Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Some evolving thoughts on veto

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.



( 137 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
(Deleted comment)
Jul. 3rd, 2008 12:55 pm (UTC)
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.
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 2nd, 2008 11:11 pm (UTC)
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."

Jul. 4th, 2008 03:41 am (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen such a concise explanation of why veto is bad.

Okay, that made me laugh.

tacit is always eloquent, but that post is hardly concise!
(no subject) - zastrazzi - Jul. 4th, 2008 06:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Jul. 2nd, 2008 11:49 pm (UTC)
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.
(no subject) - ashbet - Jul. 3rd, 2008 08:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joreth - Jul. 3rd, 2008 08:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ashbet - Jul. 3rd, 2008 09:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - starry_sigh - Jul. 4th, 2008 04:12 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - magyarok_saman - Aug. 14th, 2008 09:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 3rd, 2008 12:37 am (UTC)
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.
Jul. 3rd, 2008 12:44 am (UTC)
Also, fear of abandonment is not the only possible reason for a veto.
(no subject) - indywind - Jul. 3rd, 2008 01:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacky_tramp - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 06:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joreth - Jul. 3rd, 2008 04:29 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacky_tramp - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joreth - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacky_tramp - Jul. 7th, 2008 06:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joreth - Jul. 7th, 2008 06:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacky_tramp - Jul. 7th, 2008 06:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 07:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 3rd, 2008 12:57 am (UTC)
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.

Jul. 4th, 2008 11:03 am (UTC)
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.
Jul. 3rd, 2008 01:33 am (UTC)
thank you for sharing!

Jul. 20th, 2008 10:29 pm (UTC)
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!
Jul. 3rd, 2008 02:06 am (UTC)
What about the idea of veto being the safeword equivalent for the poly world? What are your thoughts on that?
Jul. 3rd, 2008 04:29 am (UTC)
(drifting in from poly_infinite...)

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.
(no subject) - joreth - Jul. 3rd, 2008 04:49 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - delphinea - Jul. 3rd, 2008 06:18 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - freeimprov - Jul. 3rd, 2008 12:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - delphinea - Jul. 3rd, 2008 08:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 06:34 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - redhotlips - Jul. 4th, 2008 12:25 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ladyoflourdes - Jul. 3rd, 2008 06:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - redhotlips - Jul. 4th, 2008 12:06 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ladyoflourdes - Jul. 4th, 2008 01:14 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - redhotlips - Jul. 4th, 2008 01:18 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ladyoflourdes - Jul. 4th, 2008 01:32 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - redhotlips - Jul. 4th, 2008 01:42 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ladyoflourdes - Jul. 4th, 2008 01:53 am (UTC) - Expand
Veto - Control - Ultimatums - Power - ladyoflourdes - Jul. 4th, 2008 02:24 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Veto - Control - Ultimatums - Power - redhotlips - Jul. 4th, 2008 03:10 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Veto - Control - Ultimatums - Power - redhotlips - Jul. 4th, 2008 12:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Veto - Control - Ultimatums - Power - red_girl_42 - Jul. 4th, 2008 03:51 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Veto - Control - Ultimatums - Power - redhotlips - Jul. 4th, 2008 12:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Veto - Control - Ultimatums - Power - red_girl_42 - Jul. 4th, 2008 04:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 08:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 05:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 3rd, 2008 02:12 am (UTC)
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.

As someone who's been in a polyamorous relationship for nine years, I think this line alone, sums it up best.
Jul. 3rd, 2008 02:16 am (UTC)
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.
Jul. 7th, 2008 07:11 pm (UTC)
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.
Jul. 3rd, 2008 03:09 am (UTC)

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.
Jul. 3rd, 2008 06:24 am (UTC)
"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.
Jul. 3rd, 2008 08:16 am (UTC)
Jul. 3rd, 2008 10:49 am (UTC)
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!
Jul. 3rd, 2008 10:51 am (UTC)
And I'm going to add you if that's ok :-)
Jul. 7th, 2008 07:12 pm (UTC)
Absolutely...welcome board!
Jul. 3rd, 2008 01:02 pm (UTC)
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.
Jul. 3rd, 2008 03:07 pm (UTC)
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...

(no subject) - joreth - Jul. 3rd, 2008 09:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Jul. 7th, 2008 07:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
( 137 comments — Leave a comment )