What is Covert Veto Power? (Patreon)

Hi cutie and happy Sunday!

Today, I've been asked to talk about implied or covert vetoes that can exist even within "non veto power" dynamics. This is an aspect of sneakiarchy that I haven't really covered, so let's dive into it!

(And as an aside, this post assumes you don't want veto power. If vetoing is something you currently have in your dynamic, DM me and let's chat about it.)

-

Overt veto power is the explicit cancellation of part or all of a relationship by an outside party. e.g. "I don't like this person you're dating. Dump them or I'm leaving."

Covert veto power is any number of manipulations by an outside party, with the intention (conscious or unconscious) to end their partner's relationship, without explicitly asking for that.

I will explore a few ways I've seen this come up in my communities. There are endless ways that human beings try to manipulate each other, so this is not comprehensive. If you suspect you're experiencing covert veto power, I hope this can offer a prompt to explore it with your partner(s).

-

1. Manipulating the schedule

e.g. "I know you can only see your partner on Tuesdays, but I'm taking a class now on Tuesdays, so you'll just have to be home to babysit."

The existence of scheduling conflicts doesn't automatically mean someone is up to something sneaky. However, it's not uncommon for metas to manufacture inconvenience in order to make it harder for another relationship to grow. 

The tip-off that it may be manipulative:

- Timing (did this arise in response to plans with a meta?)
- Inflexibility (is this an ultimatum, or is there room for discussion?)
- Territorialism (is hierarchy being leveraged to show the meta who's more important?)

2. Interrupting dates

e.g. "I'm having a really hard night, I need you to come home from your date ASAP."

This is a common newbie mistake (I did it in my first year), because monogamy teaches us to stop everything if we feel romantically insecure. But, if we're practicing polyamory, it's inappropriate to act on this impulse. 

If we've consented to trust our partner with someone else, we've implicitly agreed to work on our own fears and traumas and attachment histories. We must develop a support network who can help us endure a period of being away from them, and not expect our partners to be the sole emotional comfort during distress.

Unless the house is on fire, it's not reasonable to expect a hinge to choose between coming home to us and building a new relationship. Otherwise, it's just explicit veto power.

3. Punishing the hinge

e.g. "You're still dating someone I dislike. I'm going to make you regret that."

Silent treatment, coldness, passive aggression, active aggression, on and on. Any behavioral punishment toward a hinge for dating someone we dislike is an implied request to choose between the partners.

It's ok to feel discomfort, to be angry, to be hurt or confused. But we have to talk about our emotions and ask for reasonable care plans that don't veto our meta's relationship. We always have the option to remove ourselves from the dynamic, if we wish. But staying and trying to manipulate things into going our way is only going to build more conflict.

4. Bullying or starting fights with the meta

Just like with scheduling conflicts, the existence of interpersonal conflicts between metas just happens sometimes. Some metas dislike each other, and choose not to interact. It doesn't have to be "fixed" necessarily, because they're not dating each other.

However, if one meta is going out of their way to make life difficult for the other, and actively bullying them / insulting them / causing pain, it's untenable for the hinge's relationship with them. It pushes the hinge to feel like they must end one of the relationships.

Bullied metas can of course stand up for themselves in these situations. But hinges have to hold a firm and direct boundary, too. It's important that we treat everyone in the polycule with dignity and civility, even and especially if we dislike or feel threatened by them.

5. Emotional ultimatums

I'm not really a believer in ultimatums, unless the stakes are life-or-death. "You have to stop using heroin if we're going to stay married" seems like a reasonable time for an ultimatum.

When the stakes are anything other than that, I don't really see ultimatums as an effective negotiation tactic. "You have to have a baby with me if we're going to be polyamorous" is using fear and control to accelerate the relationship. "If you go on vacation with them, I'm going to hurt myself" is using abuse and threats to ask for care.

The assumption with these kinds of demands is that they won't take care of us unless we make the situation feel like life-or-death. That's why my first question for folks who feel the need to create an ultimatum is, "do you trust your partner?"

It can be tempting to impose such demands when we feel trapped, terrified, unsafe. The more scared we are, the higher the stakes feel, which can make an ultimatum seem justified. But if we're going to be in an equitable relationship, where everyone's needs matter equally, we must be willing to open negotiation and compromise on the solutions. Otherwise, we're just dictating how our partner acts and scaring them into complying. 

-

Polyamory can be activating, scary, full of uncertainties. It requires that we step up and work on our fears and traumas, without controlling the behaviors of the people we love. 

Have you experienced covert veto power? Have you perpetrated it?

This is a judgment-free zone, because none of us have been at our best 100% of the time. The most important thing is that we commit to being more aware than we were yesterday.

With love,
Morgan