From: ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Veto (was Re: Poly breakups?)
Date: 5 Dec 92 01:11:57 GMT
Organization: The Department For Doing Departmental Things

woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>
>   I'd go even further - if one grants a veto one is saying "no matter what
>the circumstances, you have the unalienable right to interfere with my
>relationships with others even to the point of terminating the relationship
>if that's what you want to do. And I won't even criticise you for it".

There's nothing inherent in the veto agreement that says that the person
who is being asked to forgo the other relationship cannot ask for a good
reason why.  To veto a third relationship without giving a "fair"
explanation for that veto is in many ways a violation and abuse of the
veto agreement.  If my wife were to just simply veto a third party and
refuse to say why, I'd have to wonder if she's willing to give enough
consideration to my feelings in the matter.

>   After all, isn't that what it means? I'm interested to hear from 
>people. I'd think that a "conditional" or "negotiable" veto isn't really
>much of a veto... My notion of what a veto clause implies is that it
>*does* contain an element of unaccountability.

Then maybe this is the problem of preception: those who are against 
vetoes think that they are absolute, written in stone, no explanation,
denials.  Those who are for them perceive them to be much more flexible,
but that they are a way of stating explicitly that the feelings of
your partner DO matter when it comes to establishing third party
relationships.

That is really all they are.  A reassurance.

>   Again, this is why I don't like veto clauses. I mean, "yes, you can
>have anyone save the people I don't want you to have"? It's just a slightly
>looser form of monogamy again... it's still OK in this situation to tell
>someone "no, you can't love *that* person".

It just goes to prove that the scale of monoamory to polyamory is not
black and white.  There are varying degrees between the two extremes.

Let me ask this Joe, you object to the veto power, does that mean you
will not, under any circumstances, comply with a request to you from
one partner to leave another partner?  And if you will comply with 
such a request, even if only under certain special circumstances,
isn't that in effect the granting of veto power?

>   I mean, really... what's to stop someone from doing whatever they want
>but calling veto every time their partner seems to be starting something
>serious?

Nothing, except the point at which the person being vetoed finally says,
"wait a minute, I've agreed to take your feelings into account, but you
seem to be totally disregarding mine."

There's nothing in the veto agreement that says you can't cry foul if it is
being abused.

>   Not to mention the fundamental (and quite insulting) dichotomy between
>those of one's partners who can veto the others, and those that can't.
>Even if one gets around this by extending veto to *all* people involved,
>what's to stop (for example) a monogamous person masquerading as Poly
>from getting involved and then vetoing all the rest of one's partners?!

Again, you seem to be seeing the veto agreement as a binding contract which
if it isn't obeyed 100% of the time will result in punishment for those who
violate it.  There is such a thing as civil disobedience when someone in
authority abuses the powers that you give to them.  

Just because you've given someone a whip to beat you with DOES NOT mean that
you've said you won't use any safe words.  Similarly, just because I say that
my wife can veto my relationships with someone else does not mean that I won't
fight back if I feel she's being unreasonable in the use of that veto.

The key thing to remember is that everything is negotiable.

>   If I break up with someone, it's because of issues between me and them
>alone. No-one else figures in this equation. And I won't accept a partner
>telling me to break up with another (with the implied ultimatum of losing
>them if I don't) - I might as well have stayed monogamous.

So the feelings of your other partners don't matter one bit?  They can just
go screw themselves if they don't like it?  Really, isn't that going a little
to much in the opposite extreme?

>   I seem to be in a much more flamish mood than usual... hmmm. I'm sorry
>if anyone regards the above as a personal attack - certainly I'm not
>meaning to hurt anyone.

I'm not taking it as a personal attack.  I just think you have a serious
misunderstanding of just what a veto agreement means.

-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory