Originally Posted by thunkybunny
I'd say that vetos are clumsy. It's too easy to abuse them instead of communicating. Some established couples get into this habit of vetoing each other's other significant others, causing a lot of unnecessary confusion and lasting resentments (in the established relationship). It's the same explanation for why the United Nations is a big joke. Vetos privilege certain people and relationships over others. The impulse to 'protect' our attachments to property and people is ingrained possibly in our natures and cultures. A better approach would be for everyone to sit down and talk, but that would require so much *hand on head* work.
I agree that it would be better to talk. I don't think it is always to do with possession though. Certainly sometimes, but not always. I
"clumsy" is a really good word I think, as they are very risky indeed. Thanks for that word. I intend to remember it in terms of a lot of terminology to do with poly theory. Anything "in theory" can be clumsy it seems. And really, just because a veto is used one time doesn't mean it works another time. Clumsy. Sometimes that is all we have when we feel that there is a threat and we aren't interested in being pushed to change. Feeling uncomfortable makes us do clumsy things sometimes. At least it makes me do clumsy things anyway.