Mutually assured destruction

Matisse wrote up a wonderful column for the Stranger. Put me in mind what I wrote about a few posts back about people preferring to jump to excising the uncomfortable parts of their relationships rather than working to solve the underlying cause. She wrote specifically of polyamory and the legendary "veto power" that many relationships seem to include, but it's also relevant to monogamous relationships as well.

She sums it up quite nicely in the following paragraph.

"I understand why people say this. My lovers and I said the same thing when I began practicing poly. I said it so my partner wouldn't feel insecure; my partners said it as a way of reassuring themselves that they had some control over the situation. Those aren't bad things to want. It's just that the veto clause is rather like the nuclear weapon of poly: Using it might neutralize one set of threats, but it's going to create other problems that won't have a quick fix."

That's the fundamental problem with ultimatums; it doesn't matter what or why it came about, once it's issued there are only the two choices of acceptance or rejection. I have and continue to hold that dictation of terms has no place in a romantic relationship. Professionally, such demands are not only to be expected, but required. As a citizen, there are ultimatums that could be legitimately lodged against me and to a lesser extent from me to the government. It is never a state of affairs that can exist within a romantic relationship. The previous two examples are healthy because they are impersonal. Romance is anything but.

I can reach a plateau of contention with my boss culminating in "this is how it is going to be; like it, love it, live it" without suffering a sense of betrayal. I could very well feel stabbed in the back by it, but it's not an element that has to be there. He has a business to run and when it all boils down, it's his party and his rules. If I can respect that, there is no reason I cannot continue to be a good employee.

Not so in a relationship. If it gets to a point of telling the other what they will or will not do, also known as issuing a demand backed by threat of reprisal, there's going to be a sense of betrayal. One side is going to wonder how the other could do something that pushed them to throwing down the gauntlet. The other will wonder how the other could dare to make them choose immediately and unconditionally. Both will feel hurt they were pushed to such a position. It doesn't matter how it resolves itself, the involved parties are going to trust the other less and know the other is not only capable, but willing to exert force on the other.

They may have only used words and the consequences for non compliance only the instant dissolution of the relationship/friendship, but it's emotionally the same as pointing a gun at their head and making the demand. In that second, you that person has proven that they choose themselves over everything else. With someone who's told you repeatedly how much they love, respect, and need you such a stark display of where you no longer matter cannot be anything less than devastating. If it has to happen, it has to happen. The relationship is just dead from that point on.

Damn I love her analogy; "The nuclear weapons of [love]." Horrifyingly apt. If the pressure wave doesn't get you, the thermal bloom probably will. If you survive that, the surrounding environment is contaminated by fallout.

It does make for interesting shadows flash-burned onto the wall though.