6 沟通陷阱 Communication Pitfalls
:::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。 :::
We are not obliged to be perfect once and for all, but only to rise again and again beyond the level of the self.
RABBI ABRAHAM JOSHUA HESCHEL1
我们不必一劳永逸地变得完美，而只需一次又一次地超越自我的水平。
拉比·亚伯拉罕·约书亚·赫舍尔 (Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel)1
If you’ve heard anything about nonmonogamy, you may have heard this: “The first rule of nonmonogamy is communicate, communicate, communicate.” But what does that mean, exactly?
如果你听说过关于非单偶制的任何事情，你可能听说过这句话：“非单偶制的第一条规则是沟通、沟通、再沟通。”但这到底是什么意思呢？
Communication is trickier than it sounds. It covers a lot more than saying what’s on your mind and heart, and even saying what’s on your mind and heart can be surprisingly tough. And that’s before you get to the listening part. Good communication is reciprocal, it’s a process, and it’s essential to building trust, demonstrating respect and understanding the needs of the people you’re close to.
沟通比听起来要棘手。它涵盖的内容远不止说出你心里想的和感受到的，而且即使是说出心里话也可能出奇地难。这还是在你开始倾听之前。良好的沟通是相互的，它是一个过程，对于建立信任、表达尊重和理解你亲近之人的需求至关重要。
When people talk about communication in nonmonogamy, they’re actually talking about a very specific type of communication: speaking the truth about themselves, their feelings, their needs and their boundaries with honesty and precision, and listening with grace when their partners speak of themselves, their feelings, their needs and their boundaries. This kind of communication isn’t really about words. It’s about vulnerability, self-knowledge, integrity, empathy, compassion and a whole lot of other things we’ve discussed in previous chapters.
当人们谈论非单偶制中的沟通时，他们实际上是在谈论一种非常特定的沟通类型：诚实而准确地说出关于他们自己、他们的感受、他们的需求和他们的界限的真相，并在他们的伴侣谈论自己、感受、需求和界限时优雅地倾听。这种沟通实际上不仅仅关于言语。它是关于脆弱性、自我认知、正直、共情、同情心以及我们在前几章讨论过的许多其他事情。
Communication is such a complex subject that we’ve divided it into two chapters. This first chapter addresses ways communication can run off a cliff, including when one or more people communicate in ways that are dishonest, indirect, coercive or otherwise ineffective. The next chapter discusses strategies to help you succeed.
沟通是一个如此复杂的主题，以至于我们把它分成了两章。第一章讨论沟通过程中可能出现的问题，包括当一个人或多个人以不诚实、间接、强制或其他无效的方式进行沟通时的情况。下一章将讨论帮助你成功的策略。
When you don’t want to communicate
Section titled “When you don’t want to communicate”当你不想沟通时
Section titled “当你不想沟通时”Everything we talk about in this chapter and the next assumes that the people involved are trying to communicate with each other. But sometimes, people don’t actually want to communicate. Even for those who grasp intellectually the value of communication, turning that understanding into reality can be really hard.
我们在这一章和下一章讨论的所有内容都假设相关人员正在试图相互沟通。但有时，人们实际上并不想沟通。即使对于那些在理智上理解沟通价值的人来说，将这种理解转化为现实也可能非常困难。
Communication is scary. People often fear open communication because they fear the vulnerability that comes with it. Open communication means exposing yourself to rejection, judgment or betrayal. It may mean finding out that you are wrong about what you assumed your partner thinks and feels. It presents the possibility of hearing “no” to your deepest wishes, and if the relationship is unhealthy, it may mean having your needs or desires turned against you. There is no communication—at least not meaningful communication—without vulnerability.
沟通是可怕的。人们经常害怕开放式沟通，因为他们害怕随之而来的脆弱性。开放式沟通意味着将自己暴露在拒绝、评判或背叛面前。这可能意味着你会发现你对伴侣的想法和感受的假设是错误的。它带来了对你最深切的愿望听到“不”的可能性，如果关系不健康，这可能意味着你的需求或欲望会被用来对付你。没有脆弱性就没有沟通——至少没有有意义的沟通。
Communication can also be hard when it leads to embarrassment or shame. If you were brought up to believe that there are certain things (like sex) that you just don’t talk about, shame can interfere with communication. You might end up wondering, for example, “Why is my sex life so unsatisfying?” and being afraid to hear the answer.
当沟通导致尴尬或羞耻时，它也会变得很困难。如果你从小就被教导有些事情（比如性）是不能谈论的，那么羞耻感就会干扰沟通。例如，你可能会想，“为什么我的性生活如此不令人满意？”并害怕听到答案。
Another barrier to communication is the notion that people in a relationship “should” be certain ways or do certain things, so there’s no need to talk about it. Many of these ideas come from the relationship escalator, and many of them are specific to given cultures and even families (we discussed this a bit in chapter 5). Yet another barrier is the common trap of thinking in generalities and allowing them to take precedence over the specific details of the people in the relationship—including what you expect others to enjoy in bed (“Everyone loves receiving oral sex!”), how you expect them to feel about certain activities (“Everyone hates doing the laundry!”) and what you expect others to find upsetting (“Doesn’t everyone get mad if you show up fifteen minutes late?”). But if you don’t talk about it, you might never find out that your partner is ho-hum about receiving oral sex and really prefers to be bent over a table, enjoys doing the laundry because it’s meditative and relaxing, and would much prefer that you show up fifteen minutes late than fifteen minutes early, because they always need a few extra minutes to perfect their hair before a date anyway.
沟通的另一个障碍是这样一种观念：关系中的人“应该”是某种样子的或做某些事情，所以没有必要谈论它。许多这些想法来自于关系自动扶梯，其中许多是特定于特定文化甚至家庭的（我们在第 5 章对此进行了一些讨论）。另一个障碍是陷入概括性思维的常见陷阱，让概括性想法优先于关系中人的具体细节——包括你期望别人在床上喜欢什么（“每个人都喜欢接受口交！”），你期望他们对某些活动有什么感觉（“每个人都讨厌洗衣服！”），以及你期望别人会对什么感到不安（“如果你迟到十五分钟，难道不是每个人都会生气吗？”）。但是如果你不谈论它，你可能永远不会发现你的 partner 对接受口交感觉一般，而真正更喜欢趴在桌子上，喜欢洗衣服因为那很冥想和放松，并且更希望你迟到十五分钟而不是早到十五分钟，因为他们在约会前总是需要几分钟来整理头发。
If a relationship involves some element of consensual domination and submission, people may fail to communicate because they believe submissives should simply accept whatever the dominant partner wants. Or they may believe submissives shouldn’t have a say in their relationship, because submissives like to do whatever they are told and never, ever voice their own needs. Some people take this to such an extreme that they even believe submissive partners in D/s relationships shouldn’t have needs of their own. Don’t follow the example of people like this! This is not how healthy D/s actually works!
如果一段关系包含某种合意的支配与臣服 (D/s) 元素，人们可能会沟通失败，因为他们认为顺从者应该简单地接受支配者想要的一切。或者他们可能认为顺从者不应该在关系中有发言权，因为顺从者喜欢做任何被告知的事情，并且永远、永远不会表达自己的需求。有些人把这推向极端，甚至认为 D/s 关系中的顺从伴侣不应该有自己的需求。不要效仿这类人的榜样！这不是健康的 D/s 实际运作的方式！
Communication is almost always most difficult precisely when it’s most important. As relationship coach Marcia Baczynski has put it, “If you’re afraid to say it, that means you need to say it.” When you are feeling most raw, most vulnerable, most scared of opening up, those are the times you most need to open up. You can’t expect others to respect your boundaries and limits if you don’t talk about them or, worse, pretend they don’t exist. You can’t build trust with others if you don’t share yourself enough for them to show you whether it’s safe to do so.
沟通几乎总是在最重要的时候最困难。正如关系教练玛西娅·巴琴斯基 (Marcia Baczynski) 所说：“如果你害怕说出来，那就意味着你需要说出来。”当你感觉最无助、最脆弱、最害怕敞开心扉的时候，正是你最需要敞开心扉的时候。如果你不谈论你的界限和底线，或者更糟糕的是假装它们不存在，你就不能指望别人尊重它们。如果你不充分分享自己，让他们向你展示这样做是否安全，你就无法与他人建立信任。
Some people think that talking about everything takes some of the mystery out of a relationship. But think of it this way: People are all complicated, dynamic and always changing, and relationship dynamics are filled with mystery as it is. There’s no need to invent more! There is easily enough mystery between any two people to fill many lifetimes, even when they’re both paying very close attention and are as honest and transparent with one another as it is possible to be.
有些人认为把所有事情都说出来会消除关系中的一些神秘感。但可以这样想：人都是复杂的、动态的、不断变化的，关系动态本来就充满了神秘感。没必要再发明更多了！任何两个人之间都有足够的神秘感来填满几辈子的时间，即使他们都非常密切地关注对方，并且尽可能地彼此诚实和透明。
Relationships based on honesty and transparency, in which people pay close attention to each other and work to see and understand each other, are more subtle and profoundly complex than relationships that avoid this kind of honesty and knowledge. The more you get to know a person, the more you find there is to know. And people are all moving targets; they change every day. There will always be new things to learn, no matter how much you communicate.
建立在诚实和透明基础上的关系，即人们密切关注彼此并努力看到和理解彼此，比那些避免这种诚实和认知的关系更微妙、更深刻、更复杂。你越了解一个人，你就会发现有越多值得了解的地方。人都是移动的目标；他们每天都在变化。无论你沟通多少，总会有新东西要学。
Dishonesty
Section titled “Dishonesty”Honesty is widely considered one of the defining factors that separate nonmonogamous relationships from cheating. It’s also, not surprisingly, one of the defining elements of good communication. However, it can be harder than it sounds. Even though most people probably agree that honesty is important in a relationship, it’s surprising how often people still choose not to be honest, in both big and small ways. Otherwise well-intentioned people who generally act in good faith can end up making that choice, for any number of reasons.
诚实被广泛认为是非单偶制关系与出轨的区别性因素之一。毫不奇怪，它也是良好沟通的定义要素之一。然而，这可能比听起来要难。尽管大多数人可能都同意诚实在关系中很重要，但令人惊讶的是，人们仍然经常选择不诚实，无论是在大事还是小事上。通常出于善意行事的好人最终可能会因为各种原因做出这种选择。
The most common reason is emotional vulnerability: fear of rejection, fear of being ridiculed, fear of being wrong, of hearing no, of being found less desirable by their partners, even fear of being abandoned if they don’t think their boundaries will be received well. And even as many people claim to want honesty, they may subtly discourage their partners from being honest with them because they don’t feel prepared to hear truths that might be painful, or because they react poorly when partners share vulnerable truths.
最常见的原因是情感脆弱：害怕被拒绝、害怕被嘲笑、害怕犯错、害怕听到“不”、害怕被伴侣认为不那么有吸引力，甚至如果他们认为自己的界限不会被很好地接受，还会害怕被抛弃。即便许多人声称想要诚实，他们也可能会微妙地阻止伴侣对他们诚实，因为他们觉得自己没有准备好听到可能痛苦的真相，或者因为当伴侣分享脆弱的真相时，他们的反应很糟糕。
Some people who are dishonest with their partners are trying to shape a partner’s behaviour in a desired direction. They may lie outright, or they may be more indirect; they might selectively disclose information, conceal things or choose not to say what’s on their minds, pretend to be okay when they’re not, or pretend to want things they don’t or to not want things they do. This isn’t always conscious or malicious—in fact, most of the time, it’s probably neither. Many people had to learn from a very young age to manage the emotions and behaviours of the people around them in order to receive the care and love they needed, or even to avoid being hurt, and the patterns they learned back then have been carried forward into the way they engage with their intimates as adults. But regardless of the reason, dishonesty is corrosive to intimacy and trust.
有些对伴侣不诚实的人是试图将伴侣的行为塑造成期望的方向。他们可能会直接撒谎，或者可能更间接；他们可能会选择性地披露信息，隐瞒事情或选择不说出心里的想法，在不好的时候假装没事，或者假装想要他们不想要的东西，或者假装不想要他们想要的东西。这并不总是无意识或恶意的——事实上，大多数时候，可能两者都不是。许多人不得不从很小的时候就学会管理周围人的情绪和行为，以获得他们需要的关心和爱，甚至是为了避免受到伤害，他们那时学到的模式被带到了他们成年后与亲密伴侣的互动方式中。但无论原因如何，不诚实都会腐蚀亲密感和信任。
Another reason people can be dishonest is that they fear upsetting or offending their partners. This can happen in a lot of areas, but an especially touchy one is around sex: what they enjoy, what they don’t enjoy, what they’d like to try, and so on. Being fully honest about sex can be terrifying! But it’s also really worth it. Yes, awkwardness and discomfort might be part of the deal, at least at first—but these kinds of conversations can be life-changing and lead to connection and pleasure you might never have dreamed of. This is a place where mustering your courage can really pay off.
人们不诚实的另一个原因是他们害怕让伴侣心烦或冒犯伴侣。这可能发生在很多领域，但一个特别敏感的领域是关于性：他们喜欢什么，不喜欢什么，想尝试什么，等等。对性完全诚实可能很可怕！但这真的很值得。是的，尴尬和不适可能是交易的一部分，至少在一开始是这样——但这类型的对话可以改变生活，并带来你可能从未梦想过的连接和快乐。这是一个鼓起勇气真的会带来回报的地方。
Perhaps the most common justification for dishonesty in a relationship is the notion that the truth will hurt worse than a lie. At the most extreme end, a person who cheats on a partner may think, “If I tell the truth, I will hurt my partner, but if I don’t, my partner won’t need to experience that pain.” This reasoning says more about the person making the argument than it does about the person they are “protecting,” because consent is not valid if it is not informed. By hiding the truth, this person is denying their partner the opportunity to consent to continuing a relationship with them. Even less extreme cases, such as concealing your true feelings about one partner in order to protect another partner’s feelings, can harm both your partner and the trust between the two of you, because people tend to be able to sense when their loved ones aren’t being honest. Controlling information to try to keep a partner (or to get a partner to do what you want) is one way to treat people as though they aren’t real. If this behaviour is repeated and sustained, it can also become gaslighting.
关系中不诚实的最常见理由也许是“真相会比谎言更伤人”的观念。在最极端的情况下，一个欺骗伴侣的人可能会想：“如果我说实话，我会伤害我的伴侣，但如果我不说，我的伴侣就不必经历那种痛苦。”这种推理更多地说明了提出这个论点的人，而不是他们正在“保护”的人，因为如果不知情，同意就是无效的。通过隐瞒真相，这个人剥夺了他们的伴侣同意继续与他们保持关系的机会。即使是不那么极端的情况，例如为了保护另一个伴侣的感受而隐瞒你对某个伴侣的真实感受，也会伤害你的伴侣以及你们之间的信任，因为人们往往能感觉到他们所爱的人何时不诚实。控制信息以试图留住伴侣（或让伴侣做你想做的事）是把人当作不真实对待的一种方式。如果这种行为重复并持续下去，它也可能变成煤气灯效应。
And remember, honesty begins inside. A person who is dishonest with themselves can’t be honest with anyone else. People can be dishonest with themselves for many reasons, including having ideas about who they should be. If they think desiring multiple partners is shameful, they may convince themselves that they don’t, even if they do. Likewise, if someone wants only one partner, they may convince themselves otherwise because they believe nonmonogamy is more “enlightened.”
还要记住，诚实始于内心。一个对自己不诚实的人无法对其他人诚实。人们可能出于多种原因对自己不诚实，包括关于他们应该成为谁的想法。如果他们认为渴望多个伴侣是可耻的，他们可能会说服自己他们不想，即使他们想。同样，如果有人只想要一个伴侣，他们可能会说服自己相反的情况，因为他们相信非单偶制更“开明”。
People can lie to themselves for more subtle reasons as well. Above all, this happens when the truth is hard. When it would require them to change; when it would cause them to feel bad about themselves or hopeless about a situation; when it would challenge their self-concept or the choices they’ve invested in throughout their life. Here, too, you need to summon your courage. The truth is not always easy, and it does sometimes require you to change. You might need to make amends, or demand justice, or both; you might need to heal in some way, shift a relationship, choose a new path, forge a new identity, reassess a practice or your membership in a group, or revisit past decisions and make new ones.
人们也可能出于更微妙的原因对自己撒谎。最重要的是，当真相很艰难时，就会发生这种情况。当它需要他们改变时；当它会导致他们对自己感觉糟糕或对某种情况感到绝望时；当它会挑战他们的自我概念或他们一生投入的选择时。在这里，你也需要鼓起勇气。真相并不总是容易的，它有时确实需要你改变。你可能需要做出弥补，或要求正义，或两者兼而有之；你可能需要以某种方式治愈，转变一段关系，选择一条新道路，锻造一个新的身份，重新评估一种做法或你在一个群体中的成员资格，或者重新审视过去的决定并做出新的决定。
Self-honesty can even put your survival at risk. As just one example: If you accept to yourself that you’re queer or trans, facing that truth might lead you to have to consider some pretty major implications about what you do next in your life, what relationships you maintain, what family ties you risk losing, whether you will remain welcome in a faith community or social group, and even where it’s safe for you to live, work and travel. Not every truth has such potentially dire consequences (and certainly, not every queer or trans person faces all of these potential consequences in a severe way!). But it’s understandable that sometimes, being truthful with yourself can take some time and effort. And: for your own good, and for the good of the people you love, it’s still worth it.
对自己诚实甚至可能危及你的生存。仅举一例：如果你向自己承认你是酷儿或跨性别者，面对这个事实可能会导致你不得不考虑一些非常重大的影响，关于你接下来在生活中做什么，你维持什么关系，你面临失去什么家庭纽带的风险，你是否仍然会在信仰社区或社会团体中受欢迎，甚至你在哪里生活、工作和旅行是安全的。 并不是每一个真相都有如此可怕的潜在后果（当然，并非每个酷儿或跨性别者都面临所有这些严重的潜在后果！）。但可以理解的是，有时，对自己诚实需要一些时间和努力。 而且：为了你自己好，也为了你爱的人好，这仍然是值得的。
Indirect communication
Section titled “Indirect communication”Indirect communication refers to, among other things, communicating through subtext, avoiding direct statements and looking for hidden meanings. Indirect communicators may use techniques such as asking questions or making vague, indirect statements in place of stating needs, preferences or boundaries. Directly asking for what you want creates vulnerability, and indirect communication often comes from a desire to avoid this vulnerability. In many cultures, indirect communication is considered kinder or more polite than direct communication, and these expectations are often gendered. Indirect communication also offers plausible deniability; if you state a desire for something indirectly and you don’t get it, it’s easy to claim you didn’t really want it. Stating your needs means standing up for them and taking the risk that others may not agree to meet them. It may also feel disempowering once you have a need on the line, especially if it turns out that the other person doesn’t have a similar vulnerability.
间接沟通指的是通过潜台词进行沟通、避免直接陈述以及寻找隐藏含义等。间接沟通者可能会使用提问或做出模糊、间接的陈述来代替陈述需求、偏好或界限。直接要求你想要的东西会产生脆弱性，而间接沟通通常源于避免这种脆弱性的愿望。在许多文化中，间接沟通被认为比直接沟通更友善或更礼貌，而这些期望通常具有性别差异。间接沟通还提供了合理的推诿余地；如果你间接地表达了对某事的渴望但没有得到，很容易声称你并不是真的想要它。陈述你的需求意味着为它们挺身而出，并承担他人可能不同意满足它们的风险。一旦你的需求岌岌可危，这也可能让你感到无力，特别是如果结果证明对方没有类似的脆弱性。
One way people communicate indirectly is by couching desires as questions: “Would you like to go out for Thai food tonight?” (Or worse, “Don’t you think it’s been a long time since we went out for dinner?”) To an indirect communicator, such a statement can be a coded way to say, “I would like to go out for Thai food tonight.” The problem is, a direct communicator might naturally hear only what was said and give a direct answer: “No, I don’t really feel like going out tonight.” This can leave the indirect communicator feeling disregarded; they might end up thinking, “My partner never pays attention to my needs!” For the direct communicator, this approach can be confusing, because they didn’t understand that it was a request. If they untangle the indirectness and figure out their partner wanted Thai food for dinner—especially if it’s much too late to do anything about it—the direct communicator might end up thinking, “My partner never asks for what they want. They expect me to read their mind! If they wanted to go out, they could have said so.”
人们进行间接沟通的一种方式是将愿望伪装成问题：“你今晚想去吃泰国菜吗？”（或者更糟糕，“你不觉得我们好久没出去吃晚饭了吗？”）对于一个间接沟通者来说，这样的陈述可能是一种编码方式，意思是“我今晚想去吃泰国菜。”问题是，一个直接沟通者可能自然只听到字面意思并给出一个直接的回答：“不，我今晚不太想出去。”这可能会让间接沟通者感到被忽视；他们可能会想，“我的伴侣从不关注我的需求！”对于直接沟通者来说，这种方法可能会令人困惑，因为他们不明白这是一个请求。如果他们解开了这种间接性，并弄清楚他们的伴侣晚饭想吃泰国菜——尤其是如果那时已经太晚而无法做任何事情——直接沟通者可能会想，“我的伴侣从不要求他们想要的东西。他们期望我读懂他们的心思！如果他们想出去，他们本来可以直说的。”
Conversely, a direct communicator may ask, “Would you like to go out for Thai food tonight?” as a form of care, because they know their partner loves Thai. But an indirect communicator might hear the offer as a request that they feel obligated to comply with, even if they don’t really want to go out. Either way, even a seemingly simple question can become a source of hurt and resentment if the people on either end of it don’t have a similar frame of reference.
相反，直接沟通者可能会问，“你今晚想去吃泰国菜吗？”作为一种关心的形式，因为他们知道他们的伴侣喜欢泰国菜。但间接沟通者可能会将此提议听成是一个他们觉得有义务遵守的请求，即使他们并不真的想出去。无论哪种方式，如果两端的人没有相似的参考框架，即使是一个看似简单的问题也可能成为伤害和怨恨的来源。
When you’re talking about dinner, indirect communication might not matter too much (though don’t underestimate the impact of little exchanges like these over time). When you’re talking about things that are even more fraught, like emotional boundaries or relationship expectations, indirect communication can lead to crises of misunderstanding.
当你谈论晚餐时，间接沟通可能并不太重要（尽管不要低估像这样的小交流随着时间推移产生的影响）。当你谈论更令人担忧的事情时，比如情感界限或关系期望，间接沟通可能会导致误解的危机。
People who use indirect communication were often taught to do so in their families of origin. For example, in a lot of WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) families, stating your needs or wants is considered selfish and rude. This cultural background is common enough in settler Canada that it’s contributed to the whole country’s reputation for “niceness,” but that sometimes just means indirectness—and the way it plays out in practice can be anything but kind. Let’s say you want the last cookie on the plate. Simply taking it, or saying “I’d love to take the last cookie,” would be rude. Instead, you’re supposed to ask if anyone else wants it, because that implies that you do. Everyone else is then supposed to insist that you should take it. If they take it, then they’re being rude, because you, as the asker, had the implicit prior claim. Not only that, but if they decide to be direct—“Can you clarify, are you saying that you want the cookie? If so, you should totally take it, I don’t need any more!”—that can be coded as even more horribly rude!
使用间接沟通的人通常是在原生家庭中被教导这样做的。例如，在许多 WASP（白人盎格鲁-撒克逊新教徒）家庭中，陈述你的需求或愿望被认为是自私和粗鲁的。这种文化背景在定居者加拿大非常普遍，以至于它促成了整个国家“友善”(niceness) 的声誉，但这有时只是意味着间接性——而在实践中的表现可能一点也不友善。假设你想要盘子里的最后一块饼干。直接拿走它，或者说“我想吃最后一块饼干”，会被认为是粗鲁的。相反，你应该问还有没有人想要，因为这意味着你想要。然后其他所有人都应该坚持让你拿。如果他们拿了，那么他们就是粗鲁的，因为你作为提问者，隐含地拥有优先权。不仅如此，如果他们决定直接一点——“你能澄清一下吗，你是说你想要那块饼干吗？如果是，你应该拿去，我不需要了！”——这可能会被编码为更加可怕的粗鲁！
Every now and then some pop-psych article will surface that compares indirect with direct communication and says that neither is inherently better, and all you need to do is learn which style someone is using and adapt to it. In nonmonogamous relationships, though, indirect communication is a disaster waiting to happen. It’s true that some cultures do use very subtle, nuanced indirect communication, and there’s nothing wrong with that in its own cultural context. However, in those cultures where indirect communication is the norm, the paratext—the subtle verbal and nonverbal cues that tell you the hidden meaning—are shared and understood. (Although even within a given culture, plenty of people still find the byzantine rules of indirect communication to be stifling, toxic, incomprehensible and inefficient. They can also be extremely difficult for some neurodivergent folks to navigate.) We wrote this book for readers in a North American context, where it’s almost certain that you, your partners and their partners will have grown up with family and cultural backgrounds that are at least somewhat different from one another, and thus taught different assumptions about what cues convey what unspoken meanings. Looking for hidden meanings in such situations leads to a very high chance that you’ll be quite simply wrong.
时不时会有一些流行心理学文章出现，比较间接沟通与直接沟通，并说两者本身并没有优劣之分，你只需要了解某人使用的是哪种风格并适应它即可。 然而，在非单偶制关系中，间接沟通是一场等待发生的灾难。诚然，有些文化确实使用非常微妙、细致的间接沟通，在其自身的文化背景下，这并没有错。然而，在那些间接沟通是常态的文化中，副文本——告诉你隐藏含义的微妙语言和非语言线索——是共享和被理解的。（尽管即使在特定的文化中，仍有许多人发现间接沟通的错综复杂的规则令人窒息、有毒、难以理解且效率低下。对于一些神经发散者来说，这也是极其难以驾驭的。）我们为北美背景下的读者写了这本书，在这里几乎可以肯定的是，你、你的伴侣以及他们的伴侣成长的家庭和文化背景至少在某种程度上彼此不同，因此被教导了关于什么线索传达什么未言明含义的不同假设。在这种情况下寻找隐藏的含义，很有可能导致你完全搞错。
And while indirect communication can work in somewhat predictable and conventional social situations among people who share a vocabulary based in indirectness, it’s often far from ideal when it comes to matters of the heart. It’s one thing to drop a hint to your sibling knowing they’ll catch on to the unspoken meaning. It’s quite another to downplay, conceal or otherwise misrepresent what you’re feeling, or avoid plainly saying what you want or need, when the stakes are higher. Indirectness is not a useless skill, but it needs to be used only when appropriate.
虽然间接沟通在某种程度上可预测的传统社交场合中，在那些共享基于间接性词汇的人之间可能有效，但在涉及到内心事务时，它往往远非理想。给你的兄弟姐妹暗示，知道他们会领会未言明的含义是一回事。在利害关系更高的时候，淡化、隐瞒或以其他方式歪曲你的感受，或者避免直白地说出你想要或需要什么，则是另一回事。间接性不是无用的技能，但只有在适当的时候才需要使用。
How can you tell what’s appropriate and what’s not? Let the results show you. The easiest way to know whether indirect communication has worked is to use the direct kind to check in about it. You may be shocked to find out how little someone has truly caught on—and how much they’d really like to give you what you want, if only you would tell them what that is! You may also be surprised to discover how much you were reading into a situation when the other person didn’t have any of the intentions, desires or feelings you had assumed.
你如何分辨什么是适当的，什么是不适当的？让结果告诉你。知道间接沟通是否有效的最简单方法是使用直接的方式来核实。你可能会震惊地发现某人真正领会到的少之又少——以及如果只要你告诉他们那是什么，他们会多么愿意给你你想要的东西！你也可能会惊讶地发现，当对方没有任何你假设的意图、欲望或感受时，你对某种情况解读过度了多少。
In its worst forms, when indirect communication includes implied threats or demands, it can tip over into manipulation. This can happen in many ways, such as by concealing your real motivations by couching them in pleasant-sounding but leading language: “I’m sure you would never suggest we skip Christmas with my parents because you know how upset that would make me.” Or by waiting for a partner to misinterpret your coded language and then springing something like “You never listen to me!”
在最糟糕的形式中，当间接沟通包含隐含的威胁或要求时，它可能会演变成操纵。这可以通过多种方式发生，例如通过用听起来令人愉快但具有引导性的语言来掩盖你的真实动机：“我肯定你永远不会建议我们不去和我父母一起过圣诞节，因为你知道那会让我多难过。”或者等着伴侣误解你的编码语言，然后突然冒出一句“你从不听我说话！”
Whether someone is accustomed to direct or indirect communication, if they haven’t taken time to unpack their own communication style, they’re likely to see all communication through their own lens—they can’t switch between direct and indirect communication. No matter how direct you are, an indirect communicator may remain certain there’s a hidden message, an unstated request or a secret criticism buried somewhere deep in your words. Sometimes, indirect communicators come up with interpretations that can seem plain bizarre, even paranoid, to a direct communicator. But these interpretations come from their expectations of how much meaning other people hide in their words. Similarly, direct communicators (as well as plenty of neurodivergent folks) may be entirely unaware of the possibility that there’s an additional meaning coded into someone’s communication. Both types of communicators may walk away from exchanges with each other with very different notions of what was actually said.
无论某人习惯于直接还是间接沟通，如果他们没有花时间去剖析自己的沟通风格，他们很可能会通过自己的镜头来看待所有的沟通——他们无法在直接和间接沟通之间切换。无论你多么直接，间接沟通者可能仍然确信在你话语深处的某个地方埋藏着隐藏的信息、未说明的请求或秘密的批评。有时，间接沟通者提出的解释对直接沟通者来说可能显得非常离奇，甚至偏执。但这些解释来自于他们对别人在话语中隐藏了多少含义的期望。同样，直接沟通者（以及许多神经发散者）可能完全没有意识到某人的沟通中编码了额外含义的可能性。这两种类型的沟通者在彼此交流后，可能会对实际说了什么有着截然不同的理解。
If you’ve cultivated the habit of looking for hidden meanings, it can be jarring to realize that sometimes they aren’t there—a person might actually just mean what they said, and nothing more or less. In nonmonogamy, it’s worth doing the work to set aside any cultural conditioning you may have toward indirectness. It might feel uncomfortable or rude at first, but you can save yourself an enormous amount of frustration and angst by speaking directly and believing that others are doing the same.
如果你养成了寻找隐藏含义的习惯，当你意识到有时它们并不存在时——一个人可能实际上只是字面意思，不多也不少——这可能会令人震惊。在非单偶制中，努力抛开你可能对间接性有的任何文化条件反射是值得的。起初可能会感到不舒服或粗鲁，但通过直接说话并相信其他人也在这样做，你可以为自己节省大量的挫折和焦虑。
If you are a direct communicator and someone misinterprets something you’ve said, or extracts a meaning you didn’t intend, be patient and forthright. State your intended meaning plainly. Reassure them that your words carry no hidden intent. Make it clear that you genuinely want to understand. Respond to vague statements with clear, direct questions. Ask for clarification when they say something ambiguous. And above all, keep at it. Indirect communication can take a long time to unlearn.
如果你是一个直接沟通者，而有人误解了你说的话，或者提取了你没有意图的含义，请耐心和直率。清楚地陈述你的意图。向他们保证你的话没有隐藏的意图。表明你真的想理解。用清晰、直接的问题回应模糊的陈述。当他们说模棱两可的话时要求澄清。最重要的是，坚持下去。间接沟通可能需要很长时间才能改掉。
Remember, though, that you can’t change others, particularly when it comes to deeply embedded mindsets. If someone is really committed to an indirect communication style, or so unaware of it that they can’t discern when it’s happening, using these strategies might make no difference. It’s up to you to decide how much you want to—and can—invest in adapting to other communication styles.
但是请记住，你无法改变他人，特别是在涉及根深蒂固的心态时。如果某人真的致力于间接沟通风格，或者对此毫无察觉以至于无法辨别何时发生这种情况，使用这些策略可能毫无作用。这取决于你决定你想——并且能——投入多少来适应其他的沟通风格。
Storytelling
Section titled “Storytelling”Humans are storytellers. We tell stories to ourselves, dozens of times a day, without even being aware of it. We use these stories to make sense of the world and to understand the actions of the people around us. Many of these stories relate to other people’s motives. We know that people’s actions aren’t random. We build models in our heads that help us understand others, and these models are often flawed because they’re made up of observation, guesswork, projection and empathy.
人类是讲故事的人。我们每天给自己讲几十次故事，甚至都没有意识到。我们用这些故事来理解世界和周围人的行为。这些故事中有许多与他人的动机有关。我们知道人们的行为并非随机的。我们在脑海中建立模型来帮助我们理解他人，而这些模型往往是有缺陷的，因为它们由观察、猜测、投射和同理心组成。
Unfortunately, it’s natural to act as though these models are more real than the people they represent. People don’t usually say to themselves, “I’m convinced to about 65 percent accuracy that my metamour is trying to replace me in my lover’s affections, but there’s considerable room for error.” Rather, they say, “That jerk is trying to get rid of me!” The motives people ascribe to other people’s behaviour are coloured by their own fears and past experiences.
不幸的是，表现得好像这些模型比它们所代表的人更真实是很自然的。人们通常不会对自己说，“我确信我的表侣正试图取代我在爱人心中的地位，准确率约为 65%，但这存在相当大的误差空间。”相反，他们会说，“那个混蛋想摆脱我！”人们归因于他人行为的动机带有他们自己的恐惧和过去经历的色彩。
Worse, most people are predisposed to view other people’s motives less charitably than their own. Research has shown that people tend to explain their own behaviour as a reaction to the situation they’re in, while they believe the behaviour of others is a direct indication of their character (this is known as the “fundamental attribution error”). When asked why they cut someone else off in traffic, a driver might say, “I was looking the other way and didn’t see them,” but when asked why someone else cut them off in traffic, they are more likely to say, “They’re obviously a reckless driver who doesn’t care about anyone else on the road.”
更糟糕的是，大多数人倾向于以不如对自己那么宽容的态度来看待他人的动机。研究表明，人们倾向于将自己的行为解释为对所处情境的反应，而他们认为他人的行为是其性格的直接表现（这被称为“基本归因错误”）。当被问及为什么在交通中抢别人的道时，司机可能会说，“我在看别处，没看见他们”，但当被问及为什么别人抢他们的道时，他们更有可能说，“他们显然是个鲁莽的司机，根本不关心路上的其他人。”
In nonmonogamous relationships, as you might imagine, this behaviour can get pretty ugly. When you tell yourself stories about other people, you tend to run with those stories, rather than what the other people say about the matter. “Of course they say they aren’t trying to separate me from my partner; that’s exactly what they want me to believe!”
在非单偶制关系中，你可以想象，这种行为可能会变得相当丑陋。当你给自己讲关于别人的故事时，你倾向于相信那些故事，而不是别人对此事的说法。“他们当然说他们不是想把我从伴侣身边分开；这正是他们想让我相信的！”
The cognitive behavioural therapy method for dealing with this kind of problem, known as examining evidence, can come in handy here. If you look around online, you can even find worksheets to help you out with this process. They’ll ask you to write out your hypothesis about what’s going on in a given situation, and then list your evidence for and against it. Doing this exercise can help you build a more realistic picture of what’s happening. Maybe you really do have evidence that your metamour is trying to separate you from your partner in some way. If so, you need to deal with that situation! But maybe when you write it out, you realize that there’s no compelling evidence for this hypothesis. In that case, the thing that needs work might in fact be your fear of losing your partner, or mutually insecure behaviours within the relationship. These, too, need to be dealt with—but probably not in the same way. Either way, examining the evidence can help you figure out what work you need to do, where you’re missing relevant information, and what requests you might want to make of others.
认知行为疗法中处理这类问题的方法，称为检查证据 (examining evidence)，在这里可以派上用场。如果你在网上四处看看，你甚至可以找到工作表来帮助你完成这个过程。它们会要求你写下你对特定情况发生的事情的假设，然后列出支持和反对它的证据。做这个练习可以帮助你建立一个更真实的图景。也许你真的有证据表明你的表侣正试图以某种方式将你与你的伴侣分开。如果是这样，你需要处理那种情况！但也许当你写出来的时候，你会意识到这个假设没有令人信服的证据。在那这种情况下，需要解决的问题实际上可能是你对失去伴侣的恐惧，或者是关系中相互不安全的行为。这些也需要处理——但可能不是以同样的方式。无论哪种方式，检查证据都可以帮助你弄清楚你需要做什么工作，你在哪里遗漏了相关信息，以及你可能想对他提出什么请求。
Triangulation
Section titled “Triangulation”三角化 (Triangulation)
Section titled “三角化 (Triangulation)”One key principle of good communication (as we explain in the next chapter) is that it ideally involves the people directly affected. This sounds simple, but it can be surprisingly hard to implement. Triangulation starts from an early age. Most people who grew up around other kids—siblings, cousins or other kin, or just neighbours on the playground—can remember at least one time when someone said, “Mom, Danny’s poking me!” or “Hey, Dad, Miranda won’t stay on her side of the seat!” And thus the seeds were sown for some of the most tenacious communication problems you will ever face.
良好沟通的一个关键原则（正如我们在下一章所解释的）是，理想情况下它涉及直接受影响的人。这听起来很简单，但实施起来可能出奇地难。三角化从很小的时候就开始了。大多数在其他孩子——兄弟姐妹、堂表亲或其他亲属，或者只是游乐场上的邻居——周围长大的人都能记得至少有一次有人说，“妈妈，丹尼在戳我！”或者“嘿，爸爸，米兰达不肯待在她那边的座位上！”因此，你将面临的一些最顽固的沟通问题的种子就这样播下了。
Triangulation happens when one person has a problem, concern or question for another person, but instead of bringing it up directly with that person, they go to someone else or bring someone else in to try to bolster their side. It happens when a child has a problem with their sibling’s behaviour and petitions a parent to settle it. It happens online when one person has a problem with somebody else and goes to the faceless masses of the internet to seek validation. It happens when someone at a company has a problem with another person’s performance and approaches a coworker about it. It happens when one member of a couple tries to get a relationship counsellor to take a side. And in nonmonogamous relationships, it’s the easiest thing in the world.
三角化发生在一个人对另一个人有问题、担忧或疑问，但他们没有直接向那个人提出，而是去找别人或拉别人进来试图支持自己的一方。这发生在孩子对兄弟姐妹的行为有意见并请求父母解决时。这发生在网上，当一个人对另一个人有问题并向互联网上无名的群众寻求验证时。这发生在公司里，当一个人对另一个人的表现有问题并找同事谈论时。这发生在一对夫妇中的一员试图让关系咨询师偏袒一方时。在非单偶制关系中，这是世界上最容易发生的事情。
One of the most common ways that triangulation occurs in nonmonogamy is when one person wants to control the flow of information among their partners. Most people don’t like conflict, and keeping people from finding out things that might upset them can seem like a good way to avoid or reduce conflict. It can sometimes be a means of minimizing tensions or disagreements; if two of your partners aren’t getting along with one another, you may be tempted to try to interpret one person’s words for the other, in a way that shows the message in its most favourable light. It can also happen when you don’t trust what your partners might say to each other, if you’re in the kind of relationship arrangement in which everyone has met and has the ability to speak to one another independently of you, but you are uncomfortable with them talking alone.
在非单偶制中，三角化最常见的方式之一是一个人想要控制伴侣之间的信息流。大多数人不喜欢冲突，不让人们发现可能让他们心烦的事情似乎是避免或减少冲突的好方法。有时这可以作为一种减少紧张或分歧的手段；如果你的两个伴侣相处不融洽，你可能会试图为另一方解释一方的话，以最有利的方式展示信息。当你不再信任你的伴侣可能对彼此说的话时，如果你处于那种大家都见过面并且有能力独立于你互相交谈的关系安排中，但你对他们单独交谈感到不舒服，这种情况也会发生。
Triangulation can also be used to diffuse responsibility. It becomes easy to tell one partner, “I can’t do what you want me to do because Sage might not like it,” rather than “I am choosing not to do what you want me to, because I think Sage might not like it.” (Veto is arguably an extreme example of this diffusion of responsibility. For more on this, see chapter 12.) Another version of triangulation happens when someone blames one person (such as a metamour) for the hurtful actions of another (such as a partner).
三角化也可以用来分散责任。告诉一个伴侣“我不能做你想让我做的事，因为 Sage 可能不喜欢”，比说“我选择不做你想让我做的事，因为我认为 Sage 可能不喜欢”要容易得多。（否决权可以说是这种责任分散的一个极端例子。关于这方面的更多信息，请参阅第 12 章。）三角化的另一个版本发生在有人将一个人的伤害行为（如伴侣）归咎于另一个人（如表侣）时。
It’s much easier to blame a third party, casting you and your partner as helpless victims, than to be honest when you are making a choice that hurts someone. Similarly, it can be easier to direct your anger and frustration at a third party than toward the person who is actually hurting you when the latter is someone you are intimately involved with. And for a hinge, it’s a lot harder to do the gritty work of negotiating solutions among competing needs and deciding how to share your time and resources than it is to stand back and pretend that those solutions are something your partners need to work out between themselves. (We discuss this a lot more in chapter 19.)
将责任归咎于第三方，把你和你的伴侣描绘成无助的受害者，比在你做出伤害某人的选择时诚实要容易得多。同样，把你的愤怒和挫折指向第三方，比指向那个实际上正在伤害你的人（当后者是你亲密交往的人时）要容易得多。对于枢纽来说，在相互竞争的需求之间协商解决方案并决定如何分享你的时间和资源，比退后一步假装那些解决方案是你伴侣之间需要解决的事情要困难得多。（我们在第 19 章对此进行了更多讨论。）
A final, and especially poisonous, form of triangulation happens when two or more people in a polycule gang up on one or more others, perhaps to shame or control them, or perhaps to gain status at their expense. The worst cases can easily become a form of emotional abuse. It’s easy to triangulate using social media, too, such as by vagueposting about metamours or posting even veiled details of others’ relationship struggles in forums where such details might be recognized. It’s also easy to make an example of one partner in a polycule—or even an ex-partner—as a sort of object lesson to warn other partners: They’re so controlling, but you’re not like that. They get angry so easily, but you’re so kind. They’re so needy, but you understand my limits. Someone especially skilled at this strategy can even do it with all their partners at once!
最后一种，也是特别有害的三角化形式，发生在多边关系网络中的两个或更多人联合起来对付一个或多个人时，可能是为了羞辱或控制他们，也可能是为了以牺牲他们为代价获得地位。最糟糕的情况很容易变成一种情感虐待。利用社交媒体进行三角化也很容易，例如发关于表侣的含糊其辞的帖子 (vagueposting)，或者在细节可能被认出的论坛上发布他人关系挣扎的哪怕是隐晦的细节。将多边关系网络中的一个伴侣——甚至是一个前伴侣——作为一个反面教材来警告其他伴侣也很容易：他们控制欲太强，但你不像那样。他们很容易生气，但你很善良。他们太粘人，但你理解我的限度。 特别擅长这种策略的人甚至可以同时对所有伴侣这样做！
The solution to triangulation is simple in theory—don’t do it—but difficult in practice, because it’s easier to talk about things that bother you with anyone but the person whose behaviour is at issue. And because when you feel wronged, it’s natural to seek allies. In practical terms, you can’t make other people communicate directly with each other. The best you can do is to limit your own participation in triangulation. Just back out and tell the other people they need to talk to each other. Refuse to let your partners vent to you about your metamours, or seek out your metamours’ side of the story (this can be especially important for women who are involved with men, because of the ways patriarchy has trained women to turn on one another—and trained men to leverage this tendency). And you should address anything that bothers you directly with the person involved. If you need allyship or support, that’s totally fine and reasonable, but seek it from someone you trust who’s not part of the problematic situation, such as a perceptive friend or a therapist who can help you work through a problem.
三角化的解决方案在理论上很简单——不要那样做——但在实践中很难，因为与除了行为有问题的那个人以外的任何人谈论困扰你的事情要容易得多。而且因为当你感到委屈时，寻求盟友是很自然的。实际上，你不能强迫别人直接相互沟通。你能做的最好的事情就是限制你自己参与三角化。只要退出并告诉其他人他们需要互相交谈。拒绝让你的伴侣向你发泄关于表侣的不满，或者去探听表侣的一面之词（这对于与男性交往的女性尤其重要，因为父权制训练女性相互攻击——并训练男性利用这种倾向）。你应该直接与相关人员解决任何困扰你的事情。如果你需要盟友或支持，这完全没问题且合理，但要向你不信任的、不属于问题情境的人寻求，比如一位敏锐的朋友或一位能帮你解决问题的治疗师。
Try not to be drawn into the role of rescuer when someone in your relationship network comes to you complaining about that terrible thing someone else in the network just did. Reserve judgment of other people in your relationship network, and encourage the parties at odds to talk directly to each other rather than through you, without allowing yourself to become a go-between. One good resource on negotiating triangulation when there isn’t outright abuse involved is Harriet Lerner’s The Dance of Intimacy, listed in the resources.
当你的关系网络中的某人来找你抱怨网络中另一个人刚刚做的可怕事情时，尽量不要被卷入拯救者的角色。对你关系网络中的其他人保留判断，并鼓励有分歧的各方直接交谈，而不是通过你，不要让自己成为中间人。 关于在不涉及彻底虐待的情况下协商三角化，一个很好的资源是哈丽特·勒纳 (Harriet Lerner) 的《亲密之舞》(The Dance of Intimacy)，列在资源中。
Coercive communication
Section titled “Coercive communication”Coercion doesn’t always involve physical violence or direct threats. It’s actually quite easy for relationships to become coercive when the stakes are high—and when you are deeply attached or committed to another person, they are high. Coercion happens any time you make the consequences of saying no so great that you’ve removed reasonable choice. If your partner says no, and you start preparing for a fight instead of accepting their choice, you’re probably being coercive.
胁迫并不总是涉及身体暴力或直接威胁。实际上，当利害关系很高时——当你深深依恋或承诺于另一个人时，利害关系就很高——关系很容易变得强制性。任何时候，如果你让说“不”的后果变得如此严重，以至于你消除了合理的选择，那就是胁迫。如果你的伴侣说不，而你开始准备吵架而不是接受他们的选择，你可能就是在进行胁迫。
If your partner sets a boundary or says no to a request, they probably have a good reason. That reason might not even be about you. It’s important to respect a no even when you don’t understand it. Show appreciation for your partner’s self-advocacy and self-knowledge, be grateful for the intimacy they have shown you, and make it clear that you respect their autonomy and ability to make choices—even if you don’t understand what’s happening or why.
如果你的伴侣设定了界限或拒绝了请求，他们可能有充分的理由。这个理由甚至可能与你无关。即使你不理解，尊重“不”也很重要。对伴侣的自我拥护和自我认知表示赞赏，感谢他们向你展示的亲密，并明确表示你尊重他们的自主权和做选择的能力——即使你不明白发生了什么或为什么。
We’re talking about boundaries your partner sets on themselves, which as we discuss in chapters 9 and 10, are quite different from rules they apply to you. It is always appropriate to negotiate restrictions another person tries to place on you, though it sometimes takes careful attention to recognize the difference.
我们谈论的是伴侣为自己设定的界限，正如我们在第 9 章和第 10 章所讨论的那样，这与他们适用于你的规则截然不同。协商另一个人试图加在你身上的限制总是合适的，尽管有时需要仔细注意才能识别出区别。
It’s also possible that in setting boundaries a partner is being manipulative, using boundary-setting as a way to coerce you. Withdrawal and silence, classic techniques of emotional blackmail—also known as stonewalling—can initially be difficult to distinguish from healthy boundary-setting. Stonewalling is the fourth and most deadly of relationship expert John Gottman’s “four horsemen”2 that signal an imminent relationship apocalypse. A person could be withdrawing just to punish you, intentionally or unintentionally—but that doesn’t change what you should do. The solution is never to try to force someone into emotional intimacy. Respect their choice, and do what you need to do to take care of yourself.
也有可能伴侣在设定界限时是在操纵，利用设定界限作为胁迫你的一种方式。退缩和沉默，情感勒索的经典技巧——也称为筑墙 (stonewalling)——最初可能很难与健康的界限设定区分开来。筑墙是关系专家约翰·戈特曼 (John Gottman) 预示关系即将崩溃的“四骑士”2 中的第四个也是最致命的一个。一个人可能只是为了惩罚你而退缩，无论是有意还是无意——但这不会改变你应该做的事情。解决方案永远不是试图强迫某人进行情感亲密。尊重他们的选择，做你需要做的事情来照顾好自己。
Of course, it’s okay to want to know and understand someone’s reasons for setting a boundary. Unexplained decisions aren’t conducive to intimacy, and they have the effect of creating distance or, at minimum, missing an opportunity to build closeness. It’s also okay to ask about the person’s reasons—as long as you’re coming from a place of wanting to understand rather than to change their mind or argue them out of a choice. If you’re hurting because of a boundary your partner has set, knowing how to practise active listening can be especially useful. (We discuss this in the next chapter.) It is especially critical in these moments to be careful not to twist your questions into accusations or statements of intent. “Why would you want to hurt me this way?” is a manipulative, coercive question that will not lead to genuine communication. The important thing is to recognize that you don’t have to understand or like a partner’s decision to respect it.
当然，想要知道并理解某人设定界限的理由是可以的。未经解释的决定不利于亲密关系，它们会产生距离感，或者至少错失了建立亲密关系的机会。询问对方的理由也是可以的——只要你的出发点是想要理解，而不是改变他们的想法或通过争论让他们放弃选择。如果你因为伴侣设定的界限而感到受伤，知道如何练习积极倾听会特别有用。（我们在下一章讨论这个问题。）在这些时刻，特别关键的是要注意不要把你的问题扭曲成指责或意图陈述。“你为什么要这样伤害我？”是一个操纵性的、强制性的问题，不会带来真正的沟通。重要的是要认识到，你不必理解或喜欢伴侣的决定才能尊重它。
Even without disproportionate power, people manipulate one another in relationships in many subtle ways. People might seek acquiescence by shifting blame, appealing to a sense of fairness, or implying that the other person is negotiating in bad faith. Appealing to social norms can be another way to try to coerce “agreement” in nonmonogamy. This includes making statements shaming someone for being nonmonogamous, or for failing to adhere to escalator expectations, or for being an “interloper” in an established couple. This kind of shame is powerful, and can easily get someone who cares to walk back their needs or agree to compromises that don’t align with their values.
即使没有不相称的权力，人们在关系中也会以许多微妙的方式相互操纵。人们可能会通过推卸责任、诉诸公平感或暗示对方在恶意谈判来寻求默许。诉诸社会规范可能是试图在非单偶制中强迫“同意”的另一种方式。这包括发表羞辱某人是非单偶制者、未能遵守自动扶梯期望或成为既定伴侣中的“闯入者”的言论。这种羞耻感是强大的，很容易让在乎的人退缩他们的需求或同意不符合他们价值观的妥协。
Still another technique for manipulating agreement involves preying on fear of abandonment. Statements that reflect sentiments like “What would you do without me?” or “I don’t know why I even stay here and let you do this to me”—though they are rarely that overt—can be attempts to use emotional blackmail to compel agreement.
操纵协议的另一种技巧涉及利用对被抛弃的恐惧。反映诸如“没有我你会怎么做？”或“我不知道我为什么还要待在这里让你这样对我”之类情绪的陈述——尽管它们很少那么明显——可能是试图利用情感勒索来强迫同意。
If you find yourself using coercive communication techniques, consider whether this strategy matches up with your values. If you’ve read this far, we’re going to assume it probably doesn’t—in which case, you may need to do some deep introspection, build some skills, or seek out support to find other, less harmful ways of getting your needs met. If one of your partners is using coercive communication techniques, you may need to have a serious heart-to-heart, set some firm boundaries, and possibly seek out support to get your communication back on track. In the long run, no relationship that involves coercion can be truly good for the people in it.
如果你发现自己正在使用强制性沟通技巧，请考虑这种策略是否符合你的价值观。如果你读到了这里，我们将假设它可能不符合——在这种情况下，你可能需要进行深度的内省，建立一些技能，或寻求支持以找到其他危害较小的方式来满足你的需求。 如果你的伴侣之一正在使用强制性沟通技巧，你可能需要进行一次严肃的谈心，设定一些坚定的界限，并可能寻求支持以使你们的沟通回到正轨。从长远来看，任何涉及胁迫的关系都不可能真正对其中的人有益。
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF 问自己的问题
Communication in relationships, and nonmonogamous relationships in particular, can be like a proverbial minefield. As you attempt to negotiate this potentially dangerous territory, here are some questions to guide you:
关系中的沟通，特别是非单偶制关系中的沟通，可能就像传说中的雷区。当你试图在这个潜在危险的领域中前行时，以下是一些指导你的问题：
-
If I have a problem with someone’s behaviour, do I discuss the problem with that person? If not, what are my communication habits instead? What work do I need to do in order to shift toward more directness?
-
If my partners have a problem with someone else’s behaviour, do I encourage them to bring it up with that person? Or do I fall into the trap of being a go-between? If I’m a go-between, what can I do to shift out of that role?
-
Do I ever try to bring in someone else, such as another partner or a therapist, or repeat things I remember them saying, to help me gain the upper hand in a situation?
-
Do I communicate indirectly or directly? Where did I learn my communication patterns? How can I work toward a communication style that’s effective with everyone involved?
-
How can I, or do I, manage the vulnerability that comes with authentic, direct communication?
-
Is coercive communication happening in any of my relationships? If so, how does it need to be dealt with? What do I need to learn or do differently? What boundaries might I need to set with others?
-
如果我对某人的行为有问题，我会和那个人讨论这个问题吗？如果不是，我的沟通习惯是什么？为了转向更直接的方式，我需要做什么工作？
-
如果我的伴侣对别人的行为有问题，我是否鼓励他们向那个人提出来？还是我陷入了做中间人的陷阱？如果我是中间人，我可以做些什么来摆脱那个角色？
-
我是否曾试图引入其他人，例如另一个伴侣或治疗师，或重复我记得他们说过的话，以帮助我在某种情况下占据上风？
-
我是间接沟通还是直接沟通？我在哪里学到了我的沟通模式？我如何朝着对所有相关人员都有效的沟通方式努力？
-
我如何能够，或者我如何管理伴随真实、直接沟通而来的脆弱性？
-
在我的任何关系中是否存在强制性沟通？如果是，需要如何处理？我需要学习或做些什么不同的事情？我可能需要与他人设定什么界限？