r/queerpolyam • u/MistyP90X • 21d ago
Boundaries vs Vetos
/r/relationshipanarchy/comments/1taa9mp/boundaries_vs_vetos/2
u/wolfinthesuburbs 18d ago edited 18d ago
Boundaries are reaction based. “If you do X, I will do Y” is a boundary. Control your reaction, not their action. Vetos are about permission and are control based. “I don’t like this, you can’t do this” is a veto.
With plans cancelled due to someone else’s feelings, here’s my understanding of different scenarios:
Boundary: Partner Apple and Partner Broccoli have plans. Partner Cookie decides these plans make them upset. Cookie might have a boundary that looks like “if you continue with these plans, I will have to take some space for the next few days to process my feelings about it on my own”. Apple can decide if they want to continue with the established plans with Broccoli as scheduled or cancel them to avoid Cookie needing to take space from them. If Apple cancels the plans, Broccoli might have a boundary that looks like “if you cancel plans with me to prevent conflict with other partners, I will deprioritize making plans with you going forward”. If Apple doesn’t cancel the plans, Cookie will take space to process the feelings on their own. Actions made by individuals according to their needs instead of actions demanded of one individual by another.
Veto: Partner Apple and Partner Broccoli have plans. Partner Cookie decides these plans make them upset. Cookie might veto the plans by saying “Apple, I am upset about these plans and don’t want you to go, so I need you to cancel”. Cookie is attempting to control Apple’s action. If Apple does allow Cookie to veto the plans, Apple is allowing for a chain of command where Broccoli’s relationship with Apple is subject to Cookie’s control. The veto isn’t a veto if Apple doesn’t allow it. Broccoli might then veto Apple’s relationship with Cookie by saying “you can’t date Cookie because of this veto”. This is also Broccoli attempting to control Apple’s action. Broccoli has an option here to put up a boundary instead and say “I won’t date you if you allow vetos”.
Poor hinging: Partner Apple and Partner Broccoli have plans. Partner Cookie decides these plans make them upset. Cookie issues a boundary, and Apple decides to prioritize Cookie’s feelings over the established plans. Apple goes to Broccoli and says “I’m sorry, but because Cookie set a boundary around these plans, I have to do what Cookie wants. Cookie is being really unreasonable and I wish I didn’t have to cancel the plans but I do.” Apple is not taking any ownership over the choice they made when given a reasonable boundary, and is instead blaming it on Cookie, leaving Broccoli to resent Cookie without knowing Apple freely and willingly made the choice to cancel their plans. Apple is positing themself as the angel who’s being controlled without agency and Cookie’s boundary is being framed as a veto when it wasn’t. Apple could have said “I am choosing to cancel our plans.”
Sneakiarchy: Partner Apple and Partner Broccoli have plans. Partner Cookie decides these plans make them upset. Cookie lays down a veto and says “you can’t do these plans”. Apple says “okay, I will give you that control”. When Apple goes about handling the cancelled plans, there is no mention of Cookie being allowed control over the relationship Apple and Broccoli have. Broccoli now has no idea that someone they’re not dating is pulling the strings in their relationship with Apple, and thinks they have an autonomous, individual relationship with Apple when they don’t. Cookie is being given default priority in this way to control Apple’s permissions, an arrangement Broccoli has not agreed to. Broccoli no longer knows they might need to put down the boundary of “if you allow vetoes, I won’t date you”.
Honestly, to me, it’s all very relative. Why is Cookie having bad feelings about plans? Why is Cookie feeling so strongly that plans have to be canceled instead of Cookie just processing their own feelings? How often does Cookie set boundaries about established plans? What is being done to work through this issue so it doesn’t reoccur? Is Apple always choosing to prevent Cookie’s boundary reaction? Is there a larger pattern of Apple avoiding conflict with Cookie by prioritizing them and cancelling with Broccoli? Etc etc etc.
I don’t believe in ethical polyamory with vetos. Some people do, but I personally don’t think vetos are an ethical way to go about handling multiple relationships. Vetos, in my opinion, take away from the whole “autonomous, individual relationship” thing and inherently insert the vetoing partner into the dyad that they shouldn’t have a say over. People should make choices for themselves.
3
u/verronaut 20d ago
relatively simple. if two other people have plans together, my feelings about those plans don't matter, and me trying to make them cancel plans that i'm not part of is a veto.
if I make plans with someone, and an uninvolved party wants us to cancel, that's a veto.
Your boundaries stop at the edges of your direct personhood and relationships. My consent is irrelevant to my neighbors having sex, and also with my partners and their partners.
You can have boundaries like "I don't want to have certain kinds of sex with people who aren't taking certain precautions", or needs like "I need more quality time together, when can we make that happen", but dictating how a dynamic that you are tangental to plays out is unfair to everyone. You can express wants, and you can withdraw from relationships that don't feel good to you, but any attempt to tell other people how to love each other will backfire.