Book Day 15: Terms, Taboos inside polyamory explained
If you spend a lot of time on poly forums, you will eventually encounter things that sound a lot like rules. It almost sounds like there is a kind of rulebook that is being followed, whether written or unwritten somewhere. People use terms that are pretty specific and seem to have specific meanings, or things that are assumed to be bad structurally, as if a lot of people have lived through that and have learned that it is bad.
I will go through and name some of these terms and explain what the philosophy behind it.
“Veto power” - the ability to tell your partner no to them being with a specific person.
This is generally considered bad, because it is “controlling.” You should have rules that make it so that veto power is “not invoked” because you shouldn’t be able to control your partner in this way.
I have a take that is related but is perhaps a bit more specific. This is kind of bad because is messes with legibility. If there is a “category of people who are not allowed” then that specific person should be excluded by category. If most people are not allowed, (for example, only hookups at a swingers club, at that swingers club), then veto power shouldn’t be used for the person outside the category because that person is already shot really allowed.
If one party has “veto power” or both have “veto power” this could end up creating a ton of illegibility around what the actual foundations of the dynamic between the parties are. If there are legible principles that are being agreed on and respected then “veto power” shouldn’t really be a main way or a really used way to resolve disputes. Maybe it can be used sometimes as an emergency thing, but then ought to be treated as a big deal and a signal that the principles surrounding the dynamic should be examined.
“Unicorn hunting” - looking for that woman who is bi, who is both into the man and the woman, to date them both. sometimes exclusively, sometimes not.
Usually if there is a couple, and they have a “third.” Sometimes this is okay. Often enough what happens is that the members of the couple are communicating *within each other as a couple* and not actually communicating to the third person in such a way that the third person really knows what is going on when there is an issue, and can modify their behavior in such a way to assuage the concerned parties. Often they end up not really being talked to and end up being ghosted if there is any issue. it’s a kind of objectification where the couple’s feelings take priority over theirs. Note, not “either person in the couple’s feelings” — I mean the couple as an entity has “feelings” that end up prioritized.
This would suck for the third person because often they are blocked out of even having a conversation with anybody, and at random times.