Negotiating Veto Power: Does It Have a Place in ENM?

Few topics in polyamorous communities generate as much heated debate as veto power—the ability for one partner to end another partner's outside relationships. Some see it as a necessary safety net that protects primary relationships. Others view it as fundamentally incompatible with ethical non-monogamy.

The truth is nuanced. Veto arrangements exist on a spectrum, and whether they're appropriate depends on how they're structured, why they exist, and whether everyone affected has genuinely consented. This guide explores the veto debate from multiple angles and offers alternatives that might better serve everyone involved.

What Is Veto Power?

Veto power is an agreement where one partner can require the other to end a relationship with someone else. The specifics vary:

Hard Veto: "If I say end it, you have to end it, no questions asked."

Soft Veto: "If I'm uncomfortable, we'll discuss it, and my concerns will be weighted heavily in the decision."

Conditional Veto: "You can veto only in specific circumstances" (like if the other person is dangerous, or only within the first few weeks of a new relationship).

Implicit Veto: No formal agreement, but an understanding that if a primary partner is really upset, the newer relationship will end.

Where Veto Usually Comes From

Couples typically establish veto power when:

They're new to ENM and looking for safety nets
One or both partners feel insecure about opening up
There's a strong hierarchical structure with a clear primary relationship
Past experiences have made one partner particularly anxious
They want protection against poor choices or incompatible metamours

The underlying motivation is usually fear—fear of losing the relationship, fear of being replaced, fear of things spiraling out of control. Veto promises a way to pull the emergency brake if needed.

Arguments in Favor of Veto Power

People who support veto arrangements make several points:

Protection of Primary Relationships

The core argument: if a primary relationship is the foundation of your life—especially with shared children, finances, or long history—there should be some way to protect it from outside threats. If a new relationship is genuinely damaging the primary, having a nuclear option provides security.

Easier Transition Into ENM

For couples opening up after monogamy, veto can make the transition less terrifying. Knowing they have an escape valve might allow someone to take risks they couldn't otherwise take. The argument goes: "It's better to have veto power and never use it than to not try ENM at all because you're too scared."

Genuine Red Flags

Sometimes outside partners are genuinely problematic—abusive, manipulative, or dangerous. In those cases, being able to say "I'm not comfortable with this person in our lives" seems reasonable, especially if the partner involved is too deep in NRE to see the red flags.

It Respects Existing Commitments

Some argue that pre-existing partners have legitimately more stake in your life decisions than newer partners. If you've built a life with someone, their voice should carry more weight than someone you met three months ago.

Arguments Against Veto Power

Critics of veto power offer strong counterarguments:

It's Fundamentally Disrespectful to Third Parties

When you have veto power over your partner's relationships, you're claiming the right to end a relationship you're not actually in. The vetoed person—who may have done nothing wrong—has their heart broken by someone they're not even dating.

This person didn't consent to your veto arrangement. They entered a relationship in good faith, and their connection with your partner can be terminated by you at any time. Many people find this deeply unethical.

It Treats Relationships as Threats, Not Gifts

The veto mindset assumes that outside relationships are potential problems to be controlled rather than opportunities for growth, joy, and expanded love. It comes from a scarcity mentality—the idea that your partner loving someone else threatens what you have.

It Doesn't Address Root Issues

If you're scared enough to need veto power, there's probably underlying work to do: attachment insecurity, fear of abandonment, lack of trust, communication gaps. Veto is a Band-Aid that covers these issues rather than healing them.

It Creates a Power Imbalance

The person with veto power holds disproportionate control over their partner's life. They can end relationships without being in them, without negotiating with the affected person, and often without needing to justify themselves fully.

It Can Enable Controlling Behavior

While veto might be intended as an emergency brake, it can become a tool for control. "I don't like how much time you're spending with them" can become a veto. Jealousy can become a veto. Discomfort without legitimate cause can become a veto.

It Doesn't Actually Provide Security

The security veto promises is often an illusion. If your partner wants to be with someone else so badly that only a veto would stop them, do you really want to force them to stay? If they're choosing harmful partners, will a single veto fix the underlying judgment issues?

Real security comes from trust, communication, and genuine compatibility—not from control.

Alternatives to Hard Veto

If full veto power feels too extreme but you still want protection, consider these alternatives:

Right to Voice Concerns

Instead of the power to end relationships, you have the commitment that your concerns will be heard and seriously considered. Your partner doesn't have to do what you say, but they can't dismiss your feelings.

What this looks like: "I'm not asking you to end things with them, but I need you to hear that I'm struggling with X and work with me on it."

Slow-Down Requests

Rather than ending relationships, you can request that things slow down—especially during the NRE phase when your partner might be making less-than-ideal decisions.

What this looks like: "I'm feeling overwhelmed. Can we talk about reducing how much time you're spending with them right now until I feel more stable?"

Advance Discussion Requirement

You can require that significant relationship developments be discussed before they happen—not as a request for permission, but as a commitment to keep you informed and involved.

What this looks like: "Before you become fluid-bonded with someone new, I want us to talk about it first so I can understand what's happening and share any concerns."

Mutual Check-Ins

Regular scheduled conversations about how all relationships are going and how everyone is feeling. This catches problems early before they become veto-worthy crises.

What this looks like: Weekly or biweekly conversations about what's happening in each relationship and how each of you is doing.

Boundaries Instead of Rules

Instead of rules about what your partner can't do, focus on boundaries about what you'll accept in your own life.

What this looks like: Not "You can't see her more than twice a week," but "I need at least two evenings a week with you, and if that's not happening, I'll need to reassess whether this arrangement works for me."

Time-Limited Safety Nets

Some couples use veto only in the very early stages of new relationships—say, the first one to three months—with the understanding that once a relationship has developed, it's no longer subject to veto.

What this looks like: "If either of us is uncomfortable in the first few weeks of a new connection, we can call it off. After that, we're committed to working through issues rather than terminating."

When Veto Might Make Sense

Despite the strong arguments against it, there are situations where some form of veto or near-veto might be appropriate:

Genuinely Dangerous Situations

If a partner is involved with someone who is abusive, dangerous, or genuinely harmful, wanting them out of your shared life is reasonable. This isn't about jealousy—it's about safety.

Even here, though, framing matters. "I'm concerned about your safety and mine" is different from "I'm vetoing this person." The former invites conversation; the latter asserts control.

Early Stages of Opening Up

Some couples successfully use veto as training wheels while they develop the skills and security needed for less restrictive arrangements. The key is that veto is explicitly temporary and there's a plan for evolving beyond it.

This only works if:

Both partners genuinely agree to it
Everyone the couple dates knows about the veto arrangement
There's a concrete plan for phasing it out
It's actually phased out as agreed

When Everyone Genuinely Consents

If all parties—including potential new partners—knowingly consent to a veto arrangement, the ethical concerns are lessened. The key word is "knowingly." New partners must understand before becoming emotionally invested that the primary partner could end the relationship.

Handling Veto Requests

What do you do if you're in a relationship where veto gets invoked—or threatened?

If You're the One Wanting to Veto

Before invoking veto power (or asking for it), examine your motivations:

Is this about genuine danger or just discomfort?
Have I tried other approaches first?
Am I using veto to avoid my own emotional work?
What's the underlying fear, and is there a better way to address it?
How would I feel if the situation were reversed?

If you still feel veto is appropriate, have a conversation:

Explain specifically what's concerning you
Be open to hearing your partner's perspective
Explore alternatives together
Recognize what you're asking your partner to give up

If Your Partner Wants to Veto Your Relationship

This is painful territory. Some things to consider:

Take the concerns seriously. Even if veto feels unfair, your partner is telling you something's wrong. Listen to what's underneath the request.

Examine your own situation. Is there something about this relationship that's genuinely problematic? Sometimes our partners see things we can't.

Advocate for your other partner. The person you're dating deserves consideration too. They might be hurt by this conversation without even knowing it's happening.

Discuss alternatives. Are there ways to address your partner's concerns without ending the relationship?

Consider your boundaries. If your partner insists on the veto and you feel it's unjust, you have to decide what you're willing to accept. You might comply, or you might decide this represents a fundamental incompatibility.

If You're the Person Being Vetoed

Being on the receiving end of a veto is devastating. You've been broken up with by someone you weren't even dating.

Some things to know:

This isn't about your worth or whether you did something wrong
You have no control over other people's agreements
It's okay to decide you won't date people with veto arrangements in the future
Your grief and anger are valid

Building Trust Instead of Control

The deeper question underneath the veto debate is: how do you build enough trust and security that you don't need an emergency brake?

Trust in Your Partner

Do you trust that they love you and are committed to your relationship?
Do you trust their judgment about the people they get involved with?
Do you trust that they'll prioritize your relationship when it genuinely matters?
Do you trust them to hear your concerns and take them seriously?

If the answer to these questions is yes, veto becomes less necessary. If the answer is no, veto won't fix the underlying trust issues.

Trust in Yourself

Do you trust that you're desirable and valuable regardless of your partner's other relationships?
Do you trust that you could survive if this relationship ended?
Do you trust your ability to advocate for your own needs?
Do you trust that you can handle difficult emotions without needing control?

Personal security work—therapy, self-development, building a rich individual life—often does more for relationship security than any agreement can.

Trust in the Relationship

Is your relationship strong enough to weather challenges?
Do you communicate well enough to work through problems?
Do you have a track record of navigating hard things together?
Is there a foundation that outside relationships can't shake?

If your relationship is genuinely solid, external "threats" feel less threatening.

Questions to Discuss as a Couple

If you're navigating veto questions with a partner, here are conversations to have:

What's driving the desire for veto? Fear of what? Protecting against what specific scenarios?
What would provide security without veto? What else might address the underlying concerns?
How would this affect new partners? Are you comfortable with the ethics of being able to end their relationships?
What are the limitations? If you have veto, under what circumstances would you actually use it?
Is this permanent or temporary? If temporary, what would need to change for veto to be phased out?
What's the process? If veto is invoked, how does the conversation happen? Is there an appeal?
What about reverse veto? If you can veto your partner's relationships, can they veto yours?

Summary

Veto power is one of the most controversial topics in ENM:

Arguments for veto:

Protects primary relationships
Can ease transition into ENM
Addresses genuinely dangerous situations
Respects existing commitments

Arguments against veto:

Disrespects third parties who didn't consent to it
Treats relationships as threats
Doesn't address root issues
Creates power imbalance
Can enable controlling behavior
Provides illusory security

Alternatives to consider:

Right to voice concerns
Slow-down requests
Advance discussion requirements
Regular check-ins
Boundaries instead of rules
Time-limited arrangements

The deeper work: Building genuine trust—in your partner, in yourself, and in your relationship—creates real security that veto power only pretends to offer.

Whatever you decide, make sure everyone affected (including future partners) knows what they're signing up for. Transparency isn't optional when you're making agreements that could break someone else's heart.