From: telleri@access.digex.com (telleri)
Subject: Re: Poly breakups?
Organization: This space intentionally left blank
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:28:21 GMT

Telleri here, delurking for the first time.

In article <MUFFY.92Nov12164256@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>Well, I'd love to see some more specifically poly-relevant stuff on
>here, so I decided to try to provoke some non-cross-posted discussion.

This sounds like a great newsgroup for just that.  :-)

I've recently started to get involved with someone who's already in a
primary relationship with a veto agreement.  This is a new
experience for me, though I've had an understanding and acceptance
of the concept of this type of relationship, and at one time, a
primary partner who had other secondary relationships.

I'm thinking through my motivations for pursuing this relationship and
asking "what if" it should come to an end, particularly in the case of
a veto.  So here's my perspective on some of Muffy's points (thanks
Muffy!) which apply to my circumstances, along with some speculation
on some of the others.

>What happens when part of a poly relationship breaks up?  I've seen or
>thought of some examples:

>  A secondary relationship breaks up.  The non-involved member of the
>  primary relationship has to deal with the effect on the involved
>  member.  It seems a little rough on the non-involved member, even
>  though they presumably want to provide emotional support to their
>  partner when they are needed.  Of course, the non-primary person is
>  without this sort of support at all.

Only if the non-primary person hasn't developed a primary relationship
elsewhere.  The way I see it, a person who's non-primary shouldn't
expect that relationship to always fill all their emotional needs -
just in case of the above situation, or a veto from the primary
partner. 

>  Both members of a primary relationship get secondarily involved with a
>  third person.  One member wants to split with the third person, the
>  other doesn't.  This is difficult to manage, since anyone your SO is
>  involved with is at least a little involved with you.

This model probably doesn't apply very well to het relationships,
although it's possible that the same-sex partners may have their
friendship or other relationship somewhat strained by the breakup,
depending on circumstances, who initiated the break, and the attitude
of the secondary person.

>  A poly person is involved in a non-primary relationship with someone
>  who gets involved in another non-primary relationship.  The first
>  person doesn't like the third person (but there is no "veto"
>  agreement) and ends the first relationship.  Is it necessary to like
>  all the people involved?  If so, how much?

No one is under particular obligation to like someone, though if I saw
that my partner was under a particularly bad influence of another, I
probably wouldn't want to stick around and watch what came next if I
found I had no influence over the situation.

>  A poly person is in a primary relationship with a "veto."  They get
>  involved with another person, who their SO seems to accept.  After
>  they get very close, the veto is invoked, and the second relationship
>  is ended.  Is this "fair"?  It's certainly hard on the people who
>  thought it was okay.  What if there were problems all along?  Is there
>  a limit (time or emotional) past which a veto either cannot be used or
>  is much more negotiable?

I don't think there's such a thing as a negotiable veto; either you've
got one or you don't.  There also isn't a particular requirement that
any invocation of a veto be fair, or nice, or expected, for all the
parties;  it's there to rectify or end situations that aren't fair or
acceptable to the one holding the veto power.  And the secondary
person is probably the last one to agree with such an action.

As I see it (sie says, mentally preparing for what may lie ahead) the
secondary can be in a particularly challenging position; if such a
relationship is to work, it must continue to be a good thing for the
partner in the primary relationship, as it certainly won't be allowed
to drag on when it becomes a bad thing (as relationships not subject
to a veto sometimes do).  Honesty and open communications become
essential.   E-mail helps.  :-)

And for the secondary person, it can also be a good thing,
particularly if they are in a stage of their life where they don't
wish to pursue a primary relationship and all its responsibilities,
but still need someone special to grow with.

I'll be watching this group for other views on this...

-t
-- 
Signature file still under construction. -------------------------------------|
Acronym of the day: SSSO (Somewhat Significant Secondary Other) :-)  ---------|
Finger this account for an appropriate quote that won't fit here.  :-)  ------|
|--------------------------------------------------- telleri@access.digex.com |