View Single Post
Old 04-06-2011, 06:25 PM
MrFarFromRight's Avatar
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Up a winter mountain hoping NOT to get snowed in...
Posts: 497

Mister Pedant Man wades in again. (Bam! Kerpow! Whoosh!)
I clicked on this thread, because I was thinking to write: "If that's what you need to maintain a healthy relationship... it's your call."

Frankly I'm rather amazed to read so many people damning vetoing on a board where so many write about the "necessity of setting clear boundaries". And some of the damning comes from the same people who insist on the boundaries option. Now, it's possible that senility is setting in early with me, but I'm having problems with this one:

Just what is the difference between "vetoing" and "setting clear boundaries"?

(Please remember that I'm Mister Pedant Man, and be gentle with me. My super-tights get laddered in a scuffle.)

I would certainly agree that it's better to discuss problems and come to a happy concensus. And I'm actually playing the Devil's advocate here, because I - personally and generally - hate the idea of vetoes. Especially
Originally Posted by Morningglory629 View Post
applie[d] to politics as well. That and filebustering really get on my nerves. I just don't see the point of it other than to piss people off, extend the argument, and cause further stress and discord. The exact opposite of ANY reason I have heard in support of the power of veto.
But let's look at political vetoing. In the USA, the President has a veto right over Congress. (But the veto can be overturned - though with difficulty - by Congress.) In the UN, just 5 countries have the right of veto... on policies that affect the entire World. These are both cases of vetoes being a prerogative of the already over-powerful.

Just which vetoes are being considered here?
You may not have unprotected sex with a new partner before they've been tested for AIDS and STDs. (?)
You may not have unprotected sex with any partner outside our primary relationship. (?)
You may not have sex with any other partner in OUR bed. (?)
You may not do overnights with your GF/BF. (?)

I have seen all of these positions ("setting clear boundaries") defended by experienced polys. Aren't those vetoes?

You may not have sex with Mister Pedant Man because he's a pedantic wanker who gets right up my nose. (?)

Well, how about: "IF you have sex with Mister Pedant Man - a pedantic wanker who gets right up my nose - I think it only fair to tell you that I'll have lost all respect for your sense of taste and (bring on the sad voice) frankly don't hold out much hope for our relationship's future..."

I've seen a lot of emotional blackmail and manipulation in my time, and frankly: if 2 lovers decide on equal vetoing rights (some being negotiable in the future), I don't see it as all that bad.

SHIT!!! My super-tights have laddered! Time to change back into mild-mannered, wishy-washy MrFarFromRight.
If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution.
- Emma Goldman Anarchist and Polyamorous par excellence
The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.
- old Chinese proverb
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~ Anais Nin
I'd rather have a broken heart / Than have a heart of stone.
- from "Boundless Love (A Polyamory Song)" by Jimmy Hollis i Dickson
Reply With Quote