3 虐待 Abuse

:::info 🤖 AI 生成声明本文由人工智能（Gemini）生成，本人审阅后认为内容质量优良，但是未做人工修正，因此本人不为此内容的准确性和完整性做最终担保。AI 生成内容属于公有领域，您可以自由使用。 :::

Never be cruel. Never be cowardly.

THE TWELFTH DOCTOR¹

永远不要残忍，永远不要懦弱。

第十二任博士 (The Twelfth Doctor)¹

CONTENT NOTE: This chapter discusses the topic of abuse, both in general and within nonmonogamous relationships. It does not include graphic descriptions of abuse or stories about abuse.

内容提示：本章讨论虐待这一话题，包括一般情况和非单偶制关系中的情况。其中不包含对虐待的生动描述或关于虐待的故事。

It might seem odd to put a chapter on abuse right near the beginning of a book about nonmonogamy. But we think it’s important to put this information right up front, because ordinary relationship advice (as well as relationship therapy) tends to be useless, counterproductive or outright harmful in situations of abuse.

把关于虐待的一章放在一本关于非单偶制的书的开头附近似乎很奇怪。但我们认为把这些信息放在最前面很重要，因为普通的关系建议（以及关系治疗）在虐待情况下往往是无用的、适得其反的，甚至是完全有害的。

If you are being abused, trying to use some of the advice in this book could make things worse—or the person or people abusing you might try to use it to control or shame you. We don’t want that. Abuse can also show up in nonmonogamy in some special and insidious ways. So we want to equip you as best we can to discern when you’re just having a hard time and when a situation has become toxic or abusive—and thus when you might need a different kind of help than what’s in these pages.

如果你正在遭受虐待，试图使用本书中的一些建议可能会使事情变得更糟——或者虐待你的人可能会试图利用它来控制或羞辱你。我们要避免这种情况。虐待也可能以一些特殊和隐蔽的方式出现在非单偶制中。因此，我们要尽可能让你能够辨别你只是在经历困难时期，还是情况已经变得有毒或具有虐待性——从而判断你何时可能需要一种不同于本书所提供的帮助。

Before we even start talking about what abuse is, we want to make something really clear. And that is: If you’re feeling harmed in one or more of your relationships, it doesn’t have to meet the technical definition of abuse to be not okay. Sometimes, people can get caught in wondering whether something they’re experiencing “counts” as abuse. It’s almost as if there’s a flowchart in their heads, where a “yes” would lead them to a certain set of actions and a “no” would lead to others. But there are three problems with that.

甚至在我们开始讨论什么是虐待之前，我们要非常明确地说明一点。那就是：如果你在一段或多段关系中感到受伤害，它不需要符合虐待的技术定义就是不可接受的。有时，人们会陷入纠结，想知道他们正在经历的事情是否“算作”虐待。就好像他们脑海里有一个流程图，“是”会导致他们采取某些行动，而“否”会导致其他行动。但这存在三个问题。

First, people’s understandings of abuse have shifted a lot over time, and they continue to evolve based on the work of advocacy and support groups, changes in laws and legal systems, new research and scholarship, cultural movements, advances in the fields of psychology and trauma treatment, and lots more. For example, in Canada, it was perfectly legal to rape your spouse until 1983, and the Labour Code didn’t require workplaces to have policies against sexual harassment until 1985.² In 2019, England and Wales became the first jurisdictions in the world to designate coercive control as a crime.³ Those are just a few examples of legal shifts; there are many more. And the law is usually many steps behind the culture at large—or sometimes out of step entirely. So depending on what system you’re turning to for definitions, you might end up coming to conclusions that don’t track with your lived experience.

首先，人们对虐待的理解随着时间的推移发生了很大变化，并且基于倡导和支持团体的工作、法律和法律体系的变化、新的研究和学术成果、文化运动、心理学和创伤治疗领域的进步等等，这种理解还在继续演变。例如，在加拿大，直到 1983 年，强奸配偶都是完全合法的，而《劳工法》直到 1985 年才要求工作场所制定反性骚扰政策。² 2019 年，英格兰和威尔士成为世界上首个将强制控制 (coercive control) 定为犯罪的司法管辖区。³ 这只是法律转变的几个例子；还有很多。而且法律通常落后于整体文化很多步——或者有时完全脱节。因此，取决于你向什么系统寻求定义，你可能会得出与你的生活经历不符的结论。

Second, the representations of abuse that we most commonly see can be misleading. For instance, it’s easy to show a picture of someone with visible physical injuries, but a lot of abuse is far more subtle and harder to represent in a photo. News articles and TV clips about abuse often focus primarily on situations that involve extreme and frequent acts of physical violence, because those are the types of abuse that are most likely to come to the attention of a reporter or writer. Recent documentaries, such as the several series and movies about the NXIVM cult, have dramatized psychological control and abuse that mostly didn’t involve physical violence but was still quite extreme. But a great deal of abuse doesn’t look like the HBO-worthy cases—and it’s still just as real. So if you turn to films, TV and the news to figure out whether you’re experiencing abuse, you might not recognize your own situation in those representations at all, and you can easily end up convincing yourself that what you’re experiencing doesn’t count as abuse or isn’t really “that bad.”

其次，我们最常看到的虐待表现形式可能会产生误导。例如，很容易展示一张某人有明显身体伤害的照片，但很多虐待要微妙得多，很难在照片中表现出来。关于虐待的新闻文章和电视片段通常主要关注涉及极端和频繁身体暴力行为的情况，因为这些类型的虐待最有可能引起记者或作家的注意。最近的纪录片，如几部关于 NXIVM 邪教的系列片和电影，戏剧化地表现了心理控制和虐待，这些大多不涉及身体暴力，但仍然相当极端。但大量的虐待看起来并不像那些值得 HBO 拍摄的案例——而且它仍然同样真实。所以，如果你转向电影、电视和新闻来弄清楚你是否正在遭受虐待，你可能根本无法在那些表现形式中认出你自己的处境，你很容易最终说服自己，你所经历的不算虐待，或者真的“没那么糟”。

Third, and perhaps more importantly: It’s the wrong question. Whether your experience technically falls under the umbrella of “abuse” is not the most useful question to be asking—or at least, it’s not the only question or the most important one. Rather than asking yourself, “Is this abuse?” consider asking yourself questions like these, which can apply either to a person or a group:

第三，也许更重要的是：这是个错误的问题。你的经历在技术上是否属于“虐待”的范畴并不是最有用的问题——或者至少，这不是唯一的问题或最重要的问题。与其问自己“这是虐待吗？”，不如考虑问自己这样的问题（这些问题既适用于个人也适用于群体）：

Does their behaviour cross a line for me in terms of how I’m willing to be treated?
Do I feel afraid of them, or intimidated, browbeaten, belittled, disrespected, manipulated or objectified?
Does this relationship feel like a test of how much unpleasantness I’m willing to absorb or how hard I’m willing to defend my boundaries or stand up for myself? Do they badger me and try to wear me down when I state a boundary?
Do I have to walk on eggshells around them, or twist myself into a pretzel to avoid setting them off in some way? Am I constantly bracing for the next conflict, the next attack? Are they constantly angry with me or on the verge of anger?
Am I never really sure they are telling the truth or giving me the whole story? Do I leave conversations with them feeling confused or disoriented?
Are they malicious or mean-spirited toward me? Do they set me up to fail, or mock me or humiliate me?
Do they play mind games with me—twisting my words to mean things they don’t, reinterpreting events to cast me in a bad light, accusing me of things I haven’t done, or otherwise bending reality to justify being upset at me?
Do they respect my privacy, my relationships with friends and family, my work or school commitments, and my decision-making power in my own life?
Do they punish me or threaten me if I do things in a way they don’t like, or talk to people they don’t want me to talk to?
Are they contemptuous of me? Do they act as though I’m a burden or a chore, or unworthy of their time and attention, or as though my existence is an annoyance to them?
Do I feel drained and exhausted from trying to manage the unpleasantness that comes from being with them? Do I lose focus at work or school, cancel plans with friends and family, or do a poor job taking care of myself or others because I’m feeling so sad or upset about the way they are treating me?
就能接受的被对待方式而言，他们的行为是否越过了我的底线？
我是否害怕他们，或者感到被恐吓、被威逼、被贬低、被不尊重、被操纵或被物化？
这段关系是否感觉像是一场测试，测试我愿意承受多少不快，或者我愿意多努力地捍卫我的界限或为自己挺身而出？当我陈述界限时，他们是否纠缠不休并试图让我屈服？
我是否必须在他们周围如履薄冰，或者把自己扭成麻花以避免以某种方式惹怒他们？我是否时刻准备着迎接下一次冲突、下一次攻击？他们是否总是生我的气或处于愤怒的边缘？
我是否从来都不确定他们在说真话或告诉我全部情况？我和他们谈话后是否感到困惑或迷失方向？
他们对我是否有恶意或刻薄？他们是否设计让我失败，或者嘲笑我、羞辱我？
他们是否和我玩心理游戏——歪曲我的话意，重新解释事件以抹黑我，指责我没做过的事，或者以其他方式歪曲事实来证明他们生我的气是有理的？
他们是否尊重我的隐私、我与朋友和家人的关系、我的工作或学业承诺，以及我在自己生活中的决策权？
如果我以他们不喜欢的方式做事，或者和他们不想让我交谈的人交谈，他们是否会惩罚我或威胁我？
他们是否蔑视我？他们是否表现得好像我是个负担或苦差事，或者不值得他们的时间和关注，或者好像我的存在对他们来说是个烦恼？
我是否因为试图应对与他们在一起带来的不快而感到精疲力竭？我是否因为对他们对待我的方式感到如此悲伤或沮丧，而在工作或学校失去注意力，取消与朋友家人的计划，或者无法照顾好自己或他人？

The answers to these questions won’t necessarily tell you whether you’re in an abusive relationship or polycule. But they can still give you some clarity on whether the situation is a positive, strengthening force in your life or a negative and harmful one, as well as whether the other people involved are likely to be your allies in improving things.

这些问题的答案不一定能告诉你，你是否处于虐待性的关系或多边关系网络中。但它们仍然可以让你清楚地了解，这种处境是你生活中积极的、增强力量的因素，还是消极的、有害的因素，以及其他相关人员是否可能成为你改善现状的盟友。

Of course, you may also read the questions above and recognize some of your own treatment of others. If you have a conscience, it can feel just as awful—or worse—to realize you’ve been mistreating someone close to you as it does to realize you’ve been mistreated. While we’re not going to let you off the hook, we do want to say that it doesn’t make you irredeemable, and it’s never too late to do better. People engage in harmful behaviours for lots of reasons, and these behaviours can be unlearned. But you do need to be able to recognize when you’ve been causing harm, take accountability and be willing to take steps to change. And it also doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to treat you poorly in return. In fact, it’s common for abusive people to use their victims’ own mistakes and even poor behaviour—no one is perfect, after all—to convince the victims they deserve the abuse, or brought it on themselves. So while it’s important to take responsibility for your actions, if you feel like you’re being punished for some transgression, instead of feeling like you’re on a team to make the relationship better for everyone, that’s a red flag.

当然，你也可能在阅读上述问题时，认出了你自己对待他人的一些方式。如果你有良知，意识到自己一直在虐待亲近的人，这种感觉可能和意识到自己被虐待一样糟糕——甚至更糟。虽然我们不会轻易放过你，但我们确实想说，这并不意味着你无可救药，做得更好永远都不晚。人们出于很多原因从事有害行为，这些行为是可以改掉的。但你确实需要能够识别出你何时造成了伤害，承担责任并愿意采取措施改变。而且这并不意味着任何人都有权反过来恶劣地对待你。事实上，施虐者经常利用受害者自己的错误甚至不良行为——毕竟没有人是完美的——来说服受害者他们理应受到虐待，或者那是他们自找的。所以，虽然对自己的行为负责很重要，但如果你觉得自己是因为某种过错而受到惩罚，而不是感觉你们是一个团队在为了大家把关系变得更好，那就是一个危险信号。

Relationships aren’t supposed to hurt. They’re supposed to lift you up and nourish you, not cut you down or drain you. Partnerships are supposed to make your life better, not worse. They are supposed to be loving.

关系不应该带来伤害。它们应该提升你、滋养你，而不是削弱你或消耗你。伴侣关系应该让你的生活变得更好，而不是更糟。它们应该是充满爱的。

A digression about love

关于爱的题外话

In her book All About Love,⁴ bell hooks makes a bold statement: “Love and abuse cannot coexist.” She arrives at this assertion by working from a definition of love proposed by M. Scott Peck in 1978, who writes that love is “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” And he specifies that love is “an act of will—namely, both an intention and an action.” From there, hooks writes: “When we understand love as the will to nurture our own and another’s spiritual growth, it becomes clear that we cannot claim to love if we are hurtful and abusive. … Abuse and neglect are, by definition, the opposites of nurturance and care.”

贝尔·胡克斯 (bell hooks) 在她的书《关于爱的一切》(All About Love)⁴ 中提出了一个大胆的声明：“爱与虐待不能共存。”她是根据 M·斯科特·派克 (M. Scott Peck) 在 1978 年提出的关于爱的定义得出这一断言的，派克写道，爱是“为了滋养自己或他人的精神成长而延伸自我的意愿”。他指出，爱是“一种意志行为——即既有意图又有行动”。据此，胡克斯写道：“当我们把爱理解为滋养自己和他人精神成长的意愿时，就很清楚了，如果我们是伤害性和虐待性的，我们就不能声称去爱。……根据定义，虐待和忽视是滋养和关怀的对立面。”

She goes on to explain why this definition of love might be hard to accept: For most folks it is just too threatening to embrace a definition of love that would no longer enable us to see love as present in our families. Too many of us need to cling to a notion of love that either makes abuse acceptable or at least makes it seem that whatever happened was not that bad.

她继续解释了为什么这个爱的定义可能难以接受：对大多数人来说，接受一个不再使我们能够看到爱存在于我们家庭中的爱的定义太具威胁性了。我们中有太多人需要紧紧抓住一种爱的观念，这种观念要么让虐待变得可以接受，要么至少让发生的一切看起来没那么糟。

In other words, no matter how intense a person’s feelings are, if their actions are harmful and destructive, it’s not love. But especially (though not only) if you were raised in abusive, neglectful or otherwise dysfunctional families, it can be really difficult to embrace an understanding of love that makes no room for abuse. It can be really difficult to accept that a person who treats you poorly is not actually loving you. You might have to rewrite your stories about your past, or rethink the ones you’re living in right now. Accepting that love and abuse cannot coexist can be really costly, emotionally and materially. It can be psychologically challenging to wrap your head around this idea.

换句话说，无论一个人的感情多么强烈，如果他们的行为是有害的和破坏性的，那就不是爱。但是，特别是（虽然不仅仅是）如果你是在虐待、忽视或其他功能失调的家庭中长大的，要接受一种不给虐待留有余地的爱的理解真的很难。要接受一个对你不好的人实际上并不爱你，真的很难。你可能不得不重写关于你过去的故事，或者重新思考你现在生活在其中的故事。接受爱与虐待不能共存可能会在情感上和物质上付出巨大的代价。在心理上理解这个想法可能是一个挑战。

This is one of the many places where courage is a useful tool. That doesn’t mean fearlessness. It just means taking a deep breath, examining things as they are and not as you’d like them to be, and making decisions accordingly.

这是众多勇气是有用工具的地方之一。这并不意味着无所畏惧。这只是意味着深吸一口气，审视事物的本来面目而不是你希望它们的样子，并据此做出决定。

None of this is meant to imply that people can’t make mistakes or occasionally do hurtful things within an otherwise loving relationship. But when those things happen, which is inevitable, being loving means the person who caused harm or hurt apologizes, makes a genuine attempt to repair things in a meaningful way, and then refrains from doing the hurtful thing again.

这并不意味着人们不能在一个原本充满爱的关系中犯错误或偶尔做一些伤害人的事情。但当这些事情发生时（这是不可避免的），充满爱意味着造成伤害或痛苦的人会道歉，真诚地尝试以有意义的方式修复事情，然后避免再次做伤害人的事情。

This brings us back to the question of defining abuse. There are useful definitions, and we will get to those in a moment. But rather than asking, “Is this abuse?” we think a better question to start off the flowchart in your head is, “Is this relationship loving?” And by that, we mean:

这让我们回到了定义虐待的问题。有一些有用的定义，我们稍后会讲到。但是，与其问“这是虐待吗？”，我们认为在你的脑海中开启流程图的一个更好的问题是，“这段关系是充满爱的吗？”对此，我们的意思是：

Does this relationship support me and bring me joy?
Do I feel relaxed and at ease with my partner?
Do I have room to make mistakes with my partner and be given the benefit of the doubt?
Does this partnership nurture my growth, spiritual or otherwise?
Do I feel like my partner and I are on the same team?
这段关系是否支持我并带给我快乐？
我和伴侣在一起是否感到放松和自在？
我是否有在伴侣面前犯错的空间并得到善意的理解？
这段伙伴关系是否滋养了我的成长，无论是精神上的还是其他的？
我是否觉得我和伴侣是在同一个团队？

These questions can all be applied to polycules, as well. If you combine the answers you got to the first set of questions in this chapter with the ones you get here, you might get a perspective on whether the partnership in question is a good one for you—regardless of whether or not you think it’s abusive. If it is abusive, this will cover it. And if it’s not, but you discover that it’s also not loving, well, maybe you’ll make different decisions about how to move toward your own well-being once you’ve determined that.

这些问题也同样适用于多边关系网络。如果你把本章第一组问题的答案和你在这里得到的答案结合起来，你可能会对这段伙伴关系是否适合你有一个看法——无论你是否认为它是虐待性的。如果是虐待性的，这会涵盖它。如果不是，但你发现它也不充满爱，那么，也许一旦你确定了这一点，你会就如何迈向自己的幸福做出不同的决定。

It might also be worth thinking about the definition of love in terms of how it connects with an overall project to build what Kitty Stryker calls “consent culture.” For her, consent culture is the goal, and it’s the opposite of rape culture, which is the context that allows abuse to thrive. In her consent culture workbook Ask Yourself, Stryker writes, “I want to encourage⁵ people to think critically about their own lives and experiences, to think about where they could be choosing informed consent instead of our society’s encouraged values of entitlement, dissociation and pushing yourself beyond your own limits.”

思考爱的定义如何与构建凯蒂·斯特赖克所称的“知情同意文化”(consent culture) 的整体项目相联系，这也可能是有价值的。对她来说，知情同意文化是目标，它是强奸文化的对立面，而强奸文化是允许虐待猖獗的背景。在她的知情同意文化练习册《问你自己》中，斯特赖克写道：“我想鼓励⁵ 人们批判性地思考自己的生活和经历，思考他们在哪里可以选择知情同意，而不是我们社会所鼓励的权利感、解离和将自己推向极限的价值观。”

In a way, this formulation acts as a society-level counterpart to the question “Is this relationship loving?” But it also comes right back down to interpersonal relationships. Does a loving relationship include non-negotiated entitlement, in the sense of assuming you can do things to your partners without asking and receiving a clear yes, or that you can disregard your effects on your partners? Does it require you to dissociate in order to get through what you’re doing together? Does it require you to push yourself beyond your limits? We’d say no to all these questions: They don’t fit into bell hooks’s understanding of love. And if you understand yourself as a person who wants to build a consent culture, what better place to start than with your own relationships?

在某种程度上，这种表述是“这段关系是充满爱的吗？”这个问题在社会层面的对应物。但它也直接回到了人际关系上。一段充满爱的关系是否包含未经协商的权利感，即假设你可以在没有询问并得到明确同意的情况下对你的伴侣做事情，或者你可以无视你对伴侣的影响？它是否需要你解离才能度过你们共同做的事情？它是否需要你把自己推向极限？我们对所有这些问题的回答都是否定的：它们不符合贝尔·胡克斯对爱的理解。如果你认为自己是一个想要建立知情同意文化的人，还有什么比从你自己的关系开始更好的地方呢？

Definitions of abuse

虐待的定义

The term abuse is commonly used to refer to two main concepts: coercive control and toxic behaviours. These concepts are both worth explaining. They aren’t one and the same, but they do overlap. This is important because the slippage between them can make some discussions (and even your internal thought processes) confusing.

术语“虐待”通常用来指代两个主要概念：强制控制和有毒行为。这两个概念都值得解释。它们并不完全相同，但确实有重叠。这很重要，因为它们之间的混淆会使一些讨论（甚至你的内部思维过程）变得混乱。

COERCIVE CONTROL 强制控制

Some people use the term abuse when they’re talking about coercive control and related harms as part of an ongoing pattern. In a report to Canada’s House of Commons,⁶ scholar Carmen Gill defined coercive control as follows: “Coercive control encompasses acts of both coercion and control through the use of force, deprivation, humiliation, intimidation, exploitation, isolation, and domination. This is done to produce a victim’s obedience, ultimately eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship.” In The Globe and Mail,⁷ Gill elaborates, referring to partners who engage in power games … it’s gaslighting, lies, blaming, cruelty, intimidation—all those things that we don’t necessarily recognize as a form of violence [under] the Criminal Code of Canada. (…) It’s isolation from friends and family. Restricted access to money or food or medicine. Damaging property, or hurting pets. Degrading comments. Barrages of text messages. Monitoring social media.

有些人在谈论作为持续模式一部分的强制控制和相关伤害时使用“虐待”一词。在提交给加拿大下议院的一份报告中，⁶ 学者卡门·吉尔 (Carmen Gill) 将强制控制定义如下：“强制控制包括通过使用武力、剥夺、羞辱、恐吓、剥削、孤立和支配来进行的强制和控制行为。这样做是为了让受害者服从，最终消除他们在关系中的自由感。”在《环球邮报》(The Globe and Mail)⁷ 中，吉尔详细阐述了那些参与其中的伴侣权力游戏……它是煤气灯效应 (gaslighting)、谎言、指责、残忍、恐吓——所有那些我们不一定根据《加拿大刑法》承认为暴力形式的事情。（……）它是与朋友和家人的隔离。限制获取金钱、食物或药物。破坏财产，或伤害宠物。贬低的评论。短信轰炸。监控社交媒体。

Coercive control may or may not come with direct physical violence; it is abuse regardless. But a pattern of physical violence almost always occurs within a context of coercive control. The important thing here is to recognize that coercive control encompasses emotional and psychological abuse, as well as other kinds, such as financial abuse and stalking, and that all of these are real forms of abuse whether or not they include physical or sexual assault. Patterns of coercive control may also extend to control over another person’s perceptions of reality itself—insisting that abusive incidents never happened or were the other person’s fault, for example, or trying to convince someone they are mentally unwell in order to get them to accept another person’s control over their decisions. This is, of course, what we call gaslighting, and it is both an abuse tactic and a form of abuse in itself.

强制控制可能伴随也可能不伴随直接的身体暴力；无论如何它都是虐待。但身体暴力的模式几乎总是发生在强制控制的背景下。这里重要的是要认识到，强制控制包括情感和心理虐待，以及其他类型，如经济虐待和跟踪，所有这些都是真正的虐待形式，无论它们是否包括身体或性侵犯。强制控制的模式也可能延伸到控制另一个人对现实本身的感知——例如，坚持认为虐待事件从未发生过或者是另一个人的错，或者试图让某人相信他们精神不正常，以便让他们接受另一个人对其决定的控制。这当然就是我们所说的煤气灯效应，它既是一种虐待策略，也是一种虐待形式本身。

The nature of coercive control is that one person is deliberately skewing the power dynamic to instill fear and obedience in their partner. It’s very rare that a person exerting coercive control will relinquish their power willingly; they are systematically undermining their partner’s ability to self-advocate. This is generally the kind of dynamic we’re talking about in this chapter when we use the term abuse.

强制控制的本质是一个人故意歪曲权力动态，向其伴侣灌输恐惧和服从。实施强制控制的人很少会自愿放弃权力；他们在系统地破坏伴侣自我辩护的能力。这通常是我们在本章中使用“虐待”一词时所指的那种动态。

For the sake of safety, rather than thinking about ways to fix the relationship, the person on the receiving end of this kind of harm might want to invest in building an escape plan: storing important documents at a friend’s house, saving up money and choosing a strategic moment to move out while the abusive partner is away, for example. People experiencing coercive control are often in the greatest danger of being assaulted or even murdered right after they escape, as the abuser attempts to regain control by any means necessary.⁸ People experiencing abuse often know this to be true, which is why they often don’t leave until they’re prepared and ready—which can be difficult to achieve when they’re being coercively controlled. (This is one of the many reasons “Why didn’t they just leave?” is such an ignorant question!) We’ll discuss these dynamics further and provide resources later in this chapter.

为了安全起见，与其考虑修复关系的方法，承受这种伤害的人可能想要投资建立一个逃跑计划：例如，把重要文件存放在朋友家，攒钱，选择一个施虐伴侣不在的战略时刻搬出去。遭受强制控制的人往往在逃跑后立即面临被袭击甚至被谋杀的最大危险，因为施虐者试图不惜一切代价重新获得控制权。⁸ 遭受虐待的人通常知道这是真的，这就是为什么他们经常在准备好之前不会离开——而在受到强制控制时，这可能很难实现。（这也是为什么“他们为什么不直接离开？”是一个如此无知的问题的众多原因之一！）我们将在本章稍后进一步讨论这些动态并提供资源。

TOXIC BEHAVIOUR 有毒行为

The second main way people use the term abuse is when referring to toxic and harmful behaviour more generally. People may exhibit toxic behaviour of many kinds, up to and including physical violence, outside a context of coercive control. For example, a person might make a belittling comment to their partner or lie to them about something. They may engage in emotional blackmail, like guilt-tripping a partner or threatening to end a relationship if they don’t get their way. It’s even pretty common to engage in gaslighting, like when someone feels ashamed of something they did and tries to minimize it, even when they know how bad it was. And while that behaviour may be anything from unpleasant to a deal-breaker, if it’s not part of a pattern of nonconsensual domination enforced against another person, it wouldn’t be considered coercive control. Similarly, if a person assaults someone on the street, that’s a criminal act, but it’s not coercive control, because it’s not part of an ongoing pattern of intimidation within a relationship.

人们使用虐待一词的第二种主要方式是指更普遍的有毒和有害行为。人们可能会表现出多种有毒行为，甚至包括身体暴力，但这并不在强制控制的背景下。例如，一个人可能会对伴侣发表贬低性的评论或在某事上对他们撒谎。他们可能会进行情感勒索，比如让伴侣感到内疚，或者如果他们没有达到目的就威胁结束关系。甚至煤气灯效应也相当普遍，比如当某人为自己所做的事情感到羞耻并试图将其最小化时，即使他们知道那有多糟糕。虽然这种行为可能从令人不快到成为破坏关系的因素，但如果它不是针对另一个人实施的非自愿支配模式的一部分，它就不会被视为强制控制。同样，如果一个人在街上袭击某人，那是犯罪行为，但不是强制控制，因为它不是关系中持续恐吓模式的一部分。

When someone displays toxic behaviour, it may be possible for the people involved to work through it, if the person displaying the behaviour is willing to change and the person or people receiving it are willing to forgive. For example, if someone insults others, lies or cheats, while it might cause deep hurt, they might be able to resolve the problem through conversation or therapy, and it might never reoccur. Despite the instance or instances of toxic behaviour, the power dynamic between the people involved might remain relatively egalitarian. And it might be possible to repair the relationship rupture or breakdown caused by the harm. The strategies you might want to employ to resolve this kind of situation could include clear boundary-setting; communication exercises; individual, joint or family therapy; targeted skill-building or anger management courses; and so on. The fate of the relationship depends on each person’s decisions about whether to stay or leave, to change or remain entrenched.

当有人表现出有毒行为时，如果表现出这种行为的人愿意改变，而接受这种行为的人愿意原谅，那么相关人员可能会解决这个问题。例如，如果有人侮辱他人、撒谎或欺骗，虽然这可能会造成深深的伤害，但他们可能能够通过对话或治疗来解决问题，并且可能永远不会再发生。尽管发生了一次或多次有毒行为，相关人员之间的权力动态可能仍然相对平等。修复由伤害造成的关系破裂或崩溃可能是可能的。你可能想要用来解决这种情况的策略包括明确的界限设定；沟通练习；个人、联合或家庭治疗；有针对性的技能培养或愤怒管理课程；等等。关系的命运取决于每个人关于是留下还是离开、改变还是固守的决定。

It’s also entirely common for people to engage in toxic behaviours toward each other. This could be because neither of them has ever learned healthy relating, one could be reacting to the other, or they could be setting each other off in particularly explosive ways. Some people call these relationships “mutually abusive,” but we agree with domestic violence prevention organizations that such a thing doesn’t exist, because abuse (as coercive control) always involves a one-sided power dynamic. People being mean to each other can be awful, and certainly counts as toxic behaviour, but because it’s mutual, it’s not coercive control. Finally, it’s also common for victims of coercive control to use toxic behaviours in self-defence, or to adopt some of the tactics of their abusers as survival strategies.⁹

人们互相进行有毒行为也是非常普遍的。这可能是因为他们都没有学会健康的关系，一方可能在对另一方做出反应，或者他们可能以特别具有爆炸性的方式引爆对方。有些人称这些关系为“相互虐待”，但我们同意家庭暴力预防组织的观点，即这种事情并不存在，因为虐待（作为强制控制）总是涉及单方面的权力动态。人们互相刻薄可能很糟糕，当然算作有毒行为，但因为它是相互的，所以不是强制控制。最后，强制控制的受害者出于自卫使用有毒行为，或者采取施虐者的一些策略作为生存策略也是很常见的。⁹

Some toxic behaviours might be instant deal-breakers—actions that make you decide to end a relationship right away, before they can possibly escalate to a pattern. For example, if someone hits you once, you might decide to leave immediately rather than stick around to give them a second chance or an opportunity to repair things. Or if someone makes an insult that crosses a major line for you, and you feel it was deliberate and malicious—or it simply hurts you so much you don’t feel you can trust them again—that might be a relationship-ender: They don’t need to repeat it for it to be sufficient grounds for you to leave. This is completely reasonable. Nobody should feel they have to tolerate or forgive harmful acts that cross their boundaries, even if they happen only once. It is totally valid to say, “I don’t want to be with a person (or in a polycule) who could or would ever do that,” and end things on the spot. You do not owe anyone a second chance once they have harmed you.

有些有毒行为可能是即时的破坏因素——这些行为会让你决定立即结束一段关系，以免它们升级为一种模式。例如，如果有人打你一次，你可能会决定立即离开，而不是留下来给他们第二次机会或修复的机会。或者，如果有人对你进行了严重的侮辱，你觉得这是故意的和恶意的——或者它只是伤害你太深，让你觉得无法再信任他们——这可能是关系的终结：他们不需要重复它，这就足以成为你离开的理由。这是完全合理的。没有人应该觉得他们必须容忍或原谅越过他们界限的有害行为，即使这些行为只发生过一次。说“我不想和一个可能或将会做那种事的人在一起（或在一个多边关系网络中）”，并当场结束关系是完全正当的。一旦有人伤害了你，你不欠任何人第二次机会。

Putting them together 综合来看

Neither coercive control nor toxic behaviour are acceptable in any kind of relationship, intimate or otherwise. Even in the absence of coercive control, toxic behaviour can certainly be considered abusive, and one or two instances of toxic behaviour might in fact be the starting point for a coercive control dynamic. Such behaviours may be the red flags or warning signs of the beginnings of a pattern of harm. A pattern always starts somewhere, after all; abuse rarely shows up all in one shot. It escalates once a person is already feeling attached and has something to lose by leaving.

无论是强制控制还是有毒行为，在任何类型的关系中，亲密与否，都是不可接受的。即使没有强制控制，有毒行为当然也可以被视为虐待，而且一两次有毒行为实际上可能是强制控制动态的起点。这些行为可能是伤害模式开始的危险信号或警告标志。毕竟，模式总是从某个地方开始的；虐待很少一下子全部显现出来。一旦一个人感到依恋并且离开会有损失时，它就会升级。

If you’re experiencing toxic behaviour from a partner, but it hasn’t crossed a clear line for you, this is where your sense of discernment becomes extremely valuable. Difficult times happen in every relationship; over time, you’ll always discover things you don’t like about your partners, or have experiences where you’d like them to have behaved better. But remember, a lot of abusers get away with their abuse by making their target question their own perceptions or experiences. And unfortunately, some abusers are very skilled manipulators who are invested in making sure their victims remain under their spell. Are you giving them the benefit of the doubt and being compassionate, or are you being manipulated into letting someone cross your boundaries? It can be hard to tell.

如果你正遭受伴侣的有毒行为，但对你来说还没有越过明确的界限，这时你的辨别力就变得非常有价值了。每段关系都会经历困难时期；随着时间的推移，你总会发现你不喜欢伴侣的地方，或者经历过你希望他们表现得更好的情况。但请记住，许多施虐者通过让目标质疑自己的感知或经历来逃避虐待责任。不幸的是，一些施虐者是非常熟练的操纵者，他们致力于确保受害者处于他们的控制之下。你是给他们善意的推断和同情，还是被操纵着让某人越过你的界限？这可能很难分辨。

Remember, too, that abusers aren’t necessarily following some sort of grand plan or playbook; their behaviour may stem from all kinds of sources, but only a small percentage are predators in the strict sense of knowing exactly what they plan to do ahead of time and finding someone to do it to. For many abusers, whether they engage in toxic behaviours or build a pattern of coercive control, it’s a matter of having the right combination of emotional problems, toxic beliefs (such as ones about entitlement, gender roles or what behaviours are acceptable when one is angry) and lack of willingness to do the work required to change when it’s clear they are doing harm. Don’t look for evidence of an evil master plan in order to decide whether someone is being abusive. It probably won’t be there, but your experience is still real.

还要记住，施虐者不一定遵循某种宏伟计划或剧本；他们的行为可能源于各种来源，但只有很小一部分人是严格意义上的掠夺者，即提前确切知道他们计划做什么并找到一个人来实施。对于许多施虐者来说，无论他们是从事有毒行为还是建立强制控制模式，这都是因为他们有着情感问题、有毒信念（例如关于权利感、性别角色或生气时什么行为是可以接受的信念）的特定组合，并且当很明显他们在造成伤害时，缺乏意愿去做改变所需的工作。不要为了确定某人是否在施虐而寻找邪恶总体计划的证据。它可能并不存在，但你的经历仍然是真实的。

This is another reason why the “is this abuse?” question isn’t necessarily the right one to ask. With toxic behaviour, you may decide it’s not abuse—and if your internal flowchart leads to “then I should stay and work through this,” that might keep you in a relationship that is not loving and not nourishing you. And we think people should be in relationships that are loving and nourishing. This is a good place to return to our foundational question: “Is this relationship loving?” If your answer is “no,” then you may decide that it’s time to end the relationship regardless of whether, for you, it crosses the line into abuse, and regardless of whether you’re ready to label someone as an abuser.

这是“这是虐待吗？”这个问题不一定是正确问题的另一个原因。对于有毒行为，你可能认为它不是虐待——如果你内心的流程图导向“那么我应该留下来解决这个问题”，这可能会让你留在一个没有爱、不能滋养你的关系中。而我们认为人们应该处于充满爱和滋养的关系中。这是一个回到我们基本问题的好地方：“这段关系是充满爱的吗？”如果你的答案是“否”，那么你可能会决定是时候结束这段关系了，无论对你来说它是否越过了虐待的界限，也无论你是否准备好将某人标记为施虐者。

Missing stairs and other bad actors

缺失的阶梯与其他不良行为者

Many domestic violence researchers refer to situational and characterological violence. Daniel Joseph Friend et al. explain¹⁰ that situational violence is “mutual, low-level violence (i.e., pushing or grabbing) perpetrated by both partners as a means of conflict management,” whereas characterological violence is when a person uses violence to induce fear in their victim in order to manipulate and control them. The researchers specify that the psychological abuse in situational violence is “similar to the psychological abuse seen in characterological violence, but it occurs less frequently and is absent of controlling and dominating behaviors.” (This concept maps onto the distinction we’ve drawn between coercive control and toxic behaviour.)

许多家庭暴力研究人员提到了情境性暴力和性格性暴力。丹尼尔·约瑟夫·弗兰德 (Daniel Joseph Friend) 等人解释说¹⁰，情境性暴力是“双方伴侣作为冲突管理手段实施的相互的、低强度的暴力（即推搡或抓挠）”，而性格性暴力是一个人利用暴力在受害者心中制造恐惧，以操纵和控制他们。研究人员指出，情境性暴力中的心理虐待“与性格性暴力中的心理虐待相似，但发生频率较低，且不存在控制和支配行为。”（这个概念对应了我们在强制控制和有毒行为之间所做的区分。）

As discussed in the article, many couples resort to situational violence during conflict, and these couples tend to respond well to interventions such as therapy—but it’s important to first ensure coercive control is not present, because characterologically violent people might retaliate against their victims, for example if the victim says something the perpetrator doesn’t like during a therapy session.

正如文章中所讨论的，许多夫妇在冲突中会诉诸情境性暴力，这些夫妇往往对治疗等干预措施反应良好——但首先确保不存在强制控制很重要，因为性格性暴力的人可能会报复受害者，例如如果受害者在治疗期间说了施暴者不喜欢的话。

The word “characterological” refers to a problem with a person’s character, meaning personality. In the psychological literature, this idea describes a person’s long-term, often lifelong, pattern of thinking and behaviour: a tendency to see themselves as the victim, to believe that violence is often legitimate, to feel entitled to certain kinds of deference, and so on. For our purposes, the idea here is not to make a connection between characterological violence and personality per se, and we’re not here to diagnose people with disorders (or suggest that you try to, either). The important idea is the notion of a repeated pattern over time—in this case, a pattern of doing harm to partners and otherwise being “bad actors,” meaning people who consistently return to the same problematic and harmful behaviours across numerous situations and partnerships.

“性格性”一词指的是一个人的性格，即人格方面的问题。在心理学文献中，这个概念描述了一个人长期的、通常是终生的思维和行为模式：倾向于将自己视为受害者，认为暴力通常是合法的，觉得自己有权得到某种顺从，等等。就我们的目的而言，这里的想法不是要在性格性暴力和人格本身之间建立联系，我们也不是要在这里诊断人们患有某种障碍（或是建议你去尝试诊断）。重要的概念是随时间重复的模式——在这种情况下，是指伤害伴侣并在其他方面成为“不良行为者”的模式，这意味着那些在无数情况和伙伴关系中始终回归同样的问题和有害行为的人。

We contend that characterologically violent people include many of the folks we call missing stairs. The blogger Cliff Pervocracy coined the term a missing stair to describe a dangerous person within a community whom everybody has just gotten used to working around or warning each other about—like a missing stair in a staircase—instead of setting clear boundaries or enacting direct consequences for the person’s bad behaviour.¹¹ If you’re part of a nonmonogamous, kink or sex-positive community, you may have encountered this phenomenon, or maybe even “tripped on a missing stair” yourself. This scenario isn’t inherent to nonmonogamy itself, but it may become relevant if you get involved in community groups. It’s not in any way exclusive to sex-and relationship-related communities, either—you might know a missing stair in your workplace, at your gym or in any number of other settings. But it is particularly challenging within communities focused on sex and relationships, whose norms might be really different than the ones you’d find in a workplace, for example.

我们认为，性格性暴力者包括许多我们称之为缺失的阶梯 (missing stairs) 的人。博主克里夫·佩尔沃克拉西 (Cliff Pervocracy) 创造了“缺失的阶梯”一词，用来描述社区中一个危险的人，每个人都习惯了绕过他或互相警告——就像楼梯上缺失的一级台阶——而不是设定明确的界限或对该人的不良行为实施直接后果。¹¹ 如果你是非单偶制、性癖或性积极社区的一员，你可能遇到过这种现象，甚至可能自己也被“缺失的阶梯绊倒过”。这种情况并非非单偶制本身所固有的，但如果你参与社区团体，它可能会变得相关。这也绝不仅仅存在于与性和关系相关的社区——你可能在工作场所、健身房或许多其他环境中认识“缺失的阶梯”。但在关注性和关系的社区中，这尤其具有挑战性，因为这些社区的规范可能与你在工作场所发现的规范截然不同。

In addition, sometimes a missing stair is in fact a community leader of some kind, or otherwise in a powerful position, with the ability to ostracize or otherwise punish anyone who speaks out. The #MeToo movement exposed a long list of such people in the entertainment industry and well beyond. Unlike major Hollywood executives, not everyone can employ fixers, go-betweens or pricey PR agencies to try to shape the public’s perception of events, or force people to sign nondisclosure agreements after they’re subjected to harm. But in smaller communities and subcultures, small acts of exclusion and retribution can do a great deal of damage, and such acts—or the threat of them—may effectively serve as tools to silence people.

此外，有时“缺失的阶梯”实际上是某种社区领袖，或者处于有权势的位置，有能力排斥或惩罚任何直言不讳的人。#MeToo 运动揭露了娱乐业及其他领域的一长串此类人物。与好莱坞大高管不同，并不是每个人都能雇佣调解人、中间人或昂贵的公关公司来试图塑造公众对事件的看法，或者在人们受到伤害后强迫他们签署保密协议。但在较小的社区和亚文化中，小规模的排斥和报复行为可能会造成巨大的损害，而此类行为——或对此类行为的威胁——可能会有效地成为让人们沉默的工具。

Arguably, this kind of situation might exceed the usual definition of a missing stair. Sometimes, successful exclusion means that most people in a community don’t know the stair is missing at all, as opposed to knowing and not warning people about it. Sometimes survivors actively try to warn others but don’t have the reach, credibility or power to do so effectively. And sometimes, powerful institutions intervene to cover up harm with the goal of preserving their own reputation, whether that’s a brand image or a flock of faithful worshipers.

可以说，这种情况可能超出了“缺失的阶梯”的通常定义。有时，成功的排斥意味着社区中的大多数人根本不知道阶梯缺失了，而不是知道却不警告别人。有时，幸存者积极试图警告他人，但没有足够的影响力、可信度或权力来有效地做到这一点。有时，强大的机构会介入掩盖伤害，目的是维护自己的声誉，无论是品牌形象还是一群忠实的崇拜者。

There is one common principle here, though: In social or group settings, whether a person’s repeated harm is widely known but not discussed, or a secret kept through coercion or threat, any newcomer to the situation is not getting the information they need to make an enlightened decision about how to interact with the person, and they may end up at greater risk as a result.

不过，这里有一个共同的原则：在社会或群体环境中，无论一个人的反复伤害行为是众所周知但不被讨论，还是通过胁迫或威胁保守的秘密，任何新来者都无法获得他们所需的信息来就如何与此人互动做出明智的决定，结果他们可能会面临更大的风险。

Another abuse technique that can wreak havoc in communities is known as DARVO. DARVO, which stands for “deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender” is a tactic described by psychology researcher Jennifer J. Freyd at the University of Oregon in the late 1990s. As Freyd writes:¹² “The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim—or the whistle blower—into an alleged offender.”

另一种可能在社区造成严重破坏的虐待技术被称为 DARVO。DARVO 代表“否认 (Deny)、攻击 (Attack) 并反转受害者和施暴者 (Reverse Victim and Offender)”，是俄勒冈大学心理学研究员珍妮弗·J·弗雷德 (Jennifer J. Freyd) 在 1990 年代末描述的一种策略。正如弗雷德所写：¹² “施暴者或犯罪者可能会否认该行为，攻击与其对质的个人，并反转受害者和施暴者的角色，使施暴者扮演受害者角色，并将真正的受害者——或举报人——变成所谓的施暴者。”

DARVO committed by characterological abusers can be devastatingly effective because many of these folks are exceptionally good manipulators. If they suspect someone might report on their bad behaviour, they may try to “get ahead of the story” by telling their own story of victimization first. Or they may genuinely believe themselves to be the victim, possibly because of their own sense of aggrieved entitlement, or possibly because of their partner’s own reactive toxic behaviours, which they may then use as an excuse for their own. In his landmark book Why Does He Do That? domestic violence expert Lundy Bancroft writes at length about abusers’ own sense of victimization.¹³

性格性施虐者实施的 DARVO 可能会产生毁灭性的效果，因为这些人中有许多是非常出色的操纵者。如果他们怀疑有人可能会报告他们的不良行为，他们可能会试图通过先讲述自己受害的故事来“抢先一步”。或者他们可能真的相信自己是受害者，这可能是因为他们自己那种受委屈的权利感，或者是由于伴侣自身的反应性有毒行为，他们可能会以此作为自己行为的借口。在其里程碑式的著作《他通过什么这样做？》(Why Does He Do That?) 中，家庭暴力专家伦迪·班克罗夫特 (Lundy Bancroft) 详细描述了施虐者自身的受害感。¹³

Whole books have been written—and more need to be written—on the subject of dealing with abuse in community contexts. We’ve listed a few in the resources. This isn’t one of those books, so we’ll leave it there. For now, we just want to name that these patterns exist, and prepare you in some small way to recognize them when and if they do.

关于在社区环境中处理虐待这一主题，已经有人写了整本书——而且还需要写更多。我们在资源中列出了一些。本书不是那一类书，所以我们就此打住。目前，我们只想指出这些模式的存在，并让你在一定程度上做好准备，以便在它们出现时能够识别出来。

Warning signs of abuse

虐待的警示信号

The following are some signs of a potentially abusive relationship or polycule, especially if they happen persistently over time:

以下是潜在虐待关系或多边关系网络的一些迹象，特别是如果它们随着时间的推移持续发生：

Your partner controls who you talk with or see and where you go.
Your partner controls your access to money.
Your partner destroys your property.
Your partner threatens you with violence or behaves in a physically intimidating way.
You feel afraid of your partner.
You feel frequently demeaned or humiliated by a partner or metamour.
You feel pressured or forced to engage in sex or kink that you don’t want.
You feel that acceptance by your polycule depends on your participation in group sex.
A partner or metamour reads your messages, emails, journals or other private information without your permission, or wants to make a rule that these must be shared.
A partner or metamour threatens to harm you, your children or pets, or themselves if you leave them.
You find yourself doubting your own grip on reality, especially as it pertains to a relationship.
You feel like a partner or metamour is “two different people,” or like you never know whether they will hurt you or support you in any given moment.
You feel discouraged from communicating with your metamours.
You feel you are expected to keep secrets from or about your metamours.
You’re made to feel that you are “not really nonmonogamous” if you express a concern, ask for a limit or communicate your feelings.
You feel shamed for seeking out social supports outside your relationship or polycule.
A partner or metamour invalidates your feelings or internal experience.
A partner or metamour claims to be a gatekeeper, or the only or best source of reliable information about nonmonogamy.
You feel that no one else will want to be with you or “put up with you” if you leave.
You feel like the sole problem in a relationship or polycule.
你的伴侣控制你与谁交谈或见面，以及你去哪里。
你的伴侣控制你对金钱的使用。
你的伴侣破坏你的财产。
你的伴侣用暴力威胁你或表现出身体恐吓的方式。
你害怕你的伴侣。
你经常感到被伴侣或表侣贬低或羞辱。
你感到被施压或被迫参与你不想要的性或性癖活动。
你觉得你的多边关系网络是否接纳你取决于你是否参与群交。
伴侣或表侣未经你允许阅读你的信息、电子邮件、日记或其他私人信息，或者想要制定必须分享这些信息的规则。
伴侣或表侣威胁说如果你离开他们，他们会伤害你、你的孩子或宠物，或者他们自己。
你发现自己怀疑自己对现实的把握，特别是与关系有关的现实。
你觉得伴侣或表侣是“两个不同的人”，或者你永远不知道他们在任何特定时刻会伤害你还是支持你。
你感到被劝阻不要与你的表侣沟通。
你觉得你被期望对你的表侣隐瞒秘密，或隐瞒关于他们的秘密。
如果你表达担忧、要求限制或沟通你的感受，你会被认为是“不是真正的非单偶制者”。
你因为在关系或多边关系网络之外寻求社会支持而感到羞耻。
伴侣或表侣否定你的感受或内在体验。
伴侣或表侣声称自己是守门人，或者是关于非单偶制可靠信息的唯一或最佳来源。
你觉得如果你离开，没有其他人会想要和你在一起或“忍受你”。
你觉得自己是关系或多边关系网络中唯一的问题。

The best resource for people in nonmonogamous relationships that might be harming them is The Network/La Red, or TNLR (tnlr.org). It’s a survivor-led organization in the United States that specifically addresses partner abuse among queer, kinky and nonmonogamous people, so you can ask for help without having to go through the whole “why the nonmonogamy isn’t the problem here” routine. TNLR has a hotline and informational resources. Unfortunately, we’re not aware of a similar organization in Canada, but many local domestic violence and survivor support organizations are increasingly inclusive of the full spectrum of gender, sexuality and relationship diversity, and many 2SLGBTQI+ organizations offer support for people experiencing relationship abuse.

对于处于可能伤害他们的非单偶制关系中的人来说，最好的资源是 The Network/La Red，简称 TNLR (tnlr.org)。这是一个位于美国的幸存者领导的组织，专门解决酷儿、性癖和非单偶制人群中的伴侣虐待问题，所以你可以寻求帮助，而不必经历“为什么非单偶制不是这里的问题”的整套程序。TNLR 设有热线和信息资源。遗憾的是，我们不知道加拿大有类似的组织，但许多当地的家庭暴力和幸存者支持组织正变得越来越包容性别、性取向和关系多样性的全谱系，许多 2SLGBTQI+ 组织也为遭受关系虐待的人提供支持。

Abuse in nonmonogamy

非单偶制中的虐待

While nonmonogamy can be challenging, especially as you experience the early growing pains of figuring it all out for the first time, it’s not supposed to be all about suffering. Nonmonogamy is not about tolerating behaviours and actions that harm you. It’s also not about letting yourself be pushed into relationships, agreements or sex that you don’t fully want.

虽然非单偶制可能具有挑战性，特别是当你第一次经历弄清楚这一切的早期成长阵痛时，但它不应该全是痛苦。非单偶制不是关于容忍伤害你的行为和举动。也不是关于让自己被迫进入你不完全想要的关系、协议或性行为。

Plenty of abuse in nonmonogamy looks exactly like it does in monogamous situations. Often, there’s nothing special or distinct about it. But a few manifestations are facilitated by nonmonogamy itself, so let’s take a moment to look at some of them.

非单偶制中的大量虐待看起来与单偶制情况下的完全一样。通常，它没有什么特别或独特之处。但有一些表现形式是非单偶制本身促成的，所以让我们花点时间看看其中的一些。

MANIPULATION OF NONMONOGAMOUS VALUES 操纵非单偶制价值观

Sometimes, a person may manipulate the discourse and values of nonmonogamy to bludgeon their partner into keeping quiet about their objections or agreeing to things they don’t feel ready for or don’t want at all.

有时，一个人可能会操纵非单偶制的话语和价值观，以此迫使伴侣对他们的反对意见保持沉默，或同意他们尚未准备好或根本不想要的事情。

This is similar to how members of any values-based or politicized community or subculture can weaponize the values of the group or system against other members. Examples abound. For instance, in the realm of spirituality and wellness, Andrea once heard of a reiki practitioner who was diagnosed with cancer; her colleagues blamed her for her illness, saying that if she’d been practising energy work properly on herself, she would never have gotten sick. And of course, cults are well-known for exploiting their members by convincing them it’s for their own self-improvement or spiritual gain, twisting people’s genuine desire for enlightenment into a way to extract profit or maintain control. One recent and well-known example is NXIVM, but the list is long and ever-growing.

这类似于任何基于价值观或政治化的社区或亚文化的成员如何利用群体或系统的价值观作为武器来对抗其他成员。例子比比皆是。例如，在灵性和健康领域，安德莉亚曾听说一位灵气疗法 (reiki) 从业者被诊断出患有癌症；她的同事指责她的疾病，说如果她在自己身上正确地练习能量工作，她永远不会生病。当然，邪教因通过让成员相信这是为了他们自己的自我提升或精神收益来剥削成员而闻名，将人们对启蒙的真诚渴望扭曲为一种榨取利益或维持控制的方式。最近一个著名的例子是 NXIVM，但这份名单很长且还在不断增加。

[cite_start]In the realm of social justice, Kai Cheng Thom notes that certain communities take the idea of bodily autonomy so far that some members think it’s wrong to intervene when someone is suicidal, which means, as a result, that more trans women end up dying by suicide.[cite: 1322] Social justice spaces in general are vulnerable to this kind of misuse of their principles, such as when an abusive person manipulates their victim’s compassion, awareness of their privilege or desire to do the right thing to make them believe they should tolerate physical or emotional abuse, or even that they are themselves an abuser. One social media meme encapsulates this twisty thinking: “Oh, sorry, I didn’t know you had trauma. You can continue being mean to me now.” It might not be easy to set boundaries with people when you’re trying to live out your political principles, but absorbing abuse and harm from your comrades is not supposed to be the price you pay for making the world better.

[cite_start]在社会正义领域，Kai Cheng Thom 指出，某些社区将身体自主权的想法推向极端，以至于一些成员认为干预自杀者是错误的，这导致更多的跨性别女性最终死于自杀。[cite: 1322] 社会正义空间普遍容易受到这种原则滥用的影响，例如当施虐者操纵受害者的同情心、对自身特权的意识或做正确事情的愿望，让他们相信自己应该忍受身体或情感虐待，甚至相信他们自己才是施虐者。一个社交媒体迷因概括了这种扭曲的思维：“哦，对不起，我不知道你有创伤。你现在可以继续对我刻薄了。”当你试图践行你的政治原则时，与人设定界限可能并不容易，但承受来自同志的虐待和伤害不应该是你为让世界变得更美好而付出的代价。

In sex-positive communities, people can find themselves pressured to be so “positive” that they engage in sexual practices that cross their boundaries, such as having group sex when they don’t want to just so they don’t “spoil the fun” for everyone else. If you’re involved in a kink community, you may have come across dominants who use rhetoric such as “if you were a real submissive, you would do as I say,” or conversely (but just as troubling), “if you were a real dominant, you’d behave the way I think you should.” Sometimes, people are led to believe that submissives’ consent isn’t really necessary because they implicitly consent to being treated in certain ways simply by identifying themselves as submissive. People are also led to believe that dominants are never at risk for having their own consent violated, and that if they were truly dominant, such a thing would be impossible anyway because they’d just use their domly domliness to shut down whatever was happening that they didn’t like. All these scenarios obscure the humanity of the individuals involved and objectify them within their preferred roles.

在性积极社区，人们可能会发现自己被迫表现得如此“积极”，以至于参与越过自己界限的性行为，例如不想群交却为了不“扫大家的兴”而参加。如果你参与了性癖社区，你可能遇到过使用诸如“如果你是一个真正的顺从者，你会照我说的做”或者相反（但同样令人不安）的“如果你是一个真正的支配者，你会按我认为你应该的方式行事”这类修辞的支配者。有时，人们被引导相信顺从者的同意并不真正必要，因为他们仅仅通过认同自己为顺从者就隐含地同意被以某些方式对待。人们也被引导相信支配者永远不会面临自身同意被侵犯的风险，而且如果他们是真正的支配者，这种事情无论如何都是不可能的，因为他们只会用他们的支配者气概来阻止任何他们不喜欢的事情发生。所有这些情况都模糊了相关个体的的人性，并在他们偏好的角色中将他们物化。

These are all different contexts, but the common ground is that they involve a person or a group of people twisting shared values in such a way as to shut down an individual’s human needs, fears, concerns or objections. They are profoundly unloving ways of employing philosophical principles, practices or values to do harm. [cite_start]As Kai Cheng Thom writes,[cite: 1322] “Any ideology, no matter how liberatory in theory, can be corrupted for the purpose of domination under real world conditions.”

[cite_start]这些都是不同的背景，但共同点是它们涉及一个人或一群人扭曲共同的价值观，以此来压制个人的需求、恐惧、担忧或反对意见。这是运用哲学原则、实践或价值观来造成伤害的极度不友爱的方式。正如 Kai Cheng Thom 所写，[cite: 1322] “任何意识形态，无论在理论上多么具有解放性，在现实世界条件下都可能被腐蚀用于支配目的。”

[cite_start]A sort of inversion can also happen:[cite: 1323] Mononormative values can be used to shame you so that you believe, at some level, that you are causing harm simply by being nonmonogamous, and you need to compensate somehow for your very presence in a partner’s life. Or you must agree to systems of control to prevent others from feeling afraid or insecure. This means you need to watch out for people who treat the principles of nonmonogamy as more important than the real-life feelings of the people they’re involved with. This takes us back to our axiom: The people in the relationship are more important than the relationship. They’re also more important than the abstract ideals of nonmonogamy.

[cite_start]一种反转也可能发生：[cite: 1323] 单偶常态价值观可能被用来羞辱你，让你在某种程度上相信，仅仅因为你是非单偶制者就已经造成了伤害，你需要以某种方式补偿你在伴侣生活中的存在。或者你必须同意控制系统，以防止他人感到害怕或不安全。这意味着你需要提防那些将非单偶制原则看得比与之相关的人的真实感受更重要的人。这让我们回到了我们的公理：关系中的人比关系更重要。他们也比非单偶制的抽象理想更重要。

MANIPULATION OF POLYCULES AND OTHER PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES 操纵多边关系网络和其他伴侣结构

It can be easy to use the structures of nonmonogamy to enact harm. For example, in a triad, if two people agree on something and the third person doesn’t, those two people need to take great care to avoid ganging up on the outlier and pressuring them to agree to something they don’t want just because they’re outnumbered. The same applies to larger networks, too. Also, a hinge or pivot partner in a vee or larger structure can blame everything that’s going wrong on the partner who’s not in the room at the time, and thus avoid taking responsibility for their own choices.

利用非单偶制的结构来实施伤害可能很容易。例如，在三人组中，如果两个人同意某件事而第三个人不同意，那两个人需要非常小心，避免仅仅因为人数优势就联合起来对付那个持不同意见者，迫使他们同意他们不想要的事情。这同样适用于更大的网络。此外，V 型或更大结构中的枢纽或支点伴侣可以将所有出错的事情归咎于当时不在场的伴侣，从而避免为自己的选择承担责任。

Situations like this aren’t inherently abusive; sometimes, they’re just about messy communication or lack of skill, and those things can be fixed. But someone who wants to do harm, or simply doesn’t care whether they’re doing harm, can use the slippages and messiness that often crop up in nonmonogamous structures to hurt others on purpose—or to maintain a sense of control and manipulate people into doing what the abuser wants them to do.

像这样的情况并不是天生就是虐待性的；有时，它们只是关于混乱的沟通或缺乏技巧，这些都是可以解决的。但是，一个想要造成伤害，或者根本不在乎自己是否造成伤害的人，可以利用非单偶制结构中经常出现的疏漏和混乱来故意伤害他人——或者维持一种控制感，操纵人们去做施虐者想让他们做的事。

When a whole polycule gets involved, though, things can get particularly bad. [cite_start]This is where some cult theory[cite: 1323] can be useful. In cults, resources are funnelled inward from rank-and-file members toward a central figure, the cult leader. The leader keeps a close cadre of intimates around them, but instills a sense of instability among the members of this inner circle to keep them off-balance, and thus trying to please. They may move up or down in rank, or fall in or out of favour. All of this instability keeps the leader in control. In a polycule, this kind of manipulation can manifest as “good partner/bad partner” dynamics—with bonus points if everyone thinks they are the good partner and someone else is the bad partner! [cite_start]This tracks with the dynamic that Lundy Bancroft discusses in Why Does He Do That? in which an abuser’s new partner becomes their biggest ally[cite: 1324] against the previous, abused partner—only here, it’s translated into concurrent relationships.

[cite_start]然而，当整个多边关系网络卷入其中时，情况可能会变得特别糟糕。这里一些邪教理论[cite: 1323] [cite_start]可能会有用。在邪教中，资源从普通成员向中心人物——邪教领袖汇聚。领袖在身边保留一群亲密的核心干部，但在这些核心圈子成员中灌输一种不稳定感，使他们处于失衡状态，从而努力取悦领袖。他们的等级可能会上升或下降，或者得宠或失宠。所有这些不稳定性使领袖保持控制。在多边关系网络中，这种操纵可以表现为“好伴侣/坏伴侣”的动态——如果每个人都认为自己是好伴侣而别人是坏伴侣，那就更加分了！这与 Lundy Bancroft 在《他通过什么这样做？》中讨论的动态一致，其中施虐者的新伴侣成为他们对抗前任受虐伴侣的最大盟友[cite: 1324]——只是在这里，它转化为并发的关系。

It’s also worth noting that, just as cult leaders are usually (but not always) cisgender men who primarily keep women in their circle of intimates, this form of abusive polycule dynamic is most common when there’s a cisgender man at the centre of it. [cite_start]There are a variety of reasons for this, tied to the same reasons why new partners of abusive men tend to become allies in abuse of past partners: internalized misogyny that teaches women to compete with and turn on one another; the phenomenon Kate Manne calls “himpathy,”[cite: 1324] in which people of all genders are socialized to privilege men’s feelings; and a relative willingness to excuse men’s bad behaviour while holding that of other genders up to closer scrutiny.

[cite_start]同样值得注意的是，就像邪教领袖通常（但不总是）是顺性别男性，他们主要将女性留在亲密圈子中一样，这种虐待性多边关系网络动态在以顺性别男性为中心时最为常见。这有多种原因，与受虐男性的新伴侣往往成为虐待前伴侣的盟友的原因相同：内化的厌女症教导女性相互竞争和攻击；凯特·曼恩 (Kate Manne) 称之为“同情男性”(himpathy)[cite: 1324] 的现象，即所有性别的人都被社会化为优先考虑男性的感受；以及一种相对愿意为男性的不良行为开脱，同时对其他性别的行为进行更严格审查的意愿。

[cite_start]Essayist Barucha Peller has described the patriarchal phenomenon of “polyamory as a reserve army of care labour,”[cite: 1325] where men engage in emotional “hedging” in which “men can ‘hedge,’ or invest, in various women, to the degree that they want to, and benefit from the returns until the investment is no longer worthwhile.” On the way this affects the relationships among women involved with the same man, Peller remarks, “in polyamorous relationships where men have more than one partner it is a common occurrence that women end up competing with each other for the little bit of attention or return on their care labor.”

[cite_start]散文家巴鲁查·佩勒 (Barucha Peller) 描述了“多边恋作为关怀劳动的后备军”[cite: 1325] 这一父权制现象，即男性进行情感“对冲”，其中“男性可以在他们想要的程度上对不同的女性进行‘对冲’或投资，并从中获益，直到投资不再值得。”关于这对与同一个男人交往的女性之间的关系有何影响，佩勒评论道，“在男性拥有不止一个伴侣的多边恋关系中，女性经常为了那一点点关注或关怀劳动的回报而相互竞争。”

We discuss triangulation more generally in chapters 6 and 19, but when a whole polycule becomes invested in the dynamic, particularly when one person is scapegoated, and particularly if the dynamic is isolating in some other way—such as an enmeshed, live-in polycule where group members spend most of their time together—it can easily become abusive.

我们在第 6 章和第 19 章更普遍地讨论了三角化，但当整个多边关系网络都投入到这种动态中，特别是当一个人成为替罪羊时，尤其是如果这种动态在其他方面是孤立的——例如一个纠缠不清、同居的多边关系网络，成员大部分时间都在一起——这就很容易变成虐待。

Nonmonogamy offers many wonderful opportunities to expand your networks of support and care beyond a nuclear-family dyad. But there can be a dark side to it if your intimate networks become your sole source of support. [cite_start]If your polycule is your family,[cite: 1325] the threat of exclusion and ostracism can create powerful pressures to conform and comply. We’re not saying by any means that these structures are inherently abusive, only that they present opportunities for a very specific kind of abuse. In monogamous relationships, an abuser’s family can often become complicit in the abuse—but people don’t tend to share emotional (or even physical) intimacy with their in-laws the way they might with members of their polycules.

[cite_start]非单偶制提供了许多绝佳的机会，将你的支持和关怀网络扩展到核心家庭二人组之外。但如果你的亲密网络成为你唯一的支持来源，它也会有阴暗面。如果你的多边关系网络就是你的家人，[cite: 1325] 排斥和孤立的威胁会产生强大的压力，迫使你从众和顺从。我们绝不是说这些结构本身就是虐待性的，只是说它们为一种非常特定的虐待提供了机会。在单偶制关系中，施虐者的家人往往会成为虐待的同谋——但人们通常不会像与多边关系网络成员那样，与姻亲分享情感（甚至身体）上的亲密。

RULES-LAWYERING, “DEBATE” AND OTHER TROLLING-STYLE TACTICS 规则律师、“辩论”和其他流氓式策略

These tactics can take any number of forms, but the essence is that if you’re taking a rules-based approach to nonmonogamy, you may end up in situations where you’re arguing about the technicalities and minutiae of an agreement rather than about the feelings, emotions and concrete harms that may have emerged from it. It’s possible to follow a rule to the letter and still do harm. “You said you wanted me to check in before having sex with someone new. I did check in, five years ago when I first met them, and you said it would probably be fine if ever it happened. How was I supposed to know I needed to check again before suddenly having sex with them last night right before our date?”

这些策略可以采取任何形式，但本质是，如果你采取基于规则的非单偶制方法，你可能会陷入争论协议的技术细节和细枝末节的情况，而不是讨论由此产生的感受、情绪和具体伤害。完全遵守规则仍然可能造成伤害。“你说你想让我在和新人发生性关系之前先打个招呼。我确实打过招呼了，五年前我第一次见到他们的时候，你说如果真的发生了也没关系。我怎么知道昨晚就在我们约会之前突然和他们发生性关系之前还需要再打个招呼？”

An abusive person might turn any discussion of unacceptable behaviour into a philosophical debate about values or try to prove that you’re objectively wrong to be upset—instead of addressing your feelings. Or they might make it so onerous to have a conversation about your needs and boundaries that it becomes too emotionally costly to bring it up at all. When the focus is on being “right” and not on addressing a problem in good faith, this can be an aspect of abuse.

一个施虐者可能会把任何关于不可接受行为的讨论变成关于价值观的哲学辩论，或者试图证明你生气在客观上是错误的——而不是解决你的感受。或者他们可能会让关于你的需求和界限的对话变得如此繁重，以至于提起它在情感上代价太高。当重点在于“正确”而不是真诚地解决问题时，这可能是虐待的一个方面。

Someone who truly wants to do harm might even engage in what’s called malicious compliance, which means doing something on purpose that’s well within the rules but that they know will wreak havoc or cause hurt. Imagine a scenario where a person wants to buy a second-hand car and the seller insists on being paid in cash; the buyer is annoyed by this requirement and decides to pay using dozens of buckets of loose change. Now imagine this attitude applied to nonmonogamous relationships. Not cool. For example, if two partners agree to tell each other if they’re attracted to someone else, a maliciously compliant partner could choose to share that news either when they know there’s no space to have a meaningful conversation about it, or at a time when it’s calculated to be maximally disruptive. Or, if two partners agree to do some renovations in their shared home, a maliciously compliant partner might strategically knock out a wall and leave debris everywhere right before the other partner brings someone new home for the first time.

真正想造成伤害的人甚至可能从事所谓的恶意合规 (malicious compliance)，这意味着故意做一些完全符合规则的事情，但他们知道这会造成严重破坏或伤害。想象一个场景，一个人想买一辆二手车，卖家坚持要现金支付；买家对这个要求很恼火，决定用几十桶零钱支付。现在想象这种态度应用到非单偶制关系中。一点都不酷。例如，如果两个伴侣同意如果他们被别人吸引就告诉对方，一个恶意合规的伴侣可能会选择在他们知道没有空间进行有意义的对话时分享这个消息，或者在一个算计好最具破坏性的时间分享。或者，如果两个伴侣同意在他们共同的家中进行一些装修，一个恶意合规的伴侣可能会在另一个伴侣第一次带新人回家之前，策略性地敲掉一面墙并把碎片留得到处都是。

Protective factors of nonmonogamy

非单偶制的保护因素

While it offers unique niches for abusive behaviour, nonmonogamy can also offer some protection from abuse.

虽然非单偶制为虐待行为提供了独特的空间，但它也可以提供一些防止虐待的保护。

For example, if you’re involved with several people and one of them becomes abusive, it can be harder for them to manipulate you or induce self-doubt if you have other loving relationships that don’t follow that pattern and reflect a more accurate understanding of who you are. The classic abuser statement that “nobody will ever love you better than me” doesn’t work as well when others are actively loving you better! Also, if others in the polycule have healthy approaches to relationships, it can be harder for one person to isolate and control another person when everyone involved is part of a network of lovers, the members of which spend time with each other and notice each other’s emotional and physical states. There might be opportunities to find support and understanding that might be much harder to achieve in a monogamous framework. The same applies, of course, if you have a strong and supportive network of friends who aren’t part of your polycule.

例如，如果你与几个人有关系，其中一人变得虐待，如果你有其他不遵循那种模式并反映出对你是谁的更准确理解的充满爱的关系，他们就更难操纵你或诱发你的自我怀疑。当其他人正在积极地更好地爱你时，施虐者经典的“没人会比我更爱你”的说法就不那么奏效了！此外，如果多边关系网络中的其他人有健康的关系方式，当每个相关人员都是爱人网络的一部分，成员之间共度时光并注意到彼此的情绪和身体状态时，一个人就更难孤立和控制另一个人。可能会有机会找到在单偶制框架中很难获得的支持和理解。当然，如果你有一个强大和支持性的朋友圈子，即使他们不是你多边关系网络的一部分，这也同样适用。

If you’re a member of a nonmonogamous scene that includes a “missing stair,” while this is far from ideal, the whisper network in that scene may warn you about who to avoid—a benefit you won’t get from, say, a random bar hookup or online dating. It’s also fair to ask a person’s other partners—or exes—for references, much as people often do in BDSM circles.

如果你是一个包含“缺失的阶梯”的非单偶制圈子的成员，虽然这远非理想，但那个圈子里的耳语网络可能会警告你要避开谁——这是你在随机酒吧勾搭或在线约会中无法获得的好处。向一个人的其他伴侣——或前任——寻求推荐也是公平的，就像人们经常在 BDSM 圈子里做的那样。

If you have been abused, you may also have access to validation and support from others within the community that can be hard to find in monogamous culture. This is especially true if the abuser has been involved with others within the same community. It certainly doesn’t make the abuse itself any more acceptable, but that sense of mutual support can provide a kind of closure and warmth that’s really valuable.

如果你受过虐待，你也可能从社区内的其他人那里获得在单偶制文化中很难找到的认可和支持。如果施虐者曾与同一社区内的其他人有过牵连，情况尤其如此。这当然不会让虐待本身变得更容易接受，但这种相互支持的感觉可以提供一种真正有价值的了结和温暖。

We’re not bringing this up to provide false assurances; abuse very much still happens in nonmonogamy. But it is worth noting these kinds of examples because they provide an argument for cultivating nonmonogamous community and connections both within and outside your personal network of nonmonogamous relationships. There are lots of good reasons to do this beyond abuse situations, but these kinds of connections can really help if they’re already in place should things go in the wrong direction within one of your relationships. Plus, at some point you may yourself be the supportive person who makes the difference in another person’s life.

我们提出这一点并不是为了提供虚假的保证；虐待在非单偶制中仍然大量存在。但值得注意的是这类例子，因为它们为你个人非单偶制关系网络内外的非单偶制社区和联系的培养提供了理由。除了虐待情况之外，还有很多充分的理由这样做，但如果这些联系已经到位，当你的一段关系走向错误的方向时，它们真的会有所帮助。此外，在某个时刻，你自己可能会成为那个对他人的生活产生影响的支持者。

A note about kink

关于性癖的说明

This book isn’t an in-depth exploration of kink and BDSM dynamics, but we do want to say a couple of things about them here, both in general and because of the well-known overlap between kink and nonmonogamy.

本书并非对性癖和 BDSM 动态的深入探讨，但我们确实想在这里说几句，这既是一般性的讨论，也是因为众所周知的性癖与非单偶制之间的重叠。

Some people think that kink and BDSM are automatically abusive. If you’re one of those people, we’d strongly encourage you to learn more about the many ways kink and BDSM can be positive, powerful, life-enriching practices. We’re not going to get into an elaborate defence here, but we’d suggest reading some of the resources listed at the end of this book.

有些人认为性癖和 BDSM 自动等同于虐待。如果你是这类人之一，我们强烈鼓励你更多地了解性癖和 BDSM 如何成为积极、强大、丰富生活的实践。我们不打算在这里进行详尽的辩护，但我们建议阅读本书末尾列出的一些资源。

Let’s assume, for our purposes right now, that you’re generally kink-friendly. Maybe you’re of the mindset that it’s not for you, but you have no problem with people’s sexual quirks. Maybe you’ve played around a bit at the edges of BDSM and enjoy it on occasion. Or maybe you’re heavily involved in BDSM, Leather, fetish or kink communities and relationships. Regardless, you may have seen or experienced things that pushed up against the edges of what you consider safe or consensual—stuff that made you uncomfortable and left you wondering, “Was that abusive, or am I just not open-minded enough?” Or you may have witnessed or heard about unambiguous instances of abuse or coercion in your local BDSM community despite all the talk about consent. You may also have experienced abuse yourself within a kinky encounter or relationship.

为了我们现在的目的，假设你通常对性癖持友好态度。也许你认为它不适合你，但你对人们的性怪癖没有意见。也许你在 BDSM 的边缘玩过一点，偶尔也会享受。或者你可能深入参与了 BDSM、皮革族、恋物癖或性癖社区和关系。无论如何，你可能看到或经历过一些事情，触及了你认为安全或知情同意的边缘——那些让你不舒服的事情，让你想知道，“那是虐待吗，还是我思想不够开放？”或者你可能在当地的 BDSM 社区目睹或听说过明确的虐待或胁迫实例，尽管大家都在谈论知情同意。你也可能在性癖遭遇或关系中亲身经历过虐待。

Honestly, someone should write a whole book about this topic, because abuse and nonconsent can play out in kink in some pretty specific ways that are worthy of scrutiny. For our purposes here, we’d just like to make a few basic points.

老实说，应该有人就这个话题写一整本书，因为虐待和非自愿行为可能会以一些非常特定的方式在性癖中表现出来，值得仔细审查。就我们这里的目的而言，我们只想提出几个基本观点。

Most importantly: Nothing about kink makes nonconsensual or coercive behaviour okay. We complicate that in kink with ideas such as “consensual nonconsent” and certain frameworks for D/s and M/s relationships, particularly the full-time kind. Kinky love might look really different from vanilla love in some ways: We might bestow or treasure a bruise the way a non-kinky person gives or receives a bouquet of flowers, and we might hear or use a nasty name as a term of endearment. And certain acts of control, dominance or possessiveness might in fact be agreed-upon expressions of love. But in all these contexts, consent is still necessary, true coercion is unacceptable, and the principle of “is this relationship loving?” still applies. No matter how hardcore your kinks, playing with them—and even living them 24/7—should lift up all participants, not break them down.

最重要的是：性癖没有任何理由让非自愿或强制行为变得可以接受。我们在性癖中通过诸如“合意的非同意”(consensual nonconsent) 以及某些 D/s（支配与臣服）和 M/s（主人与奴隶）关系的框架，特别是全天候的那种，使这个问题变得复杂。性癖之爱在某些方面可能看起来与普通之爱截然不同：我们可能会像非性癖人士赠送或接受一束花那样，给予或珍视一块淤青，我们可能会听到或使用一个下流的名字作为爱称。某些控制、支配或占有行为实际上可能是双方同意的爱的表达。但在所有这些背景下，知情同意仍然是必要的，真正的胁迫是不可接受的，“这段关系是充满爱的吗？”这一原则仍然适用。无论你的性癖多么硬核，玩弄它们——甚至全天候地生活在其中——都应该提升所有参与者，而不是击垮他们。

BDSM players of all kinds, remember that part of the “job” of being kinky is that no matter how wild you get, some part of you must always remain alert to the possibility of harm and injury—your own or someone else’s—and keep watch accordingly. Part of that involves planning, negotiating, and learning about (and practising!) safety measures and techniques appropriate to the kind of play you want to do. Part of it involves remaining grounded and aware while you play, and keeping the lines of communication open, whether you use safewords, agreed-upon nonverbal signals or just regular old talking. And part of it involves proper aftercare, which should also be discussed ahead of time and adjusted as needed. (Should everyone think this way about all kinds of physical and sexual encounters? Why, yes! But that’s a manifesto for another day.)

各类 BDSM 玩家，请记住，作为性癖者的一部分“工作”是，无论你变得多么狂野，你的一部分必须始终对伤害和受伤的可能性——你自己的或他人的——保持警惕，并据此进行观察。这部分工作包括计划、协商、了解（并练习！）适合你想玩的那种游戏的安全措施和技巧。这部分工作包括在游戏时保持脚踏实地和清醒，保持沟通渠道畅通，无论你是使用安全词、商定的非语言信号还是普通的交谈。这部分工作还包括适当的事后安抚 (aftercare)，这也应该提前讨论并根据需要进行调整。（每个人都应该这样思考各种身体和性接触吗？当然是的！但那是另一天的宣言了。）

Role-players, your characters and personas must never become excuses to behave in ways that are nonconsensual or that enact real harm on others.

角色扮演者，你们的角色和人设绝不能成为以非自愿方式行事或对他实施真正伤害的借口。

Fetishists, remember that the bearer of your fetish is still a human being. (Other people are real in kink, too!) Make sure that any consensual objectification you engage in still leaves the other person feeling desired, appreciated and respected, not reduced and erased.

恋物癖者，请记住，你的恋物载体仍然是一个人。（在性癖中，他人也是真实的！）确保你参与的任何合意物化行为仍然让对方感到被渴望、被欣赏和被尊重，而不是被贬低和抹杀。

Submissives, no matter how fully you give your submission to someone, it remains yours to give—and yours to withdraw if it’s not held in a way that respects your consent and your inherent worth as a person. You need to own your power before you can legitimately offer it to someone else. And, when submitting, you must also always understand your dominant as a full and real human being whose consent matters as much as yours. Beware of objectifying the people you kneel to. And always remember that submission is not powerlessness: You, too, have the power to harm within your chosen role.

顺从者，无论你多么彻底地向某人臣服，这仍然是你给予的——如果它没有以尊重你的同意和你作为人的内在价值的方式被持有，你也有权收回。你需要先拥有自己的权力，才能合法地将其提供给他人。而且，在顺从时，你也必须始终将你的支配者理解为一个完整而真实的人，他们的同意和你的一样重要。谨防物化你跪拜的人。并且永远记住，顺从不是无力：在你选择的角色中，你也有伤害他人的力量。

Dominants, no matter how fully you consensually dominate, possess or objectify someone, they must remain a full human being with dignity and worth in your eyes, and their well-being and safety must matter to you above the satisfaction of your desires. Self-restraint is strength. If you’re not in charge of yourself, you’re not fit to dominate anyone else. And, when dominating, you must remember that you are allowed to have feelings, needs and limits because you, too, are a full human being and not simply a need-fulfillment machine. Your humanity, and the vulnerability it comes with, is a dimension of your power. Get comfortable with that, and don’t hide behind your dominance.

支配者，无论你多么彻底地在合意的情况下支配、占有或物化某人，在你的眼中他们必须仍然是一个有尊严和价值的完整的人，他们的幸福和安全对你来说必须比满足你的欲望更重要。自我克制就是力量。如果你不能掌控自己，你就不适合支配任何人。而且，在支配时，你必须记住你被允许拥有感受、需求和限制，因为你也是一个完整的人，而不仅仅是一个满足需求的机器。你的人性，以及随之而来的脆弱，是你力量的一个维度。适应它，不要躲在你的支配背后。

Finally, in nonmonogamy it’s important to remember that everyone’s consent is important if your play crosses into others’ space. For example, don’t suddenly turn what started as a playful, vanilla threesome into a nonconsent role-play or humiliation scene between two people unless it’s been negotiated with the third person, too. And if you’re in a 24/7 relationship that has rules about reporting back on communications or sexual activity with others, make sure the other people consent to the kinds of information being shared.

最后，在非单偶制中，如果你的游戏进入了他人的空间，重要的是要记住每个人的同意都很重要。例如，不要突然把原本好玩的、普通的 3P 变成两个人之间的非自愿角色扮演或羞辱场景，除非这也与第三个人协商过。如果你处于一段 24/7 的关系中，有关于汇报与他人的沟通或性活动的规则，请确保其他人同意分享此类信息。

Kinky people of all varieties can sometimes get deeply involved in their explorations and communities, in ways that can become totally absorbing or feel like a full-time lifestyle. There’s nothing wrong with this, per se, but try to maintain a life that still includes the rest of the world, your important non-kink relationships (friends, family, colleagues), the non-kinky aspects of yourself (professional pursuits, creative practices, spirituality, family ties, physical health), and a general sense of balance and perspective. Kink is not a cult, but folks who get so wrapped up in kink that they lose their ties to other important aspects of their lives and identities can end up more vulnerable to the predators and boundary-pushers who inevitably show up in all communities—and these people can use the language, equipment and practices of kink as tools to enact serious harm. It’s wise to go slow, try things carefully and stay grounded as you fly!

各种性癖人士有时会深入参与他们的探索和社区，以至于变得完全投入或感觉像是一种全职的生活方式。这本身并没有错，但要尽量保持一种仍然包含世界其他部分、你重要的非性癖关系（朋友、家人、同事）、你自己的非性癖方面（职业追求、创造性实践、灵性、家庭纽带、身体健康）以及一种普遍的平衡感和视角的的生活。性癖不是邪教，但那些沉迷于性癖以至于失去与生活和身份其他重要方面联系的人，可能会更容易受到那些在所有社区中都会不可避免地出现的掠夺者和越界者的伤害——这些人可能会利用性癖的语言、设备和实践作为工具来实施严重伤害。明智的做法是慢慢来，仔细尝试，在飞翔时保持脚踏实地！

Making the call

做出决定

Sometimes it’s hard to decide when to end things. Often a relationship slides from “good” into “harmful” slowly over time, so you’re hooked into it—emotionally, practically, maybe even legally—when things start to go really awry. But remember, relationships are not supposed to hurt all the time. They’re not supposed to bring you more pain than joy, or even come close to the 50-50 mark. They’re supposed to help you be bigger, not smaller. They’re supposed to be good to you and good for you! And you don’t have to wait until there’s zero good stuff left before you break up.

有时很难决定何时结束。通常一段关系会随着时间的推移慢慢从“好”滑向“有害”，所以当事情开始真正变糟时，你已经被它钩住了——在情感上、实际上，甚至可能在法律上。但请记住，关系不应该一直带来伤害。它们不应该带给你比快乐更多的痛苦，甚至不应该接近 50-50 的比例。它们应该帮助你变得更强大，而不是更渺小。它们应该对你友善，对你有益！你不必等到一点好处都没有了才分手。

If you have a pattern of running from your intimate relationships at the very first sign of difficulty, you might want to do some introspective work to figure out why, and whether that’s ultimately in your own best interests. But even then, as we’ve said, it is still entirely your right to walk away at any time you decide you’re done.

如果你有一种一遇到困难就逃离亲密关系的模式，你可能需要做一些内省工作，弄清楚为什么，以及这最终是否符合你的最大利益。但即使那样，正如我们所说，这也是你完全的权利，在你决定结束的任何时候离开。

Even if a relationship never crosses the line into what you would consider abuse, you are still within your rights to end it for any reason you see fit. Let’s be really clear on this: You don’t need anyone’s permission to end your relationship. Your reasons don’t have to be “good enough” or “valid” by anyone’s measure other than your own. You don’t even need to be able to explain your choice (though there are lots of reasons you might want to). This is the essence of consent.

即使一段关系从未越过你认为的虐待界限，你仍然有权以任何你认为合适的理由结束它。让我们对此非常明确：你结束关系不需要任何人的许可。你的理由不需要在除你自己以外的任何人的标准下是“足够好”或“有效”的。你甚至不需要能够解释你的选择（尽管你可能有很多理由想要解释）。这就是知情同意的本质。

Of course, ideally, you’re able to engage in a conversation about what’s working and what’s not, and negotiate something that gets everyone’s needs met. And if that doesn’t work, ideally, a breakup should be kind, gentle and amicable, with enough goodwill and common ground that you can retain a friendship, or at least a respectful and warm, if distant, acquaintanceship. But not every relationship can end in an ideal way, and ultimately, your no is enough. In fact, the rest of those more pleasant options are only possible if you accept, at baseline, that each person has the right to say no at any time, without explanation. It’s okay to give up. You’re allowed to throw in the towel. It doesn’t make you a bad person.

当然，理想情况下，你能够就什么行得通、什么行不通进行对话，并协商出满足每个人需求的东西。如果那行不通，理想情况下，分手应该是善良、温和及友好的，有足够的善意和共同点，让你们可以保持友谊，或者至少是一种尊重和温暖的（即使是疏远的）熟人关系。但并非每段关系都能以理想的方式结束，归根结底，你的“不”就足够了。事实上，只有当你接受每一个人都有权在任何时候说不且无需解释这一底线时，其余那些更愉快的选择才有可能实现。放弃是可以的。你被允许认输。这不会让你成为坏人。

If you’re having a hard time deciding, you might want to check out the book Should I Stay or Should I Go? by Lundy Bancroft, or work through the 36 questions presented by the book Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay by Mira Kirshenbaum.¹⁴

如果你难以做出决定，你可能想看看伦迪·班克罗夫特的书《我是该留下还是该离开？》(Should I Stay or Should I Go?)，或者做一下米拉·克申鲍姆 (Mira Kirshenbaum) 的书《太好而不能离开，太坏而不能留下》(Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay) 中提出的 36 个问题。¹⁴

If you’ve been abused, now what?

如果你被虐待了，现在怎么办？

If you are experiencing coercive control, the situation is overwhelmingly unlikely to change, no matter what promises your partner or polycule makes (apologies are part of the cycle of abuse). If you want the abuse to stop, we’re sorry to say that eventually you are going to have to leave. This might require an elaborate plan to get out safely if your physical safety is being threatened. It might be as simple as sending a text message. Or pretty much anything in between, depending on your situation. In any case, get your support lined up as best you can so you’re not in this alone—practical stuff if necessary, such as help with packing, plus emotional support from friends and loved ones and, if you are able, by finding a therapist.

如果你正在经历强制控制，无论你的伴侣或多边关系网络做出什么承诺（道歉是虐待循环的一部分），情况都极不可能改变。如果你想停止虐待，我们很遗憾地说，最终你将不得不离开。如果你的身体安全受到威胁，这可能需要一个详尽的计划才能安全逃脱。这可能就像发个短信那么简单。或者介于两者之间，取决于你的情况。无论如何，尽可能安排好你的支持，这样你就不会孤军奋战——如果有必要，可以是实际的帮助，比如帮忙打包，加上来自朋友和亲人的情感支持，如果可以的话，还可以找一位治疗师。

Leaving might take a long time as you slowly heal and rally your energy and support systems to make the jump. Many people whose lives are entwined with those of their abusers also try to bide their time while they put legal, logistical and financial plans into place. The TNLR website includes a section on safety planning,¹⁵ and the folks at the TNLR hotline can help walk you through your options. Leaving might take you a few tries—that’s not uncommon. Or it might be a fast and firm exit. It’s beyond the scope of this book to give you advice on your specific situation. What’s important is that you get out of the harmful situation as soon as you possibly can, without placing yourself at additional risk.

离开可能需要很长时间，因为你要慢慢疗伤，集结你的精力和支持系统来迈出这一步。许多生活与施虐者交织在一起的人也会试图等待时机，同时制定法律、后勤和财务计划。TNLR 网站包含关于安全规划的部分，¹⁵ TNLR 热线的工作人员可以帮助你了解你的选择。离开可能需要你尝试几次——这并不罕见。或者它可能是一个快速而坚决的退出。针对你的具体情况提供建议超出了本书的范围。重要的是你要尽快摆脱有害的处境，同时不让自己面临额外的风险。

Then you’ll need to deal with the immediate aftermath, which may include protecting yourself from stalking, harassment or further attempts at violence. Many abusers engage in smear campaigns after their partners leave them, or rally friend groups and communities to ostracize or monitor the victim (or both), sometimes even leveraging a community’s abuse and consent reporting mechanisms to do so. As we’ve mentioned, people are also often at the greatest risk of violence right after leaving an abusive relationship. If you’re feeling scared, you likely have reason to be. Take whatever precautions you deem necessary. Your safety is the most important thing here.

然后你需要处理直接的后果，其中可能包括保护自己免受跟踪、骚扰或进一步的暴力企图。许多施虐者在伴侣离开后会进行诽谤活动，或者召集朋友团体和社区排斥或监视受害者（或两者兼有），有时甚至利用社区的虐待和同意报告机制来这样做。正如我们提到的，人们在离开虐待关系后往往面临最大的暴力风险。如果你感到害怕，你可能有理由感到害怕。采取任何你认为必要的预防措施。你的安全是这里最重要的事情。

In the less immediate term, you will need to heal. That may look very different depending on your particular experience, your needs and the support you have available. Friends, family and a good therapist can be invaluable; you may also turn to a spiritual practice, make art, write, exercise, make a career change, get a totally new hairstyle, move to a new city, leave a community or reconnect with one, or find any number of other ways to reclaim yourself and rebuild. Reading stories from other survivors can be very healing, as can—in the case of serial abusers—connecting with others who’ve been harmed by the same person. Don’t despair. You are not alone.

在不太紧迫的时期，你需要治愈。这可能看起来非常不同，取决于你的具体经历、你的需求和你可用的支持。朋友、家人和一位好的治疗师可能是无价的；你也可能转向精神修行、艺术创作、写作、锻炼、改变职业、换个全新的发型、搬到一个新城市、离开一个社区或重新连接一个社区，或者找到任何其他方式来找回自己并重建。阅读其他幸存者的故事可能非常有疗愈作用，如果是连环施虐者，与被同一个人伤害过的其他人联系也可能很有疗愈作用。不要绝望。你并不孤单。

You may also need to make various practical decisions. For instance, you may need to pursue legal measures such as filing for divorce and navigating child custody, or engage in processes such as selling a home or breaking a lease. You may need to make decisions about disclosure: Do you want to disclose the abuse publicly, to select people, or only confidentially? Also, do you want to pursue legal recourse of any kind, undertake community justice or restorative justice measures, or simply move on? Make sure that whatever you choose to do is based on your own needs and goals, and not on pressure from others to take the measures they think are appropriate. You know you best. Every situation is unique. There is no one right way to do any of these things, no perfect prescription, and no required timeline.

你也可能需要做出各种实际决定。例如，你可能需要采取法律措施，如申请离婚和处理子女监护权，或者参与出售房屋或终止租约等过程。你可能需要就披露做出决定：你是想公开披露虐待行为，还是向特定的人披露，或者只是保密？此外，你是想寻求任何形式的法律追索，采取社区正义或恢复性正义措施，还是仅仅继续前行？确保你选择做的任何事情都是基于你自己的需求和目标，而不是基于他人施加的压力，让他们认为你采取了他们认为合适的措施。你最了解你自己。每种情况都是独特的。做这些事情没有唯一正确的方法，没有完美的处方，也没有规定的时间表。

Just as experiencing an abusive monogamous relationship can change your relationships going forward, experiencing abusive nonmonogamy can change the way you engage in nonmonogamous relationships. You might decide you don’t want to be nonmonogamous at all anymore, or that you want to take a break from it (many people take a pause from relationships entirely after an abusive one—it’s up to you). You might also find that you have new challenges that you didn’t have before. For example, maybe you had never experienced jealousy, but exposure to abusive triangulation now makes you hypervigilant about your partners’ other relationships. Or you may have once been inclined toward kitchen table polyamory (see chapter 19), but now you can only engage in strictly parallel relationships. You may get triggered by anything that feels like a lack of transparency, or on the flip side, like your privacy has been violated. You might panic at the idea of conflict, even if you were once someone who communicated with ease and confidence.

就像经历过虐待性的单偶制关系会改变你未来的关系一样，经历过虐待性的非单偶制也会改变你参与非单偶制关系的方式。你可能会决定你根本不想再要非单偶制了，或者你想休息一下（许多人在经历虐待关系后会完全暂停关系——这取决于你）。你也可能会发现你有了以前没有的新挑战。例如，也许你以前从未体验过嫉妒，但暴露在虐待性的三角化中现在让你对伴侣的其他关系过度警惕。或者你曾经倾向于餐桌式多边恋（见第 19 章），但现在你只能参与严格的平行关系。你可能会被任何感觉缺乏透明度的事情触发，或者反过来，感觉你的隐私被侵犯了。你可能会对冲突的想法感到恐慌，即使你曾经是一个能够轻松自信地沟通的人。

It might take time to figure out how you’ve been affected and to heal, and things may never be the same as they once were. As you engage in new relationships and your intimacy and investment deepens, you may keep discovering new wounds you didn’t realize were there. We’re not going to try to put a positive spin on this: It sucks, and no one had the right to do this to you. Try to be gentle and patient with yourself. And if you’re in a relationship with an abuse survivor, please remember that what happened to them wasn’t their fault—and any effects their trauma has on your relationship are very much not about you. Be kind, and learn what you can about abuse so that you can be a supportive partner.

弄清楚你受到了怎样的影响并治愈可能需要时间，而且事情可能永远不会像以前那样了。当你投入新的关系，你的亲密和投入加深时，你可能会不断发现你没有意识到的新伤口。我们不想对此进行粉饰：这很糟糕，没有人有权这样对你。试着对自己温柔和耐心。如果你和一个虐待幸存者在一起，请记住发生在他们身上的事情不是他们的错——他们的创伤对你们关系产生的任何影响都与你无关。要善良，尽可能多地了解虐待，这样你才能成为一个支持性的伴侣。

How did this happen?

这是怎么发生的？

If you’ve been in an abusive relationship, it can be tempting to blame yourself for “letting it” happen, for making poor partner choices, for not exercising good judgment, and so on. Sometimes, self-blame can help you regain a sense of control—if you did this wrong, then all you have to do is get it right next time and you won’t be abused again. Strangely, self-blame can make you feel safer.

如果你曾处于一段虐待关系中，你很容易责怪自己“让它”发生了，责怪自己选择了糟糕的伴侣，责怪自己没有运用良好的判断力，等等。有时，自责可以帮助你重新获得控制感——如果你做错了这个，那么你所要做的就是下次做对，你就不会再被虐待了。奇怪的是，自责可以让你感到更安全。

It’s true that you can learn to look for warning signs, get better at setting boundaries, and so on. This is the kind of thing you can work on in therapy or other kinds of self-work. Introspection is not a bad thing, and neither is honing your judgment or your self-esteem. But don’t go down the rabbit hole of self-blame. Nobody would date abusive people if they had “abuser” tattooed on their foreheads; abusers are often charming, warm and sweet at first, and they sometimes engage in what’s called love-bombing, which mimics the way NRE works in a lot of non-abusive relationships. Some abusers are really strategic about approaching potential partners when they’re vulnerable and meeting all their needs at first. Many have lots of friends who have never seen them with their charming mask off, and many have high standing in their communities. In nonmonogamous situations, they may even have a partner or two who they’re not abusive with (or whom they haven’t abused yet) who may act as cover (or even bait) initially, but who may later take part in group gaslighting or abusive “good partner/bad partner” dynamics.

诚然，你可以学会寻找警告信号，更擅长设定界限，等等。这是你可以在治疗或其他类型的自我工作中努力的事情。内省不是坏事，磨练你的判断力或自尊也不是。但不要陷入自责的兔子洞。如果施虐者额头上纹着“施虐者”，没人会和他们约会；施虐者起初往往迷人、温暖和甜蜜，他们有时会进行所谓的“爱情轰炸”，这模仿了许多非虐待关系中新关系能量 (NRE) 的运作方式。一些施虐者在接近潜在伴侣时非常有策略，当他们脆弱时接近，并在一开始满足他们所有的需求。许多人有很多朋友从未见过他们摘下迷人面具的样子，许多人在社区中享有很高的地位。在非单偶制情况下，他们甚至可能有一两个他们不虐待（或者还没有虐待）的伴侣，这些伴侣最初可能充当掩护（甚至诱饵），但后来可能会参与群体煤气灯效应或虐待性的“好伴侣/坏伴侣”动态。

Also, nobody would end up in abusive relationships if those dynamics were enacted right from the start. Abuse generally escalates slowly over time. It often starts with boundary-testing, where an abuser does subtle things at first to see what they can get away with. Of course, this often happens while you’re in the throes of NRE and willing to give plenty of benefit of the doubt as you get to know them. The escalation of abusive behaviour often occurs only when you’re already invested in the relationship and really want to make it work.

此外，如果这些动态从一开始就上演，没有人会陷入虐待关系。虐待通常会随着时间的推移缓慢升级。它通常始于界限测试，施虐者起初会做一些微妙的事情，看看他们能逃脱什么惩罚。当然，这通常发生在你处于 NRE 的阵痛中，并在了解他们时愿意给予充分的善意推断。虐待行为的升级通常只发生在你已经投入到这段关系中并真心想让它成功的时候。

It’s not your fault. Do not take the blame for another person’s harmful behaviour. Recognize that you made the best decisions you could at each step, even if you would do things differently if you’d known then what you know now.

这不是你的错。不要为别人的有害行为承担责任。要认识到你在每一步都做出了你能做出的最好决定，即使如果当时你知道现在所知道的，你会采取不同的做法。

As well, abusive people often target very specific traits in others, and these are not bad traits. In her book Stop Signs: Recognizing, Avoiding, and Escaping Abusive Relationships,¹⁶ author Lynn Fairweather writes about “super traits.” The language she uses is based on a cishet (cisgender and heterosexual) model of abusive relationships, but the concept applies regardless of the genders and sexual orientations of the people involved.

同样，施虐者经常针对他人非常特定的特质，而这些并非坏特质。在其著作《停止标志：识别、避免和逃离虐待关系》(Stop Signs: Recognizing, Avoiding, and Escaping Abusive Relationships)¹⁶ 中，作者林恩·费尔韦瑟 (Lynn Fairweather) 写到了“超级特质”。她使用的语言是基于顺性别异性恋 (cishet) 的虐待关系模型，但这个概念适用于任何性别和性取向的人。

In her book Women Who Love Psychopaths, psychologist Sandra L. Brown, founder of The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Psychopathy Education, writes about “super traits” in women who become involved with dangerous men. Most of the characteristics are seemingly positive, but when presented to an abusive mind, they become weaknesses ripe for exploitation. While all abusers are not psychopaths, their characteristics often match up, as does the mental and physical damage they inflict on intimate partners. Sandra’s discoveries are important because they warn about traits we may unconsciously possess that enhance our vulnerability to a batterer’s victim-tuned radar. The super-traits include:

Hyper-empathy
Extreme altruism
High relationship investment and high attachment
Hyper-focus on the sentimental aspects of the relationship
Low impulsiveness
High resourcefulness

在其著作《爱上精神变态的女人》(Women Who Love Psychopaths) 中，关系伤害减少和公共精神病教育研究所的创始人、心理学家桑德拉·L·布朗 (Sandra L. Brown) 写到了与危险男人交往的女性身上的“超级特质”。大多数特征看似积极，但当呈现给施虐心理时，它们就变成了成熟的可利用弱点。虽然并非所有施虐者都是精神变态者，但他们的特征往往相符，就像他们给亲密伴侣造成的精神和身体伤害一样。桑德拉的发现很重要，因为它们警告了我们可能无意识拥有的特质，这些特质增强了我们对施虐者受害者雷达的脆弱性。这些超级特质包括：

超强同理心
极度利他主义
高关系投入和高依恋
过度关注关系的情感方面
低冲动性
高机智/足智多谋

In my extensive work with abused women, I have found that women who become involved with pathological and nonpathological abusers alike share similar traits. Women who are “savers”—those scoring high in empathy, altruism, tolerance, and sentimentality—will almost always be drawn to a relationship where they think they can help or reform a “diamond in the rough” partner. Highly invested, nonimpulsive, and attached women will often try to stick it out and fix a bad situation. Those who are highly resourceful frequently try to handle risky scenarios all on their own without seeking the necessary assistance of others.

在我与受虐妇女的广泛工作中，我发现与病态和非病态施虐者交往的女性有着相似的特质。那些“拯救者”类型的女性——在同理心、利他主义、宽容和感伤方面得分很高——几乎总是会被吸引到一段她们认为可以帮助或改造“未经雕琢的钻石”伴侣的关系中。高度投入、非冲动和依恋的女性通常会试图坚持到底并修复糟糕的局面。那些非常机智的人经常试图独自处理危险的情况，而不寻求他人必要的帮助。

If you were targeted for abuse, it is likely that you possess these “super traits,” and that is nothing at all to be ashamed of. It takes a special kind of evil to turn these wonderful, valuable human traits into weapons. This is especially devastating since there seems to be a cultural idea that people who’ve experienced abuse are somehow weaker, more unstable or more manipulable than people who haven’t—and abusive people will turn this idea against you in the process of abusing you, making you believe you are weak and unstable. There’s also a related idea that people with strong partners cannot be abusive; nothing could be further from the truth. If abuse has happened to you, it wasn’t your fault. Avoiding future abuse doesn’t mean snuffing out these qualities, but learning to recognize dangerous and exploitative people early on and swiftly removing them from your life.

如果你成为虐待的目标，很可能你拥有这些“超级特质”，这完全没有什么可羞耻的。这需要一种特殊的邪恶才能将这些美好、宝贵的人类特质变成武器。这尤其具有破坏性，因为似乎有一种文化观念认为，经历过虐待的人在某种程度上比没有经历过的人更软弱、更不稳定或更容易被操纵——而施虐者会在虐待你的过程中利用这种观念来攻击你，让你相信你是软弱和不稳定的。还有一个相关的观点是，拥有强大伴侣的人不可能施虐；没有什么比这更离谱的了。如果虐待发生在你身上，那不是你的错。避免未来的虐待并不意味着扼杀这些品质，而是学会尽早识别危险和剥削性的人，并迅速将他们从你的生活中移除。

If you think you might be abusing someone

如果你认为你可能正在虐待某人

When you read the descriptions of coercive control and toxic behaviour earlier, or the lists of red flags, did you recognize any of your own behaviour?

当你阅读前面关于强制控制和有毒行为的描述，或者危险信号列表时，你是否认出了你自己的任何行为？

Maybe you learned how to be abusive because you were raised in an abusive environment. Maybe you’re terrified of being powerless or out of control, and so you control your partners or try to maintain the upper hand as a way of managing this fear. Maybe you have a hard time being emotionally vulnerable, so you shield yourself from that by lashing out or treating others with contempt. Maybe you lack empathy and just don’t really care whether you harm others—which may or may not be part of a personality disorder or a mental illness. Maybe you’re dealing with addiction, and when you’re drunk or high you have a hard time controlling violent or angry impulses. Maybe you’re highly sensitive to criticism or are shame-bound, and you gaslight your partners because it hurts too much to be held accountable when you cause harm.

也许你学会了虐待，是因为你在一个虐待环境中长大。也许你害怕无力或失控，所以你控制你的伴侣或试图保持上风，以此来管理这种恐惧。也许你很难在情感上脆弱，所以你通过猛烈抨击或蔑视他人来保护自己免受这种脆弱。也许你缺乏同理心，真的不在乎是否伤害他人——这可能是也可能不是人格障碍或精神疾病的一部分。也许你正在处理成瘾问题，当你醉酒或兴奋时，你很难控制暴力或愤怒的冲动。也许你对批评高度敏感或受羞耻感束缚，你对伴侣进行煤气灯效应是因为当你造成伤害时被追究责任太痛苦了。

We hope you want to stop, and if you do, we hope you take action. To get there, you need to stop rationalizing and excusing your behaviour, or blaming it on others. Depending on how bad things have gotten, you might need to remove yourself from the situation so that you stop posing a danger to the people around you—which might mean leaving a relationship temporarily or permanently. If you’re struggling with addiction, you need to get sober. And you need to get professional help to find your way out of this situation, heal your own wounds, manage your emotions (especially anger and fear), learn better communication, handle any mental illness or substance problems you’re dealing with, and become a better person. This might mean a recovery program, therapy, medication, support groups, anger management classes, or any number of other strategies depending on your situation.

我们希望你想停止，如果你想停止，我们希望你采取行动。为了做到这一点，你需要停止为你的行为寻找理由和借口，或者将其归咎于他人。取决于事情变得多糟糕，你可能需要让自己脱离这种情况，这样你就不再对周围的人构成危险——这可能意味着暂时或永久地离开一段关系。如果你正在与成瘾作斗争，你需要清醒过来。你需要获得专业帮助来摆脱这种局面，治愈自己的创伤，管理情绪（尤其是愤怒和恐惧），学习更好的沟通，处理你正在面对的任何精神疾病或药物问题，并成为一个更好的人。这可能意味着康复计划、治疗、药物、支持小组、愤怒管理课程，或者是取决于你情况的任何其他策略。

Recognize, too, that on top of harming people close to you, your abusive actions may have terrible consequences for you, up to and including life-altering legal repercussions. You can stop this behaviour before external forces do it for you in ways that might be pretty awful. It is possible to change. The responsibility is yours. You can stop, but you need to decide to, and you need to make concrete changes. Start now.

还要认识到，除了伤害亲近的人之外，你的虐待行为可能会给你带来可怕的后果，甚至包括改变人生的法律后果。你可以在外部力量以可能非常糟糕的方式为你阻止这种行为之前停止这种行为。改变是可能的。责任在你。你可以停止，但你需要决定这样做，并且你需要做出具体的改变。现在就开始。

On the use and misuse of advice

关于建议的使用和误用

Remember how we mentioned earlier that any system or tool can be twisted and misused to cause harm? That’s true for relationship advice in general, and for this chapter in particular. It’s not hard to picture a scenario where someone reads this book or this chapter and twists up our words to do harm. “Remember that time you got angry at me? That’s abuse! You’re an abuser and I’m going to tell everyone if you don’t do what I want!”

还记得我们之前提到过任何系统或工具都可能被扭曲和滥用以造成伤害吗？这对一般的人际关系建议也是如此，对本章尤其如此。不难想象这样一个场景：有人读了这本书或这一章，扭曲我们的话来造成伤害。“记得那次你对我发火吗？那是虐待！你是个施虐者，如果你不按我说的做，我就告诉所有人！”

We can’t stop this from happening (which, honestly, is pretty distressing), but we can say a couple of things in the hope of mitigating it. First, this book is intended for you to use to better understand yourself and think through what you want, need and value in the realm of nonmonogamy and relationships, and to help you make decisions that bring you toward integrity, kindness and, ideally, joy. It’s not meant as a set of standards with which to shame or bludgeon others, or for others to use this way against you.

我们无法阻止这种情况发生（老实说，这很令人痛心），但我们可以说几句话，希望能减轻这种情况。首先，本书旨在让你用来更好地了解自己，并思考你在非单偶制和关系领域中想要、需要和重视什么，并帮助你做出让你走向正直、善良，理想情况下还有快乐的决定。它不是用来羞辱或攻击他人的一套标准，也不是供他人这样用来对付你的。

Second, pay attention to how you react to feeling hurt or harmed within your relationships. If, when you feel hurt or distressed, you find yourself reacting by trying to control your partners’ actions or force them to do what you want, punishing them for their failures, taking revenge, making fresh rules, or feeling better and safer when they’re off-balance or under your thumb in some way, that may be an indication that you are becoming abusive. A healthy relationship is not adversarial, with someone winning and someone losing. If you feel good when someone else feels bad, that means you have an emotional incentive to harm people—and that’s a problem.

其次，注意你在关系中感到受伤或受害时的反应。如果当你感到受伤或痛苦时，你发现自己的反应是试图控制伴侣的行为或强迫他们做你想做的事，惩罚他们的失败，报复，制定新规则，或者当他们处于失衡状态或以某种方式在你的掌控之下时感到更好和更安全，这可能表明你正在变得具有虐待性。健康的关系不是对抗性的，不是有人赢有人输。如果你在别人感觉糟糕时感觉良好，那意味着你有伤害他人的情感动机——这就是个问题。

In contrast, if your hurt or distress pushes you to try and fix or solve things, examine and correct your own behaviour, set clearer boundaries, ask for what you need, empathize with the other person’s point of view and listen to their side of the story, collaborate, and ultimately seek harmony and peace, chances are that you’re not an abuser—emotional chaos is not rewarding to you. However, your general goodwill may make you vulnerable to others’ manipulation or poor behaviour. And you might be generally acting in good faith, but sometimes tip into toxic behaviours, either as a result of old patterns re-emerging or in response to toxic treatment by a partner or polycule.

相反，如果你的伤害或痛苦促使你试图修复或解决事情，检查并纠正自己的行为，设定更清晰的界限，要求你需要的东西，同情对方的观点并倾听他们的一面之词，合作，并最终寻求和谐与和平，那么你很可能不是施虐者——情感混乱对你没有回报。然而，你的普遍善意可能会让你容易受到他人的操纵或不良行为的影响。你可能通常是出于善意行事，但有时会陷入有毒行为，这可能是旧模式重现的结果，或者是对伴侣或多边关系网络有毒对待的反应。

To the extent that you’re willing and able, we hope you use this book and this chapter as a tool for self-reflection to help you think through your own situation, but not as a tool to try and prove that you’re right, push someone else to change, or make them feel bad about themselves. If you believe you are being abused, your best bet is almost always going to be to leave, get support and take care of yourself, not to fix or control someone else. From this point onward, everything in this book is written from the assumption that abuse is not present in the relationships, unless otherwise mentioned.

在你愿意且能够的范围内，我们希望你将本书和本章作为自我反思的工具，帮助你思考自己的处境，而不是作为试图证明你是对的、强迫他人改变或让他们对自己感觉糟糕的工具。如果你认为自己正在被虐待，你最好的选择几乎总是离开，寻求支持并照顾好自己，而不是去修复或控制别人。从这一点开始，本书中的所有内容都是基于关系中不存在虐待的假设编写的，除非另有说明。

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

问自己的问题

This chapter is already filled with questions and checklists, so we’ll keep this section short. Here are a few final questions to reflect on:

本章已经充满了问题和检查清单，所以我们将保持这一部分的简短。以下是最后几个需要反思的问题：

Are my partners or my polycule my sole sources of support? What other resources do I have available to me?
Are there patterns of behaviour I have witnessed or experienced, in my intimate relationships or my family of origin, that I want to learn to leave behind? Do I need to seek help for this work, and if so, where can I seek it?
What does accountability look like to me, for myself and for other people? Does my approach ultimately lead to healthier and more resilient relationships?
To whom would I turn for support if I were being harmed in my relationships or polycule? To whom would I turn for support if someone told me I had done harm?¹⁷
我的伴侣或我的多边关系网络是我唯一的支持来源吗？我还有哪些其他资源可用？
在我的亲密关系或原生家庭中，是否有我目睹或经历过的行为模式是我想要学会抛弃的？我是否需要为此寻求帮助，如果是，我可以去哪里寻求？
对我来说，问责制意味着什么，不仅是对我自己，也是对其他人？我的方法最终会导致更健康、更有韧性的关系吗？
如果我在关系或多边关系网络中受到伤害，我会向谁寻求支持？如果有人告诉我我造成了伤害，我会向谁寻求支持？¹⁷

Never be cruel Dr. Who, season 10, episode 13, “Twice Upon a Time,” directed by Rachel Talalay, written by Steven Moffatt, aired December 25, 2017. ↩ ↩²
In Canada Natalie Rech, “#MeToo Movement in Canada,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, January 31, 2019, last edited May 22, 2020, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/metoo-movement-in-canada. ↩ ↩²
England and Wales Ciara Nugent, “‘Abuse Is a Pattern.’ Why These Nations Took the Lead in Criminalizing Controlling Behavior in Relationships,” Time, June 21, 2019, https://time.com/5610016/coercive-control-domestic-violence. ↩ ↩²
In her book bell hooks, All About Love (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 4–6. ↩ ↩²
I want to encourage Kitty Stryker, Ask Yourself: The Consent Culture Workbook (Victoria, BC: Thornapple Press, 2023), 9–10. ↩ ↩²
Canada’s House of Commons Carmen Gill and Mary Aspinall, Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: Study on Bill C-247: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct), February 2021, https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/JUST/Brief/BR11085796/br-external/Jointly1-e.pdf. ↩ ↩²
In the Globe and Mail Molly Hayes, Elizabeth Renzetti and Tavia Grant, “Coercive Control Can Be a Life or Death Issue in Relationships. But Few People Even Know How to Recognize It,” The Globe and Mail, March 13, 2022, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-coercive-control-can-be-a-life-or-death-issue-in-relationships-but-few. ↩ ↩²
by any means necessary See, for example, Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect You from Violence (New York: Back Bay Books, 2021), and Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (New York: Berkley Books, 2003). ↩ ↩²
tactics of their abusers Connie Burk, “Distinguishing between Violence and Abuse,” in Creative Interventions Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Stop Interpersonal Violence (Creative Interventions, 2012), 524–533, https://www.creative-interventions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CI-Toolkit-Final-ENTIRE-Aug-2020-new-cover.pdf ↩ ↩²
situational and characterological violence Daniel Joseph Friend et al., “Typologies of Intimate Partner Violence: Evaluation of a Screening Instrument for Differentiation,” Journal of Family Therapy 26 (2011): 551–563. ↩ ↩²
missing stair Cliff Pervocracy, “The Missing Stair,” Pervocracy (blog), June 22, 2012, https://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html. ↩ ↩²
As Freyd writes Jennifer J. Freyd, “What Is DARVO?” accessed May 12, 2024, https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html. ↩ ↩²
sense of victimization Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?, 96–99. ↩ ↩²
having a hard time deciding Lundy Bancroft, Should I Stay or Should I Go? A Guide to Knowing if Your Relationship Can—and Should—Be Saved (New York: Berkley Books, 2011); Mira Kirshenbaum, Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay: A Step-by-Step Guide to Help You Decide Whether to Stay In or Get Out of Your Relationship (New York: Plume, 1997). ↩ ↩²
safety planning The Network/La Red, “Safety Planning,” https://www.tnlr.org/en/safety-planning. ↩ ↩²
her book Stop Signs Lynn Fairweather, Stop Signs: Recognizing, Avoiding, and Escaping Abusive Relationships (Berkeley, CA: Seal Press, 2012), 83. ↩ ↩²
To whom would I turn For one in-depth approach to figuring out who you’d turn to if you either experienced harm or harmed someone, see Mia Mingus, “Pods and Pod Mapping Worksheet,” Bay Area Transformative Justice Collective, June 2016, https://batjc.wordpress.com/resources/pods-and-pod-mapping-worksheet. ↩ ↩²