11 等级制度与主要/次要多边恋 Hierarchy and Primary/Secondary Polyamory

:::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。 :::

People like certainty more than they like hope.

JOSIE DUFFY RICE¹

人们喜欢确定性胜过喜欢希望。

乔西·达菲·赖斯 (Josie Duffy Rice)¹

We have talked about some of the ways people try to deal with the risks inherent to nonmonogamy, and the strategies we recommend. Before we go further, we want to examine some of the underlying forces that shape any relationship.

我们已经讨论了人们试图应对非单偶制固有风险的一些方法，以及我们推荐的策略。在更进一步之前，我们要审视一些塑造任何关系的潜在力量。

We’re going to simplify—a lot—to construct a framework that lets us get our ideas across. The three main forces we will discuss here are connection, commitment and power.

我们将进行大量的简化，以构建一个让我们能够传达想法的框架。我们在这里要讨论的三种主要力量是连接、承诺和权力。

How hierarchies emerge

等级制度是如何产生的

Connection can mean a whole bunch of things, but here it represents what people see as the exciting bits of a relationship: intensity, passion, shared interests, sex, joy in each other’s presence. It’s the things that bring you together.

连接可以意味着很多东西，但在在这里它代表了人们所看到的关系中令人兴奋的部分：强度、激情、共同兴趣、性、因对方存在而产生的快乐。它是让你们走到一起的东西。

Commitment consists of what you build in a relationship over time. It includes expectations: perhaps of continuity, reliability, shared time and communication, activities that will be done together, or a certain public image. It also includes attachment in the sense discussed on page 25 (like we said, this is super simplified). Commitment often supports life responsibilities, such as shared finances, a home or children.

承诺由你们在关系中随着时间的推移建立起来的东西组成。它包括期望：也许是关于连续性、可靠性、共享时间和沟通、将要一起进行的活动，或者某种公众形象。它也包括我们在第 25 页讨论的那种意义上的依恋（就像我们说的，这被超级简化了）。承诺通常支持生活责任，例如共享财务、家庭或孩子。

It’s common for connection to start out very large and exciting and shrink as a relationship deepens and stabilizes, or sometimes to start out small, grow to a peak and then wane. Commitment tends to start small and grow. People in long-term, very committed relationships may still struggle to maintain connection.

连接一开始非常巨大和令人兴奋，随着关系的加深和稳定而缩小，或者有时一开始很小，增长到顶峰然后减弱，这都是很常见的。承诺往往开始时很小，然后增长。处于长期、非常承诺关系中的人可能仍然难以维持连接。

Each of these flows—connection, commitment—gives people power in a relationship. Power tends to be proportional to the size of the other flows. The more you’ve committed to a relationship, and the more connection you feel with someone, the greater the power that person has—to affect not only yourself and your relationship with that person, but all your other relationships as well.

这每一股流——连接、承诺——都赋予人们关系中的权力。权力往往与其他流的大小成正比。你对一段关系的承诺越多，你与某人的连接感越强，那个人拥有的权力就越大——不仅影响你自己和你与那个人的关系，也影响你所有的其他关系。

Ideally, the power flows within intimate relationships would always be equal. In practice, they often are not. Power imbalances tend to arise when the other flows are asymmetrical: when one person feels more connection or commitment than the other. That’s normal. The person who feels less connection or commitment tends to hold more power. Other things influence power dynamics too, of course: things like economic or social status, physical dominance or persuasion skills.

理想情况下，亲密关系中的权力流动总是平等的。实际上，它们往往不是。当其他流不对称时，即当一个人比另一个人感到更多的连接或承诺时，往往会出现权力失衡。这很正常。感到较少连接或承诺的人往往掌握更多权力。当然，其他事情也会影响权力动态：诸如经济或社会地位、身体优势或说服技巧等。

When someone is in a relationship with a large mutual commitment, especially when that commitment supports a lot of life responsibilities, it’s common for one member of that relationship to feel threatened when their partner’s new relationship has a really big connection—perhaps one that feels (and maybe is) bigger than the existing connection.

当某人处于一段具有巨大共同承诺的关系中，特别是当这种承诺支持许多生活责任时，如果他们伴侣的新关系有着非常大的连接——也许感觉（可能确实）比现有的连接更大——这段关系中的一方感到受威胁是很常见的。

Often, it’s just the idea of a big connection that’s scary, even when the flow is new and small. And the idea of a partner creating significant commitments to a new partner may feel (and sometimes is) threatening to the commitments that already exist.

通常，仅仅是巨大连接的想法就很可怕，即使这股流是新的且很小。伴侣对新伴侣做出重大承诺的想法可能会让人感觉（有时确实是）对现有承诺构成威胁。

One way people deal with this fear is by using the power from within their own relationship to restrict the connection, commitment, or both in other relationships.

人们应对这种恐惧的一种方式是利用自己关系内部的权力来限制其他关系中的连接、承诺或两者。

Such restrictions have a couple of defining features:

此类限制有几个定义特征：

• Authority. A person or people in one relationship, which may be called a “primary” relationship, have the authority to restrict other relationships, which may be called “secondary.”

• Asymmetry. The people within the secondary relationships do not have the same authority to limit the primary relationship.

• 权威 (Authority)。 一段关系（可能被称为“主要”关系）中的一个人或几个人有权限制其他关系（可能被称为“次要”关系）。

• 不对称 (Asymmetry)。 次要关系中的人没有同样的权威来限制主要关系。

When these two elements are present within a nonmonogamous relationship, that relationship is hierarchical.

当这两个要素存在于非单偶制关系中时，该关系就是等级制的。

What is hierarchy?

什么是等级制度？

Some people use the word hierarchy whenever one relationship has more commitments or responsibilities than another—for instance, members of a long-married couple with a house and kids becoming involved with a friend-with-benefits. This is not how we are using the word in this book. When we talk here about a hierarchy, we mean a very specific power dynamic in which a relationship is subject to the control of someone outside that relationship. For instance, a hierarchy exists if a third party has the power to veto a relationship or limit the amount of time the people in it can spend together.

有些人只要一段关系比另一段关系有更多的承诺或责任，就使用“等级制度”这个词——例如，一对有房子和孩子的长期已婚夫妇与一个“炮友”(friend-with-benefits) 发生关系。这不是我们在本书中使用这个词的方式。当我们在这里谈论等级制度时，我们指的是一种非常特定的权力动态，即一段关系受到该关系之外某人的控制。例如，如果第三方有权否决一段关系或限制其中的人可以在一起的时间，那么就存在等级制度。

Hierarchical behaviour might take the form of rules such as “No other partner may ever live with us,” for example, or those discussed on pages 188 and 193–196. Alternatively, it might manifest as restrictions on how serious another relationship is allowed to become, or on what a new person is allowed to do, where they are allowed to go, or what they are allowed to feel. Some common examples of prescriptions in hierarchical nonmonogamy are:

等级制行为可能采取规则的形式，例如“任何其他伴侣都永远不能和我们住在一起”，或者我们在第 188 页和 193-196 页讨论过的那些。或者，它可能表现为限制另一段关系被允许变得多严肃，或者新人被允许做什么、被允许去哪里或被允许感觉什么。等级制非单偶制中一些常见的规定例子有：

• The primary couple always comes first with regard to time or other resources.

• Each member of the primary couple can veto any secondary partner of the other. (We discuss vetoes in detail in the next chapter.)

• Members of the primary couple are not permitted to spend the night with a secondary partner.

• Members of the primary couple pledge to love each other most.

• If the members of the primary relationship run into trouble or feel threatened, they can put secondary relationships “on hold” while they work things out between them.

• 在时间或其他资源方面，主要伴侣总是优先。

• 主要伴侣中的每一方都可以否决另一方的任何次要伴侣。（我们在下一章详细讨论否决权。）

• 主要伴侣的成员不被允许在次要伴侣那里过夜。

• 主要伴侣的成员发誓最爱彼此。

• 如果主要关系的成员遇到麻烦或感到受威胁，他们可以把次要关系“搁置”，直到他们解决彼此之间的问题。

People often assume these prescriptions are okay because secondary relationships are “casual”—but often they are not. Some secondary relationships are emotionally serious, long-lasting and deeply committed. Nevertheless, secondary relationships are defined as relationships subordinate to a primary relationship—by rules determined by the primary partners.

人们通常认为这些规定是可以的，因为次要关系是“随意的”——但往往并非如此。有些次要关系在情感上是严肃的、持久的和深度承诺的。尽管如此，次要关系被定义为从属于主要关系的关系——由主要伴侣决定的规则所定义。

Prioritization of pre-existing commitments does not necessarily imply hierarchy by our definition. For example, if you own property with a partner, the mortgage must be paid before you spend a lot on dates! And if you start dating a new partner, that new person doesn’t immediately get a vote on whether you sell the house.

根据我们的定义，优先考虑先前存在的承诺并不一定意味着等级制度。例如，如果你和伴侣共同拥有房产，在你在约会上花大钱之前必须先付房贷！如果你开始和一个新伴侣约会，那个新人不会立即获得关于你是否卖房子的投票权。

Other examples: You probably don’t give the keys to your car to someone on the first date. And most parents, monogamous or otherwise, are rightly cautious about whom they introduce their young children to, and when. Exercising your personal judgment in these kinds of decisions, and expecting your partners to make good judgments, is not displaying a hierarchy toward the person affected. Nor is requiring a partner to get your consent for things that concern both of you (such as property or children).

其他例子：你可能不会在第一次约会时就把车钥匙给别人。大多数父母，无论是单偶制还是其他，在把年幼的孩子介绍给谁以及何时介绍的问题上，都会理所当然地谨慎。在这类决定中行使你的个人判断，并期望你的伴侣做出良好的判断，并不是对受影响的人表现出等级制度。这就如同要求伴侣在涉及你们双方的事情（如财产或孩子）上征得你的同意一样，这也不是等级制度。

But if you control when and how your partner can make relationship decisions with others, and this prescription is intended to overrule the choices of your partner and their other partner, that is hierarchy.

但是，如果你控制你的伴侣何时以及如何与他人做出关系决定，并且这种规定旨在否决你的伴侣及其另一位伴侣的选择，那就是等级制度。

Children are often used to justify hierarchy. If you are co-parenting, hopefully you are co-parenting with someone whose judgment you trust, and whom you trust to protect your children’s interests. Deciding what parenting values you both share and will honour, and setting mutually agreed-upon expectations for shared responsibilities and the structure you will provide for the children, is not imposing hierarchy per se, if you trust each other to make decisions within your other relationships that honour your commitments to one another and the kids.

孩子经常被用来为等级制度辩护。如果你在共同抚养孩子，希望你是和一个你信任其判断力的人一起，并且你信任他能保护孩子的利益。决定你们共同分享和尊重的育儿价值观，并就共同责任和你们将为孩子提供的结构设定双方同意的期望，如果你们信任彼此会在其他关系中做出尊重你们对彼此和孩子承诺的决定，这本身并不是强加等级制度。

The relationship structure becomes a hierarchy, though, when one partner expects to make decisions about how the other partner will conduct their other relationships, or what level those other relationships will be permitted to reach, to ensure that the commitments to the children are—in their opinion—met.

然而，当一方伴侣期望就另一方伴侣将如何进行他们的其他关系，或者那些其他关系将被允许达到什么水平做出决定，以确保对孩子的承诺——在他们看来——得到满足时，关系结构就变成了等级制度。

A critical perspective on the terms primary and secondary

对主要和次要术语的批判性视角

The use of the words primary and secondary to refer to partners first became popular among early-generation white polyamorous people (some people even had tertiary partners). Often these adjectives got pressed into service as nouns, so people had “primaries” and “secondaries.” In many places, these words remain popular, and it’s still fairly common to hear people talk about primary relationships, but the word secondary is falling out of favour (although some people simply use “non-primary” instead).

使用主要 (primary) 和次要 (secondary) 这两个词来指代伴侣最早在早期白人多边恋者中流行起来（有些人甚至有第三 (tertiary) 伴侣）。这些形容词经常被当作名词使用，所以人们有“主要伴侣” (primaries) 和“次要伴侣” (secondaries)。在许多地方，这些词仍然很流行，听到人们谈论主要关系仍然相当普遍，但次要一词正在失宠（尽管有些人只是用“非主要”代替）。

This language can get confusing, because not everyone who uses the words primary and secondary is talking about a hierarchical relationship. The confusion arises because these words may be used in two different ways: prescriptively (as when a primary couple decides in advance what limitations any other relationship will be subject to) or descriptively (to describe whether a relationship has naturally grown to be more or less entangled than another). For example, some people use primary to refer to all live-in relationships and secondary for all relationships that aren’t financially or domestically entwined. Hierarchical polyamorists often (though not always) expect that there can be only one primary relationship, whereas with descriptive “primary/secondary” relationships, someone may have more than one primary partner. Some people who practise non-hierarchical nonmonogamy may even say, “My primary is whichever partner I’m with at the time” (even if it’s more than one partner).

这种语言可能会让人感到困惑，因为并非每个使用主要和次要这两个词的人都在谈论等级制关系。这种混淆的产生是因为这些词可能以两种不同的方式使用：规定性地（如当主要伴侣通过事先决定任何其他关系将受到什么限制时）或描述性地（描述一段关系是否自然地发展得比另一段关系更多或更少纠缠）。例如，有些人使用主要来指代所有同居关系，使用次要来指代所有没有财务或家庭纠缠的关系。等级制多边恋者通常（虽然不总是）期望只能有一段主要关系，而在描述性的“主要/次要”关系中，某人可能有不止一个主要伴侣。一些实行非等级制非单偶制的人甚至可能会说，“我的主要伴侣就是当时和我在一起的那个伴侣”（即使是不止一个伴侣）。

In an ideal world, we’d like to see people stop using the terms primary and secondary in a descriptive way for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, because it’s not accurate. A hierarchy isn’t something that happens because you’re close with someone or have built a long-term relationship with them. The word refers to a chosen and deliberately enacted power structure. For example, in a workplace, someone who has seniority isn’t necessarily placed highly within the company hierarchy. They might have more experience in a certain area, or know the workplace culture better, or have had the time to build greater trust with their colleagues, or even have specialized expertise—but the newly hired CEO still outranks them within the hierarchy. So if you’re not creating a relationship structure based on rank, why borrow its terminology?

在理想世界中，我们希望看到人们停止以描述性方式使用主要和次要这两个术语，原因有几个。首先，也是最重要的，因为它不准确。等级制度不是因为你与某人亲密或与他们建立了长期关系而发生的。这个词指的是一种被选择和故意实施的权力结构。例如，在工作场所，资历深的人并不一定在公司等级制度中身居高位。他们可能在某个领域有更多经验，或者更了解职场文化，或者有时间与同事建立更大的信任，甚至拥有专业知识——但新聘请的 CEO 在等级制度中仍然级别比他们高。所以，如果你不是在建立基于等级的关系结构，为什么要借用它的术语呢？

On the flip side, if your relationship is effectively operating as a hierarchy, with someone outranking someone else as a matter of permanent status, then we think it’s pretty important to say so very clearly so that everyone involved knows how things work. Bear in mind that many people find the word secondary hurtful, and that hierarchical relationships come with a number of built-in dangers and ethical challenges, as we discuss in this chapter and elsewhere in the book. But one of the first things you can do to manage those dangers and challenges is to be super honest about the model you’re using. In other words, don’t pretend your relationship isn’t hierarchical if that’s really what it is.

另一方面，如果你的关系实际上是作为一个等级制度运作的，某人的级别高于其他人是一个永久地位的问题，那么我们认为非常清楚地说明这一点很重要，这样每个相关人员都知道事情是如何运作的。请记住，许多人觉得次要这个词很伤人，而且等级制关系伴随着许多内置的危险和伦理挑战，正如我们在本章和本书其他地方所讨论的那样。但你能做的管理这些危险和挑战的第一件事就是对自己使用的模式超级诚实。换句话说，如果你的关系真的是等级制的，不要假装它不是。

Third, use of these terms descriptively can lead to a sort of bait-and-switch, where people are in fact practising a power hierarchy while claiming it’s just about priority. The descriptive use of these terms often provides cover for their more problematic prescriptive sense. We are personally wary when people become defensive of their choice of the words primary and secondary to describe differing priorities and commitments, as it very often points to the presence of a power hierarchy beneath. More on that in a bit.

第三，描述性地使用这些术语可能会导致一种偷梁换柱，即人们实际上在实行权力等级制度，却声称这只是关于优先级。这些术语的描述性用法经常为其更有问题的规定性含义提供掩护。当人们为自己选择使用主要和次要这两个词来描述不同的优先级和承诺而辩护时，我们个人会很警惕，因为这往往指向其下权力等级制度的存在。稍后会详细介绍。

In this book, we only use the terms hierarchy, primary and secondary when speaking of explicitly and prescriptive hierarchical relationships.

在本书中，我们只在谈论明确和规定性的等级制关系时使用等级制度、主要和次要这些术语。

Couple focus

聚焦伴侣 (Couple focus)

Hierarchy almost always focuses on a couple. The couple may explicitly choose a hierarchical model as a way to add other relationships “on the side,” or they may not realize how hierarchical they will become in a pinch, but to them, the couple is always the relationship that matters. The emphasis on a “core couple” can permeate a relationship in ways that are both obvious and subtle. When this emphasis is taken to its extreme, a couple may see others as simply expendable, to be ditched without warning or explanation at any sign of trouble. A lot of nonmonogamous people who became involved with a couple who they thought loved and respected them have tales to tell about abrupt loss of all contact: phone calls and emails unanswered and no further communication.

等级制度几乎总是聚焦于一对伴侣。这对伴侣可能明确选择等级制模式作为“在旁边”增加其他关系的一种方式，或者他们可能没有意识到在紧要关头他们会变得多么等级森严，但对他们来说，这对伴侣始终是唯一重要的关系。对“核心伴侣”的强调会以明显和微妙的方式渗透到关系中。当这种强调走向极端时，一对伴侣可能会将其他人视为完全可有可无的，一旦出现麻烦迹象，就在没有任何警告或解释的情况下抛弃。许多非单偶制者在卷入一对他们认为爱和尊重他们的伴侣关系后，都有关于突然失去所有联系的故事：电话和电子邮件不回，没有进一步的沟通。

People in hierarchical primary relationships may view a secondary partner’s needs or expectations as a problem, or even imagine that future secondary partners should not have needs or expectations at all—if they even think that far. The well-being of the secondary partner may not even have occurred to them.

处于等级制主要关系中的人可能会将次要伴侣的需求或期望视为问题，甚至想象未来的次要伴侣根本不应该有需求或期望——如果他们甚至想得那么远的话。次要伴侣的福祉甚至可能从未出现在他们的脑海中。

The members of a primary couple may have a belief—even a tacit, almost unconscious belief—that having more than one primary partner is not possible. Many newly nonmonogamous people believe you can have only one primary partner, as in the mononormative ideal: They believe when push comes to shove, you can only really love one person. This model might be called “nonmonogamy as modified monogamy,” including the idea that you can only have one “soulmate” while still having multiple partners.

主要伴侣的成员可能有一种信念——甚至是一种心照不宣、几乎无意识的信念——即拥有不止一个主要伴侣是不可能的。许多新接触非单偶制的人相信你只能有一个主要伴侣，就像单偶常态的理想一样：他们相信到了紧要关头，你真的只能爱一个人。这种模式可能被称为“作为修正单偶制的非单偶制”，包括这样的想法：你只能有一个“灵魂伴侣”，同时拥有多个伴侣。

Unfortunately, because this model maintains the primacy of the couple and therefore, in theory, is not too threatening to the general social order, it’s the one that a lot of mononormative culture is most comfortable with.² That means that a lot of people new to nonmonogamy come across this model first, and they might not think to question it. It also leads to other problems. For instance, therapists who aren’t conversant with nonmonogamy may instinctively support and promote hierarchical models when their clients ask for advice. Many hugely popular advice and pop science books promote understandings about what love really is and how secure attachment works that rule out the possibility of non-hierarchical nonmonogamy. This is why we love Jessica Fern’s groundbreaking work Polysecure, on how to cultivate secure attachment within nonmonogamy! But the whole world hasn’t read that book (yet!), so there is still a lot of general social support for the idea of hierarchy … even when it does a great deal of harm to both secondary partners and primary partners alike.

不幸的是，因为这种模式维持了伴侣的首要地位，因此在理论上对一般社会秩序没有太大的威胁，所以它是许多单偶常态文化最适应的一种。² 这意味着许多新接触非单偶制的人首先遇到这种模式，他们可能不会想到去质疑它。这也会导致其他问题。例如，不熟悉非单偶制的治疗师在客户寻求建议时，可能会本能地支持和推广等级制模式。许多非常流行的建议和科普书籍宣扬的关于爱到底是什么以及安全依恋如何运作的理解，排除了非等级制非单偶制的可能性。这就是为什么我们喜欢杰西卡·弗恩关于如何在非单偶制中培养安全依恋的开创性著作《多边安全》！但全世界还没有读过那本书（还！），所以对于等级制度的想法仍然有很多普遍的社会支持……即使它对次要伴侣和主要伴侣都造成了巨大的伤害。

The power dynamics of hierarchy

等级制度的权力动态

In a hierarchical relationship by our definition, power is diverted from within one relationship to restrict another relationship, forming a sort of “gate” to limit commitment or connection. When the natural flow of connection or commitment is smaller than the width of that gate, everything is fine. This is usually what’s going on where people point to hierarchical nonmonogamous groups in which prescribed roles are working well for everyone involved—basically, it’s luck. Of course, if the natural connection and commitment are small enough to fit within the “gate,” hierarchy probably isn’t necessary; that relationship would remain where it is on its own.

在我们定义的等级制关系中，权力从一段关系内部转移出来以限制另一段关系，形成一种“大门”来限制承诺或连接。当连接或承诺的自然流动小于那扇门的宽度时，一切都很好。这通常就是人们指出的那些规定角色对每个相关人员都运作良好的等级制非单偶制群体中正在发生的事情——基本上，这是运气。当然，如果自然的连接和承诺小到足以适应这个“大门”，等级制度可能就没有必要；那段关系会自行保持在那个状态。

Problems arise when the natural flows are bigger than the gate. They won’t shrink on their own, much as people might wish they would, so they continue to push back on the gate. The restriction might stifle or eventually kill the new relationship, suppressing its growth in the way a sunshine-loving plant growing under the shade of a big tree becomes stunted. But if the flows are too powerful, they will eventually crash through the gate, often causing great damage to the relationship from which the power originally emanated.

当自然流动大于大门时，问题就出现了。它们不会自行缩小，尽管人们可能希望如此，所以它们会继续推挤大门。这种限制可能会扼杀或最终杀死新关系，就像生长在大树阴影下的喜光植物会发育不良一样抑制其生长。但如果流动过于强大，它们最终会冲破大门，往往对最初产生权力的那段关系造成巨大破坏。

Mononormative conditioning goes very deep, and it’s hard to root out all the ways it influences your thinking. It’s hard work to consider the implications of your decisions on unknown future partners, and it’s very tempting not to do that work. And it’s particularly difficult to consider someone else’s needs when you’re scared. So it is often true that people in hierarchical relationships may behave in ways that are unnecessarily cruel to some partners—not out of malice, but merely out of thoughtlessness.

单偶常态的条件反射非常深，很难根除它影响你思维的所有方式。考虑你的决定对未知的未来伴侣的影响是一项艰苦的工作，而不做这项工作是很诱人的。当你害怕时，考虑别人的需求尤其困难。因此，处于等级制关系中的人往往会对某些伴侣表现出不必要的残忍——这不是出于恶意，而仅仅是出于欠考虑。

You could think of a relationship about to be opened up as a big tree with deep roots—maybe one that’s been bearing fruit for many years, seen a few rough seasons and spread its branches. Then you plant another seed in your garden: a new relationship. You don’t know what the seed will grow into, but if you’re like many primary partners, there’s a good chance you have some hope, spoken or unspoken, that it will be an annual, or stay small, or at least thrive in the shade of that big tree. Certainly it won’t ever get as big or demand as much space, right?

你可以把一段即将开放的关系想象成一棵根深蒂固的大树——也许它已经结了多年的果实，经历过几个艰难的季节并伸展了枝叶。然后在你的花园里种下另一颗种子：一段新关系。你不知道种子会长成什么样，但如果你像许多主要伴侣一样，很有可能你会有一些希望，无论是否说出口，希望它是一年生植物，或者保持很小，或者至少在那棵大树的阴影下茁壮成长。当然，它永远不会长得那么大或需要那么多空间，对吧？

People tend to think of secondary relationships as “new” relationships, without giving thought to the fact that they might endure for years. It’s common to hear variations on this theme: “But you can’t expect a new partner to have the same rights as a spouse!” True, but relationships don’t stay new forever. There was a time when your spouse of fifteen years was your new partner, and a time could come when your relationship with your new partner will also be established. Sure, it’s possible that you’ll want the same kind of relationship in fifteen years that you wanted at six months, but it’s unlikely.

人们倾向于认为次要关系是“新”关系，而不考虑它们可能会持续多年的事实。经常听到这个主题的变体：“但你不能指望新伴侣拥有和配偶一样的权利！”没错，但关系不会永远是新的。曾经有一段时间，你十五年的配偶也是你的新伴侣，而且可能会有一天，你与新伴侣的关系也会确立起来。当然，你可能希望十五年后的关系和你六个月时想要的一样，但这不太可能。

Yet couples often seem to hope to keep secondary relationships frozen at that new-love size and shape forever. It doesn’t work that way. If you plant an acorn in a flowerpot and the sapling manages to survive, you’ll just end up with a broken flowerpot.

然而，夫妇们似乎经常希望将次要关系永远冻结在那段新恋情的大小和形状上。这行不通。如果你把橡子种在花盆里，如果幼苗能存活下来，你最终只会得到一个破碎的花盆。

Often primary couples manage this structural flaw by simply jettisoning any relationship that threatens to grow bigger than the space they allotted to it. Many people often implicitly assume that a secondary relationship that becomes too well established may threaten the primary relationship—which is odd, considering the primary relationship has already had the time and energy to grow deep roots. Commonly, a secondary partner will sense that their happiness is not that big a concern to the primary couple, even if the secondary partner can’t put their finger on why. They may be sensing that even though the couple have never actually been callous or unkind, the structure of the relationship itself may not respect the secondary partner’s rights and feelings, or give their relationship space to grow.

通常，主要伴侣通过简单地抛弃任何威胁要长得比他们分配的空间更大的关系来管理这个结构性缺陷。许多人经常隐含地假设，一段变得过于稳固的次要关系可能会威胁到主要关系——这很奇怪，考虑到主要关系已经有时间和精力深深扎根。通常，次要伴侣会感觉到他们的幸福对主要伴侣来说并不是那么重要，即使次要伴侣说不出为什么。他们可能感觉到，即使这对夫妇从未真正冷酷无情或不友善，但关系本身的结构可能并不尊重次要伴侣的权利和感受，或者没有给他们的关系成长的空间。

Ironically, hierarchy can create precisely the situation the primary couple is trying to avoid: A person who feels relegated to a subordinate position may demand more decision-making power or more freedom to grow in the relationship. These demands may feel hostile to the primary couple. They may respond by tightening the restrictions or by reminding the secondary partner—“Hey, you agreed to all these rules when you signed on”—which only makes the secondary partner feel more disempowered. And the next thing you know, what could have been a positive and healthy relationship ends up eating itself in a big ball of suck.

讽刺的是，等级制度可能会恰恰创造出主要伴侣试图避免的情况：一个感觉被降级到从属地位的人可能会要求更多的决策权或更多的自由在关系中成长。这些要求可能会让主要伴侣感到敌意。他们可能会通过收紧限制或提醒次要伴侣——“嘿，你加入时同意了所有这些规则”——来回应，这只会让次要伴侣感到更加无力。接下来你知道的是，一段本可以是积极和健康的关系最终在一个巨大的糟糕团块中自我吞噬。

Another danger unique to hierarchical relationships is that a secondary partner might start a new relationship with someone else, someone who does not subscribe to hierarchy, and that new relationship can feel threatening to the partner in the primary relationship—not because it’s a threat to the couple, but because the new relationship offers things the hierarchical relationship doesn’t. People in hierarchical relationships sometimes find that “letting” a secondary partner have other partners is scarier than “letting” their primary partner have others!

等级制关系独有的另一个危险是，次要伴侣可能会与其他人开始一段新关系，而那个人不认同等级制度，这段新关系可能会让主要关系中的伴侣感到威胁——不是因为它是对这对夫妇的威胁，而是因为新关系提供了等级制关系所没有的东西。处于等级制关系中的人有时会发现，“让”次要伴侣拥有其他伴侣比“让”他们的主要伴侣拥有其他伴侣更可怕！

In contrast, some primary couples think that if a secondary partner wants more time and attention, the solution is exactly that: for them to go find a primary of their own. We’ve discussed before that people are not need-fulfillment machines, and that (except in certain limited instances) the “My needs aren’t being met, let’s find someone else” approach to problem-solving in nonmonogamy is fraught with peril.

相比之下，一些主要伴侣认为，如果次要伴侣想要更多的时间和关注，解决办法正是如此：让他们去找自己的主要伴侣。我们之前讨论过，人不是满足需求的机器，（除非在某些有限的情况下）非单偶制中“我的需求没有得到满足，让我们找别人吧”的问题解决方法充满了危险。

If your car needs an alternator, you can go to an auto parts store and pick one off the shelf. But people are not car parts. Each person is unique, and it’s the things that make them unique that matter. Swapping one person for another in the hopes that the new person will meet the needs unfilled by the old really doesn’t work. Even if they do find a fulfilling primary relationship of their own, that doesn’t mean they’ll stop having needs particular to you.

如果你的车需要发电机，你可以去汽车配件店从货架上拿一个。但人不是汽车配件。每个人都是独一无二的，正是这些让他们独一无二的东西才重要。为了让新人满足旧人未满足的需求而把一个人换成另一个人真的行不通。即使他们真的找到了自己充实的主要关系，那也不意味着他们会停止拥有对你特定的需求。

Non-hierarchical terms for relationships

关系的非等级术语

Many nonmonogamous people have made the choice not to use hierarchical terms, and they tend to find that words such as partner, lover, sweetie, girlfriend, boyfriend, fiancé(e), husband, wife and spouse convey more meaning than the words primary and secondary. Many people call the partners they live with nesting partners; some people also refer to domestic partners, life partners, queerplatonic partners or life mates. People who share parenting duties may call each other co-parents, but this may or may not indicate that they’re romantically involved; some people use it in the context of partnership, but others use it to refer to a person with whom they’re raising a child outside a romantic relationship, such as a gay man and a lesbian who decide to team up for the purpose of having kids, or amicably divorced people who share custody, or even two or more metamours who aren’t romantically attached to each other within a polycule but have chosen to raise kids as a group (living together or otherwise). Many nonmonogamous people refer to all their partners as sweeties or loves. There are plenty of additional made-up terms and phrases too—you may have noticed that nonmonogamous people are good at making up words!

许多非单偶制者选择不使用等级术语，他们倾向于发现诸如伴侣 (partner)、爱人 (lover)、甜心 (sweetie)、女朋友、男朋友、未婚夫/妻、丈夫、妻子和配偶等词比主要和次要这些词传达了更多意义。许多人称他们同居的伴侣为筑巢伴侣 (nesting partners)；有些人也称家庭伴侣 (domestic partners)、生活伴侣 (life partners)、酷儿柏拉图式伴侣 (queerplatonic partners) 或终身伴侣 (life mates)。分担育儿责任的人可能会互称共同父母 (co-parents)，但这可能并不表示他们有恋爱关系；有些人在伴侣关系的背景下使用它，但另一些人用它来指代在浪漫关系之外与他们一起抚养孩子的人，例如决定为了生孩子而合作的男同性恋和女同性恋，或者分享监护权的友好离婚人士，甚至是在多边关系网络中彼此没有浪漫依恋但选择作为一个群体抚养孩子（同居或其他）的两个或更多表侣。许多非单偶制者称他们所有的伴侣为甜心 (sweeties) 或爱 (loves)。还有很多额外编造的术语和短语——你可能已经注意到非单偶制者很擅长造词！

Service secondaries

服务型次要伴侣 (Service secondaries)

At the time of the first edition of this book, it wasn’t uncommon to hear of primary couples who approached potential secondary partners with the notion that they must provide the primary couple with some form of service as compensation for being in a relationship with one of them. For instance, the secondary partner may have to babysit. (One case was even published on a blog in the mid-aughts dealing with a secondary partner who was expected to present in public as a couple’s nanny.³) Or they were expected to perform other domestic duties. Sex is another service that secondary partners are often asked to provide, in cases where they are expected to be sexually involved with both members of a couple.

在本书第一版出版时，经常听到主要伴侣夫妇接触潜在的次要伴侣，并认为他们必须为主要伴侣提供某种形式的服务，作为与其中一人建立关系的补偿。例如，次要伴侣可能不得不照看孩子。（2000 年代中期甚至有一个博客发布了一个案例，涉及一名次要伴侣被期望在公共场合表现得像一对夫妇的保姆。³）或者他们被期望履行其他家庭职责。性是次要伴侣经常被要求提供的另一种服务，在他们被期望与夫妇双方都发生性关系的情况下。

We refer to such arrangements as “service secondaries,” and unless service is a specific kink that all people involved greatly enjoy and agree upon in a transparent way, you would be well advised to avoid them—no matter which role you would play in the structure. What’s wrong with these arrangements? Isn’t it fair to look for partners who will want to support you, help around the house and participate in your family life, if that’s what matters to you? Well, sure. But starting out with the view that a new partner is taking something away, and therefore needs to compensate by doing work for the couple, is not a healthy foundation for a relationship. These arrangements tend to be nonreciprocal, objectifying and lopsided.

我们将这种安排称为“服务型次要伴侣”，除非服务是所有相关人员都非常享受并以透明方式同意的特定性癖，否则不管你在该结构中扮演什么角色，你最好避免它们。这些安排有什么问题？如果这对你很重要，寻找愿意支持你、帮忙做家务并参与你家庭生活的伴侣难道不公平吗？嗯，当然。但是，从新伴侣带走了一些东西，因此需要通过为这对夫妇做工作来补偿的观点出发，并不是关系的健康基础。这些安排往往是非互惠的、物化的和一边倒的。

It’s fortunately been a long time since either of us came across people with arrangements of this kind, but just because people aren’t being this explicit about their arrangements doesn’t mean they’re not still happening. None of this is meant to disparage people with service kinks; if you think you might be one of them, you might enjoy reading some of the books written or edited by Raven Kaldera (see the resources section at the end of this book) and implementing service activities on purpose and with deep reflection on what they mean to each person involved. It’s also fine if you’re not a kinky service lover but you do voluntarily express love and care through acts of service, or enjoy receiving them. That’s pretty common and totally nontoxic within a certain range! But remember that nonconsensual expectations of service as a condition of being in the relationship can very quickly become coercive or abusive, particularly in the context of a relationship hierarchy where the lower-ranked people may feel they have no choice. It can also be deeply degrading to your self-esteem to be in an intimate relationship where you are essentially expected to routinely apologize for simply loving your partner, as though you’re doing something wrong by being there at all. And it’s worth noting that these kinds of expectations are often directed at women or people coded as feminine—it’s pretty rare to see cis men asked to babysit or perform household chores as a condition of dating someone.

幸运的是，我们俩都已经很久没遇到过这种安排的人了，但仅仅因为人们没有这么明确地表达他们的安排，并不意味着这种情况没有发生。这绝不是要贬低有服务性癖的人；如果你认为自己可能是其中之一，你可能会喜欢阅读雷文·卡尔德拉 (Raven Kaldera) 撰写或编辑的一些书籍（见本书末尾的资源部分），并有意地实施服务活动，并深刻反思它们对每个相关人员意味着什么。如果你不是性癖服务爱好者，但你确实自愿通过服务行为表达爱和关怀，或者喜欢接受它们，那也没关系。这很常见，在一定范围内完全无毒！但请记住，将服务作为关系条件的非自愿期望很快就会变成强制性或虐待性的，尤其是在关系等级制度的背景下，地位较低的人可能会觉得他们别无选择。处于一种你基本上被期望为你仅仅是爱你的伴侣而例行道歉的亲密关系中，就好像你在那里本身就做错了什么一样，这也是对你自尊的极度贬低。值得注意的是，这类期望通常针对女性或被编码为阴柔的人——很少看到顺性别男性被要求照看孩子或做家务作为约会的条件。

Why it’s hard to talk about hierarchy

为什么很难谈论等级制度

Few things are the subject of more ongoing, heated debate among nonmonogamous folks than the topic of relational hierarchies. In many ways this debate, which has raged for decades now—with different sides emerging as temporary victors every decade or so—feels profoundly stuck, which is one reason we devote so much time to hierarchy in this book. A big reason for this impasse seems to be that people often can’t even agree on what they’re actually talking about. We think one of the reasons that this confusion is so hard to dispel (can’t folks just decide which definition they’re using for a given conversation and use that?) is because it actually serves a purpose.

在非单偶制人群中，很少有事情能像关系等级制度这个话题那样引发持续、激烈的争论。在很多方面，这场已经持续了几十年的辩论——每隔十年左右就会有不同的一方暂时获胜——让人感觉陷入了深深的僵局，这也是我们在本书中花这么多时间讨论等级制度的原因之一。造成这种僵局的一个主要原因似乎是，人们往往甚至无法就他们实际上在谈论什么达成一致。我们认为，这种困惑之所以如此难以消除（难道大家就不能决定在特定的对话中使用哪个定义并坚持使用吗？），原因之一是它实际上是有目的的。

Like the words primary and secondary, some folks argue that they are using the word hierarchy descriptively, claiming that it refers merely to any nonmonogamous situation in which one relationship gets more time, energy, priority, commitment, sex or other resources than another relationship. We find, though, that this definition isn’t very helpful—at least if clarity of communication is your goal—because it applies to basically all relationships, intimate or not. The word does have a use, but it doesn’t have to do with communicating an idea. It has to do with obscuring another one.

就像主要和次要这两个词一样，有些人争辩说他们是在描述性地使用等级制度一词，声称它仅仅指任何一种非单偶制情况，即一段关系比另一段关系获得更多的时间、精力、优先级、承诺、性或其他资源。然而，我们发现这个定义并不是很有帮助——至少如果你的目标是清晰的沟通的话——因为它基本上适用于所有关系，无论是否亲密。这个词确实有它的用处，但它与传达一个想法无关。它与掩盖另一个想法有关。

THE TOWER AND THE VILLAGE

塔楼与村庄 (THE TOWER AND THE VILLAGE)

About a decade ago, neuroethicist Nicholas Shackel described what he called the motte-and-bailey doctrine.⁴ The name refers to a kind of castle that was popular in Western Europe in the early medieval period. The motte is a hill topped by a fortified tower, often surrounded by a ditch or moat. The bailey is the surrounding land that contains the rest of the castle’s buildings, which are outside the moat and also surrounded by a fence or wall. To make this a bit easier to follow, we’re going to refer to the motte as the “tower” and the bailey as the “village.”

大约十年前，神经伦理学家尼古拉斯·沙克尔 (Nicholas Shackel) 描述了他所谓的城寨特权原则 (motte-and-bailey doctrine)。⁴ 这个名字指的是中世纪早期在西欧流行的一种城堡。Motte（城寨）是一个顶部有防御塔的小山，通常被沟渠或护城河包围。Bailey（外庭/城堡庭院）是周围的土地，包含城堡的其余建筑物，位于护城河外，也被围栏或墙壁包围。为了让这更容易理解，我们将 motte 称为“塔楼”，将 bailey 称为“村庄”。

The tower, being on a hill and fortified, is much easier to defend than the village. When the village is attacked and the walls are about to be breached, everyone can run to the tower, bar the doors, and dump boiling oil on top of the attackers (or whatever other horrific defence strategies were employed in the 12th century). But no one really wants to live in the tower very long—it’s too small, cramped and stuffy, and they can’t do everything they want to do in there. Ultimately, they need to go back to the village and live their everyday lives. So the tower is only defended until the attackers have been beaten back or have moved on, at which point everyone reoccupies the village.

塔楼位于山上且有防御工事，比村庄更容易防守。当村庄受到攻击，城墙即将被攻破时，每个人都可以跑到塔楼，堵住门，把滚油倒在攻击者头上（或者 12 世纪使用的任何其他可怕的防御策略）。但没有人真的想在塔楼里住很久——它太小、太拥挤、太闷热，他们无法在里面做他们想做的一切。最终，他们需要回到村庄过日常生活。所以塔楼只是在攻击者被击退或离开之前进行防守，之后每个人都会重新占领村庄。

The motte-and-bailey doctrine describes how this same tactic can be used in an argument. You have two positions: one (the tower) is easy to defend, but ultimately not the one you really care about. The other (the village) is a lot harder to defend, but it’s also the thing that matters to you. So in an argument, you defend the village—until you can’t, at which point you retreat to the tower, and defend that. Once the pressure has lifted, you can relax and head back out to your village.

城寨特权原则描述了这种相同的策略如何在争论中使用。你有两个立场：一个（塔楼）很容易辩护，但最终不是你真正关心的那个。另一个（村庄）很难辩护，但它也是对你重要的事情。所以在争论中，你为村庄辩护——直到你无法辩护，此时你撤退到塔楼，并为塔楼辩护。一旦压力解除，你就可以放松并回到你的村庄。

When conversations about hierarchy in nonmonogamous communities get stymied over definitions, it’s often because someone is using this argument strategy. Let’s be clear from go that while some people are probably doing this in bad faith—knowing full well they’re playing rhetorical tricks to wiggle out of being legitimately challenged on relationship approaches that can really hurt others, particularly non-primary partners—it’s often a purely emotional course of action. People retreat behind their defences when they feel attacked, and often the anti-hierarchy school of thought can have that effect on people. If you’re invested in a hierarchical mindset, it can be really scary to step outside of it, while it’s also scary to feel like you’re being accused of being a bad person for wanting hierarchy. So what do you do? Try to find a way to keep the hierarchy, but either hide it or defuse the arguments against it! The tower-and-village strategy is a way to do the latter.

当非单偶制社区中关于等级制度的对话因定义而受阻时，通常是因为有人在使用这种论证策略。让我们从一开始就明确指出，虽然有些人可能是在恶意这样做——很清楚他们在玩弄修辞技巧，以摆脱对其可能真正伤害他人（特别是于非主要伴侣）的关系方式的合理质疑——但这通常是一种纯粹的情绪化行动。当人们感到被攻击时，他们会退回到防御工事后面，而反等级制度的思想流派往往会对人们产生这种影响。如果你投入了等级制思维，走出它可能会非常可怕，同时感觉自己因为想要等级制度而被指责为坏人也很可怕。那你该怎么办？试着找到一种方法来保持等级制度，要么隐藏它，要么化解反对它的论点！塔楼与村庄策略是做后者的一种方式。

The “tower” argument—easy to defend—goes like this: hierarchy is a descriptive term, and it just acknowledges the very real and logical differences between one relationship and the next, based on entwinement, commitment, attachment, longevity and so on. No two relationships—even those prescribed by rigid gender and social roles—are or can ever be exactly the same, and no reasonable person would argue that they should be. People defending this tower will say that “egalitarian” nonmonogamy entails an expectation that all the relationships be the same—which, of course, is not a reasonable notion, so it makes sense to shoot it down. (While we’re on the subject of argumentative tactics, though, this one’s a straw man, and straw men are notoriously easy to defeat.)

“塔楼”论点——容易辩护——是这样的：等级制度是一个描述性术语，它只是承认了一段关系与另一段关系之间基于纠缠、承诺、依恋、持久性等方面的非常真实和合乎逻辑的差异。没有两段关系——即使是那些由僵化的性别和社会角色规定的关系——是或可能完全相同的，没有一个理性的人会争辩说它们应该是相同的。捍卫这座塔楼的人会说，“平等主义”非单偶制意味着期望所有关系都一样——这当然不是一个合理的观念，所以将其击倒是有道理的。（既然我们在讨论辩论策略，这是一个稻草人谬误，而稻草人是出了名的容易被击败。）

The tower argument takes the natural variation present between all human relationships and calls it hierarchy—not because it actually is, but because this exaggeration helps protect the village, which is the definition of hierarchy we just gave on pages 204–206: where certain partners expect to exert direct, asymmetrical control of their partners’ other relationships. In a conversation, it tends to become clear that this is what’s really going on because once someone has defended their tower—getting you to agree to the obvious statement that yes, all relationships need different resources and have different priorities—you can often see them tiptoeing back out into the village.

塔楼论点利用了所有人际关系之间存在的自然差异，并将其称为等级制度——不是因为它实际上是，而是因为这种夸大有助于保护村庄，也就是我们在第 204-206 页刚刚给出的等级制度的定义：某些伴侣期望对其伴侣的其他关系施加直接、不对称的控制。在对话中，这往往会变得很清楚，这才是真正发生的事情，因为一旦有人捍卫了他们的塔楼——让你同意那个显而易见的陈述，即是的，所有关系都需要不同的资源并具有不同的优先级——你经常可以看到他们悄悄地回到村庄。

An example of this might be when someone starts talking about the idea of “respecting” a primary (or marital, or nesting, or parental, or whatever you call it) relationship. With the possible exception of some relationship anarchists, most people will accept at face value the idea that you should respect a partner’s other relationships, in that it’s a good idea to support your partner in keeping their commitments and doing things that support the health of their relationship life. Most people also readily acknowledge that long-established, entwined relationships tend to involve more time, energy and priority than newer or less entwined relationships. These acknowledgements are the tower.

这方面的一个例子可能是当有人开始谈论“尊重”一段主要（或婚姻、同居、父母，或无论你怎么称呼它）关系的想法时。除了可能的一些关系安那其主义者外，大多数人都会从字面上接受你应该尊重伴侣的其他关系的想法，即支持你的伴侣信守承诺并做一些支持其关系生活健康的事情是个好主意。大多数人也欣然承认，长期建立的、纠缠在一起的关系往往比新的或较少纠缠的关系涉及更多的时间、精力和优先级。这些承认就是塔楼。

But is that person also saying that “respect” means not voicing criticism of abusive or manipulative behaviour? Not advocating for your own needs in a relationship? Not expressing your own feelings of love or attachment? Never asking for your relationship to take some priority some of the time? Then that’s a power hierarchy: the village.

但是，那个人是否也在说，“尊重”意味着不表达对虐待或操纵行为的批评？不在关系中主张你自己的需求？不表达你自己的爱或依恋的感觉？从不要求你的关系在某些时候占据优先地位？那么这就是权力等级制度：村庄。

Watch what happens when you challenge this argument. Does your interlocutor retreat to the tower? Do they say things like “Well, you wouldn’t give someone the keys to your house on the first date!” “We’ve been together ten years, so we just have more sweat equity!” “You can’t expect everyone to be equal.” And the classic “We have to put our children first.”

看看当你挑战这个论点时会发生什么。你的对话者会撤退到塔楼吗？他们会说像“嗯，你不会在第一次约会时就把家里的钥匙给别人！”“我们要在一起十年了，所以我们只是有更多的血汗资产 (sweat equity)！”“你不能指望每个人都是平等的。”以及经典的“我们必须把孩子放在第一位。”

None of these statements are wrong. They’re the tower—easy to defend. But these conversations aren’t really about them. They’re about the village: how much control someone has over what happens in another person’s relationship.

这些陈述没有一个是错的。它们是塔楼——容易辩护。但这些对话并不是真的关于它们。它们是关于村庄：一个人对他人的关系中发生的事情有多少控制权。

Defining non-hierarchical nonmonogamy as “everyone gets the same” and hierarchical polyamory as “every relationship is different” makes non-hierarchical nonmonogamy seem easy to dismiss, and people who try to practise it, impractical idealists. This conversational trick can be devastatingly effective at shutting down discussions about the ethical implications of power dynamics in relationship networks.

将非等级制非单偶制定义为“每个人都得到相同的待遇”，将等级制多边恋定义为“每段关系都是不同的”，这使得非等级制非单偶制看起来很容易被驳回，而试图实践它的人则成了不切实际的理想主义者。这种对话技巧在关闭关于关系网络中权力动态的伦理含义的讨论方面具有毁灭性的效果。

Lest we be accused of being too hard on primary partners, let us point out that less-entwined partners can also employ rhetorical tricks that confuse discussions of power dynamics, just not the same ones, or for the same reasons. They’re unlikely to use the tower-and-village strategy, because they’re not trying to obscure a hierarchy—they’re often trying to prove one exists. Instead, a common strategy is to look at any unequal distribution of resources and call it a hierarchy. Since the idea of hierarchical relationship networks has, over the last few years, become increasingly frowned upon in many nonmonogamous subcultures, if a partner accuses you of having a hierarchical relationship, it’s often a criticism—and can really sting! Especially if you’re actively working to avoid the power imbalances that we describe in this book! The accusation may be accurate—many dyads do operate in a hierarchical way without wanting to admit it (some folks call this “sneakyarchy”), hence how common the tower-and-village strategy is in the first place. But the accusation may also not be accurate, and may instead point to other problems, such as a partner wanting something and not getting it, or not feeling heard—which is legitimate, but can just as easily happen in a non-hierarchical situation.

为了避免被指责对主要伴侣过于严厉，我们要指出，较少纠缠的伴侣也可能使用混淆权力动态讨论的修辞技巧，只是不使用相同的技巧，或者出于相同的原因。他们不太可能使用塔楼与村庄的策略，因为他们不是试图掩盖等级制度——他们通常是试图证明等级制度的存在。相反，一种常见的策略是看着任何不平等的资源分配并称之为等级制度。由于在过去几年里，等级制关系网络的概念在许多非单偶制亚文化中越来越不受欢迎，如果伴侣指责你有一段等级制关系，这通常是一种批评——而且真的会很刺痛！特别是如果你正在积极努力避免我们在本书中描述的权力失衡！这种指责可能是准确的——许多二人组确实在不想承认的情况下以等级制方式运作（有些人称之为“偷偷摸摸的等级制”[sneakyarchy]），这就是为什么塔楼与村庄策略一开始如此普遍的原因。但这种指责也可能不准确，可能反而指向其他问题，例如伴侣想要某样东西却没有得到，或者感觉没有被倾听——这是合理的，但在非等级制情况下同样容易发生。

Some folks seem to use these tactics out of sheer intellectual dishonesty, regardless of their position in a given relationship structure. But we think that very often, it’s more innocent than that, and comes from a genuine confusion over what power within healthy relationships looks like. It can also be hard to tell, from outside a relationship, exactly what the power dynamic is within it. That’s the next bit of confusion we want to address.

有些人似乎纯粹出于理智上的不诚实而使用这些策略，无论他们在给定的关系结构中处于什么位置。但我们认为，很多时候，这比那更无辜，是源于对健康关系中的权力究竟是什么样子的真正困惑。从关系外部也很难确切地分辨出其中的权力动态是什么。那是我们要解决的下一个困惑。

INFLUENCE AND CONTROL

影响与控制

Any healthy relationship involves a certain amount of influence. While it’s not a good idea to rest your hopes for a relationship on your partner changing, or to make your partner into a project, good partnerships do change the people in them. You may learn new habits, new skills, new hobbies, new ways of communicating. But you also have to learn to prioritize another person’s happiness as well as your own. That means allowing your partner to influence you: paying attention to what your partner’s experience is, what their needs are, and working with them to help them get their needs met, along with yours. It means sometimes not doing something you want to do, and sometimes doing something you don’t really want to do, in order to make the relationship work for both of you. It means give and take.

任何健康的关系都涉及一定程度的影响。虽然把你对关系的希望寄托在伴侣的改变上，或者把你的伴侣变成一个项目并不是个好主意，但好的伙伴关系确实会改变其中的人。你可能会学到新习惯、新技能、新爱好、新的沟通方式。但你也必须学会优先考虑另一个人的幸福以及你自己的幸福。这意味着允许你的伴侣影响你：关注你伴侣的体验是什么，他们的需求是什么，并与他们合作帮助他们满足需求，同时也满足你的需求。这意味着有时不做你想做的事，有时做你并不真正想做的事，为了让关系对你们双方都有效。这意味着给予和索取。

In healthy relationships, this give and take is negotiated and consensual. Boundaries are respected, bottom lines are recognized and not pushed. You may have to give up pizza on Friday because you’ve had it three date nights in a row and your partner’s craving Thai, you may have to move to a city that’s not your first choice (or even on your list), you might have to take a lower-paying job to make more time with the kids—you may have to make big sacrifices or small ones. But you won’t have to give up friends, family, economic or emotional security, self-worth, self-expression, or any of the things that are important to making you you. And this influence is reciprocal: your partners listen to you and seek compromise just as much as you do. You all prioritize each other’s happiness and well-being.

在健康的关系中，这种给予和索取是协商和双方同意的。界限受到尊重，底线得到承认且不被触碰。你可能不得不在周五放弃披萨，因为你们已经连续三个约会之夜吃披萨了，而你的伴侣渴望泰国菜；你可能不得不搬到一个不是你首选（甚至不在你名单上）的城市；你可能不得不接受一份薪水较低的工作，以便腾出更多时间陪孩子——你可能不得不做出巨大的或微小的牺牲。但你不必放弃朋友、家人、经济或情感安全、自我价值、自我表达，或者是任何对让你成为你很重要的东西。这种影响是相互的：你的伴侣像你一样倾听你并寻求妥协。你们都优先考虑彼此的幸福和福祉。

The other side of this coin is control. Control is what happens when the give and take stops being consensual and reciprocal, when you stop respecting a partner’s boundaries, when you make your own happiness and meeting your own needs more important than valuing your partner’s agency. We discussed control tactics at length in chapter 3, but as we mention there, toxic behaviours are often used in both monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships without becoming coercive control.

硬币的另一面是控制。控制发生在给予和索取不再是双方同意和互惠的时候，当你不再尊重伴侣的界限时，当你把你自己的幸福和满足你自己的需求看得比重视伴侣的代理权更重要时。我们在第 3 章详细讨论了控制策略，但正如我们在那里提到的，有毒行为经常在单偶制和非单偶制关系中使用，而不会变成强制控制。

In a nonmonogamous relationship, intimate influence may affect the choices you make about how you interact with other people. It may mean that you don’t date someone you want to date, or you limit the amount of time you can commit, or you put the brakes on a relationship that’s growing too fast and big … because of the way it might affect your other partners, or because of concerns they have. It might even affect your decision whether to be nonmonogamous at all (see pages 312–314).

在非单偶制关系中，亲密的影响可能会影响你在如何与他人互动方面做出的选择。这可能意味着你不去和你想要约会的人约会，或者你限制你可以承诺的时间，或者你对一段发展得太快太大的关系踩刹车……因为它可能会影响你的其他伴侣，或者因为他们有顾虑。它甚至可能会影响你是否要非单偶制的决定（见第 312-314 页）。

Or, you might make all those same choices because you have a partner who’s exerting control over your other relationships—whether as part of a hierarchy that you agreed to, or as part of a pattern of coercive control. And it can be difficult to tell the difference between the two from outside a relationship—especially if you’re someone, like another partner, who is directly affected by the choices being made.

或者，你可能会做出所有这些相同的选择，因为你有一个正在对你的其他关系施加控制的伴侣——无论这是你同意的等级制度的一部分，还是强制控制模式的一部分。从关系外部很难分辨这两者之间的区别——特别是如果你是像另一个伴侣那样，直接受所做选择影响的人。

Let’s give an example. In her memoir A World in Us,⁵ author Louisa Leontiades describes her metamour, Elena, giving an ultimatum to Louisa’s husband, Gilles, who was also Elena’s boyfriend: “It’s her or me.” Elena made it clear that she could no longer remain in a relationship with Gilles as long as he was in a relationship with Louisa. Did Elena’s actions constitute an attempt to veto Louisa (see the next chapter for more on vetoes) or a firm expression of a personal boundary? An outside observer would not be in a position to say, because the difference comes down to expectation and intent. Elena had every right to set boundaries concerning what kind of a relationship she was willing to be involved in—up to and including who she was willing to be metamours with. But in giving Gilles an ultimatum, was she prepared for the possibility that he might say no—thus leaving her in the position of having to make good on her promise to end her relationship with him? Or was she working from an expectation that he would say yes—thus making the ultimatum dangerous for only Louisa, and not for herself? Did she believe she had an agreement with Gilles that he would always defer to her over Louisa? What would her response be if Gilles said no? Would she use shame and guilt to try to get him to do what she wanted? Or would she accept his decision but carry out her promise to leave the relationship? (You’ll have to read the book to find out what happened.)

让我们举个例子。在她的回忆录《我们中的世界》(A World in Us)⁵ 中，作者路易莎·莱昂蒂亚德斯 (Louisa Leontiades) 描述了她的表侣埃琳娜 (Elena) 给路易莎的丈夫吉尔斯 (Gilles)（也是埃琳娜的男朋友）下了最后通牒：“要么她，要么我。”埃琳娜明确表示，只要吉尔斯和路易莎还有关系，她就不能再和吉尔斯保持关系。埃琳娜的行为是构成了否决路易莎的企图（关于否决权的更多信息请参见下一章），还是个人界限的坚定表达？外部观察者无法断言，因为区别归结为期望和意图。埃琳娜完全有权就她愿意参与什么样的关系设定界限——甚至包括她愿意和谁成为表侣。但在给吉尔斯下最后通牒时，她是否准备好了他可能会说“不”的可能性——从而让她处于必须兑现承诺结束与他的关系的境地？或者她是基于他会说“是”的期望行事——从而使最后通牒只对路易莎危险，而对她自己不危险？她是否相信她和吉尔斯有协议，即他总是会优先考虑她而不是路易莎？如果吉尔斯说“不”，她的反应会是什么？她会利用羞耻和内疚试图让他做她想做的事吗？还是她会接受他的决定但履行承诺离开这段关系？（你得读那本书才能知道发生了什么。）

An underlying element of all these questions is this: Did Elena feel entitled to have Gilles choose her? Healthy relationships are ones in which you can express your needs and desires, but it’s when you feel entitled to have your partners do what you want that things go off the rails. Entitlement makes people feel like it’s okay to overrule their partners’ agency (and that of their partners’ partners). If they’re part of a socially sanctioned couple (in our example, Elena wasn’t), this is especially dangerous, because they’ve got lots of mononormative messages feeding that sense of entitlement. And the most damaging parts of hierarchical setups tend to come about when people enshrine entitlement into their relationship agreements.

所有这些问题的潜在因素是：埃琳娜是否觉得她有权让吉尔斯选择她？健康的关系是你可以在其中表达你的需求和愿望的关系，但当你觉得你有权让你的伴侣做你想做的事时，事情就会脱轨。权利感让人们觉得否决伴侣（以及伴侣的伴侣）的代理权是可以的。如果他们是社会认可的伴侣的一部分（在我们的例子中，埃琳娜不是），这就特别危险，因为他们有很多单偶常态的信息滋养那种权利感。等级制设置中最具破坏性的部分往往是在人们将权利感奉为关系协议时产生的。

Back now to our tower and village. Let’s say you’ve managed to get past the tower argument of “hierarchy means unequal distribution of resources” and you start discussing the real issues—specific kinds of rules, or arrangements such as vetoes. At this point, people invested in hierarchies often produce a new tower argument. This time it’s around the question of influence: “I want to be able to ask for what I want, express my concerns about my metamours to my partners, tell my partners how their other relationships are affecting me,” and so on. Once again, this is a relatively easy position to defend, because in healthy relationships, partners can influence each other.

现在回到我们的塔楼与村庄。假设你已经设法越过了“等级制度意味着资源分配不均”的塔楼论点，开始讨论真正的问题——特定类型的规则，或诸如否决权之类的安排。在这一点上，投入等级制度的人经常会提出一个新的塔楼论点。这次是围绕影响的问题：“我希望能够要求我想要的，向我的伴侣表达我对表侣的担忧，告诉我的伴侣他们的其他关系是如何影响我的，”等等。这再一次是一个相对容易辩护的立场，因为在健康的关系中，伴侣可以相互影响。

Once the tower of intimate influence is defended, however, you may see the village once again reoccupied. The village now is things that a person feels entitled to control in their partner’s relationship, or rules and structures that are put in place to ensure that one person’s needs are always favoured in the case of resource conflict.

然而，一旦亲密影响的塔楼得到捍卫，你可能会看到村庄再次被重新占领。现在的村庄是一个人觉得有权控制其伴侣关系中的事情，或者是为了确保一个人的需求在资源冲突的情况下总是受到青睐而设立的规则和结构。

TOWER	VILLAGE
I want to be able to tell my partner how I feel about a potential new partner and have them consider my feelings in their decision.	I expect my partner not to get involved with a person I’m not comfortable with them being with.
I want my partner to be available to me during emergencies or when I am struggling emotionally.	I expect my partner to always be willing to cancel plans with other partners in order to be with me whenever I’m having a hard time, no matter the impact on the other partners.
I have a lifetime commitment with my partner, and I want to feel like they will make choices that honour that commitment.	I don’t want other partners to express desires for commitment from my partner, because I fear it will undermine their commitment to me.

塔楼	村庄
我希望能够告诉我的伴侣我对潜在新伴侣的看法，并让他们在决定中考虑我的感受。	我期望我的伴侣不要与我不放心的人交往。
我希望我的伴侣在紧急情况下或我在情感上挣扎时能陪伴我。	我期望我的伴侣总是愿意取消与其他伴侣的计划，以便在我遇到困难时陪伴我，无论这对其他伴侣有什么影响。
我与伴侣有终身承诺，我希望感觉他们会做出尊重这一承诺的选择。	我不希望其他伴侣表达对我伴侣的承诺渴望，因为我担心这会破坏他们对我的承诺。

A lot of people, when they say “I need hierarchy” (or “I need veto”), are really saying “I’m afraid I won’t be able to influence my partner.” It’s not that they specifically want control; it’s that they want influence, and they either haven’t been taught healthy ways to gain or use it (especially in nonmonogamous situations), or they have only been in lousy relationships in the past where they didn’t have influence—so they don’t know what it really feels like.

很多时候，当人们说“我需要等级制度”（或“我需要否决权”）时，他们实际上是在说“我害怕我无法影响我的伴侣”。并不是他们特别想要控制；而是他们想要影响，他们要么没有被教导获得或使用它的健康方法（特别是在非单偶制情况下），要么他们过去只处于糟糕的关系中，在那里他们没有影响力——所以他们不知道那到底是什么感觉。

Now, it is a fact that for most people, most of the time (but with many exceptions), longer-established, more committed or more entwined partners are likely to have more influence on a hinge than newer, less committed or less entwined partners. And that influence is going to affect what happens in other relationships. Sometimes, it may mean not starting a new relationship, or even ending an existing one—even when no pre-established structures are in place to ensure that certain partners are always favoured, even when there’s no control.

现在，事实是，对于大多数人来说，大多数时候（但有很多例外），建立时间更长、承诺更多或纠缠更多的伴侣可能比更新、承诺更少或纠缠更少的伴侣对枢纽有更大的影响力。这种影响力将影响其他关系中发生的事情。有时，这可能意味着不开始一段新关系，甚至结束一段现有关系——即使没有预先建立的结构来确保某些伴侣总是受到青睐，即使没有控制。

If you refer back to the illustration on page 204, the arrow coming from the left and making the circles on the right is power from within the relationship on the left, and it’s affecting the level of intensity and commitment in the relationship on the right. But what can trip you up in evaluating this situation is that the power arrow can come from influence or it can come from control. And if you are the person on the right, your experience of the hinge’s decision may be very much the same regardless of this distinction.

如果你回看第 204 页的插图，从左边来并在右边画圈的箭头是来自左边关系内部的权力，它正在影响右边关系的强度和承诺水平。但在评估这种情况时可能会让你绊倒的是，权力箭头可能来自影响，也可能来自控制。如果你是右边的那个人，无论这种区别如何，你对枢纽决定的体验可能都非常相似。

As a result, in any situation in which there is an unequal distribution of resources—or influence—the person who has less may be inclined to look at the situation and say, “This is a hierarchy.” But ultimately, what they are saying is really “I feel disempowered.” And that matters—and is, more than the definition of a word, what you really need to pay attention to.

结果，在任何资源——或影响力——分配不均的情况下，拥有较少资源的人可能倾向于看着这种情况说，“这就是等级制度。”但归根结底，他们真正说的是“我感到无力。”这很重要——而且比一个词的定义更重要，是你真正需要关注的。

Is it loving?

这有爱吗？

Is it possible to practise hierarchical nonmonogamy in a caring way? Maybe, but it takes special attention to avoid hurting people. A secondary partner is in a uniquely vulnerable position and may feel they have limited recourse when problems arise. It is particularly vital to consider this factor whenever you make decisions that affect them directly. This doesn’t mean that consideration for the secondary partner should override any and all needs within the primary relationship. Avoid either-or thinking: that if someone’s needs don’t come first, that must mean another’s needs do. Instead, work together to give everyone space to voice their needs. There might be many ways to have certain needs met, and needs do not always have to be in conflict even when they seem to be.

以关怀的方式实行等级制非单偶制可能吗？也许，但这需要特别注意避免伤害他人。次要伴侣处于独特的弱势地位，可能会觉得当问题出现时他们求助无门。每当你做出直接影响他们的决定时，考虑这个因素至关重要。这并不意味着对次要伴侣的考虑应该凌驾于主要关系中的任何及所有需求之上。避免非此即彼的思维：即如果一个人的需求不放在第一位，那一定意味着另一个人的需求放在第一位。相反，共同努力给每个人表达需求的空间。可能有许多方法可以满足某些需求，即使看似冲突，需求也不一定非得冲突。

Primary partners should be especially conscious of how their decisions will impact their secondary partners, and take care to treat the secondary partner’s needs and feelings gently and with compassion. In particular, when things get stormy in a primary relationship, it’s easy for the couple to become so concerned with their own issues that they forget to pay attention to the secondary, who may also be hurt.

主要伴侣应该特别意识到他们的决定将如何影响次要伴侣，并注意温和且富有同情心地对待次要伴侣的需求和感受。特别是，当主要关系变得风雨飘摇时，这对夫妇很容易只顾自己的问题而忘记关注次要伴侣，而次要伴侣也可能受到伤害。

In chapter 2, we introduced the Relationship Bill of Rights. It contains, we believe, standards by which to judge whether a hierarchical relationship is healthy. These rights apply to all relationships, but hierarchical relationships in particular risk infringing upon many of them. The following are examples of specific relationship rights that are at risk in hierarchical relationships and ways in which these rights are commonly overridden:

在第 2 章中，我们介绍了《关系权利法案》。我们相信，它包含了判断等级制关系是否健康的标准。这些权利适用于所有关系，但等级制关系特别容易侵犯其中的许多权利。以下是等级制关系中面临风险的具体关系权利的例子，以及这些权利通常被覆盖的方式：

• to choose the level of involvement and intimacy you want, and to revoke consent to any form of intimacy at any time. Both the hinge or pivot partner (the person in the middle) and the secondary partner in a hierarchical vee structure can have this right violated if the primary partner restricts the intimacy they can choose with each other, or if the primary partner requires that the secondary partner be intimate with them too.

• to revoke consent to any form of intimacy at any time. This right can be violated if the primary couple keeps relevant information from the secondary partner.

• to hold and express differing points of view. It’s common for primary couples to shut down complaints or concerns from the secondary partner if they contradict the primary couple’s rules, or to forbid a secondary partner from attempting to renegotiate the rules.

• to feel and communicate all your emotions and needs. Both the pivot and secondary partners may be subject to rules restricting what they are allowed to feel. Generally speaking, rules against specific emotions are really rules against communicating feelings, since people cannot control what they feel, only what they express. When a secondary partner does express “forbidden” emotions, they are often dismissed as less real or less important than those of the members of the primary couple.

• to set boundaries concerning your privacy needs. Some primary couples do not recognize the right to privacy of the members of a secondary relationship, or of each other with regard to the secondary relationship. There may, for example, be expectations that the hinge will tell their primary partner intimate details that the secondary partner considers private.

• to seek balance between what you give to the relationship and what is given back to you. It is common to see secondary partners expected to give things to the primary couple that are not reciprocated.

• to know that your partner will work with you to resolve issues that arise. Often secondary relationships are subject to rules that were put in place before the secondary partner came on the scene. If a rule is not working for the secondary relationship, will the members of the primary relationship renegotiate?

• to make mistakes. There may be an expectation that a secondary relationship will be ended the first time the secondary partner makes a mistake.

• to decide how many partners you want, and to choose your own partners. Hierarchy often includes a “screening veto,” discussed in the next chapter, that restricts people from selecting their own partners.

• to have an equal say with each of your partners in deciding the form your relationship with that partner will take. In many hierarchies, the primary couple has more say than the secondary partner in deciding this.

• to choose the level of time and investment you will offer to each partner. The pivot partner’s ability to choose the level of investment they want to give to each of their relationships may be limited by pre-existing rules set by the primary couple.

• to understand clearly any rules that will apply to your relationship before entering into it. Many secondary partners feel that they did not fully understand what they were getting into, and many primary couples feel free to unilaterally change the rules of a secondary relationship at any time.

• to discuss with your partners decisions that affect you. Many primary couples make decisions about the secondary relationship, then present them as a fait accompli.

• to have time alone with each of your partners. Some primary couples have rules prohibiting this.

• to enjoy passion and special moments with each of your partners. Hierarchical relationships often have rules restricting the amount of intimacy or “specialness” the secondary relationship can have.

• to choose the level of involvement and intimacy you want with your partners’ other partners. The rules in hierarchical relationships often prescribe how metamour relationships will look, sometimes even requiring the secondary partner to be sexually or romantically involved with both members of a primary couple.

• to seek compromise. Often the primary couple expects to dictate terms.

• to have relationships with people, not with relationships. The primary couple may expect the secondary partner to interact with them as a unit, limiting the individual relationships that may develop.

• to have plans made with your partner be respected; for instance, not changed at the last minute for trivial reasons. Primary couples often assume they are free to change plans whenever they “have to,” the criteria for which may not be fair to the secondary partner. The secondary partner usually has no such reciprocal rights.

• to be treated as a peer of every other person, not as a subordinate, even when differing levels of commitment or responsibility exist. Hierarchical relationships tend to be disempowering to at least the secondary partner, and often to the pivot partner in the core couple as well.

• 选择你想要的参与和亲密程度，并随时撤销对任何形式亲密的同意。 如果主要伴侣限制了他们彼此可以选择的亲密程度，或者如果主要伴侣要求次要伴侣也必须与他们亲密，那么等级制 V 型结构中的枢纽或支点伴侣（中间的人）和次要伴侣的这一权利都会受到侵犯。

• 随时撤销对任何形式亲密的同意。 如果主要伴侣对次要伴侣隐瞒相关信息，这一权利可能会受到侵犯。

• 持有并表达不同的观点。 如果次要伴侣的抱怨或担忧与主要伴侣的规则相冲突，主要伴侣通常会将其压制，或禁止次要伴侣试图重新协商规则。

• 感受并沟通你所有的情绪和需求。 支点伴侣和次要伴侣都可能受到限制他们被允许感受什么的规则的约束。一般来说，针对特定情绪的规则实际上是针对沟通感受的规则，因为人们无法控制自己的感受，只能控制自己的表达。当次要伴侣确实表达了“被禁止”的情绪时，这些情绪往往被认为不如主要伴侣成员的情绪真实或重要而被驳回。

• 设定关于你隐私需求的界限。 一些主要伴侣不承认次要关系成员的隐私权，或者不承认彼此关于次要关系的隐私权。例如，可能存在这样的期望：枢纽会将次要伴侣认为私密的亲密细节告诉他们的主要伴侣。

• 寻求你在关系中的付出与回报之间的平衡。 经常看到次要伴侣被期望给予主要伴侣一些得不到回报的东西。

• 知道你的伴侣将与你一起解决出现的问题。 次要关系通常受到在次要伴侣出现之前就已制定的规则的约束。如果一条规则对次要关系不起作用，主要关系的成员会重新谈判吗？

• 犯错误。 可能存在这样的期望：次要伴侣第一次犯错时，次要关系就会结束。

• 决定你想要多少个伴侣，并选择你自己的伴侣。 等级制度通常包括下一章讨论的“筛选否决权”，这限制了人们选择自己的伴侣。

• 在决定你与每个伴侣的关系形式时，与该伴侣拥有平等的发言权。 在许多等级制度中，主要伴侣在此决定上的发言权大于次要伴侣。

• 选择你将提供给每个伴侣的时间和投入水平。 支点伴侣选择他们想要给予每段关系的投入水平的能力可能会受到主要伴侣设定的先前规则的限制。

• 在进入关系之前清楚地了解将适用于该关系的任何规则。 许多次要伴侣觉得他们没有完全理解他们正在进入什么，许多主要伴侣觉得可以随时单方面改变次要关系的规则。

• 与你的伴侣讨论影响你的决定。 许多主要伴侣就次要关系做出决定，然后将其作为既成事实呈现。

• 与你的每个伴侣有独处的时间。 一些主要伴侣有禁止这样做的规则。

• 与你的每个伴侣享受激情和特殊时刻。 等级制关系通常有规则限制次要关系可以拥有的亲密程度或“特殊性”。

• 选择你想要的与伴侣的其他伴侣的参与和亲密程度。 等级制关系中的规则通常规定了表侣关系的样子，有时甚至要求次要伴侣与主要伴侣的双方都有性或浪漫关系。

• 寻求妥协。 主要伴侣通常期望发号施令。

• 与人建立关系，而不是与关系建立关系。 主要伴侣可能期望次要伴侣作为一个整体与他们互动，限制可能发展的个人关系。

• 与伴侣制定的计划受到尊重；例如，不因琐碎原因在最后一刻更改。 主要伴侣通常认为他们可以随时“必须”改变计划，而其标准对次要伴侣可能不公平。次要伴侣通常没有这种对等权利。

• 被视为其他人的同伴，而不是下属，即使存在不同程度的承诺或责任。 等级制关系往往至少剥夺次要伴侣的权力，通常也剥夺核心伴侣中支点伴侣的权力。

So, are hierarchical relationships inherently disempowering? Or can they be practised fairly and with respect for our ethical axioms, in a way that benefits everyone and does not violate the Relationship Bill of Rights? We are hesitant to give a categorical yes or no. Because of the continued popularity of hierarchical nonmonogamous relationships, we would like to be able to say yes. But the truth is, in our combined personal experience and in all the hundreds of stories people have shared with each of us, we have never seen a truly hierarchical relationship that worked well for everyone over the long term.

那么，等级制关系本质上是否剥夺权力？或者它们能否在公平且尊重我们伦理公理的情况下实行，以一种造福所有人且不违反《关系权利法案》的方式？我们犹豫是否要给出一个绝对的是或否。由于等级制非单偶制关系的持续流行，我们希望能够说是。但事实是，在我们综合的个人经历以及人们与我们每个人分享的数百个故事中，我们从未见过一个真正等级制的关系能在长期内对每个人都运作良好。

It’s common to hear people say that a hierarchical relationship “works for us,” if by “us” they mean the primary couple. But if you look at their relationship histories, you’ll often find a string of past secondary partners who were either vetoed for trying to renegotiate the rules once they became too constricting, or who left the relationships because of poor treatment—or perhaps, who are still involved, but have suffered deep damage to their personal well-being and self-esteem.

经常听到人们说等级制关系“对我们有效”，如果“我们”指的是主要伴侣的话。但如果你看看他们的关系史，你经常会发现一连串过去的次要伴侣，他们要么因为试图重新协商变得过于束缚的规则而被否决，要么因为待遇不佳而离开关系——或者也许，他们仍卷入其中，但个人福祉和自尊受到了严重损害。

Many people who have been a secondary partner in a hierarchy have sworn never to do it again. It’s difficult to say that hierarchy is “working” when we include these people in our assessment. As well, couples often complain that they just can’t seem to find secondary partners who will stick around in the kind of primary/secondary arrangement they’re looking for—which often means people who won’t want a say in the rules that govern them. When couples consistently can’t find partners willing to participate in their flavour of hierarchy, it’s difficult to say that hierarchy is working for them, either.

许多曾在等级制度中做过次要伴侣的人发誓再也不那样做了。如果我们在评估中包括这些人，很难说等级制度是“有效”的。同样，夫妇经常抱怨他们似乎找不到愿意留在他们寻找的那种主要/次要安排中的次要伴侣——这通常意味着那些不希望对管理他们的规则有发言权的人。当夫妇始终找不到愿意参与他们那种等级制度的伴侣时，也很难说等级制度对他们有效。

We have seen relationship networks where people have carefully worked to maximize well-being and respect the relationship rights of everyone involved, while upholding their commitments to their partners. But in our experience, by the time someone has managed to avoid the pitfalls above and remains focused on, say, a long-standing lifetime partnership while treating newer or less-entwined partners with integrity and compassion, the structure that is left tends to no longer resemble a hierarchy. Such relationships instead begin to look like empowered relationships, the subject of chapter 13. But before we talk about those, we need to talk about a particular kind of agreement that’s a keystone of many hierarchical nonmonogamous relationships: the veto. That’s the subject of the next chapter.

我们见过一些关系网络，人们在其中谨慎地工作，以最大化福祉并尊重每个参与者的关系权利，同时坚持对伴侣的承诺。但在我们的经验中，当某人设法避免了上述陷阱，并在专注于（比如）长期的终身伴侣关系的同时，以正直和同情心对待较新或较少纠缠的伴侣时，剩下的结构往往不再像等级制度。这种关系反而开始看起来像赋权关系，这是第 13 章的主题。但在我们谈论这些之前，我们需要谈论一种特殊的协议，它是许多等级制非单偶制关系的基石：否决权。那是下一章的主题。

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF 问自己的问题

You may encounter relationship hierarchy in one of two ways: by instituting it in one or more of your relationships, or by entering a relationship with someone who is already part of a hierarchical structure. The questions to ask yourself will differ depending on which situation you’re in.

你可能会以两种方式之一遇到关系等级制度：在你的一段或多段关系中建立它，或者与已经是等级结构一部分的人建立关系。问自己的问题会有所不同，具体取决于你所处的情况。

If you are considering implementing a relationship hierarchy:

• How do I view potential new partners, both for myself and for my existing partners? Do I see them as potential problems to be managed, as potential sources of joy to enrich my partners’ lives, some of both, or something else entirely? How does my approach to hierarchy reflect that view?
• Are there specific assets, commitments or people (such as children) I am seeking to protect with a hierarchy? Can I imagine other avenues for achieving that protection?
• Am I open to secondary relationships someday becoming primary relationships, given enough time and investment?
• What will I do if a secondary partner becomes dissatisfied with the rules that apply to them? Am I willing or able to involve that partner in renegotiations of those rules?

如果你正在考虑实施关系等级制度：

• 我如何看待潜在的新伴侣，无论是对我自己还是对我现有的伴侣？我是将他们视为需要管理的潜在问题，还是视为丰富我伴侣生活的潜在快乐源泉，两者兼有，还是完全不同的东西？我对等级制度的态度如何反映了这一观点？
• 是否有我试图通过等级制度来保护的特定资产、承诺或人（如孩子）？我能想象实现这种保护的其他途径吗？
• 假以时日和投入，我是否愿意让次要关系有一天变成主要关系？
• 如果次要伴侣对适用于他们的规则感到不满，我会怎么做？我是否愿意或能够让那个伴侣参与这些规则的重新谈判？

If you are considering entering a hierarchy as a secondary partner:

• Do I clearly understand both the letter and the intent of the rules that will apply to my relationship? Am I comfortable maintaining a relationship within those rules? Am I comfortable with the reasons for the rules?
• Do I know whether the rules that apply to my relationship are subject to change? If so, who may change them, and how? What input will I have into those changes?
• Will the term secondary be applied to my relationship, and if so, do I understand how the primary couple is defining the word? Am I comfortable with the definition and with the use of that term?
• Will it be possible for the secondary nature of my relationship to evolve into primary, if my partner and I desire that? If not, how will I feel about my relationship remaining secondary long into the future—say, ten or fifteen years—or if I become deeply attached?

如果你正在考虑作为次要伴侣进入等级制度：

• 我是否清楚地理解适用于我关系的规则的字面意思和意图？我是否愿意在这些规则内维持关系？我是否对规则的理由感到舒服？
• 我是否知道适用于我关系的规则是否会改变？如果是，谁可以改变它们，以及如何改变？我对这些改变有什么发言权？
• 次要这个词会应用到我的关系中吗，如果是，我是否理解主要伴侣是如何定义这个词的？我是否对这个定义和这个术语的使用感到舒服？
• 如果我和我的伴侣希望，我的关系的次要性质是否有可能演变为主要性质？如果不能，如果我的关系在很长一段时间内——比如十年或十五年——或者如果我变得深深依恋，仍然保持次要地位，我会感觉如何？

---

Footnotes

1. People like certainty Sarah Marshall, “Juvenile ‘Justice’ with Josie Duffy Rice,” March 13, 2023, in You’re Wrong About, podcast, https://www.buzzsprout.com/1112270/12433925-juvenile-justice-with-josie-duffy-rice. ↩ ↩²

2. mononormative culture See Zanin, “The Problem with Polynormativity.” ↩ ↩²

3. as the couple’s nanny Goddess of Java, “Ask the Misanthrope: Cover Story,” The Polyamorous Misanthrope (blog), December 8, 2008, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20120207174523/http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2008/12/08/ask-the-misanthrope-cover-story. ↩ ↩²

4. motte-and-bailey doctrine Nicholas Shackel, “The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology,” Metaphilosophy 36, no. 3 (April 2005): 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00370.x ↩ ↩²

5. In her memoir Louisa Leontiades, A World in Us: A Memoir of Open Marriage, Turbulent Love and Hardwon Wisdom (Portland, OR: Thorntree Press, 2017), 176–177. ↩ ↩²