Veto power and its limits

The veto entered mainstream poly vocabulary through the open-marriage movement of the 1970s and was canonized by Easton and Hardy in The Ethical Slut as a tool for couples beginning to open up. Its lineage is older — anyone who has watched a married couple discuss a friendship that is becoming too intense knows that informal vetoes have always existed. The 1990s polyamory community took something that had been a quiet marital reflex and gave it a name, a procedure, and the appearance of fairness. The naming was useful because it forced couples to articulate what had been unsaid. The procedure was useful because it gave a clear answer to the question "What happens if this gets too scary?" The appearance of fairness was misleading, because the procedure was always asymmetric: it protected the dyad against intrusion rather than protecting all parties equally. Knowing the history helps because it explains why the veto feels both intuitive and ill-fitting. It was designed for a transition, not a destination, and most of the people who reach for it now are reaching back into a tool set built for a different moment.

If you find yourself wanting a veto, the first job is to name the fear, not to install the mechanism. The fear is usually one of three things: I will be replaced; I will be embarrassed; I will be left holding the children, the mortgage, the dog, the life we built. None of these are crazy fears. All of them deserve serious response. But none of them are well served by a veto, because a veto addresses the symptom — the existence of another person — rather than the underlying vulnerability. The replacement fear is answered by evidence over time that you are loved for who you are, not for being the only option. The embarrassment fear is answered by the social work of telling your story on your own terms. The structural fear is answered by structural commitments — wills, finances, parenting agreements — that survive the vagaries of romance. When the fear is named and answered, the veto becomes a piece of furniture you do not need.

Couple privilege is the set of advantages that already-established couples carry into new relationships: shared history, shared resources, shared social legitimacy, shared assumption of futurity. Veaux and Rickert introduced the term to make visible what was invisible to people inside it. If you have couple privilege, you do not see the asymmetry, the way fish do not see water. The third sees it the moment they meet your partner's spouse. The veto is one of the sharper expressions of couple privilege because it converts an existing imbalance into a formal power. Recognizing the privilege does not mean dismantling your marriage; it means being honest with new partners about the conditions they are entering, and being thoughtful about which of those conditions are necessary and which are just inherited fear in a suit.

Many couples who say they have a veto actually have something gentler that they have not named carefully. They have an agreement that says: if I am genuinely in crisis about an outside relationship, I can ask you to pause it while we work on what is wrong. The pause is not a termination; it is a timeout. During the pause we go to counseling, we read, we talk, we look at our own patterns. After the pause, we either resume the outside relationship with new conditions or, by mutual recognition, we let it end. This is a soft veto and it is closer to a request than a verdict. It is honest with the third about what is happening, which the hard veto rarely is. If you must have a veto-shaped tool in your relationship, this is the shape it should take.

Anyone you bring into a relationship deserves to know the rules that govern your availability before they fall in love with you. That includes the existence of any veto-like power. The wrongness of the veto is not only that it can end the relationship — it is that it often ends the relationship in secret, with the third never knowing whether they were vetoed, requested away, or simply lost to ordinary attrition. Telling the truth in advance — "my partner has the standing to raise concerns that I will take seriously and that could lead to me ending things" — is an act of respect. It gives the third the information they need to consent to the risk. They may decide the risk is acceptable; they may decide it is not. Either way, they get to decide as a person, not as a piece of furniture in someone else's house.

A veto is a power one partner has over the other's relationships. An exit is a power each person always has over their own. These are not the same. You always have the right to leave a marriage that is making you miserable, including a marriage that has opened in ways you can no longer bear. The existence of exit does not require the existence of veto. Often the veto is used as a way to avoid the harder question of exit — "I cannot tell you to end this relationship, but I can tell you that I am no longer willing to live in a marriage where it exists." That is the adult version of the same conversation, and it puts the decision back where it belongs, on each person's own life, not on someone else's.

If you do install a veto during a transition, give it a sunset. "We will keep this clause for the first year of opening, and then we will revisit." This treats the veto as scaffolding, which is what it should be. Scaffolding holds the building up while the structure cures. Then it comes down. A veto kept indefinitely becomes part of the building and starts to bear weight it was never designed to carry. The sunset forces the harder conversation later: do we still need this? If yes, why? If no, then good, take it down before it becomes load-bearing.

A more workable version of the concern process is to negotiate vetoes about behavior rather than about people. "I am not okay with you having unprotected sex outside our relationship" is a behavioral veto. "I am not okay with you continuing to see Maria" is a person veto. The first is enforceable, specific, and addresses a real risk. The second is the kind of power that breeds resentment and asymmetry. Behavioral vetoes hold up under scrutiny; person vetoes rarely do. If you find yourself wanting a person veto, ask yourself what behavior, specifically, you are trying to prevent — and whether there is a way to address it that does not require the elimination of a human being from your partner's life.

There are situations where invoking a veto-like power is the only sane move. If the new partner is abusive, criminal, or actively destroying your shared life, you do not need a theoretical defense of the veto to ask your partner to leave the relationship — you need to be honest about what you are seeing and unwilling to live with. The argument against vetoes is not an argument for accepting any partner your spouse chooses. It is an argument against using a procedural power to substitute for the real conversation. In genuinely dangerous situations, the conversation is "I will not stay in a marriage with this person in our lives," which is not a veto — it is a statement of your own limits, and it carries more moral weight precisely because it is yours.

The most important shift in the last twenty years of poly thinking has been the recognition that the third is a moral subject with full standing, not a satellite of the primary couple. This shift is incompatible with hard vetoes. You cannot treat someone as a full participant in your life and simultaneously hold a button that can dismiss them from it without their input. The two stances cancel. Most couples who keep their vetoes do so by quietly treating their thirds as less-than, even when they would deny it. The discrepancy is felt; it shows up as resentment, distance, and the eventual realization on the third's part that they were never really inside the circle. If you want full relationships with full people, you have to give up the button.

Tallbear and other queer Indigenous critics have argued that the veto is a settler-colonial relic — the importation of property logic into intimacy. Couples treat partners the way landowners treat tenants, with eviction rights vested in the holder of the title. Whether you find this reading persuasive or not, it is useful for noticing what the veto inherits. It comes from a tradition in which marriage was an ownership relation, and the residue of that tradition lingers even in the most progressive open marriages. Examining the residue is not the same as accepting the diagnosis. But noticing where your reflexes come from helps you decide whether to keep them.

The replacement is not nothing. It is a denser practice of communication: regular check-ins about how each relationship is going, explicit naming of fears as they arise, mutual agreement that any partner can raise any concern at any time, and a commitment that concerns will be taken seriously without being treated as commands. It also includes the structural work of building a marriage that is robust enough to absorb the disturbances of new love — strong finances, clear parenting, deep friendship, sexual continuity, shared projects, ordinary affection. The veto promised safety through prevention. The denser practice offers safety through resilience. The first depends on nothing changing. The second assumes things will change and builds a vessel that can ride them out.

1. Easton, Dossie, and Janet W. Hardy. The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Adventures. 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 2017. 2. Veaux, Franklin, and Eve Rickert. More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory. Portland, OR: Thorntree Press, 2014. 3. Sheff, Elisabeth. The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Relationships and Families. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. 4. Barker, Meg-John. Rewriting the Rules: An Anti-Self-Help Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2018. 5. Nordgren, Andie. "The Short Instructional Manifesto for Relationship Anarchy." Self-published essay, 2006. 6. Gahran, Amy. Stepping Off the Relationship Escalator: Uncommon Love and Life. Boulder, CO: Off the Escalator Enterprises, 2017. 7. Taormino, Tristan. Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships. San Francisco: Cleis Press, 2008. 8. Tallbear, Kim. "Making Love and Relations Beyond Settler Sex and Family." In Making Kin Not Population, edited by Adele E. Clarke and Donna Haraway, 145–164. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2018. 9. Chen, Angela. Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex. Boston: Beacon Press, 2020. 10. Minx, Cunning. Poly Weekly podcast, episodes on veto and hierarchy, 2008–2019. 11. Turner, Page. A Geek's Guide to Unicorn Ranching: Advice for Couples Seeking Another Partner. Self-published, 2018. 12. Veaux, Franklin, and Eve Rickert. "The Relationship Bill of Rights." Morethantwo.com, 2014.