![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
navel gazing
I read an opinion piece a while back about the use of vetoes in polyamorous relationships. That caused some thinking, which so far has developed into the following:
The original argument was that anytime you'd use of veto would involve insecurity and a lack of trust in your partner. If you trust your partner, you should trust them and their judgement. If you don't trust your partner you're either emotionally underdeveloped or not in a good relationship.
Now instinct tells me this is wrong, but I really have to question if I'm emotionally underdeveloped. In an attempt to cover my lack of emotional depth, I've come up with the following counterpoints. I put these forward as applying to generally open relationships. Polyfidelitous relationships have an inherent restrictiveness and implied veto power, IMO, so these reasons most likely wouldn't come into play.
The first point I'll call "The Fog of War." You might trust your partner's rational judgement, but who when they fall in love is rational. That first rush of excitement distorts reality like a trip through a black hole. Haven't you ever looked back a little bit later and said, "what was I thinking?" When you're really in love, that first powerful rush, you don't have a very good perspective on what's good for you, though you have a very good idea of what you want. The rash decisions you make at such a time affect all your relationships. A partner's veto might be the only thing that keeps you from doing yourself significant harm.
The second point I'll call "Stop the World." You're part of an existing relationship with a certain dynamic. When you start significantly changing that dynamic people may or may not want to participate in the new relationship. I'm assuming here that you have something other than once a month contact with your existing relationship and new relationships will affect the existing one. But think about it a little while, doesn't the new relationship change the existing one? If after thinking about it you say no, then perhaps the type of existing relationships you have is well suited to a veto free scenario. But for the rest of us, a new relationship changes existing relationships, subtly or significantly. A veto is just a way for a partner to say, I can't or won't live in the new dynamic. Like any other reason for making such a statement, it shouldn't be taken lightly on either side. But a partner should always be able to say, "this isn't working for me and this is why..."
The last point is "But you said, 'Communicate, communicate, communicate.'" There is a mantra in the poly community about owning your own emotions and your own problems. The act of veto is the opposite of the passive aggressive game of keeping problems in so they blow up later. An early veto can save a lot of grief later. People don't appreciate have the plug pulled on a relationship because seemingly out of the blue a partner decided several steps into it that it was too much. Veto leads to discussions, new boundaries, and a clearer sense of what will and won't happen in the short term. Part of owning your own emotions and needs is admitting them. Aloud.
Now I know those who's credo is "No Rules" will not buy into this. The ultra libertarian poly crowd will say any veto is a sign of the old monogamous ownership of partners. I don't have a response to that. I'll stand guilty as charged if you'd like. I've yet to see a relationship that was close, complete, integral that truly had no rules. If you have one, I'd love to see it in action, I might learn a lot. Until I see an example of one though, I will believe some for of rules or boundaries, explicit or implied, is necessary to hold things together.
What do you think? Is the want to have a veto at all just the desire to control your partner? Is the need to veto just a way of saying you don't trust your partner?
The original argument was that anytime you'd use of veto would involve insecurity and a lack of trust in your partner. If you trust your partner, you should trust them and their judgement. If you don't trust your partner you're either emotionally underdeveloped or not in a good relationship.
Now instinct tells me this is wrong, but I really have to question if I'm emotionally underdeveloped. In an attempt to cover my lack of emotional depth, I've come up with the following counterpoints. I put these forward as applying to generally open relationships. Polyfidelitous relationships have an inherent restrictiveness and implied veto power, IMO, so these reasons most likely wouldn't come into play.
The first point I'll call "The Fog of War." You might trust your partner's rational judgement, but who when they fall in love is rational. That first rush of excitement distorts reality like a trip through a black hole. Haven't you ever looked back a little bit later and said, "what was I thinking?" When you're really in love, that first powerful rush, you don't have a very good perspective on what's good for you, though you have a very good idea of what you want. The rash decisions you make at such a time affect all your relationships. A partner's veto might be the only thing that keeps you from doing yourself significant harm.
The second point I'll call "Stop the World." You're part of an existing relationship with a certain dynamic. When you start significantly changing that dynamic people may or may not want to participate in the new relationship. I'm assuming here that you have something other than once a month contact with your existing relationship and new relationships will affect the existing one. But think about it a little while, doesn't the new relationship change the existing one? If after thinking about it you say no, then perhaps the type of existing relationships you have is well suited to a veto free scenario. But for the rest of us, a new relationship changes existing relationships, subtly or significantly. A veto is just a way for a partner to say, I can't or won't live in the new dynamic. Like any other reason for making such a statement, it shouldn't be taken lightly on either side. But a partner should always be able to say, "this isn't working for me and this is why..."
The last point is "But you said, 'Communicate, communicate, communicate.'" There is a mantra in the poly community about owning your own emotions and your own problems. The act of veto is the opposite of the passive aggressive game of keeping problems in so they blow up later. An early veto can save a lot of grief later. People don't appreciate have the plug pulled on a relationship because seemingly out of the blue a partner decided several steps into it that it was too much. Veto leads to discussions, new boundaries, and a clearer sense of what will and won't happen in the short term. Part of owning your own emotions and needs is admitting them. Aloud.
Now I know those who's credo is "No Rules" will not buy into this. The ultra libertarian poly crowd will say any veto is a sign of the old monogamous ownership of partners. I don't have a response to that. I'll stand guilty as charged if you'd like. I've yet to see a relationship that was close, complete, integral that truly had no rules. If you have one, I'd love to see it in action, I might learn a lot. Until I see an example of one though, I will believe some for of rules or boundaries, explicit or implied, is necessary to hold things together.
What do you think? Is the want to have a veto at all just the desire to control your partner? Is the need to veto just a way of saying you don't trust your partner?