but I can speak for the ones I’ve made.
In my relationships, I give veto power as a symbolic commitment, a way to say, “Your needs come first.” My husband asking for veto power is not saying that I’m not capable of making my own decisions. Rather, he is questioning his own ability to handle my decisions. My husband is not poly and would prefer to have a monogamous relationship. However, he recognizes that being poly makes me happy, and wants to support that. So we have to balance his needs and mine. When I married him, I did so under the agreement of monogamy. Later, when I discovered what poly was, I asked him to renegotiate the terms of our relationship. He certainly could have said no, and I would have stayed with him anyway. I take my commitments extremely seriously and for me, the ability to have multiple relationships is not more important than having a good marriage to him.
He agreed to let me date other people, but asked that if he found he truly couldn’t handle it emotionally, that he be allowed to ask me to end the relationship. Opening up our relationship was a terrifying thing for him to do, because he simply isn’t “wired” poly. He cannot love another person the way he loves me, without his feelings for me diminishing (he’s tried). He puts his faith in me when I say that I can love more than one person at a time.
When he agreed to let me date other people, he said he wasn’t willing to lose his marriage over it. My giving him veto power was a way for me to say, “I am committed to you and to our relationship, and if push comes to shove, I will sacrifice my secondary relationship rather than sacrificing my marriage.”
My husband is well aware that I can always choose to walk out on him. He has no actual means of enforcing a veto–all he can do is leave me. But he also knows that when I make a commitment, I keep it. And he trusts me to keep this one–not because he has any ability to deprive me of choice, but because I made a promise.
Actually, we recently renegotiated his veto power because my secondary relationship has reached a point where we both felt that a veto would be unfair and unreasonable, both to me and the other person involved. So we don’t have veto in that relationship anymore. Vetoes aren’t always set in stone.
Not everyone views veto power the way you describe. And not every couple who decides to use one is dysfunctional.
No, I am absolutely not submissive and I’m offended you lept to that conclusion
I apologize, I don’t know why I thought that, then.
I do hope you get my analogy regardless.
No, I don’t see veto in a poly relationship as being anything like a D/s relationship. Much like D/s only superficially resembles abuse, a veto in a non-BDSM relationship does not perform the same function as a D/s relationship.
At the risk of popping into a dangerous conversation, I wanted to share an impression.
You strike me as what I’d call an ‘edge’ case. That veto has worked for you, in that fashion and in your relationship, is unusual.
While I’d say you successfully defended the use of a veto agreement between you and your husband, I’m curious how you felt it impacted the other person you were seeing. Was it not an emotional Sword of Damocles over them? How did they deal with the knowledge that their relationship could be terminated by someone not *in* the relationship?
He’s been fine with it, but then, his wife has also held veto power over our relationship until recently. I am his secondary just as he is mine.
Consider, for example, the situation with Britney Spears. She’s an adult, but has proven so untrustworthy, that control of her assets and her personal life has been handed back to her father. Legally speaking, she cannot make decisions. She cannot enter into contracts, she’s not even allowed to balance her own checkbook. That’s a veto. He has actual, legal control over her decisions. She cannot make decisions for herself. There’s no ultimatum involved, she simply cannot make them. She can’t access her funds, she can’t buy stuff, she can’t do anything that her father says she can’t do. He may be lenient with her and not excercise his veto power often, but if he does, that’s it. He has the power to control her behaviour according to the limits of the negotiated veto structure.
Two adults discussing a situation where one says “If you do this, I will be unhappy” and the other says “well, if it’ll make you unhappy, I won’t”. That’s not a veto.
The situation with Britney Spears isn’t anything like a veto in a poly relationship. It’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.
In the Britney case, the legal system has forcibly taken away her legal rights, whether she wanted them to or not. She never agreed beforehand that it was okay for them to do this. (and, technically, that process isn’t called a veto.)
If there’s a poly relationship out there in which one party forcibly removes another party’s right to make choices without their consent, that’s not veto, that’s abuse.
I’m not talking about how she came to lose her rights, I’m saying that’s what a veto effectively does. It gives someone else the ability to make decisions for you. Giving someone an ultimatum does not take his ability to make his own choice. A veto does. Any other use of the word is an incorrect use.
See? That’s how I perceive the whole veto thing, and what I’ve been saying all along: Veto = ultimatum. Quite frankly? Few things in life have to come down to that.
I think what a lot of people are mistaking for veto power is the ultimatum. That’s not a veto, that still requires the other partner to make his own choice.
A VETO IS A DECISION I MAKE FOR YOU.
I am not telling someone “make up your mind, me or her”, I am telling someone “you cannot have her”. He has no choice, he has no options. I have decided what he will do.
There is nothing unreasonable with setting your own boundaries and limits, discussing with your partner that a situation is unacceptable to you, and requesting that partner act in accordance with what you believe is the better path. But the moment you assume it is ultimately his choice to make is the moment it is not a veto. If there is a choice at all, it’s not a veto.
A veto removes the decision power from someone else. Before a new relationship, after it gets started, platonic friends, books, jobs, it doesn’t matter what the person is vetoing – a veto makes the decision for someone else.
And if that person is a legal adult and of sound mind, there is absolutely no reason to even believe that’s possible, let alone attempt to control another person to that degree.
I should have read this before making my comment below. I pretty much say the same thing, only wordier. š
Yes he does. He has the ability to listen to you or not. If I veto my wife’s choice in another partner, does she have to listen to me?
Nope. She can continue to see the other person, unless I physically restrain her, there is nothing stopping her, she can do so covertly, she can do so overtly, but there’s nothing stopping her.
If she ignores my veto, then I have to make a decision as to whether I can live with her ignoring my veto or not.
A veto is ultimatum. Otherwise, what is the weight for not going along with the veto? Where’s the enforcement?
Amen. And note that both of us are were more wordy than this guy.
The person who gives veto power does have a choice. It’s just that the choice is made in advance: “If you ask me to give up a partner, I will do it.” That’s still a choice.
It’s like the difference between a D/s relationship and actual slavery. In the former, the sub makes a choice to enter into the relationship. S/he may choose to give up all future choices, but that is still his/her choice. The slave never gets a choice at all.
He has no choice, he has no options. I have decided what he will do.
Frankly, that’s not possible. Even if I agree to give you veto power, I can always change my mind if I feel it’s in my best interests. I might lose you in the process, but that could have happened without the veto power anyway.
A veto does not mean “I ask you to do X or the consequence will be me leaving”. That’s a consequence. If you’re using veto in that sense, you’re using the wrong word. What you are talking about is a consequence-based relationship. Veto falls under “rules-based relationships”. The veto is someone making decisions for you. A veto says “You will do X”, not because there is a “consequence” if you don’t, but because I have so commanded and you are under my power to obey by right of this relationship agreement and there is no possibility of you not doing it.
You might believe that giving your husband veto power shows your trust in him, but his acceptance of that veto power says he doesn’t trust you to be able to make responsible decisions on your own. It doesn’t matter if it’s only used in “extreme situations”, he believes there is some situation where you cannot be trusted to behave in an ethically responsible manner.
And, apparently, he was right.
It’s not about being “perfect”, it’s about viewing your partner as an adult and an individual who does not require a third party to control their own behaviour. Trusting someone to behave ethically doesn’t mean you expect they will *never* do something stupid, but a veto means you assume they *will* do something stupid and only you can prevent that because they can’t think for themselves.
A veto is not an ultimatum. An ultimatum is an ultimatum.
A veto is a veto. The “weight” is the belief of both partners that they have the ability to control the other. And that’s the point of the rant is that a veto will not actually stop someone hell-bent on breaking the veto. There *is* no actual enforcement because veto is an illusion.
But when both people actually believe they have the right and the ability to control the other person, that’s when vetos are used.
An ultimatum is the last straw in a situation that ultimately requires someone to make his own choice.
A veto does not give him that choice. He is simply ordered like a naughty child.
Of course it’s not possible, THAT’S THE FREAKING POINT.
It is completely irelevant that the veto was agreed to voluntarily. The veto assumes that the person issuing the veto has the power to make decisions for someone else and that person has no further control over their own behaviour. Both the vetoer and the vetoee have agreed that the vetoee is not capable of making their own decisions, so the control is given to someone else.
Hence, tacit’s claim that if a relationship is healthy, a veto is not necessary, and if it’s not healthy, a veto won’t stop it.
Consider, for example, the situation with Britney Spears. She’s an adult, but has proven so untrustworthy, that control of her assets and her personal life has been handed back to her father. Legally speaking, she cannot make decisions. She cannot enter into contracts, she’s not even allowed to balance her own checkbook. That’s a veto. He has actual, legal control over her decisions. She cannot make decisions for herself. There’s no ultimatum involved, she simply cannot make them. She can’t access her funds, she can’t buy stuff, she can’t do anything that her father says she can’t do. He may be lenient with her and not excercise his veto power often, but if he does, that’s it. He has the power to control her behaviour according to the limits of the negotiated veto structure.
Two adults discussing a situation where one says “If you do this, I will be unhappy” and the other says “well, if it’ll make you unhappy, I won’t”. That’s not a veto.
He has out-pithied the both of us.
The situation with Britney Spears isn’t anything like a veto in a poly relationship. It’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.
In the Britney case, the legal system has forcibly taken away her legal rights, whether she wanted them to or not. She never agreed beforehand that it was okay for them to do this. (and, technically, that process isn’t called a veto.)
If there’s a poly relationship out there in which one party forcibly removes another party’s right to make choices without their consent, that’s not veto, that’s abuse.
I’m not talking about how she came to lose her rights, I’m saying that’s what a veto effectively does. It gives someone else the ability to make decisions for you. Giving someone an ultimatum does not take his ability to make his own choice. A veto does. Any other use of the word is an incorrect use.
“What do you think about such things?”
I use a safeword because it is my body, but also because it’s my responsibility to my partner to call attention to things that require a safeword. I safeword not because I have ‘end control’ but because I see things differently than he will, even if he’s the most attentive top in the world. I safeword because not doing so can cause damage to my self, my mind, our connection, our communication, and our relationship. If I fail to safeword when I experience the need, I play a significant part in the damage to ‘us’. In our intimacy, I am given the right to call a stop to what he is doing, just as I have given that right to him precicely BECAUSE we willingly share those things so deeply and because that sharing of body, mind, heart and soul interact with me and mine.
I don’t use a safeword lightly. There are still those in the ‘community’ that argue it is weak to use a safeword, though it is growing in acceptance, especially for new or inexperienced couples. I’ve used it twice in 10 years of intense situations. I don’t use it lightly because it is significant it’s the pause button on EVERYTHING, no questions asked, in order to take time out to talk.
In considering the role of a safeword in this context, it would seem to me that ‘veto’ could be used in a similar manner – a poly safeword. My thought is that perhaps ‘veto’ does not have to be an ugly thing; perhaps it can be the pause button that creates, unquestioningly, a pause, and talk time – especially for those new to poly relationships.
*shrugs*
Just a half baked thought.
1. Safewords are generally temporary; veto is generally permanent.
From experience, I dispute that statement – once a safeword is used ALL action is stopped and a discussion takes place, a decision is made whether the action will continue then, or ever.
2. Safewords are for the heat of the moment; veto is (somewhat) considered – passion vs drama.
Safewords can be in the heat of the moment. They can also be called when one sees something is off, or wrong, (hey, my toe is stuck) when you feel badly (I suddenly don’t feel great) or there’s some sort of concern (there’s a bee in the room, and you haven’t seen it).
3. Safewords involve only the two (usually) immediately involved. Veto is imposed from the outside by a third party.
Safewords are used on scenes with any number of people involved. There are even ‘safewords’ in the form of a designated and trained monitor (Dungeon Monitor) who are permitted to, in effect, call ‘safeword’ on someone else entirely and interfere/ intercede/ assist with someone’s actions that may be unsafe, cause trouble, cause something unexpected to happen. I can call ‘safeword’ on that couple over there by approaching the DM and pointing out my concern for him/her to address.
My thought was that it’s possible that a ‘veto’ doesn’t have to be an ugly drama steeped control. Maybe if we could look for the positives, and the commonalities/ similarities, maybe it’s possible for a ‘veto’ to be more akin to a the security of a safeword.
Just a half baked thought.
It is completely irelevant that the veto was agreed to voluntarily.
I think it’s not only relevant, but crucial.
Let me put it another way. Based on‘s posts, I have gotten the impression that you are submissive (please correct me if I’m wrong, but hopefully the analogy will make sense anyway).
A lot of people have insisted to me that BDSM is nothing more than domestic violence with a fancy name. I have tried to point out to them that the difference between BDSM and abuse is that in BDSM, the submissive consents to everything that is done to him/her in advance.
If you enter a scene with a dom, and you state from the outset that you are ceding control to him/her, that is a choice. Even if the dom tells you to do something and you don’t really like it but you obey, it is consensual.
The same thing is true with a vetoer and a vetoee. The vetoee consents to ceding control–in that one area–to the vetoer. It’s a choice, just like a submissive makes a choice in deciding to give up control.
The veto assumes that the person issuing the veto has the power to make decisions for someone else and that person has no further control over their own behaviour. Both the vetoer and the vetoee have agreed that the vetoee is not capable of making their own decisions, so the control is given to someone else.
Wow, you are making an awful lot of assumptions about other people’s agreements here. Who are you to define what veto means for everyone who uses it? These assertions certainly aren’t true for my relationships!
As far as I know, there’s no one “official” definition of veto (in terms of poly relationships) any more than there is for, say, “primary.” I can’t speak for everyone’s veto agreements, but I can speak for the ones I’ve made.
In my relationships, I give veto power as a symbolic commitment, a way to say, “Your needs come first.” My husband asking for veto power is not saying that I’m not capable of making my own decisions. Rather, he is questioning his own ability to handle my decisions. My husband is not poly and would prefer to have a monogamous relationship. However, he recognizes that being poly makes me happy, and wants to support that. So we have to balance his needs and mine. When I married him, I did so under the agreement of monogamy. Later, when I discovered what poly was, I asked him to renegotiate the terms of our relationship. He certainly could have said no, and I would have stayed with him anyway. I take my commitments extremely seriously and for me, the ability to have multiple relationships is not more important than having a good marriage to him.
He agreed to let me date other people, but asked that if he found he truly couldn’t handle it emotionally, that he be allowed to ask me to end the relationship. Opening up our relationship was a terrifying thing for him to do, because he simply isn’t “wired” poly. He cannot love another person the way he loves me, without his feelings for me diminishing (he’s tried). He puts his faith in me when I say that I can love more than one person at a time.
When he agreed to let me date other people, he said he wasn’t willing to lose his marriage over it. My giving him veto power was a way for me to say, “I am committed to you and to our relationship, and if push comes to shove, I will sacrifice my secondary relationship rather than sacrificing my marriage.”
My husband is well aware that I can always choose to walk out on him. He has no actual means of enforcing a veto–all he can do is leave me. But he also knows that when I make a commitment, I keep it. And he trusts me to keep this one–not because he has any ability to deprive me of choice, but because I made a promise.
Actually, we recently renegotiated his veto power because my secondary relationship has reached a point where we both felt that a veto would be unfair and unreasonable, both to me and the other person involved. So we don’t have veto in that relationship anymore. Vetoes aren’t always set in stone.
Not everyone views veto power the way you describe. And not every couple who decides to use one is dysfunctional.
No, I am absolutely not submissive and I’m offended you lept to that conclusion
I apologize, I don’t know why I thought that, then.
I do hope you get my analogy regardless.
No, I don’t see veto in a poly relationship as being anything like a D/s relationship. Much like D/s only superficially resembles abuse, a veto in a non-BDSM relationship does not perform the same function as a D/s relationship.
As you’ve explained it, maybe some folks would be happy having a safeword in a poly format – one that means “right now, can’t deal, pause, I’m overwhlemed, get back to ya on it all” and, for that person, they can drop out “safely” of whatever’s going on at that moment- however, I think “veto” might not be it, simply because of what it means: I exercise power of you to stop everything now, and that is law. So… How about “Clockwork Orange” as a nice safe word? lol I mean, how many times does that ever come into casual, every day conversation? š
Thanks for the response, and the thought you put into it.
And thank YOU, for posing the question, it’s caused me to think critically about this stray thought, and to articulate the concepts to my partner.
Discussion is always good! š
At the risk of popping into a dangerous conversation, I wanted to share an impression.
You strike me as what I’d call an ‘edge’ case. That veto has worked for you, in that fashion and in your relationship, is unusual.
While I’d say you successfully defended the use of a veto agreement between you and your husband, I’m curious how you felt it impacted the other person you were seeing. Was it not an emotional Sword of Damocles over them? How did they deal with the knowledge that their relationship could be terminated by someone not *in* the relationship?
Agreed. I think more folks should be open to the process, and it’s a shame so many feel threatened by it. This mechanism of debate, for lack of a better way to put it, has served me very well in my life. To be able to put a concept or idea on the table, gather a bunch of folks who are all quite different from me and each other, and laughingly yell “FIRE AWAY!” is amazing. To shoot at a theory until you have something living and breathing? That’s valuable. Saves a lot of time, effort and energy, too.
If you don’t mind and when you have time, I’d like to continue this discussion if you’re okay with that. I have some ideas and questions I wanted to put out there and yell “FIRE AWAY!” and yoru brain is a most welcome addition.
Unfortunately, debate is an art many have lost the skill for, in general. It’s a shame, really.
I’m always interested in good debates, and nice meaty subjects that keep my brain going. I’d be happy to continue the discussion – though you may appreciate it taking place in your virtual space, rather than mine (I’m open to either, but am also cognisant that my LJ won’t be comfortable for everyone to experience, so I shall leave it to you to determine if you’d like to ‘friend me’).
Wow, that is really thoughtful of you, thanks so much!
I gather you’re BDSM-oriented. If so, you’ll find me kink-aware, kink-friendly and hopefully somewhat not kink-ignorant, so it should be all good and I look forward to being able to have more discussions in such topics. Perhaps I will read your blog over a ncie cup of tea or two over the holiday week end – muhaha! š
Oh, if I’ve misunderstood, please let me know!
However, I wanted to do two thigns – 1) continue the poly discussion here (I gots questions and thoughts!) and B – also invite your thoughts and ideas ito the post I’m writing in my blog.
It’s about control, which seems to be the year’s theme as I look around me (maybe it’s the challenge of having new eyes to look at an “old” subject, or I could be just letting the monkeys type again! lol)… Several folks who choose to jump into the flying monkey sessions on my blog are kink-involved, and that can be an aspect to consider.
In any event, I will proceed with 1 next and eventually post B. You are soooooo invited. š
Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Okay, it might be a bit confusing, but I’m jumping back up here again. (Jump with me!) I’d like to discuss some things you bring up so I can better understand, and it may seem like I’m taking a tangental left but hang with me here. (Oh and I do have tea right now – ha!:) )
I have great familiarity with the concept and use of safewords in the BDSM context. For the record, I’m not of the opinion it’s weak to word on something. But in my mind, this talk was about using the word veto as a safety factor in poly relations, and I’d like to go deeper on this, and background might help us do better here.
You should probably know the whole veto concepts pisses me off, and just leaves me… well… sad, then empty.
It implies that someone can “make” me not do something I am doing. It takes away my free will when that wasn’t or perhaps shouldn’t be part of the deal. It means I am not trusted to make decisions. It means I must live in fear that my partner will “veto” someone I love, or am coming to love, and suddenly I have an ultimatum on my hands. Or that I may be vetoed out because someone else has a hangnail they ain’t takin’ care of.
Vetoes aren’t always honest, meaning not everyone calls it what it is. It’s uncomfortable. Some people imply it, some deny it, but it is what it is in any language: Someone trying to control you.
Understand, I really don’t like ultimatums. Giving me an ultimatum is a lot like telling me you don’t want to be involved with me anymore. It means you’re trumping my ass. It means you think you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do, and who I can and cannot do it with. While I want the input of others, my mind is mine to use or abuse, and those decisions belong to me.
So yeah, I feel it’s my life, one I’ve chosen to share with you, and the instant I even sniff an ultimatum, it’s like this reflex mechanism that causes me to literally start ticking off the reasons why I’m with you in the first place and, more often than not, you’ll see the back of me.
And it will hurt. Not just hurt you, but me. Just cos I’m walking away and you can only see the back of me don’t mean I’m not crying when I’m doing it. And, frankly, I think the whole thing sucks.
I may not like everyone you choose to spend your time with, and I don’t expect to. It’s just not realistci to like everyone and, quite frankly, sometimes it’s internal and all about what someone represents to you rather than who they are, and often says more about where you’re at than what’s actually going on externally.
But own it. Say “I need to figure out what this is about for me” and then go do it. Do the real work? Enjoy the real rewards. Take short cuts? You cheat yourself, and everyone around you of the experiences they’re in it for.
Yeah, life’s messy. Safewording can be handy in any arrangements. My sister jokes with me and says my life safeword is a phrase called “I dunno, I’ll get back to ya” and she’s probably right. But guess what? I will get back to you. It might take five years, but it will happen. And I don’t need to engage the illusion of control or the elements of manipulation by pulling a veto to do it.
If I’m with you, I’m with you. Show me who you are so I can better love you, even if it means somebody walks away. We’re (usually) richer and betetr for it all in the end, right?
Now, what do you mean by “poly safeword”? Do you mean “a time out for you to get yourself together”, or do you mean “your partner stops everything going on that moment, even if it means disregarding someone else he or she is involved with”? Or is it something else entirely, which is wholly possible as at times I am dense like flourless chocolate torte. š
Okay, ready? NOW FIRE AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Woo hoo! š
PS: Your honest responses are what I’m after, whether you think I will like them/agree or not, and I thank you for them in advance. (I smile gently here.)
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Jumping with you…
Verb
1. to refuse consent to (a proposal, such as a government bill)
2. to prohibit or forbid: the Sports Minister vetoed the appointments [Latin: I forbid]
“It implies that someone can “make” me not do something I am doing.”
The reality I see is that we are ‘made’ to do things all the time. I choose to acknowledge this, and that others have influence upon me and my choices. My choices also influence them.
“It takes away my free will when that wasn’t or perhaps shouldn’t be part of the deal.”
The concept of free will bothers me greatly, in part because I often see it used as an excuse for being allowed to do as one pleases when one pleases. “I can express hate because I have free will” or “I can do x because I have FREEDOM”.
I’m told it’s a very Canadian way of looking at things… the idea of boundries to my rights. For instance, my right to free speach ends when it begins to infringe on another’s right to comfort, safety and life free from harm/persecution etc. Specifically, in my relationship, my rights to do as I please end when they begin to interfere with his needs, and should be given careful consideration when they interfere with his wants. I choose that set of rights and considerations when making the choice to build a relationship with my partner.
“It means I am not trusted to make decisions. It means I must live in fear that my partner will “veto” someone I love, or am coming to love, and suddenly I have an ultimatum on my hands. Or that I may be vetoed out because someone else has a hangnail they ain’t takin’ care of.”
Yes, if a veto is an ultimatum. I think it may be a logic error to assume that the definition of veto is an ultimatum. If I refuse to consent to my partner’s desire to dip me a tub of watermelon that is not an ultimatum. It is a veto, certainly (definition 1 above)
I don’t like ultimatums. They have no place in a mature adult relationship, ultimatums are something that children give, in the school yard sandbox. Communication theorists, and relationship councillors alike will tell you that the communication loop breaks when encountering the wall of an ultimatum. It is communication suicide.
Having said that, it is perfectly valid for someone to state their needs and explain that their needs are important enough that if they can not met, they will ‘vote with their feet’. That is a responsible and mature way to ensure your needs are met, if all other options fail. It is perfectly valid to refuse consent to something as well.
Because I am invested in and interested in preserving my primary relationship, I’m not interested in the idea of ‘veto’ being an ultimatum.
So, all this to say, the idea that a veto is an ultimatum confuses me. ‘Refusing consent to’ is not the same as ‘an ultimatum’. Perhaps instead of using the word ‘veto’ which has many confusing and maybe incorrect connotations/assumptions/ definitions, the use of a ‘poly safeword’ might be a compromise.
A poly safeword might be a time-out, it might be a ‘halt’ called on anything further with those involved, until discussions take place, it might be a barameter of someone’s distress. BDSM safewords are used for many different reasons as well, but the unifying concept is that everything stops until the talking takes place.
Ultimately a safeword is not an illusion of control, or an element of manipulation. A safeword is a life preserver for the individuals and relationship, it is a tool to ensure the healthy preservation of communication, it is a clearly defined and understood mechanism to assist, not destroy. The moment one is using the safeword as an excuse or shield for manipulation it is no longer a safeword, but plain ol’ manipulation.
Okay woops you kinda answered part of my last post to you over here. Sorry (if sorry applies), or maybe it’s just a case of inspired minds!
I read what you say above and to me this is not a veto. Veto means “I trump your backside and it all completely halts.”
The things you list as truly risky behaviours (that effect health and, in advertantly, the health of others) are commonly referred to as deal breakers, or bottom lines, where I come from and a bit of a different flavoured tottsie pop, if you will.
See? That’s how I perceive the whole veto thing, and what I’ve been saying all along: Veto = ultimatum. Quite frankly? Few things in life have to come down to that.
He’s been fine with it, but then, his wife has also held veto power over our relationship until recently. I am his secondary just as he is mine.
At the risk of coming late to the party…
…I’ll bring up my “right arm” analogy.
We didn’t have a veto per se. But I told one of my primaries that she had the power to end my relationship with my other primary, but she should consider it as being the equivalent of chopping off my right arm.
There are situations when chopping off my right arm is necessary. To save me from a disease. To throw to the hungry lions about to eat my children. In those cases, yes, she should chop off my right arm. Even if I’m not happy about it, I will understand and, in the end, acknowledge that she did the right thing.
On the other hand, if she chops off my right arm with no particularly good reason for it, other than that she really didn’t much like the look of it…well, it that case, I would be pretty pissed. That would basically be a pretty unforgiveable grievance.
I do not hold this up as a good example. What ended up happening was that she cut off my right arm for no particularly good reason, and it made me so angry that I cut off my left arm, too. Ha. That showed her.
A long winded way to say yep, I agree with you. Veto sucks.
At the risk of coming late to the party…
…I’ll bring up my “right arm” analogy.
We didn’t have a veto per se. But I told one of my primaries that she had the power to end my relationship with my other primary, but she should consider it as being the equivalent of chopping off my right arm.
There are situations when chopping off my right arm is necessary. To save me from a disease. To throw to the hungry lions about to eat my children. In those cases, yes, she should chop off my right arm. Even if I’m not happy about it, I will understand and, in the end, acknowledge that she did the right thing.
On the other hand, if she chops off my right arm with no particularly good reason for it, other than that she really didn’t much like the look of it…well, it that case, I would be pretty pissed. That would basically be a pretty unforgiveable grievance.
I do not hold this up as a good example. What ended up happening was that she cut off my right arm for no particularly good reason, and it made me so angry that I cut off my left arm, too. Ha. That showed her.
A long winded way to say yep, I agree with you. Veto sucks.
I see this becoming a nitpicky and largely pointless semantic debate.
I use veto in my relationships, and I know others who do, and none of us intend it to mean, “I trump your backside and it all completely halts.”
So, to hear people who clearly don’t use vetoes defining what it means for the rest of us is presumptuous at best, and insulting at worst.
A veto in the sense that you imply is technically impossible, unless you are in the habit of chaining your lovers up in your basement. š And that’s what I’m getting at. Any reasonably intelligent person who enters into a veto arrangement fully recognizes that either partner always has the opportunity to leave. The veto is simply a promise, and promises can always be broken if the situation demands it.
If such a veto is in fact impossible, what is the point of debating it and trying to judge whether it’s good or evil?
(edited for bad HTML)
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concise explanation of why veto is bad.
Okay, that made me laugh.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Regarding your comments on free will, I think we rather agree.
I’m one of “those people” who believe the States need an accompanying Bill of Pesponsibilites to go with the privileges the Bill of Rights affords. (In short? You’re right to punch ends at my nose.) By no means am I using this argument to negate personal responsibility, although many of my arguments may infer one already has that firmly in place.
Barring extremeties (such as the previously mentioned risky behaviour scenarios like barebacking with HIV – who does this btw? lol Wow!) I’m talking about the power of veto here.
Having been on both sides of that coin (as the person who got a veto without it being called that, and as a person who people have come to with vetoes before – btw, that word just looks really wrong spelled out like that v-e-t-o-e-s, whew) I think I may have something to offer on the matter.
In my minf, if you need the power of a real veto, you’re probably not ready to take on what you’re contemplating. Because veto is about the power to be able to halt everything with a snap because you say so. I don’t mean in the context of a scene as a safeword, I mean in open relations, or even vanilla ones.
I think if you can’t say to someone – even in a messy mascara running snot bubbles coming out your nose kinda way which would translate into “Hey, wtf is that? Dude, we so gotta talk, lemme blow my nose, k?” – I’m not feeling so great about this, can we talk? then there’s something wrong.
Veto 2. to prohibit or forbid
Nobody has the right to a veto with me. Just trust me, I’ll earn it, and talk to me. Or else what’s the point?
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Having said that, it is perfectly valid for someone to state their needs and explain that their needs are important enough that if they can not met, they will ‘vote with their feet’. That is a responsible and mature way to ensure your needs are met, if all other options fail. It is perfectly valid to refuse consent to something as well.
I’m really not sure how this is any different from an ultimatum.
You state your needs, your partner doesn’t meet your needs, you leave. That’s what an ultimatum is–if you don’t meet my needs, then I’ll leave you.
‘Refusing consent to’ is not the same as ‘an ultimatum’.
I like the way you put this, because that’s how vetoes have worked in my relationships. Basically the vetoer is saying, “I no longer consent to allowing the other relationship negatively affect my relationship.” There’s still an underlying ultimatum there, however: end the relationship, or I will have to leave.
I don’t think ultimatums are terrible things. I think using them willy nilly is bad. But everyone on this planet has limits, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying, “This is my limit–cross it and I will have to leave.”
I see this becoming a nitpicky and largely pointless semantic debate.
Wow. Sorry to hear that.
I use veto in my relationships, and I know others who do, and none of us intend it to mean, “I trump your backside and it all completely halts.”
That’s good to know. Just so you know, when folks around me feel so inclined, we say “Objection!” , often followed by “Your honour” as one of us is a smart ass lawyer (and we got it from him). lol I like this a lot. It acknowledges your right to object without stepping on anyone else’s right to be, which, and I know you’re gonna hate this, is what I feel a veto, by definition, really does.
A veto in the sense that you imply is technically impossible, unless you are in the habit of chaining your lovers up in your basement. š And that’s what I’m getting at.
I doubt I implied anything. I actually said it, I think. And you just illustrated the point beautifully with the whole “chain ’em up in the basement” thing.
The veto is simply a promise, and promises can always be broken if the situation demands it.
A veto is a promise? You’ve lost me here. I don’t see that at all. Not by definition or by practice. Promises can be broken situationally? Oooooh, grey area. I like it for a discussion topic. We’ll have to go there sometime. But, for all intents and purposes, I make few promises as that is my word, and I tend to keep them. It’s a personal integrity thing, if you will.
If such a veto is in fact impossible, what is the point of debating it and trying to judge whether it’s good or evil?
I’m simply telling you that, by its actual definition and nature, it seems to be about power, the kind I think is dangerous for al the things it brings with it that we may be better off without, and that perhaps creating other more functioning behaviours would benefit us far more.
But if a veto is only defined and used how we please, why bother?
For the record, I never meant to irritate you and thank you for your time. Namaste š
But when both people actually believe they have the right and the ability to control the other person, that’s when vetos are used.
It’s kind of insulting when someone who clearly doesn’t use vetoes tells those of us who do what we believe.
Yes, the word “veto” can be semantically loaded and risks being misunderstood. I personally still call it a “veto” if what I’m declaring is that I will likely (not necessarily, for one can never know for sure, but likely) be made too uncomfortable to remain happy in my relationship with a partner if that partner starts a relationship with a certain particular someone(s) else.
In committed partnerships– “marriages” in the meaningful sense if not the legal one– I strongly believe that this kind of “veto” is not only sensible but fully respectful and healthy.
To me, a marriage means that all partners to the marriage agree to make major decisions by full consensus. If anyone objects or has significant concerns about a major decision that will affect all partners, and reasonable discussion is unable to resolve the disagreement or ease the concerns, then that effectively ought to veto the decision.
To me, the above is a core expectation of a modern marriage. It is not appropriate– not a respectful partnership– if one person alone and unilaterally (not necessarily the same person in all cases) decides things such as what city the family will live in, how many children the family will have, who should take certain jobs, etc.
However, if the above rule were also applied to every minor decision, not just major decisions, that would be micromanaging and overly controlling of one’s spouse(s).
Does one spouse starting a relationship with somebody else constitute a major decision or a minor one? Personally, I consider such an action “very major,” with immediate and significant effects on everyone in the family and also the potential for considerably greater consequences to everyone as the relationship unfolds. To me, then, such a decision ethically demands full spousal consensus. That effectively means allowing any spouse to “veto” new relationships on a case by case basis.
I doubt I implied anything. I actually said it, I think. And you just illustrated the point beautifully with the whole “chain ’em up in the basement” thing.
ACK! The dear person sitting next to me just pointed out that I should probably clarify that, so maybe I should!!! D’oh – lemme try again.
I don’t – repeat do not – chain people in the basement. Not without their consent, anyway. It’s just poor manners.
I think a veto is a bad concept to apply in personal relationshops because, short of your illustration, it doesn’t really keep you safe, it just creates power-related issues that most people would rather eat live bees wearing razor blade jackets than deal with, and there’s got to be a better way of communicating our distress, discomfort or objections than applying a term that essentially means “I have the power to make you do what I want, when I want.”
Whew, sorry about that! š
Thank you for linking to this.
tacit this was an eloquent and thoughtful dissemination of some things that I had not colesced into being. Thank you.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
I think we’ve found the distinction then, even approaching it from two different perspectives.
Both of us seem more comfortable with the first definition ‘to refuse consent to’ but not ‘to prohibit or forbid’. The defining difference between the two is that the first, I have responsibility and choice over me, and in the second, I am extending that responsibility and choice over onto another person.
So that begs the question: do those who are uncomfortable with the definition #2 have issues, difficulties, problems or concerns about control? Is the core of this about control?
*grins*
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
“I’m really not sure how this is any different from an ultimatum.”
I see this as ‘refusing consent to’ which is a ‘right’ that everyone has.
Cause and effect exists. You do this, and I’ll do this. Poke me, and I’ll feel it, maybe even move away from it. The fact that I have that right to move away isn’t an ultimatum. Nor is telling you that I may need to move away from your poke an ultimatum.
To use me as an example, I need to trust my partner deeply, in part because of how our relationship works and the things we do. If that trust is broken the cause to that effect might be that I have to choose whether to stay in the relationship, or not. An ultimatum, IMO, is more about weilding that choice maliciously, or manipulating the other’s choices by rubbing their nose in the fact that I have this choice.
Laying one’s cards on the table, informing the other person that the issue is important enough that the cause and effect may well be you exercising your choice to refuse to consent to the situation, is valid in discussion between adults.
security in relationships
I greatly admire the security a person has within a relationship to be able to watch their mate ‘fall in love’ with another and not be riddled with jealousy. Maybe in my next life I will be that evolved.
security in relationships
I greatly admire the security a person has within a relationship to be able to watch their mate ‘fall in love’ with another and not be riddled with jealousy. Maybe in my next life I will be that evolved.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
I believe you have the right to decide “not for me, ain’t gonna do it” for yourself, but you don’t have the right to look at your partner’s relationship with someone else and decide “nope, ain’t gonna happen, end of it cos I say so.”
That’s been the bottom line for me, and what veto means, spoken or otherwise. And it’s not that I’m uncomfortable with any definition, it’s that the word veto means you get to control my life, and my relations with others, and the other person involved doesn’t get a say in what’s rightfully theirs to call.
In short, you don’t get to pull the plug on my girlfriend. We decide that, not you. WHat you decide is whether or not you want to be involved with me and how, and that is definitely your right.
It’s about empowerment and trust. If I am with you, I want you to be the best you that you can be. Sometimes, I guess you walk through tough times to do it, but you come out of it hopefully better and stronger. Not everything feels so great sometimes, ya know? But that’s okay. I think most experiences have value.
My problem with veto is the same as “we swing, but our limits are we don’t love them or kiss them on the lips”. O-kay. The illusion of control is not the answer to the reality of fear and often gives the false sense of security that leaves your backside wide open to what can really damage what you’re building. Not a super good way to be proactive, or build the kind of flexibility and good will it takes to navigate tougher times.
A friend of mine reminded me of somethign I’d said a few years ago. “If poly means many loves, then where’s the love in veto?” Because we all matter or we don’t, and if we don’t I don’t wanna do it cos there’s no damn point.
On the plus side, think of it this way: If you were my girlfirend’s girlfriend and I didn’t like having you around for whatever reason, I would not turn around and tell her “You can’t see that woman anymore” and you wouldn’t lose someone you love because I didn’t take her up on her offer for veto power. Isn’t that nice to know?
By the way, I’m surprised and pleased to hear from you again. Thanks for writing.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
Both of us seem more comfortable with the first definition ‘to refuse consent to’ but not ‘to prohibit or forbid’.
I refuse to consent to anyone being able to prohibit or forbid me from being involved with someone else I choose to be involved with, said the Chesire cat. š
Here via. And I completely agree with you.
I also agree, however, with the commenter who said that two people in a long-term relationship should have input into each other’s major life decisions.
My spouse checks with me before sleeping with a new partner; I recently said I’d be extremely uncomfortable with his having sex with someone whose STD history made me nervous, and he chose not to do so. We feel pretty strongly about not vetoing IN relationships, but seem to be comfortable saying “I can’t handle your doing X” in advance of a new relationship (or sexual dalliance). And while I don’t think ours is the One True Way, it seems like a pretty reasonable way to operate.
Here via. And I completely agree with you.
I also agree, however, with the commenter who said that two people in a long-term relationship should have input into each other’s major life decisions.
My spouse checks with me before sleeping with a new partner; I recently said I’d be extremely uncomfortable with his having sex with someone whose STD history made me nervous, and he chose not to do so. We feel pretty strongly about not vetoing IN relationships, but seem to be comfortable saying “I can’t handle your doing X” in advance of a new relationship (or sexual dalliance). And while I don’t think ours is the One True Way, it seems like a pretty reasonable way to operate.
Re: Veto – Control – Ultimatums – Power
An ultimatum, IMO, is more about weilding that choice maliciously, or manipulating the other’s choices by rubbing their nose in the fact that I have this choice.
Ah okay, thanks for clarifying.
We don’t disagree in general, we just define “ultimatum” differently.
**dies laughing**
I did not get the impression that you chain people up in the basement–no worries!
Let me try this one more time (and then I promise I’ll stop!)
I think people in this thread are setting up a straw man argument. The argument goes like this:
A. Veto means forcing someone to comply with your will and taking away their freedom of choice.
B. Forcing someone to comply with your will and taking away their freedom of choice is unethical.
C. Therefore, using a veto is unethical.
Now, I don’t have an issue with that argument so far, particularly not part B. The problems I have are these:
1. Not all poly people who use vetoes define them using A.
2. A veto as defined in A. isn’t even possible.
I have used vetoes in my relationships and that is most definitely not how they have been used. It’s an agreement, freely entered into by all parties (including secondaries). We understand that a veto doesn’t take away the vetoee’s ultimate right to choose–it can’t (barring the whole chained-in-the-basement scenario). Then again, no relationship agreement does that. Despite that, we all still make them, and we make them because we trust our partners to stand by what they say they will do.
So basically, I see a whole lot of people here who don’t use veto defining what it actually means for those of us who do. And then when one of us (that would be me!) stands up and says, “No, that’s not how veto works for us at all” I get told, “Well then what you have isn’t really a veto.”
Well, by their definition I guess it isn’t. But then what are people really arguing against here? An abstract term that doesn’t get applied in real life and in fact can’t even exist, or veto as it’s actually used? Because arguing against the latter serves no useful purpose.
The fact is, “veto” as it’s applied in at least some, and probably many, poly relationships doesn’t remotely resemble the dictionary definition of the word. Now, you could legitimately argue that it’s a poor word choice and something else should be used instead, but it’s out there now and a lot of people are happy with it. The lay usage of a word often takes on a much different meaning than its technical (in this case, legal) counterpart.
IMO, if people are going to rant about the way poly folks use veto, it would make sense to find out how poly folks use veto. And that means more than just “how my insane, selfish and totally dysfunctional ex used it against me in the past.” One bad experience does not warrant a sweeping generalization.
And there’s the inherent superiority to it that irks me, too. This notion of, “Well, it’s not technically possible to force someone to do what you want so veto power is all an illusion.” There’s a definite implication on this thread that people who use veto are too stupid to realize this. We’re not. We enter into veto agreements knowing that they aren’t enforceable by anything other than our own willingness to leave (just like ALL relationship agreements–should we just stop making them?) We enter into veto agreements trusting the vetoer not to abuse the veto, and trusting the vetoee to value the relationship enough to abide by it. It’s the willingness to violate another person’s trust–not the veto itself–that determines whether a relationship is unhealthy.
I think I have rambled here long enough. If that doesn’t get my point across, perhaps I am not capable of doing so. Either way, I’m going to go have a holiday with my family. If you are USian, have a happy 4th!
Just a minor point
Promises can be broken situationally? Oooooh, grey area.
I think I gave the wrong impression in my comment and I wanted to clarify. I’m making a distinction between what’s possible and what’s ethical. It is always possible to break a promise, and that is what I meant. I do not believe that it is ethical, however.
My big problem with this article is it assumes the worst about the concept of a “veto” – yes, if a veto is used indiscriminately, it’s about control. But that’s a straw man, the “veto” can mean many things.
I do pity any pair where communication and trust have gotten so bad that a veto is used in that way, and that control issues are so badly handled – but even in that case, it’s not the veto that’s the problem, it’s the communication and trust. I certainly wouldn’t use my veto in anything but the most dire circumstance, and I have good enough communication with my primary that she’d know and understand exactly why.
In my primary relationship, the veto is not a means of control, but of communication. It’s used *exceedingly* sparingly (and never, to date) – it’s a formalized way of raising the red flag and saying, “Hey! We’re headed towards a deal breaker!”
The fact of the matter is that there are situations that are unbearable, and we always have the ultimate freedom to withdraw our participation in a relationship. A veto is a way of saying, before one gets beyond the point of no return, that a choice between circumstances is imminent. *Granting* a veto power is a way of saying, “I want you to be reassured that if we reach such a point where such a choice must be made, I’ll choose the relationship with you over the new one.”
My big problem with this article is it assumes the worst about the concept of a “veto” – yes, if a veto is used indiscriminately, it’s about control. But that’s a straw man, the “veto” can mean many things.
This post is assuming a specific definition of “veto,” which is a unilateral authority to forbid another person’s relationship. And in that sense, it is absolutely about control.
I don’t think that’s a straw man, though. In fact, it has been my experience that many, many poly people–particularly couples and most particularly couples who are new to polyamory–do use the term “veto” in exactly that way, and see nothing wrong with that.
I see a lot of folks who are new to polyamory, so it may be that a disproportionate number of the people I know and have met personally use veto in this sense. Nevertheless, I do believe that the sort of veto I’m talking about here is far more common in poly circles than many folks might realize, and indeed I’ll even go so far as to say that among newcomers to polyamory it’s arguably one of the most common relationship agreements.
And, as you can no doubt tell, I don’t think it’s a good idea. š
My big problem with this article is it assumes the worst about the concept of a “veto” – yes, if a veto is used indiscriminately, it’s about control. But that’s a straw man, the “veto” can mean many things.
I do pity any pair where communication and trust have gotten so bad that a veto is used in that way, and that control issues are so badly handled – but even in that case, it’s not the veto that’s the problem, it’s the communication and trust. I certainly wouldn’t use my veto in anything but the most dire circumstance, and I have good enough communication with my primary that she’d know and understand exactly why.
In my primary relationship, the veto is not a means of control, but of communication. It’s used *exceedingly* sparingly (and never, to date) – it’s a formalized way of raising the red flag and saying, “Hey! We’re headed towards a deal breaker!”
The fact of the matter is that there are situations that are unbearable, and we always have the ultimate freedom to withdraw our participation in a relationship. A veto is a way of saying, before one gets beyond the point of no return, that a choice between circumstances is imminent. *Granting* a veto power is a way of saying, “I want you to be reassured that if we reach such a point where such a choice must be made, I’ll choose the relationship with you over the new one.”
Well, when you put it in perspective of the amount of ground covered by the very concept of veto, I think it was reasonably concise.
Not as concise as E=MC2 perhaps, but not bad š
Indeed. I love them and want the highest and best for them.. AND I would LIKE to be around to see it and share in it. š
When we were newly married we watched a show where the man was cheating in the monogamous relationships and snuck home and climbed into bed while she pretended not to know and to be asleep.. I turned to my new husband and said if you want to sleep with another person.. we’ll talk.. and see what we can do. If you cheat on me with another person – I will divorce you.. If you ever come into my bed after fucking another woman without showering first..? – I will kill you. *smiles sweetly*
I think there’s a certain amount of truth to that, really. A veto can become a passiv way of avoiding making a decision or taking responsibility for the decision, and that sounds kinda fucked up, too.
I’m not sure the term “veto,” at least in the meaning of “forbid,” is ever a good idea.
I’m certainly on board with the notion that everyone should be able to speak up about things that impact them. If I’m starting nw relationship, my existing partner can and should say “Hey, I don’t really like her, and here’s why” if they see a problem.
But I wouldn’t interpret that as a partner forbidding the relationship.
Now, if I care about the happiness of my partners (which I do) and I respect their judgement (which I do), I’d listen to what they had to say. Ultimately, though, I would take their words as advice, not veto; the responsibility for making the final call rests with me.
The defining element of “veto” as I use the word here is that the final call rests with the person making the veto, not the person being vetoed. (You can argue that the final call always rests with the person being vetoed because the person being vetoed can always just say “STFU” and leave the relationship–which sometimes happens–but that’s not the way veto agreements are intended.)
Yes, the word “veto” can be semantically loaded and risks being misunderstood. I personally still call it a “veto” if what I’m declaring is that I will likely (not necessarily, for one can never know for sure, but likely) be made too uncomfortable to remain happy in my relationship with a partner if that partner starts a relationship with a certain particular someone(s) else.
That is one way to interpret “veto,” though it’s probably outside the definition of “veto” I’m using in this article.
Most often, explicit “veto” arrangements in a relationship, at least in the relationships I’ve seen and heard about, are relationships which give one party blanket power to forbid another party from some course of action. In that sense, the defining element of veto is the abrogation of the right to make a choice to someone else.
I get what you’re saying here, and at the end of the day I tend to think it’s really the most healthy way to run a relationship.
The kind of thing you’re talking about is less “I forbid you to do X” than it is “I am uncomfortable if you do X, and if I am sufficiently uncomfortable I may not be able to stay with you.” The distinction between the two is subtle, but I think it’s more important than just semantics. The first, more straightforward kind of veto removes one’s ability to make decisions; the second does not do that, it simply communicates the idea that one’s choice may have consequences. If I say to you “You may make the choice that seems best to you, but I reserve the right to leave if your choices make me uncomfortable,” I’m still respecting your right to choose, and not seeking to make the choice for you.
Fear of abandonment isn’t the only possible reason for a veto, but here’ shte million-dollar question: Can you name another reason for veto which can not be discharged simply by communication in a way that makes a person’s feelings clear but doesn’t forbid a course of action? That is, what function does veto serve that “Honey, look, this is making me unhappy, here’s why it’s making me unhappy, please think about that when you make your choices” does not serve?
I tend to agree witht he posts above that veto doesn’t really map onto safewords well.
I tend to see, and use, safewords in a much more limited scope or context. A better way to map safewords onto relationship agreements might be to say to a partner, “Look, I don’t want you to have unbarriered sex with so-and-so until we’ve had a chance to talk about STD testing and sexual history,” rather than “I forbid you to see so-and-so”. That is, it’s a way to put the brakes on a particular expression, for a specific reason directly related to health and well-being.
I just think you’re misunderstanding what people mean when they say they have a “veto.” Let’s say my sweetie and I agree on a veto. What that essentially means is, “If you tell me one of my relationships is making you very unhappy, I agree to end it, because I prioritize your happiness above my own, or because your happiness is so central to my own, or because your role in my life is of the utmost importance, etc. etc.” What function does that serve? It allows people to have a general idea of what may happen in the future. Which is nice. Especially if you’re strongly invested in couplehood, which a lot of poly people are.
I suppose I don’t see anything wrong with a “veto” that is freely offered. The vetoes that seem to lead to drama are the ones that are acceded to under duress.
No one has the power to end a relationship for someone else. Period.
That’s kind of the point. And I’m done repeating myself
I agree with everything you’ve said in this thread!
So vetoes are evil, but vetoes don’t exist?
Right. Makes perfect sense.
You’re deliberately misunderstanding me. I’ve said several times that the illusion of power is part of the problem.
Now please fuck off and leave me alone
You’ve ordered me to leave you alone, so I clearly have no choice but to comply!
OMG that’s AWESOME! I’m familiar with The Wet Spots but I hadn’t heard that song.
I just think you’re misunderstanding what people mean when they say they have a “veto.” Let’s say my sweetie and I agree on a veto. What that essentially means is, “If you tell me one of my relationships is making you very unhappy, I agree to end it, because I prioritize your happiness above my own, or because your happiness is so central to my own, or because your role in my life is of the utmost importance, etc. etc.”
I guess I don’t see a difference between that and an agreement that says “tell me how you feel, and because your feelings are important to me, I will make my decisions accordingly.”
Most often, when I have seen people use veto power in a relationship (and certainly when i have had lovers ask me for veto power in my relationships), what they are talking about is something very, very simple: “I have the unilateral power to forbid you to be in or continue a relationship as I see fit.”
I see a distinction between that and “I will tell you how I feel about what you are doing, and let you choose as you see fit; I believe that my feelings are important to you and that you will make choices that honor my feelings.”
Do you see the distinction?
What function does that serve? It allows people to have a general idea of what may happen in the future. Which is nice. Especially if you’re strongly invested in couplehood, which a lot of poly people are.
I submit that that function is an illusion. If Alice ad Bob are a couple, Alice may want veto power so that she has a feeling of safety and continuity with Bob, but the feeling that veto gives her–powerful and reassuring as it is–is a myth. If Bob truly is honorable and truly is dedicated to Alice, then Alice does not need the unilateral authoority to forbid Bob to do something, because Bob cares about Alice’s happiness and will freely choose to do things that maximize Alice’s happiness. All she needs to do is communicate.
If, on the other hand, Bob is a bastard sunuvabitch who doesn’t give a toss about Alice, then if Alice does pull out her veto, what makes her think that Bob’s not going to say “STFU, I’ll do what I want to do”?
That is, a veto (in the sense of “unilateral ability to forbid a course of action”) only works if the people agreeing to it are honorable–and if the people are honorable, it’s not necessary.
I suppose I don’t see anything wrong with a “veto” that is freely offered.
You get into a sticky wicket here, though. If Alice and Bob are a couple, and Alice gets involved with Bill, is Bill a free participant in that agreement? After all, it arguably affects Bill more than it affects anyone else!
And that still leaves the problem that veto can destroy the very security it is intended to preserve. Whether they are devoted to the idea of couplehood or not, if Bob pulls out his veto power often enough, he’s going to undermine his relationship with Alice eventually. Even if Alice agreed to it. When people are involved in romantic relationships, ending those relationships hurts. Hurt your lover enough times–even if your lover 100% agreed to it freely, even if you believe that your motivations are faultless and your reasons are just–and you’re going to damage your relationship.
No one has the power to end a relationship for someone else. Period.
I agree. In fact,t hat’s the central thesis of my entire post.
I think one confounding issue is that people will often use the concept of being able to express themselves inside a relationship as “veto.” Veto in its purest sense–and, in my experience, veto as it is most often put into practice in the context of polyamorous relationships–is exactly what you’re talking about here: the power to end another person’s relationship unilaterally.
It is this concept, the power to end another person’s relationship unilaterally, that I describe as “borderline-evil, that is in practice stupidly and evilly wrong.”
T other things that you and several of the other commenters have talked about, such as the right to say “Look, this is hurting me, if you care about my happiness it’s important for you to hear what I say,” I see as distinct from veto. Perhaps it’s important that I make more clear that I’m talking about veto in a specific and narrowly-defined sense of the word.
Just so. Particularly when you say “I think most reasonable poly folk would be able to take that information and examine whether or not their partner’s feelings are true and/or bother them. And then go from there.”
That opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms, though, which might be fun to pursue. So if you don’t mind me picking at that thread a bit…
A common thing I’ve heard in the poly community is “your feelings are always valid.” I don’t believe that’s true, at least not for a definition of “valid” that means “truthful.” For example, i think it’s quite possible for a person to have a feeling of insecurity–“I think you want to leave me for Bob, because Bob is smarter than I am,” for example–and to have that feeling be completely false in the sense that the person’s partner really doesn’t want to leave him for Bob.
So I think that the notion of saying “I feel bad about X, therefore you should stop X” can be a very dangerous one. I think that a reasonable person will say “Okay, let’s talk about why you feel that way, and see if we can get at the roots of whatever underlies those feelings,” but I don’t think a reasonable person should necessarily be expected to say “Okay, I won’t do X any more”.
I think there may be situations where one person says “I feel bad when you do X” and the other person may continue to do X anyway, even if the second person genuinely cares about the first person’s feelings. I think that a wise and compassionate person will seek to alleviate the fears of his partner, and will be willing to do whatever he can to allay those bad feelings, but that doesn’t always necessarily mean stopping X.
And I also think that there are situations where one person can say “I have bad feelings if you do X, so stop doing X”, and the other person may actually do more harm than good by not doing X. When dealing especially with fears and insecurities, there are times that giving in to them or steering a relationship around them rather than dealing with them directly actually makes them stronger.
Absolutely…welcome board!
Yep, I would tend to agree that the things you’re describing aren’t “vetos” in the sense that I am using “veto.”
In a situation where person B raises a concern, but the decision still rests with person A, I would say that person B has not issued a veto on person A. Like I said somewhere up there in another comment thread, the defining element for “veto” as I’m using it here is the authority vested in one person to unilaterally forbid some course of action of another person.
To answer your question, though: Yes, a surprisingly large number of people–including both people I know personally and people I have in the past been in a relationship–do sincerely believe that veto in the sense of “You will not see X again, because I said so!” actually works.
Yep, I agree with you absolutely 100%. In the end, that’s the reality.
That’s partly the point when I say that if the people are honorable, veto is unnecessary and if the people are not honorable, it’s useless. In the end, person A will only abide by person B’s veto if person A is honorable…
Ideally, in a relationship, the point at which one person feels the need to pack up and leave shouldn’t be arrived at by surprise. Ideally, the people involved will talk to each other enough so that if Bob is unhappy with Alice’s relationship with Bill, then Alice will know that, and understand why, before Bob is putting his clothes in the suitcase.
Not at all! š
My long running statement on veto power has been this: It exists whether tacitly or explicitly discussed. Veto power is effectively “End this other relationship or I am leaving”; it is the last ultimatum. Now the assumption is that the older relationship is the more likely to survive this ultimatum then the newer relationship, but this need not necessarily be the case.
Yep, and yep.
It surprises me sometimes that this is not self-evident, and I do wonder why that is. For quite few folks of my acquaintance, the notion that one person has the power to compel or forbid another person’s behavior seems eminently reasonable; to me, this power seems largely illusory. In the end, unless you’re holding a gun to someone’s head, you have no power over that person save for what that person gives you.
I’ve personally known a lot of folk who arrange veto in such a way that it can be invoked without appeal for any reason, or even for no reason at all. This sort of veto seems to me to be more common among folks new to polyamory than among folks who’ve been functionally poly for a long time, though I’ve seen it in both. For me, if a partner says “You know, I think wht you’re doing isn’t a good idea,” I better have a better answer than “but it’s fun”…but at the same time, they’d better be able to answer “Why isn’t it a good idea?” as well.
would actually argue that all relationships–poly or mono–already have veto power, whether it’s agreed to or not.
Ultimately, even if your partner agrees that you have veto power, you can’t force them to do anything. What a veto really means is, “If I ask you to give up so-and-so, and you don’t do it, then I will leave you.”
Well all hold the power to leave our partners, and always will.
Yep, exactly so. That’s right on the money.
But I wouldn’t call that a veto, and I’ll explain why.
The way I’m using the word “veto,” a veto is a unilateral authority over someone else’s behavior. When a person in a poly relationship says “I have veto over my partner’s other relationships,” most often (in my experience) what they mean is “I have the authority to forbid my partner from continuing a course of action.”
Now, it seems self-evident to me, and seems to be obvious to you if I read you correctly, that that power is an illusion. In the end, it simply isn’t real. We have power over ourselves, but absent guns and rope we don’t really have power over other people. If Alice says “I have veto over Bob,” and Alice believes that she can compel Bob to stop some course of action, Alice may be in for a surprise if Bob thinks otherwise.
The most important distinction between veto and any other arrangement that I see is veto assumes the power to make a decision for someone else; other arrangements do not.
For example, if you and I are involved, and I tell you “If you keep doing X, I will not be able to remain in this relationship,” I am acknowledging that the decision about doing X is yours. I’m telling you that your decision may affect whether or not our relationship is ongoing–but it’s still your decision to make.
With veto (as I am using the word in this post), I’m telling you that I have the right to make your decision for you; I’m saying that the authority to make the decision about your course of action rests with me, not with you.
Which is silly.
What you’re talking about–the right to let you know where I’m at, the right to end a relationship with you–isn’t veto precisely because it does not presume to make your decisions for you. It outlines the impact of your decisions on me, and outlines consequences to your decisions, so it may affect what you choose to do–but it does not presume to make the choice for you.
Does that make sense?
2. A veto as defined in A. isn’t even possible.
Agreed as I set out above.
IMO, if people are going to rant about the way poly folks use veto, it would make sense to find out how poly folks use veto. And that means more than just “how my insane, selfish and totally dysfunctional ex used it against me in the past.” One bad experience does not warrant a sweeping generalization.
Indeed. And if I were to have written this post on the basis of a single experience of my own in a single relationship, I would be reluctant to make the statements I’ve made.
But here’s the thing. The veto of the type I talk about in this post, the unilateral authority to forbid another person’s relationship, isn’t uncommon and isn’t the aberration, especially among poly newcomers.
It may be, especially if you’re accustomed to being around people who have significant experience with multiple relationships or people who’re accustomed to examining themselves and their relationships, that you haven’t encountered many folks who use veto in the way I describe. If so I congratulate you; you’ve been fortunate (or made good choices in friends and partners, or both).
The form of veto I’m talking about is, in my experience, depressingly common. I can name at least six people I know personally and well, just in the last couple of years, who believe that it is reasonable to exercise a relationship veto in the form of a unilateral control over the relationships of their partners. I have met many more people who believe in and use veto in this way at poly events and in poly groups, and it’s one of the most common things people ask me about in the email I receive from my poly site.
In my experience, this kind of approach to veto is more common among folks who are new to polyamory, and especially common among married couples who are new to polyamory and who have an extensive background in monogamous relationship but do not yet have any practical poly experience. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that this sort of veto arrangement is one of the single most common relationship agreements among such couples.
In the end, for people who do realize the illusory nature of such a unilateral veto power and who also understand that nobody can really control another person’s behavior anyway, the question I have is this: What is it that you would say distinguishes a veto from simply being wiling to listen to what your partner has to say? What definitional value does the word “veto” have, and what function would you say it serves (if any) that is not served simply by saying “Look, this person is making me unhappy, here’s why this person is making me unhappy”?
My big problem with this article is it assumes the worst about the concept of a “veto” – yes, if a veto is used indiscriminately, it’s about control. But that’s a straw man, the “veto” can mean many things.
This post is assuming a specific definition of “veto,” which is a unilateral authority to forbid another person’s relationship. And in that sense, it is absolutely about control.
I don’t think that’s a straw man, though. In fact, it has been my experience that many, many poly people–particularly couples and most particularly couples who are new to polyamory–do use the term “veto” in exactly that way, and see nothing wrong with that.
I see a lot of folks who are new to polyamory, so it may be that a disproportionate number of the people I know and have met personally use veto in this sense. Nevertheless, I do believe that the sort of veto I’m talking about here is far more common in poly circles than many folks might realize, and indeed I’ll even go so far as to say that among newcomers to polyamory it’s arguably one of the most common relationship agreements.
And, as you can no doubt tell, I don’t think it’s a good idea. š
In considering the role of a safeword in this context, it would seem to me that ‘veto’ could be used in a similar manner – a poly safeword. My thought is that perhaps ‘veto’ does not have to be an ugly thing; perhaps it can be the pause button that creates, unquestioningly, a pause, and talk time – especially for those new to poly relationships.
I think it depends a great deal on the context in which this safeword might be used. One thing which does concern me is that calling a unilateral halt, even a temporary one, on someone else’s relationship may damage that relationship, and even in a limited context it can create a profoundly disempowering effect for the third person involved. No matter how you slice it, if Alice and Bob are involved, and Bob calls even a safeword “timeout” on Bill’s relationship, Bob is unilaterally exerting control over Alice and Bill, rather than negotiating with Alice and Bill. Bill might reasonably find this offputting at best.
Blue Fish Tuba
I see some of what looks like that “blue fish tuba” effect happening in comments here. One will say “That doesn’t reflect MY experience, so you must be wrong!” and another will say “It totally does reflect MY experience, so YOU must be wrong!”
Never mind that people may have very different experiences, not to mention people may use language in wildly different ways to describe their experiences.
Blue Fish Tuba
I see some of what looks like that “blue fish tuba” effect happening in comments here. One will say “That doesn’t reflect MY experience, so you must be wrong!” and another will say “It totally does reflect MY experience, so YOU must be wrong!”
Never mind that people may have very different experiences, not to mention people may use language in wildly different ways to describe their experiences.
What is it that you would say distinguishes a veto from simply being wiling to listen to what your partner has to say? What definitional value does the word “veto” have, and what function would you say it serves (if any) that is not served simply by saying “Look, this person is making me unhappy, here’s why this person is making me unhappy”?
It’s a very subtle difference, for me.
To me, a veto is an agreement, a formalization of a commitment. I have voluntarily given my husband veto power in my relationships. He isn’t exercising unilateral control, because I chose to give him the right to make that decision. I have the right to make all of my decisions–including the right to cede certain decisions to my partner.
I gave him that power because I trust him not to use it unless he feels he has to leave me if I do not give up the other relationship. And in 10 years of being poly, he has never exercised veto power. When he’s unhappy about things, he talks to me and we work it out.
I also gave it to him recognizing that ultimately, he has no way to enforce that veto power other than leaving (he recognizes this too). My giving him veto power is really me making a promise: “If it comes down to either keeping a new relationship or keeping you, I will choose to keep you.”
My husband knows me well enough to know that when I make a promise, I keep it. He knows he doesn’t have to enforce his veto power, because I will enforce it–I will keep my word.
Anyway, it sounds like your experiences with veto are very different from mine, and I can see why you feel the way you do based on those experiences. I just have this policy that when people make sweeping generalizations about groups that I belong to, and those generalizations don’t describe me, that I speak up. š
I’ve finally made my way over to your journal after listening to your most recent interview with Minx for Polyweekly. I’m a long-time listener, and both interviews with you have been amazing. So – that’s why a random person you’ve never met is friending your journal.
Howdy, and welcome aboard!
I’ve finally made my way over to your journal after listening to your most recent interview with Minx for Polyweekly. I’m a long-time listener, and both interviews with you have been amazing. So – that’s why a random person you’ve never met is friending your journal.
Because most people don’t think.
When my (first as I now have two) wife and I were gettin’ into the poly pool, my friends, all who were vanilla at that time, asked why I’d let her go play with other men. I’d give them two responses, the classic, “We love who we love, and I’m okay with that” and the cynical, “We love who we love, and if she was going to leave me for another man there’s nothing I can do to stop her. Nor would I want to.”
As far as the the rest of it goes, there’s an awful lot of people out there who are not good relationship material, who will have dramatic relationships full of fury and thunder especially when they end, but throughout their life, these people are not constrained to monogamous relationships, or as the snark goes, “Relationship Broken – Add More People”.
Howdy, and welcome aboard!
I gave him that power because I trust him not to use it unless he feels he has to leave me if I do not give up the other relationship. And in 10 years of being poly, he has never exercised veto power. When he’s unhappy about things, he talks to me and we work it out.
Okay, so if I may, I’d like to ask a couple of followup questions about that.
1. What function does this veto serve? Why do you have it? Do you believe that its function, whatever that may be in your relationship, can not be served by a conversation between you and your partner as equals, rather than by veto?
2. What impact, if any, does this have on your other partners? Have they every expressed concern about beginning a relationship under the terms that permit it to be vetoed?
1. What function does this veto serve?
It serves the same function as any other promise. It’s a verbalization of a commitment. It serves the purpose of reminding and reassuring my partner that I prioritize our relationship.
Do you believe that its function, whatever that may be in your relationship, can not be served by a conversation between you and your partner as equals, rather than by veto?
Well, first of all, we don’t use veto to replace such conversations. So that conversation would still happen (actually, such conversations happen all the time. We discuss minor problems before they become big, which generally keeps anyone from ever feeling like they might need to use a veto).
So, is the veto necessary? No, but I never said it was. I do lots of things that make my partner happy that aren’t technically necessary, and vice versa. It makes him feel good and it hasn’t caused us any harm, so why not use it?
2. What impact, if any, does this have on your other partners? Have they every expressed concern about beginning a relationship under the terms that permit it to be vetoed?
No one has expressed concern about our veto policy so far. If they did, it would be something we all sat down and discussed. If my husband was adamant that he needed the veto, and a potential partner was adamant that they couldn’t function under one, then I would not pursue a relationship with that person. I don’t feel entitled to date everyone who interests me, nor are they entitled to date me.
I currently have one secondary partner whom I’ve been with for 4 years. He is married and both our spouses had veto power at the outset of our relationship.
Over time our relationship has deepened and so has our investment in and commitment to each other. As a result we have all come to the consensus that veto is no longer reasonable or realistic in this situation. My husband was actually the first person to bring it up because he wanted to make it clear that he would never ask us to break up. He trusts both of us to listen to his concerns and work with him if he becomes unhappy with any aspect of the relationship.
If someone came along today that I wanted to date, I wouldn’t do it without consulting both my husband and boyfriend about it. If either of them was opposed to the relationship, I wouldn’t pursue it. So I suppose they both have veto power where new relationships are concerned, not because they’ve asked for it but because I choose to give it. I’m not willing to risk either of those relationships to start something new.
I hope that answers your questions. Sorry to get so wordy–I feel like I should be able to say all this more succinctly but it’s not happening.
So, is the veto necessary? No, but I never said it was. I do lots of things that make my partner happy that aren’t technically necessary, and vice versa. It makes him feel good and it hasn’t caused us any harm, so why not use it?
hat still begs the question, though. Why does it make him happy? What is it about the notion of being able to control your relationship choices that gives him this happiness?
I don’t think the notion of being able to control my relationship choices makes him happy. It’s the fact that I have chosen–freely–to make him my top priority. If it ever comes to a point where I either need to give up a secondary relationship or lose my husband (and we have BOTH committed to doing everything we can to avoid letting things get to that point), I will make the choice of keeping him.
I would assume the fact that I prioritize my relationship with him so highly, coupled with the fact that I am willing to make sacrifices, if needed, in order to keep that relationship, makes him feel extremely valued. But that’s my guess–I’m not inside his head.
Do you thnk it’d be possible to make him feel valued that way without veto?
I’m sure it would.
I love the perspective of the Other Person… and I love that you mention the past history as being something that the shiny can’t compete with.
I think we get so used to seeing the flaws in our lovers and ourselves that we forget that the shiny was there for a reason for us, too. And that a new shiny doesn’t erase the past – just shines (sorry) new light.
I love the perspective of the Other Person… and I love that you mention the past history as being something that the shiny can’t compete with.
I think we get so used to seeing the flaws in our lovers and ourselves that we forget that the shiny was there for a reason for us, too. And that a new shiny doesn’t erase the past – just shines (sorry) new light.
Great post. I’ve been trying to figure out how to explain my feelings on the idea of “veto power” in a poly relationship. You really summed it up for me. Thanks!
In fact, my partner and I have dealt with this. Before I explain, let me say that I believe in communication and discussion – NOT veto power.
He was entertaining deepening a relationship with someone he knows from online. We discussed it, and decided she would not be a good “permanent” third because of things she chooses to be involved with, but that she may be a good “play partner” without the deeper involvement. We’re on the same page when it comes to looking for more “permanent” partners so this discussion came about effortlessly and naturally.
I would never dream of “vetoing” anyone and I don’t feel such a thing is necessary if you have full trust flowing both ways and therefore communicate freely. I feel secure that my partner won’t “replace” me. That’s not what it’s all about, at least in our relationships.
L
Thank you so much for writing this and putting it from both sides. I’m going to show The Man this later and see if we can discuss our issues a bit more openly in light of it
Thank you so much for writing this and putting it from both sides. I’m going to show The Man this later and see if we can discuss our issues a bit more openly in light of it
Veto: Yes it exists.
Today I am reading older posts whilst failing to work. And the comments, and gosh there have been a lot of people convinced that veto as defined in the dictionary doesn’t exist in real life relationships.
I wish.
I’ve been in the position where I’ve been asked to end a new relationship because my S.O. of the time wasn’t comfortable with it (because they worked in the same building) – and in the end it was just a sign that the primary relationship wasn’t working. The fact that he finally owned up to this is probably why we’re still friends, though not partners any more.
I have been the ‘third partner’ as well, and I got vetoed. I was in a situation where I fell very in love with a member of a couple that was recently broken up. We made plans for a cottage by the seaside, children (and believe me, my views on children and not wanting them are widely known, so this was BIG) and I even left room in the fantasy for her other partner if they got back together.
They got back together shortly afterwards, she told him how she felt about me, he vetoed.
She obeyed, giving me the excuse ‘he’s never vetoed anyone else, it’s only *you* that makes him feel so insecure’ – a stance that frustrates me to this day. So because I meant more to her than anyone else, except apparently him, this meant I was a threat and it was right to cut me out?
Oh, yes… this happened in 2003. It still hurts.
*Almost* as badly as the other time I was vetoed – by one half of a couple whom I had been seeing both halves of before they got together. I’ll rephrase that for clarity of grammar: I was seeing two people, as individuals, in about 2005, who then became a couple. To add salt to the wound, they got together after a party at my house. He declared unilaterally that he wanted to be monogamous after all, and she was to stop seeing me because he felt threatened. She told me it was worth it ‘to be someone’s special someone’. When they broke up, despite the fact that I had respected the veto, he decided it was somehow my fault and hasn’t spoken to me since.
That one still hurts, too.
I’m noticing in my experience it’s always been the male in a M-F couple that’s been the one to throw veto power around. The statistical sample is a little small to really build a hypothesis around, but I do also recall at the time words like ‘cuckolding’ being thrown around as part of the drama
– I wonder how tied up in old fashioned attitudes to women the concept of ‘veto’ actually is.
[ I’ll probably turn this into a post on my own online journal, when I figure out what I’m doing with it. Privacy issues that cropped up end of last year have made it a bit tricky š ]
Veto: Yes it exists.
Today I am reading older posts whilst failing to work. And the comments, and gosh there have been a lot of people convinced that veto as defined in the dictionary doesn’t exist in real life relationships.
I wish.
I’ve been in the position where I’ve been asked to end a new relationship because my S.O. of the time wasn’t comfortable with it (because they worked in the same building) – and in the end it was just a sign that the primary relationship wasn’t working. The fact that he finally owned up to this is probably why we’re still friends, though not partners any more.
I have been the ‘third partner’ as well, and I got vetoed. I was in a situation where I fell very in love with a member of a couple that was recently broken up. We made plans for a cottage by the seaside, children (and believe me, my views on children and not wanting them are widely known, so this was BIG) and I even left room in the fantasy for her other partner if they got back together.
They got back together shortly afterwards, she told him how she felt about me, he vetoed.
She obeyed, giving me the excuse ‘he’s never vetoed anyone else, it’s only *you* that makes him feel so insecure’ – a stance that frustrates me to this day. So because I meant more to her than anyone else, except apparently him, this meant I was a threat and it was right to cut me out?
Oh, yes… this happened in 2003. It still hurts.
*Almost* as badly as the other time I was vetoed – by one half of a couple whom I had been seeing both halves of before they got together. I’ll rephrase that for clarity of grammar: I was seeing two people, as individuals, in about 2005, who then became a couple. To add salt to the wound, they got together after a party at my house. He declared unilaterally that he wanted to be monogamous after all, and she was to stop seeing me because he felt threatened. She told me it was worth it ‘to be someone’s special someone’. When they broke up, despite the fact that I had respected the veto, he decided it was somehow my fault and hasn’t spoken to me since.
That one still hurts, too.
I’m noticing in my experience it’s always been the male in a M-F couple that’s been the one to throw veto power around. The statistical sample is a little small to really build a hypothesis around, but I do also recall at the time words like ‘cuckolding’ being thrown around as part of the drama
– I wonder how tied up in old fashioned attitudes to women the concept of ‘veto’ actually is.
[ I’ll probably turn this into a post on my own online journal, when I figure out what I’m doing with it. Privacy issues that cropped up end of last year have made it a bit tricky š ]
RSS?
Looks great, but is there an RSS feed for it? Or will you be posting here when you add new articles to it? I follow your journal using Google Reader and would like to know when there’s new stuff to read…
RSS?
Looks great, but is there an RSS feed for it? Or will you be posting here when you add new articles to it? I follow your journal using Google Reader and would like to know when there’s new stuff to read…
While this place looks amazingly fun, I have to admit that part of me is wondering how they ever managed to pass building code inspection. Where I work, we’ve had complaints from the fire department because one of the desks was six inches too close to a wall, resulting in there not being the mandatory thirty six inch wide passage for the employee behind the desk to escape in case of a fire. I can’t imagine that they’d permit narrow wire-mesh tunnels or hidden crawlspaces in a building open to the public. I suppose the rules must be different in different states.
While this place looks amazingly fun, I have to admit that part of me is wondering how they ever managed to pass building code inspection. Where I work, we’ve had complaints from the fire department because one of the desks was six inches too close to a wall, resulting in there not being the mandatory thirty six inch wide passage for the employee behind the desk to escape in case of a fire. I can’t imagine that they’d permit narrow wire-mesh tunnels or hidden crawlspaces in a building open to the public. I suppose the rules must be different in different states.
Every time I have been there, I have had the same question. And the insurance must be CRAZY! They have a stream running through a fake cave system that has tiny spaces where a little kid could get really stuck!
Every time I have been there, I have had the same question. And the insurance must be CRAZY! They have a stream running through a fake cave system that has tiny spaces where a little kid could get really stuck!
I’m not a fan of either & I don’t support replacing nuclear with coal. I recognize that both industries are lying about it.
I also know there’re MULTIPLE issues with coal besides the radioactivity you mention, like sulfur emissions in the air causing acid rain, like the major health, safety, and environmental issues associated with mining, etc. It’s unquestionable that in present circumstances coal has done & is doing more damage to the environment.
Doesn’t mean there aren’t real and serious issues with nuclear.
Like I said, your argument’s a non-starter because it rests on people thinking coal is better or safer when plenty of us recognize that they’re BOTH bad ideas.
The difference is that nuclear has the POTENTIAL to be safer, but most of the nuclear operations on the planet today need to be phased out & replaced for us to even approach that.
I’m not a fan of either & I don’t support replacing nuclear with coal. I recognize that both industries are lying about it.
I also know there’re MULTIPLE issues with coal besides the radioactivity you mention, like sulfur emissions in the air causing acid rain, like the major health, safety, and environmental issues associated with mining, etc. It’s unquestionable that in present circumstances coal has done & is doing more damage to the environment.
Doesn’t mean there aren’t real and serious issues with nuclear.
Like I said, your argument’s a non-starter because it rests on people thinking coal is better or safer when plenty of us recognize that they’re BOTH bad ideas.
The difference is that nuclear has the POTENTIAL to be safer, but most of the nuclear operations on the planet today need to be phased out & replaced for us to even approach that.