Something I keep trying to get across to Y, with little success so far, is looking at boundaries and permission not as control, but as respect and consideration
I have had this same conversation with other people who couldn't see that limits, boundaries, veto power, etc aren't control. I think the common thread here is that first, they don't see that limits and boundaries are something you impose on yourself, rather than something your partner imposes on you. These are things that you negotiate with your partner until you reach an acceptable compromise, and I think that part of X and Y's problem is that she was looking on them as rules she could enforce on him, and he was looking at them as controls she was trying to impose on him, and they never reached an acceptable compromise: she dictated, and he said "sure" knowing in his heart that he was going to break them no matter what, so it didn't matter what he agreed to.
The problem was not one-sided, but X at least seems inclined to rethink her position and make an effort to reach some kind of mutual agreement, whereas at this point I think that anything Y says must be regarded as suspect, because I'm not sure he considers his word to be binding.
Veto power is a little trickier, and I think that everyone rationalizes it to themselves in a different way, because baldly, it is exerting a control on your partner. However, my rationalizations are as follows. First, it's mutual. Ranj and I have equal say over each other's relationships, because we recognize that our pair-bond is the most important thing in our lives. Second, it's reciprocal: Ranj has the power because I have given it to him. And vice-versa. Neither of us has tried to take that power, or impose it on one another. Ranj was in a relationship with no veto power, and I think we all know how well that went. Third, it's for the good of our relationship and we both realize that, see part the first.
And fourth, it's a way of heading off trouble. People, even experienced poly people, break up because of who their partner has slept with. It happens all the time. Agreeing on a mutual veto power is a way of saying to each other and yourselves that despite your absolute love and affection for one another and your agreement that sexual fidelity isn't a part of your relationship strategy, who you sleep with really does matter. Because it does. When you agree on a veto power, what you're doing is acknowledging that you both know that it matters, and doing what you can to make sure that even if something happens, you have control systems in place to check the consequences.
And if the anti-control, anti-veto, we're-more-enlightened-than-the-dirty-mogs crowd wants to pretend that all limits are pathological control attempts, that veto is blackmail, and that they have the absolute right to fuck whomever they choose, let the chips fall where they may...well. Okay. But they'd better not try to fuck my partner.
We're not more enlightened. We're not really more anything except different, and maybe a little bit more honest, because we don't feel the need to pretend an adherence to cultural beliefs that we don't agree with, and a little bit more mature, because we are mostly able to deal with the consequences of our feelings and ideals without having our lives blow up in our faces.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-03 12:24 pm (UTC)I have had this same conversation with other people who couldn't see that limits, boundaries, veto power, etc aren't control. I think the common thread here is that first, they don't see that limits and boundaries are something you impose on yourself, rather than something your partner imposes on you. These are things that you negotiate with your partner until you reach an acceptable compromise, and I think that part of X and Y's problem is that she was looking on them as rules she could enforce on him, and he was looking at them as controls she was trying to impose on him, and they never reached an acceptable compromise: she dictated, and he said "sure" knowing in his heart that he was going to break them no matter what, so it didn't matter what he agreed to.
The problem was not one-sided, but X at least seems inclined to rethink her position and make an effort to reach some kind of mutual agreement, whereas at this point I think that anything Y says must be regarded as suspect, because I'm not sure he considers his word to be binding.
Veto power is a little trickier, and I think that everyone rationalizes it to themselves in a different way, because baldly, it is exerting a control on your partner. However, my rationalizations are as follows. First, it's mutual. Ranj and I have equal say over each other's relationships, because we recognize that our pair-bond is the most important thing in our lives. Second, it's reciprocal: Ranj has the power because I have given it to him. And vice-versa. Neither of us has tried to take that power, or impose it on one another. Ranj was in a relationship with no veto power, and I think we all know how well that went. Third, it's for the good of our relationship and we both realize that, see part the first.
And fourth, it's a way of heading off trouble. People, even experienced poly people, break up because of who their partner has slept with. It happens all the time. Agreeing on a mutual veto power is a way of saying to each other and yourselves that despite your absolute love and affection for one another and your agreement that sexual fidelity isn't a part of your relationship strategy, who you sleep with really does matter. Because it does. When you agree on a veto power, what you're doing is acknowledging that you both know that it matters, and doing what you can to make sure that even if something happens, you have control systems in place to check the consequences.
And if the anti-control, anti-veto, we're-more-enlightened-than-the-dirty-mogs crowd wants to pretend that all limits are pathological control attempts, that veto is blackmail, and that they have the absolute right to fuck whomever they choose, let the chips fall where they may...well. Okay. But they'd better not try to fuck my partner.
We're not more enlightened. We're not really more anything except different, and maybe a little bit more honest, because we don't feel the need to pretend an adherence to cultural beliefs that we don't agree with, and a little bit more mature, because we are mostly able to deal with the consequences of our feelings and ideals without having our lives blow up in our faces.