More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory (32 page)

A veto, for the purpose of this discussion, is a one-sided decision to halt a relationship between two other people. It is not a negotiation or a request. The key elements of a veto are that it is
unilateral
(that is, only one person needs to think there's a problem) and it is
binding
(that is, the person exercising a veto has reason to believe the other will obey it). A veto moves the locus of control away from the people in a particular relationship and gives it to a third party.

Veto arrangements are one of the most common, and most zealously guarded, of all the rules in hierarchical relationships. In our experience, most hierarchies include a veto arrangement, even when they include few of the other rules we've talked about. Vetoes promise the ultimate fallback: if a partner's relationship becomes too difficult, or their other lover is too unlikeable, or jealousy becomes too unbearable, veto can make the problem just go away.

Over the years, Franklin has received scores of emails from people who had their relationship ended by a veto. These stories varied in detail, but all had one common thread: the person who was vetoed felt that the veto was unfair.

The subject of veto is likely to generate controversy in any discussion about polyamory. Some people feel passionate about the value of veto. The word itself is powerful: it conjures up feelings of empowerment and control. Even people who don't have a veto according to our definition will often insist on using the word
veto
because the word itself creates such a compelling feeling of safety.

VETO OF AN EXISTING RELATIONSHIP

For people who are subject to a veto but do not hold one—for example, the new partner of a person whose pre-existing partner has a veto—the word
veto
is just as powerful, but often it is powerfully negative. It creates an environment where no matter what you do or what kind of investment you make, your relationship can be ripped away at a moment's notice, without discussion or appeal. It summons an image of the sword of Damocles, always dangling over the relationship by a thread, ready to fall at any misstep. This creates an environment where it's nearly impossible to feel safe in that relationship.

We have both been affected by vetoes. Eve had a relationship vetoed by another person. Franklin has been vetoed and has also had someone veto a partner of his. Vetoes are like nuclear weapons: they may keep others in line, but their use tends to forever alter the landscape.

FRANKLIN'S STORY
For Celeste, veto was a security blanket, a way to stop relationships that threatened her position as the number-one person in my life.

She used that veto to end my relationship with Elaine. At the time, I had known Elaine for about five years and been in a relationship with her for about three. Our relationship was incredibly powerful and passionate. We were very well matched as partners, and our sexual connection was extraordinary. This was hard for Celeste to see; watching a long-term partner have an intense, passionate connection with someone else can be scary.

The day Celeste exercised her veto, I was driving to work with my partner Amber, who worked from the same office. Celeste called me to demand that I end my relationship with Elaine immediately and never contact her again.

As Celeste instructed, I called Elaine and broke up with her immediately. I was devastated. I remember pulling into the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant with Amber, unable to stop crying. I was so hurt and upset that I never made it to the office that afternoon. Amber wrote about that day: "I have never seen him break down like that, before or since. His body broke down into convulsions of crying. I don't think I've ever seen him in so much pain."

To this day, I still do not completely understand why Celeste made the choice she did. When she used the veto, I felt violated. I was angry, not just that she could veto a partner I'd been with so long, but that she could do it in a way that allowed no argument for or defense of my relationship with Elaine. My control over my own romantic life had been ripped away from me. Even though I had agreed to give Celeste this veto power, that didn't change the loss of control I felt when she used it.

That sense of violation and my feelings of anger seeped into my relationship with Celeste. None of the theoretical, abstract discussions we'd had about veto prepared me for the raw emotional impact of being told to end a relationship with someone I loved. I saw, for the first time, how damaging veto was, and I resolved not to allow this to happen again, to me or to any of my partners. I told Celeste that I would not accept another veto.

My relationship with Celeste never fully recovered from the veto. We divorced less than two years later. Many other factors were in play, as always in the disintegration of a decades-long relationship. But that veto was like an earthquake at sea, which initiated a tidal wave that would eventually consume everything Celeste and I had built together.

Many hierarchical relationships have a veto provision that can be exercised at any time, even after another relationship has been well established. This kind of veto is popular because it seems to provide a safety switch to shut down a relationship that becomes too intense or threatening. But that sense of safety can carry a very high price. We have both seen many couples who have executed a veto only to break up shortly thereafter. Any time we choose to break our partner's heart, the damage to our own relationship may be permanent.

When a partner of yours vetoes another partner, you actually do have a choice. You can either end the relationship that's being vetoed, or you can say "No, I refuse to accept this veto." But neither option is likely to lead anywhere constructive. If you say "No, I refuse to accept this," your partner who used the veto now has a choice to make: Stay in the relationship and sulk? Leave? Whatever choices each person makes, bitterness is pretty much guaranteed.

EVE'S STORY
My relationship with Ray ended when his wife vetoed me, but it wasn't the veto that ended it. Ray and I had a long-distance relationship, and his wife and I had little contact. Ray and I had been involved for close to two years when he told me that I had been vetoed—several months earlier! He had continued to visit me, have sex with me and have almost daily contact with me, without his wife's knowledge. When I learned of this I told him I couldn't see him anymore. I am ashamed to say it took me nearly 24 hours to come to that decision.

It was painful enough that after two years with me, Ray wouldn't stand up to his wife to defend our relationship. But it was especially bad that
I
was put in the position of implementing the veto that Ray did not have the courage to either accept or refuse. Rather than take responsibility for the situation and stand up to either one of us, he chose to lie to us both.

Even if your partner uses a veto, responsibility for the breakup is still yours. If your relationship has been vetoed, it's easy to say "I am ending this relationship because my partner made me do it." Franklin did this when Celeste used her veto. In reality, the ethical responsibility belonged only to him.

SCREENING VETO

Not all vetoes work to cancel an existing relationship. Some people use what might be called a "screening veto." This means a potential new relationship may be vetoed before it becomes established, but not after. In a newspaper column in 2007, kink and polyamory writer Mistress Matisse described this as
"starting the feedback
before emotions and slippery bits get involved." A screening veto is safer than a post-relationship veto in that it is less likely to create a sense of violation. However, even this variety of veto can have damaging consequences.

FRANKLIN'S STORY
Meadow and I met a few years ago, under strange and complicated circumstances. We hit it off at once. We both felt drawn to each other, and soon after we met, we went on a date. It was one of the best first dates I've ever had. There wasn't anything unusual about the date itself—we sat in a restaurant and talked—but we both had an absolutely fantastic time, chatting about everything from movies to neurobiology. The chemistry between us was delightful.

After the date, I took her home and met her husband. We spoke briefly, and then I went home.

I emailed her the next day to let her know I'd had a delightful time and was looking forward to seeing her again. No response. I texted her a couple of days later, and again, no reply.
Huh
, I thought.
I guess she didn't have as good a time as I thought.

Months later, I found out through mutual friends that Meadow had been so thrilled and excited by our date, and so giddy at the thought of dating me, that her husband vetoed me on the spot. What's more, he forbade her to ever speak to me again—even to tell me I'd been vetoed! I would never have found out if we hadn't had overlapping circles of friends.

This veto experienced by Franklin seems to have come entirely from a place of fear and threat. It can be intimidating to see a partner excited about a new relationship, especially when we feel insecure ourselves. All the demons start whispering in our ears: "What if I'm not good enough? What if this person is more exciting than I am?"

A screening veto has problems because, like all vetoes, it tends to end conversations rather than start them. Had Meadow's husband chosen to talk about his feelings rather than using a veto, their relationship might have improved. But it can be hard to say "Wow, seeing you excited like this makes me feel insecure. Let's talk about what that means, and how we can work together to strengthen and support our relationship until what we have brings you this much joy." It's much easier to say "I don't want you to see him again."

While it's not as damaging to veto a person before a relationship begins, depriving a partner of a source of joy is still a dangerous thing to do. When we see a partner clearly excited about something and take that thing away, we risk undermining our partner's happiness, and that, too, is likely to damage our relationship.

It might be tempting to look at the examples above and call them abuses of veto, rather than situations where veto is useful and appropriate. We disagree. The problem is that nobody with veto power believes he uses it capriciously. We all tend to be the heroes of our own stories, acting on motives wise and pure. The problem with veto is not that some use it inappropriately; the problem is that it tends to cause damage no matter how it is used. And sometimes veto becomes a way to defend our own dysfunctions and entrench them.

You may hear the following idea in poly circles: that you should only add relationships that enhance your existing ones. Or that you should screen new partners to make sure their communication and relationship styles mesh with your existing relationship. That does seem like a good way to avoid drama and promote stability. But just as often, it can lead to enabling behaviors. You can easily end up constructing an echo chamber in your existing relationship where dysfunctional relationship patterns go unchallenged.