12 否决权安排 Veto Arrangements

:::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。 :::

The trouble with human happiness is that it is constantly beset by fear. It is not the lack of possessing but the safety of possession that is at stake.

HANNAH ARENDT¹

人类幸福的麻烦在于它总是被恐惧所困扰。受到威胁的不是拥有的匮乏，而是拥有的安全。

汉娜·阿伦特 (Hannah Arendt)¹

The word veto is Latin for “I forbid.” It refers to one person’s power to prevent something from happening. When we talk about veto in nonmonogamous relationships, we’re talking about something very specific: an agreed-upon-in-advance right for one person to tell another “I want you to break up with your partner,” and have the breakup happen.

否决 (veto) 一词在拉丁语中意为“我禁止”。它指的是一个人阻止某事发生的权力。当我们谈论非单偶制关系中的否决权时，我们指的是一种非常具体的东西：一种预先商定好的权利，允许一个人告诉另一个人“我要你和你的伴侣分手”，并且分手真的会发生。

Identifying a real veto situation can at times be tricky, because some people use the word veto to describe things that aren’t a veto by this definition. For instance, you might run into people who say, “We have the right to talk to our partners if one of their other relationships becomes a problem, discuss the problems we see and ask for resolutions, which might include changes up to and including ending the relationship.” We prefer to call this sort of arrangement good communication, not veto. If you have something you call veto that looks like this, we are not talking about you.

识别真正的否决情况有时可能很棘手，因为有些人使用否决权一词来描述不符合此定义的事物。例如，你可能会遇到有人说，“如果伴侣的其他关系出现问题，我们有权与他们交谈，讨论我们看到的问题并寻求解决方案，这可能包括做出改变，甚至结束关系。”我们更愿意称这种安排为良好的沟通，而不是否决权。如果你有所谓的否决权但看起来像这样，我们说的不是你。

A veto, for the purpose of this discussion, is a one-sided decision to halt a relationship between two other people. It is not a negotiation or a request. The key elements of a veto are that it is unilateral (that is, only one person needs to think there’s a problem) and it is binding (that is, the person exercising a veto has reason to believe the other will obey it). A veto moves the locus of control away from the people in a particular relationship and gives it to a third party.

为了便于讨论，否决权是指单方面决定终止另外两个人之间的关系。这不是协商或请求。否决权的关键要素是它是单方面的（即只需要一个人认为有问题）并且它是有约束力的（即行使否决权的人有理由相信另一个人会服从）。否决权将控制点从特定关系中的人身上移开，交给了第三方。

Veto arrangements are one of the most common, and most zealously guarded, of all the rules in hierarchical relationships. In our experience, most hierarchies include a veto arrangement, even when they include few of the other rules we’ve talked about. Vetoes promise the ultimate fallback: If a partner’s relationship becomes too difficult, or their other lover is too unlikeable, or jealousy becomes too unbearable, veto can make the problem just go away.

否决权安排是等级制关系中所有规则中最常见、也是被最热切维护的规则之一。根据我们的经验，大多数等级制度都包括否决权安排，即使它们很少包含我们讨论过的其他规则。否决权承诺了最终的退路：如果伴侣的关系变得太困难，或者他们的另一个爱人太不讨人喜欢，或者嫉妒变得太难以忍受，否决权可以让问题直接消失。

Stories about relationships ending by veto may vary in detail, but they all share a common thread: The person who is vetoed feels that the veto was unfair. (Often, the hinge who was in the position of enforcing the veto thought it was unfair, too.)

关于通过否决权结束关系的故事可能细节各异，但它们都有一个共同点：被否决的人觉得否决是不公平的。（通常，处于执行否决权位置的枢纽也认为这不公平。）

The subject of veto is likely to generate controversy in any discussion about nonmonogamy. Some people feel passionate about the value of veto. The word itself is powerful: It conjures up feelings of empowerment and control. Even people who don’t have a veto according to our definition will often insist on using the word veto to describe what they do because the word itself creates such a compelling feeling of safety.

在任何关于非单偶制的讨论中，否决权的话题都很可能引发争议。有些人对否决权的价值充满热情。这个词本身就很强大：它让人产生赋权和控制的感觉。即使是那些没有符合我们定义的否决权的人，也经常坚持使用否决权这个词来描述他们所做的事情，因为这个词本身就创造了一种令人信服的安全感。

Veto of an existing relationship

否决现有关系

For people who are subject to the possibility of a veto but do not hold that option themselves—for example, the new partner of a person whose pre-existing partner has a veto—the word veto is just as powerful, but often it is powerfully negative. It creates an environment where no matter what you do or what kind of investment you make, your relationship can be ripped away at a moment’s notice, without discussion or appeal. It summons an image of the sword of Damocles, always hanging over the relationship, ready to fall at any misstep. This risk creates an environment where it’s nearly impossible to feel safe in that relationship. Vetoes are like nuclear weapons: They may keep others in line, but their use tends to forever alter the landscape.

对于那些受制于否决权可能性但自己并不持有该选项的人来说——例如，一个人的新伴侣，而这个人的原有伴侣拥有否决权——否决权这个词同样强大，但往往是强烈的负面。它创造了一种环境，无论你做什么或进行什么样的投入，你的关系都可能在瞬间被剥夺，没有讨论或上诉的余地。它让人想起达摩克利斯之剑的形象，总是悬在关系之上，任何失误都会落下。这种风险创造了一种几乎不可能在那段关系中感到安全的环境。否决权就像核武器：它们可能会让别人守规矩，但它们的使用往往会永远改变局面。

Many hierarchical relationships have a veto provision that can be exercised at any time, even after another relationship is well established. This kind of veto is popular because it seems to provide a safety switch for the members of an original couple to shut down another relationship that becomes too intense or threatening. But that sense of safety can carry a very high price. In practice, many couples who execute a veto break up shortly thereafter; the use of the veto is an emotionally violent power move that destabilizes everyone involved. Any time you choose to break our partner’s heart, the damage to your own relationship may be permanent.

许多等级制关系都有可以随时行使的否决权条款，即使在另一段关系已经确立之后也是如此。这种否决权之所以流行，是因为它似乎为原配偶成员提供了一个安全开关，可以关闭另一段变得过于激烈或具有威胁性的关系。但这种安全感可能会付出非常高昂的代价。在实践中，许多行使否决权的夫妇在此后不久就分手了；使用否决权是一种情感暴力的权力举动，会使所有相关人员动摇。任何时候你选择伤透你伴侣的心，对你们自己关系的损害可能是永久性的。

Now, when a partner of yours vetoes another partner, you actually do have a choice. You can either end the relationship that’s being vetoed, or you can say “No, I refuse to accept this veto.” But neither option is likely to lead anywhere constructive. If you say “No, I refuse to accept this,” the partner who used the veto now has a choice to make: stay in the relationship and sulk? Leave? Whatever choices each person makes, bitterness is pretty much guaranteed. Even if your partner uses their veto and you enact it, responsibility for the breakup is still yours. If your relationship has been vetoed, it’s easy to say “I am ending this relationship because my partner made me do it.” In reality, the ethical responsibility belongs only to the person doing the breaking up.

现在，当你的伴侣否决另一位伴侣时，你实际上是有选择的。你可以结束被否决的关系，或者你可以说“不，我拒绝接受这个否决。”但这两种选择都不太可能带来建设性的结果。如果你说“不，我拒绝接受这个”，使用了否决权的伴侣现在必须做出选择：留在关系中生闷气？离开？无论每个人做出什么选择，痛苦几乎是肯定的。即使你的伴侣使用了否决权而你执行了它，分手的责任仍然是你的。如果你的关系被否决了，很容易说“我结束这段关系是因为我的伴侣让我这么做。”实际上，伦理责任只属于提出分手的人。

Screening veto

筛选否决权

Not all vetoes are intended as tools to shut down a relationship once it’s already underway. Some people use what might be called a screening veto. This means a potential new relationship may be vetoed before it becomes established, but not after. A screening veto is safer than a veto exercised on a relationship that’s actively happening, in that it is less likely to create a sense of violation. However, even this variety of veto can have damaging consequences.

并非所有的否决权都是为了在关系已经开始后将其关闭。有些人使用所谓的筛选否决权 (screening veto)。这意味着可以在潜在的新关系确立之前否决它，但在确立之后则不行。筛选否决权比对正在进行的关系行使否决权更安全，因为它不太可能产生侵犯感。然而，即使是这种否决权也会产生破坏性后果。

Vetoes often come from a place of fear and threat. It can be intimidating to see a partner excited about a new relationship with someone else, especially when you feel insecure. All the demons start whispering in your ear: “What if I’m not good enough? What if this person is more exciting than I am?”

否决权通常源于恐惧和威胁。看到伴侣对与别人的新关系感到兴奋可能会让人感到害怕，特别是当你感到不安全的时候。所有的心魔开始在你耳边低语：“如果我不够好怎么办？如果这个人比我更有趣怎么办？”

A screening veto has problems because, like all vetoes, it tends to end conversations rather than start them. It can be hard to say, “Wow, seeing you excited about a new person makes me feel insecure. Let’s talk about what that means, and how we can work together to strengthen and support our relationship until what we have brings you this much joy.” It’s much easier to say, “I don’t want you to see that person again.”

筛选否决权有问题，因为像所有否决权一样，它倾向于结束对话而不是开始对话。很难说出，“哇，看到你对新人感到兴奋让我感到不安全。让我们谈谈这意味着什么，以及我们如何共同努力加强和支持我们的关系，直到我们拥有的东西能给你带来同样的快乐。”说“我不想让你再见那个人”要容易得多。

While it’s not as damaging to veto a person before a relationship begins, depriving a partner of a source of joy is still a dangerous thing to do. When you see a partner clearly excited about someone, and you try to take that person away from them, you risk undermining your partner’s happiness, and that is likely to damage your relationship.

虽然在关系开始前否决一个人没有那么大的破坏性，但剥夺伴侣的快乐源泉仍然是一件危险的事情。当你看到伴侣显然对某人感到兴奋，而你试图把那个人从他们身边带走时，你就有可能破坏伴侣的幸福，这很可能会损害你们的关系。

It might be tempting to look at the examples above and call them abuses of veto, rather than situations where veto is useful and appropriate. We disagree. The problem is that nobody with veto power ever believes they’re using it capriciously. People tend to be the heroes of their own stories. The problem with veto is not that some use it inappropriately; the problem is that it tends to cause damage no matter how it is used. And sometimes veto becomes a way to defend your own dysfunctions and entrench them.

看着上面的例子，人们可能会倾向于称之为滥用否决权，而不是否决权有用和适当的情况。我们不同意。问题在于，拥有否决权的人从不认为自己在任性地使用它。人们往往是自己故事中的英雄。否决权的问题不在于有些人使用不当；问题在于无论如何使用，它都倾向于造成损害。有时否决权会成为一种捍卫自身功能障碍并使其根深蒂固的方式。

In nonmonogamous circles, you may hear the idea that you should only add relationships that enhance your existing ones. Or that you should screen new partners to make sure their communication and relationship styles mesh with your existing relationships. That does seem like a good way to avoid conflict and promote stability. But just as often, it can lead to enabling behaviours. You can easily end up constructing an echo chamber where dysfunctional relationship patterns go unchallenged.

在非单偶制圈子里，你可能会听到这样的观点：你应该只增加能增强你现有关系的关系。或者你应该筛选新伴侣，以确保他们的沟通和关系风格与你现有的关系相吻合。这似乎是避免冲突和促进稳定的好方法。但同样经常的是，这会导致助长行为。你很容易最终构建一个回声室，在那里功能失调的关系模式不受挑战。

But what if you have reason to be concerned that the new person is disruptive, manipulative, a bad influence, emotionally unstable or dangerous to your partner? Isn’t that a good reason to use a veto? After all, your beloved is all caught up in twitterpation, aglow with hormones and unable to think clearly. It’s true, many people gloss over flaws in the flush of a new crush. Isn’t it your job to see the things your partner might be missing? To notice warning signs and tell them?

但是，如果你有理由担心新人具有破坏性、操纵性、不良影响、情绪不稳定或对你的伴侣有危险怎么办？这难道不是使用否决权的好理由吗？毕竟，你的爱人正沉浸在悸动中，满面红光，无法清晰思考。确实，许多人在新恋情的冲动中会掩盖缺陷。看到你伴侣可能错过的东西难道不是你的工作吗？注意警告信号并告诉他们？

Well, yes, but you can do that without a veto. In a strong and healthy relationship, one partner’s opinions and feelings matter a great deal to the other. If you’re really concerned that your partner has hooked up with an axe murderer, saying “Honey, I’m really concerned that your new partner is an axe murderer” should be enough to give them pause. And if it’s not … wouldn’t you want to know that? Using a veto to control your partner’s course of action essentially means you’ll never know what judgment call they would have made all on their own. So you don’t get to watch them prove that they value your relationship, share your values and respect your feelings, because you cut off the situation in which that kind of demonstration would happen. You also don’t get to watch them make a mistake and fix it, which is another kind of trust-building opportunity. And on the truly negative end of the spectrum, you also don’t get to watch them show if in fact they don’t value your relationship, share your values or respect your feelings—which means you may end up staying longer in a relationship that in fact really should have ended for your own well-being.

嗯，是的，但这不需要否决权也能做到。在一段牢固健康的关系中，一方的意见和感受对另一方来说非常重要。如果你真的担心你的伴侣和一个斧头杀人犯勾搭上了，说“亲爱的，我真的很担心你的新伴侣是个斧头杀人犯”应该足以让他们停下来思考。如果这还不够……难道你不想知道吗？使用否决权来控制伴侣的行动路线本质上意味着你永远不知道他们自己会做出什么样的判断。所以你无法看到他们证明他们重视你们的关系、分享你的价值观并尊重你的感受，因为你切断了那种证明会发生的情况。你也无法看着他们犯错并修正它，这是另一种建立信任的机会。在真正消极的一端，你也无法看到他们表现出如果他们实际上不重视你们的关系、不分享你的价值观或不尊重你的感受——这意味着你可能会在一应当为了你自己的幸福而结束的关系中停留更长时间。

There’s also no reason to imagine that the veto-wielding partner is any more objective than the twitterpated partner. After all, it’s scary to watch your partner get distracted by the new shiny relationship. And when you’re scared, you don’t make wise decisions. Which isn’t to say that the veto-wielding partner is always wrong and the infatuated partner is always right. There’s just no particular reason to assume one is necessarily more “right” than the other. The only way through the swamp is to communicate openly about whatever concerns or misgivings you have, and then to let the person in the relationship be the one to make the decision. Because even if their choice of partner is a mistake, it is that person’s mistake to make.

也没有理由认为拥有否决权的伴侣比心动不已的伴侣更客观。毕竟，看着你的伴侣被新的光鲜关系分心是很可怕的。当你害怕时，你不会做出明智的决定。这并不是说拥有否决权的伴侣总是错的，而迷恋的伴侣总是对的。只是没有特别的理由假设一方必然比另一方更“正确”。穿过沼泽的唯一方法是公开交流你的任何担忧或疑虑，然后让关系中的人来做决定。因为即使他们选择伴侣是一个错误，这也是那个人该犯的错误。

Screening veto agreements deprive people of their ability to make their own mistakes, and to learn and grow from them.

筛选否决权协议剥夺了人们犯错的能力，以及从中学习和成长的能力。

Ethical problems with veto

否决权的伦理问题

There’s nothing wrong with trying to manage risk—you do it every time you put on a seatbelt. Managing risk through veto, though, raises serious ethical concerns. It violates both of our core ethical axioms: The people in the relationship are more important than the relationship, and other people are real.

试图管理风险并没有错——你每次系安全带都在这样做。然而，通过否决权管理风险会引起严重的伦理问题。它违反了我们的两个核心伦理公理：关系中的人比关系更重要，以及他人是真实的。

How does a veto treat people as though they weren’t real? A veto makes a person expendable. It does not give that person input into whether or not their own relationship is ended. While it’s true that even in monogamous relationships the person being broken up with often doesn’t get a say in the matter, the nonmonogamy veto situation is unique. Here, a third party who is not actually in the relationship is ending something that both of the people in it still want.

否决权如何把人不当成真实的？否决权使一个人变得可有可无。它不给那个人关于他们自己的关系是否结束的发言权。虽然确实，即使在单偶制关系中，被分手的人往往也没有发言权，但非单偶制的否决权情况是独特的。在这里，一个实际上不在关系中的第三方正在结束其中的两个人都仍然想要的东西。

A veto arrangement also makes a relationship more important than the people in it, because it requires that a relationship be ended without consideration for whether it is healthy or beneficial to the people in it. Nor does it consider the harm that may be done to them by the veto.

否决权安排也使关系比其中的人更重要，因为它要求结束一段关系，而不考虑它是否对其中的人健康或有益。它也不考虑否决权可能对他们造成的伤害。

It’s true that when you have several relationships, some may cause pain in others. Despite raising the issues, despite ongoing negotiation, the hinge may choose to remain in a relationship that one of their partners thinks is harmful. If you are the partner who might want to issue a veto, consider stating boundaries for yourself instead. You could say, “This situation is degrading my happiness to the point where I can no longer imagine being happy if it continues. If you keep going down this course, I won’t be able to remain in this relationship.” Indeed, this is an important part of consent: You always have the right to withdraw consent, for any reason. You never have to remain in a situation that hurts you.

确实，当你有几段关系时，有些可能会给其他关系带来痛苦。尽管提出了问题，尽管进行了持续的谈判，枢纽可能会选择留在一个其伴侣认为有害的关系中。如果你是那个可能想行使否决权的伴侣，考虑改为为自己设定界限。你可以说，“这种情况正在降低我的幸福感，以至于如果继续下去，我无法想象还能快乐。如果你继续沿着这条路走下去，我将无法留在这段关系中。”事实上，这是知情同意的重要组成部分：你总是有权以任何理由撤回同意。你永远不必留在伤害你的情况中。

That being said, let’s acknowledge how painful setting or enforcing such a boundary can be. Yes, you have every right to leave—but let’s not pretend it’s an easy thing to do, especially if you’ve built an entwined life with your partner or are still very much in love with them. There is a balance to be struck here: Our rights exist, but it can still suck to exercise them. On paper, it can look simple. In real life, when a relationship begins to fall apart in this way, it can be heartbreaking and come with a ton of practical challenges. Should you stay, even though the situation is hurting you, or should you leave, knowing that leaving will bring its own pain? We come back to discernment here. Ending a meaningful relationship is not a light choice to make, and rarely an easy one. Given this, using a veto can be really tempting, or maybe even seem like the lesser of two evils. But it remains a costly shortcut that rarely works out the way it’s intended to. It’s worth doing the deeper work of carefully considering what the right course of action is and taking each step with compassion for all involved.

话虽如此，我们要承认设定或执行这样的界限会有多么痛苦。是的，你完全有权离开——但我们不要假装这是一件容易的事，特别是如果你已经与伴侣建立了交织的生活，或者仍然非常爱他们。这里需要取得平衡：我们的权利存在，但行使它们可能仍然很糟糕。在纸面上，这看起来很简单。在现实生活中，当一段关系开始以这种方式破裂时，它可能是令人心碎的，并伴随着大量的实际挑战。你是应该留下来，即使这种情况正在伤害你，还是应该离开，知道离开会带来它自己的痛苦？我们这里又回到了辨别力。结束一段有意义的关系不是一个轻率的选择，也很少是一个容易的选择。鉴于此，使用否决权可能真的很诱人，甚至可能看起来是两害相权取其轻。但它仍然是一条昂贵的捷径，很少能按预期的方式解决问题。值得做更深层的工作，仔细考虑什么是正确的行动方案，并带着对所有相关人员的同情采取每一步。

Issues of power and risk also come up when you start thinking from the perspective of your values and ethical systems. If you have veto power and you say “I cannot stay with you if you remain in this relationship,” you know ahead of time that you will “win” this particular play. Your partner has promised you in advance—probably when their other partner was still hypothetical and not yet a real person—that if this scenario ever arose, they would “choose” you.

当你从你的价值观和伦理体系的角度思考时，权力与风险的问题也会出现。如果你拥有否决权，并且你说“如果你继续这段关系，我就不能和你在一起”，你提前知道你会“赢得”这场博弈。你的伴侣已经提前向你承诺——可能是在他们的另一个伴侣还是假设性的、还不是真人的时候——如果这种情况出现，他们会“选择”你。

Because you’re pretty sure what the outcome will be, the risk for you in enacting a veto is lowered. You can deliver an ultimatum and still (in theory) not lose the relationship. You do not have to shoulder the risk and vulnerability of saying you are prepared to leave and really mean it. In other words, the consequences of your actions—and thus, the bar you need to reach before you issue an ultimatum—are lowered for you, giving you more power and less incentive to act in good faith.

因为你很确定结果会是什么，所以你行使否决权的风险降低了。你可以下最后通牒而（理论上）仍然不会失去这段关系。你不必承担说你准备离开并且是认真的那种风险和脆弱性。换句话说，你行动的后果——因此，你在下最后通牒之前需要达到的门槛——对你来说降低了，这给了你更多的权力，却减少了真诚行事的动力。

At the same time, all of that risk is unloaded onto your metamour. This shifting of risk—telling another person to bear both the normal risk that comes with any relationship plus extra risk shifted from your relationship—is one of the things that makes vetoes unethical according to our axioms.

同时，所有这些风险都卸载到了你的表侣身上。这种风险转移——告诉另一个人要承担任何关系带来的正常风险加上从你的关系转移来的额外风险——是根据我们的公理使否决权不道德的事情之一。

If, on the other hand, you do not have veto power, the outcome is not predetermined. There is a chance that your partner will not break up with their other partner. So you have to accept the vulnerability of telling your partner, “I can’t take this anymore. I will have to leave if you continue that relationship.” You have to be sure. It seems to us that if you’re ready to take a step as serious as ending another person’s intimate relationship, it’s fair to ask that you put as much on the line as they have.

另一方面，如果你没有否决权，结果就不是预定的。你的伴侣有可能不会与他们的另一个伴侣分手。所以你必须接受这种脆弱性，告诉你的伴侣，“我再也受不了了。如果你继续那段关系，我将不得不离开。”你必须确定。在我们看来，如果你准备采取像结束另一个人的亲密关系这样严重的步骤，要求你像他们一样孤注一掷是公平的。

And then, without a veto, your partner has the opportunity to do what they believe will be best for them in the long run—rather than having to make a choice they may not want to make because it was agreed to long before another real human being was involved. The people in the relationship remain more important than the relationship. Including that third person, and including the hinge. When the outcome is predetermined through a veto arrangement, the third person has no room to negotiate or to defend themselves or their relationship. If the situation is so untenable that the hinge really does need to choose one or the other, maybe the newer partner even has a case for why they are a better partner for your partner than you are—and they should have the right to make that case, just as you do.

而且，没有否决权，你的伴侣就有机会做他们认为长远来看对他们最好的事情——而不必因为这是在另一个真实的人卷入之前很久就达成的协议而做出他们可能不想做的选择。关系中的人仍然比关系更重要。包括那个第三人，也包括枢纽。当结果通过否决权安排预先确定时，第三人就没有谈判或为自己或他们的关系辩护的空间。如果情况如此难以为继，以至于枢纽真的需要选择其中一个，也许新伴侣甚至有理由说明为什么他们比你更适合做你伴侣的伴侣——他们应该有权提出这个理由，就像你一样。

Even if you have a strictly hierarchical, primary/secondary relationship, the ethical considerations of veto deserve some attention. Any relationship can end, for any number of reasons. Not all relationships last; that’s a fact of life. But even when the primary partner in a hierarchical relationship decides they need their partner’s secondary relationship to end, the ethical thing to do, according to our axioms, is to involve the secondary partner in the discussion and allow them to respond to concerns.

即使你有一段严格等级制的、主要/次要关系，否决权的伦理考量也值得关注。任何关系都可能因为任何原因而结束。并非所有关系都能持久；这是生活的事实。但即使等级制关系中的主要伴侣决定他们需要伴侣的次要关系结束，根据我们的公理，合乎道德的做法是让次要伴侣参与讨论，并允许他们回应担忧。

Practical problems with veto

否决权的实际问题

Aside from ethical concerns, and aside from the pain and bitterness a veto may cause, veto arrangements present other practical problems you may not have thought of. For example, a veto arrangement that’s justified by a bad past experience holds a bad actor’s actions against a new person who wasn’t involved. Say your partner became involved with Sam last year, and Sam rained chaos all over. If that makes you ask for veto, then when Alex comes along, you’re making Alex pay for the sins of Sam. You are perpetuating Sam’s chaos.

除了伦理问题，除了否决权可能造成的痛苦和怨恨之外，否决权安排还带来了你可能没想到的其他实际问题。例如，以过去糟糕经历为理由的否决权安排，会将坏人的行为归咎于一个没有参与其中的新人。假设你的伴侣去年和山姆 (Sam) 交往，山姆制造了混乱。如果这让你要求否决权，那么当亚历克斯 (Alex) 出现时，你是在让亚历克斯为山姆的罪过买单。你是在延续山姆的混乱。

Another problem is escalation. You can’t, short of use of force, actually make a partner break up with someone else. When you use a veto, even a mutually agreed-upon veto, you are giving your partner a choice: Break up with your other partner, or else. The “or else” part is often left unspecified; few veto negotiations include provisions for what might happen if the veto is ignored. But a veto can, in fact, be ignored. Then what?

另一个问题是升级。除非使用武力，否则你无法真正强迫伴侣与别人分手。当你使用否决权时，即使是双方同意的否决权，你也是在给你的伴侣一个选择：与你的另一个伴侣分手，否则。这个“否则”部分通常没有具体说明；很少有否决权谈判包括如果否决权被忽视会发生什么的条款。但实际上，否决权是可以被忽视的。然后呢？

Veto creates a trust imbalance. The new person is often told, “Trust us. We won’t use this veto inappropriately.” But what does this say to the new person? “I want you to trust that I won’t veto you inappropriately, but we have a veto arrangement because we don’t trust you.” Is it reasonable to ask someone you don’t trust to trust you?

否决权造成了信任失衡。新人经常被告知，“相信我们。我们不会不适当地使用这个否决权。”但这给新人传达了什么信息？“我要你相信我不会不适当地否决你，但我们有否决权安排是因为我们不信任你。”要求一个你不信任的人信任你合理吗？

On an even more pragmatic note, people who have great skill sets for nonmonogamous relationships—people who have experience with nonmonogamy, have demonstrated good communication skills, and are compassionate problem-solvers with good conflict-resolution skills—usually avoid anyone who has veto. So by having a veto in place, you stack the deck toward relationship problems, because so many experienced nonmonogamous people with good skills will avoid you. Many people even use “Do you have a veto agreement?” as a screening question with potential partners. If the answer is yes, it can be a deal-breaker. People who value the ability to have a say in their own relationships are unlikely to agree to give someone else ultimate authority over whether their relationship lives or dies.

在一个更加务实的层面上，拥有非单偶制关系出色技能的人——那些有非单偶制经验、表现出良好沟通技巧、并且是拥有良好冲突解决技巧的富有同情心的问题解决者——通常会避开任何拥有否决权的人。因此，通过设立否决权，你是在给自己制造关系问题，因为这么多有经验、有良好技能的非单偶制者会避开你。许多人甚至将“你们有否决权协议吗？”作为筛选潜在伴侣的问题。如果答案是肯定的，这可能就是一个破坏交易的因素。看重在自己关系中有发言权能力的人不太可能同意让别人对自己关系的生死拥有最终决定权。

Alternatives to veto

否决权的替代方案

People can become confused when talking about relationships without veto because they may have a mistaken notion that “no veto” means “no input.” Some new partners can indeed be damaging or even dangerous, and it’s important to be able to speak up when you see problems. Think about “right of consultation” as an alternative to “right of veto.” You want conversation to open up, whereas a veto ends conversation. You need to be able to say “I got a bad feeling from the way they treated you there at the bus stop,” or “I went online and found they have a restraining order against them”—and have that be perceived not as a threat, but as useful information. Your partner needs to know you will go on to say “So please be extra careful, and I’d like it if you could message me a few times to let me know you’re okay.”

当谈论没有否决权的关系时，人们可能会感到困惑，因为他们可能有一个错误的概念，即“没有否决权”意味着“没有投入/意见”。一些新伴侣确实可能具有破坏性甚至危险性，当你看到问题时能够说出来很重要。把“咨询权”作为“否决权”的替代方案。你希望对话开启，而否决权结束对话。你需要能够说“我对他们在公交车站对待你的方式感觉不好”，或者“我上网查了一下，发现他们有针对他们的限制令”——并让这不被视为威胁，而是有用的信息。你的伴侣需要知道你会接着说“所以请格外小心，如果你能给我发几次信息让我知道你没事，我会很高兴。”

The most common justification you’ll hear for veto power is that it’s necessary to prevent a new partner from trying to break up the existing relationship. There certainly are people who will try to do this (see pages 311–312 on cowpokes). Unfortunately, veto treats all new partners as bad actors simply because some might be. And your partner isn’t a delicate Grecian urn, an object to be stolen away by an enterprising burglar. Your partner is a person, and people can’t be stolen, at least not for relationship purposes. If some new shiny person tries to “steal” them, your partner has to consent to being stolen. Veto or no veto, if they want to stay with you, they will.

你会听到的关于否决权最常见的理由是，必须防止新伴侣试图破坏现有关系。确实有人会试图这样做（见第 311-312 页关于“牧人”[cowpokes]的内容）。不幸的是，否决权将所有新伴侣都视为坏人，仅仅因为有些人可能是。你的伴侣不是精致的希腊骨灰瓮，不是一个可以被大胆的窃贼偷走的物体。你的伴侣是一个人，人是不能被偷走的，至少出于关系目的是这样。如果某个光鲜的新人试图“偷走”他们，你的伴侣必须同意被偷。无论有没有否决权，如果他们想和你在一起，他们就会和你在一起。

So the real question is not, how can you protect your relationship from people who want to steal your partner? The real question is, do you trust your partner to want to be with you, even if some cute new person asks them to leave you? If someone says “run away with me,” what do you think your partner will say?

所以真正的问题不是，你如何保护你的关系免受想要偷走你伴侣的人的伤害？真正的问题是，你是否信任你的伴侣想要和你在一起，即使某个可爱的新人要求他们离开你？如果有人说“跟我走吧”，你认为你的伴侣会说什么？

Trust isn’t something most people are taught when growing up. The fairy tale tells you to find true love and you’ll be happy ever after. It doesn’t mention trusting your partners even when you’re afraid. It doesn’t tell you how to assert good boundaries when faced with potentially disrupting relationships. Committing yourself to trusting that your partner wants to be with you, and will choose to be with you even if someone else tries to tug them away, takes courage. Asserting good boundaries around your partner’s other partners takes work. But in the end, your partner is going to make the choices they make no matter what rules you put in place, so what other options do you really have?

信任并不是大多数人在成长过程中被教导的东西。童话故事告诉你找到真爱，你就会从此幸福快乐。它没有提到即使在你害怕的时候也要信任你的伴侣。它没有告诉你当面对潜在的破坏性关系时如何主张良好的界限。致力于相信你的伴侣想和你在一起，并且即使有人试图把他们拉走也会选择和你在一起，这需要勇气。围绕你伴侣的其他伴侣主张良好的界限需要付出努力。但最终，无论你制定什么规则，你的伴侣都会做出他们的选择，所以你真的还有什么其他选择吗？

Solid boundary-setting is another important tool in managing veto-free relationships (see chapter 9). Your partner may choose a partner you don’t particularly like to be around. They may choose a partner who encourages them to make choices that hurt you. At these times, you need to be able to set clear guidelines about what you will and won’t accept within your own relationship. You do not need to spend time with someone you don’t like. If you feel uncomfortable or unsafe with a certain person in your home or your bed (or around your children or pets), you have a right to (and should) set limits about who you will permit in your space.

在管理无否决权关系中，稳固的界限设定是另一个重要工具（见第 9 章）。你的伴侣可能会选择一个你不特别喜欢与之相处的伴侣。他们可能会选择一个鼓励他们做出伤害你的选择的伴侣。在这些时候，你需要能够就你在自己的关系中接受什么和不接受什么设定明确的指导方针。你不需要和你不在乎的人共度时光。如果你对某个人在你家或你床上（或者在你孩子或宠物周围）感到不舒服或不安全，你有权（并且应该）设定关于你允许谁进入你空间的限制。

Of course, your partner also has the right to choose a different living arrangement if your boundaries become unworkable for them.

当然，如果你的界限对你的伴侣来说变得不可行，他们也有权选择不同的居住安排。

If you expect certain standards of behaviour—to be told the truth, for example, or to have plans reliably kept—that the other relationship is interfering with, you can express these expectations to your partner without managing the other relationship. And of course, if you are in a relationship without veto, it is especially important to respect the boundaries your partner sets around their body, their mind, their choices and their space with regard to your other partners, even when they inconvenience you.

如果你期望某种行为标准——例如被告知真相，或者计划被可靠地遵守——而另一段关系正在干扰这些，你可以向你的伴侣表达这些期望，而无需管理另一段关系。当然，如果你处于一段没有否决权的关系中，特别重要的是要尊重你的伴侣围绕他们的身体、他们的思想、他们的选择和他们的空间就你的其他伴侣设定的界限，即使这些界限给你带来了不便。

Chapter 4 talked about the idea of self-efficacy: your belief in your own ability to make yourself heard and to positively affect your own situation. Veto can seem like a form of self-efficacy, but true self-efficacy lies in believing that if your partner’s new relationship starts to go horribly wrong, you can talk about it and make yourself heard. Veto is an indicator of low self-efficacy; it is a way of saying “I don’t believe I can get my partner to listen to my concerns unless I have a kill switch.”

第 4 章谈到了自我效能感的概念：你相信自己有能力让别人听到你的声音并积极影响你自己的处境。否决权看起来像是一种自我效能感的形式，但真正的自我效能感在于相信如果你伴侣的新关系开始变得非常糟糕，你可以谈论它并让别人听到你的声音。否决权是低自我效能感的指标；这是一种说“我不相信我能让我的伴侣听取我的担忧，除非我有一个终止开关”的方式。

We talk more about setting boundaries with your partners’ other partners in chapter 19, and about negotiating directly with your own partners in chapters 6 and 7.

我们在第 19 章会更多地谈论与你伴侣的其他伴侣设定界限，在第 6 章和第 7 章会谈论直接与你自己的伴侣谈判。

Line-item veto and emotional blackmail

逐项否决和情感勒索

Many people who don’t have a formally negotiated veto arrangement come up with ways to veto their partners’ relationships anyway. One of these is the line-item veto. That’s when, on a case-by-case basis, you frequently restrict what your partner can do with their other partners and when. Eventually enough dates get cancelled or interrupted, enough activities curtailed, that the relationship withers and dies. You don’t have to demand that your partner end a relationship in order to make it end; you just have to starve it of the resources it needs to thrive.

许多没有正式协商否决权安排的人无论如何都会想出办法来否决伴侣的关系。其中之一是逐项否决 (line-item veto)。这就是当你根据具体情况，频繁地限制你的伴侣可以与他们的其他伴侣做什么以及何时做。最终，足够多的约会被取消或打断，足够多的活动被削减，以至于关系枯萎并死亡。你不必为了让一段关系结束而要求你的伴侣结束它；你只需要切断它茁壮成长所需的资源。

Another form of veto-by-another-name is emotional blackmail. In this context, it’s a weapon you can use when you don’t want your partner to do something—like go on a date, continue a relationship or engage in a certain activity—but you have not been able to negotiate up front what you want. Your partner, after considering your input, has decided to make another choice: go on the date, continue the relationship, do that thing. But instead of accepting your partner’s choice, you make sure that it carries a price. You have an emotional meltdown an hour before that date, and your partner has to stay home with you. You send them anxious text messages every five minutes whenever they’re with the partner you don’t like. You keep making nonspecific threats of disaster—emotional or physical—when your partner does what you don’t want.

另一种换了名字的否决权是情感勒索。在这种情况下，当你不想让你的伴侣做某事时——比如去约会、继续一段关系或从事某项活动——但你无法提前协商你想要的，它就是你可以使用的武器。你的伴侣在考虑了你的意见后，决定做出另一个选择：去约会、继续关系、做那件事。但你没有接受伴侣的选择，而是确保它付出代价。你在那次约会前一小时情绪崩溃，你的伴侣不得不留在家里陪你。每当他们和你不想的伴侣在一起时，你每五分钟给他们发一次焦虑的短信。当你的伴侣做你不希望的事情时，你不断发出非具体的灾难威胁——情感上的或身体上的。

As damaging as this behaviour is, many people often unintentionally reinforce it when it happens. They want to be there for their partners, they don’t want to hurt them, and most people don’t really like conflict. If your partner’s objection to that thing you wanted to do is so important to them, you don’t really need to do it, right? That one date really isn’t so important; you can schedule another one. … The trouble is, people use this behaviour because it works: It gets them what they want.

尽管这种行为具有破坏性，但许多人经常在它发生时无意中强化它。他们想支持他们的伴侣，他们不想伤害他们，大多数人真的不喜欢冲突。如果你伴侣对你想做的那件事的反对对他们来说如此重要，你真的不需要做，对吧？那一次约会真的没那么重要；你可以再安排一次……问题是，人们使用这种行为是因为它有效：它让他们得到了他们想要的。

If your partner exhibits this kind of behaviour often, if most of your decisions they don’t like end up with you paying an emotional price, or if their blackmail continues more than a couple of months into a new relationship, then you have a problem—a potentially serious one, with no easy solution. The two of you will need to learn more appropriate negotiation techniques that do not involve emotional threats. Point out the behaviour to them and explain the effect it is having on you and your relationships (including the one with the partner exhibiting the behaviour). Consider reading the book Emotional Blackmail by Susan Forward together, and consider getting professional help from a nonmonogamy-friendly counsellor. If the behaviour does not stop, you may need to consider ending the relationship (see also the checklists in chapter 3).

如果你的伴侣经常表现出这种行为，如果你做出的大多数他们不喜欢的决定最终都让你付出了情感代价，或者如果他们的勒索在新关系中持续了几个月以上，那么你就有问题了——一个潜在的严重问题，没有简单的解决方案。你们俩需要学习不涉及情感威胁的更合适的谈判技巧。向他们指出这种行为，并解释它对你和你的关系（包括与表现出这种行为的伴侣的关系）产生的影响。考虑一起阅读苏珊·福沃德 (Susan Forward) 的书《情感勒索》(Emotional Blackmail)，并考虑从非单偶制友好的咨询师那里获得专业帮助。如果这种行为没有停止，你可能需要考虑结束这段关系（另见第 3 章中的检查清单）。

If you’re the person exhibiting this behaviour, approach yourself with compassion. Your feelings are always valid, and you always feel them for good reasons. But those emotions may not be based on a full set of facts, and even if they are, the meanings you attach to a given set of facts might not be an accurate match for others’ realities or reasons for their choices. Your distress may be rooted in everything from unresolved childhood trauma to pure misunderstanding. Your attachment styles might not mesh well with those of your partners. There may be a sore spot or a lack within the relationship that needs tending and repair, and the current situation may be pressing painfully into that spot. In short, the feelings are real, but the reasons for them might be a lot more complex than that thing your partner is doing with their partner on Wednesday night.

如果你是表现出这种行为的人，请以同情心对待自己。你的感受总是有效的，你总是有充分的理由去感受它们。但这些情绪可能并非基于完整的事实，即使是，你赋予给定事实集合的含义可能也不准确匹配他人的现实或他们选择的理由。你的痛苦可能植根于从头未解决的童年创伤到纯粹的误解等一切事物。你的依恋风格可能与你伴侣的风格不相融合。关系内部可能有一个痛点或缺失需要照料和修复，而当前的情况可能正痛苦地按压着那个点。简而言之，感觉是真实的，但其背后的原因可能比你伴侣周三晚上和他们的伴侣做的那件事要复杂得多。

Everyone is allowed the occasional meltdown or outburst. But if this is happening on a regular basis—and if your partners are giving in to your demands simply to avoid dealing with your behaviour—you may want to consider getting professional help to cope with your emotions. Also, remember that what you do about your feelings is a matter of choice. Just because you are feeling intense emotions doesn’t mean you’re entitled to cross lines of acceptable interpersonal behaviour. If you recognize yourself in this section, in addition to counselling on your own and potentially with your partners, you may want to reexamine whether nonmonogamy in general is really working for you. You may also want to revisit the idea of primal panic, discussed in chapter 8.

每个人都被允许偶尔崩溃或爆发。但如果这种情况经常发生——如果你的伴侣屈服于你的要求仅仅是为了避免处理你的行为——你可能需要考虑获得专业帮助来应对你的情绪。此外，请记住，你如何处理你的感受是一个选择问题。仅仅因为你感到强烈的情绪并不意味着你有权越过可接受的人际行为界限。如果你在这一节中认出了自己，除了自己进行咨询并可能与你的伴侣一起咨询外，你可能想重新审视非单偶制总体上是否真的适合你。你也可能想重新审视第 8 章讨论的原始恐慌的概念。

Pocket veto

拖延否决权 (Pocket veto)

Pocket veto is a legal term. It refers to when an elected official vetoes a bill indirectly by hanging onto it and neglecting to sign it until it’s too late to deal with it during the legislative session. In nonmonogamy, a pocket veto is when you stop your partner from doing something you don’t want them to do using indirect tactics such as delaying discussions or saying “Yes, but only after …” —in which the “after” never comes.

拖延否决权是一个法律术语。它指的是当民选官员通过抓住法案不放并忽略签署，直到在立法会议期间处理它为时已晚，从而间接否决法案。在非单偶制中，拖延否决权是指你使用间接策略阻止你的伴侣做你不希望他们做的事情，例如推迟讨论或说“是的，但只有在……之后”——而这个“之后”从未到来。

A pocket veto might be used when one partner wants a specific thing within a nonmonogamous relationship structure. “I am afraid of X. Please let’s not do X until I stop being afraid.” That “X” could be just about anything: meeting the metamour, okaying an overnight stay with a lover, going out in public as a triad or quad, or whatever else.

当一个伴侣想要非单偶制关系结构中的特定事物时，可能会使用拖延否决权。“我害怕 X。请让我们不要做 X，直到我不再害怕。”那个“X”几乎可以是任何东西：见表侣、同意与爱人过夜、作为三人组或四人组公开外出，或其他任何事情。

A pocket veto can also arise when it comes to the question of whether or not to do nonmonogamy at all. “Sure, I’d love to try nonmonogamy, but after I graduate, so I’m not so stressed out. Actually now that I’ve graduated, I’m super stressed about my new job. And now I’m stressed about this new project, and …”

当涉及到是否要进行非单偶制的问题时，也可能出现拖延否决权。“当然，我很想尝试非单偶制，但在我毕业之后，这样我就不会那么有压力了。实际上，现在我毕业了，我对我的新工作感到压力很大。现在我对这个新项目感到压力很大，而且……”

Sometimes a nonmonogamously inclined person ends up in a relationship with a monogamously inclined partner who agrees to nonmonogamy, but only after they “feel secure in the relationship.” That can turn out to be … never. Of course, if your reward for feeling secure is something you don’t want, you don’t have much incentive to ever feel secure. These relationships can last for years before ending, with the nonmonogamous partner forever hopeful that someday the monogamous partner will eventually “get there.”

有时，一个倾向于非单偶制的人最终会与一个倾向于单偶制的伴侣建立关系，后者同意非单偶制，但前提是他们“在关系中感到安全”。结果可能是……永远不会。当然，如果你感到安全的奖励是你不想做的事情，你就没有太多动力去感到安全。这些关系可能会持续数年才结束，非单偶制伴侣永远充满希望，有一天单偶制伴侣最终会“到达那里”。

In the next chapter, we discuss being judicious about when you start new relationships: perhaps it’s better not to bring in new partners when an existing relationship is in crisis, just after a major life upheaval, or when serious mental health issues are erupting, to name a few. (We also mention the idea of “temporary vessels” on page 312.) The trouble is that this idea of “readiness for nonmonogamy” can become a pocket veto if it does not include a clear time frame. If you need time to work through an issue, get used to a new partner or adjust to an idea, then agree to a time frame for it. If the time frame expires and you want to renew it, especially more than once, understand that you have crossed into pocket veto territory.

在下一章中，我们将讨论在何时开始新关系时要明智：也许当现有关系处于危机中、刚刚经历了重大生活剧变或严重心理健康问题爆发时，最好不要引入新伴侣，仅举几例。（我们还在第 312 页提到了“临时容器”的想法。）问题是，如果不包含明确的时间框架，这种“为非单偶制做好准备”的想法可能会变成拖延否决权。如果你需要时间来解决问题、习惯新伴侣或适应某个想法，那就商定一个时间框架。如果时间框架到期并且你想续期，特别是不止一次，请明白你已经越界进入了拖延否决权的领域。

The main problem with a pocket veto is that it’s an indirect and misleading way to say no to something. Saying no is not, itself, an issue. Maybe you don’t actually want to be nonmonogamous. That’s okay! Then say so, and have a frank conversation with your partner to figure out how to proceed in your relationship. Or maybe you’re just never going to want to meet your metamour or go out in public as a quad. That could present some challenges depending on how everyone else concerned feels about the topic. But using a pocket veto to avoid dealing head-on with these challenges just prolongs the stress and tension, as the requesting partner tries to be patient and understanding while maybe also feeling sad or disappointed or frustrated, and the vetoing partner feels scared and pressured. In any case, you’re not having the conversation you need to have in order to deal with the problem truthfully. And so it festers, and can eventually poison the whole relationship. If they figure out that they’re being subjected to a pocket veto, the hinge may feel betrayed, lied to, manipulated or otherwise hurt, in which case the relationship may need a lot of repair work if it’s to survive, or it may end on a much unhappier note than it otherwise could have. In short, pocket vetoes come with the same potential for harm as the straightforward kind of veto, only amplified by avoidance, indirect communication and dishonesty.

拖延否决权的主要问题在于，它是一种间接且具有误导性的拒绝方式。说“不”本身并不是问题。也许你实际上并不想非单偶制。那没关系！那就直说，并与你的伴侣进行坦诚的对话，弄清楚如何在你们的关系中继续前进。或者也许你永远不想见你的表侣，或者作为四人组公开外出。这可能会带来一些挑战，具体取决于其他相关人员对这个话题的看法。但是使用拖延否决权来避免正面处理这些挑战只会延长压力和紧张，因为提出请求的伴侣试图保持耐心和理解，同时也可能感到悲伤、失望或沮丧，而被否决的伴侣感到害怕和压力。无论如何，你们没有进行为了如实处理问题而需要进行的对话。所以它会溃烂，最终可能会毒害整个关系。如果他们发现自己遭受了拖延否决权，枢纽可能会感到被背叛、被欺骗、被操纵或以其他方式受到伤害，在这种情况下，如果关系要生存下去，可能需要大量的修复工作，或者它可能会以比原本可能更不愉快的基调结束。简而言之，拖延否决权具有与直接否决权相同的潜在危害，只是被回避、间接沟通和不诚实放大了。

Sometimes you hit a point in a relationship where you realize that you won’t ever see eye to eye with a given partner on a given issue. And sometimes, that issue is a deal-breaker. They want something crucial that you cannot give them, or you want something crucial they cannot give you. It’s a painful place to arrive at, especially if you’ve invested a lot of time and energy in the relationship, shared lots of hopes and dreams, or entwined your lives. But it makes the whole thing worse when you avoid the topic or string someone along with promises that you’ll eventually give them what they want when you have no intention of doing so. Work up the courage to be clear about your no instead of indulging in perpetual avoidance by means of a pocket veto.

有时你在一段关系中达到了一个点，你意识到你永远不会在特定问题上与特定的伴侣达成一致。有时，这个问题是破坏交易的因素。他们想要一些你无法给他们的关键东西，或者你想要一些他们无法给你的关键东西。这是一个痛苦的境地，特别是如果你在关系中投入了大量的时间和精力，分享了许多希望和梦想，或者交织了你们的生活。但是，当你回避这个话题，或者在你无意这样做的时候用你会最终给他们想要的东西的承诺来拖延某人时，这会让整个事情变得更糟。鼓起勇气明确你的“不”，而不是通过拖延否决权沉迷于永久的回避。

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF 问自己的问题

The questions around veto fall into three categories: those for people who want to have veto over their partners’ relationships, those for people who are considering giving veto power to another, and those for people who are considering becoming involved with someone whose partner has a veto.

围绕否决权的问题分为三类：针对想对伴侣的关系拥有否决权的人，针对考虑将否决权赋予他人的人，以及针对考虑与伴侣拥有否决权的人建立关系的人。

If you want your partner to give you veto power over their other relationships:

Under what circumstances do I feel it’s appropriate for me to use it?
Who do I think should have the final say in deciding whether a relationship ends? Why?
What do I believe will happen if I ask a partner to end another relationship, and they say no? Why will that thing happen?
Do I trust my partner to consider my needs and well-being in their decisions about whether to stay in a relationship that is hurting me? Why or why not? If not, what can I do to improve that trust?
Do I trust my partner to make good decisions about the people with whom they start relationships? Why or why not? What might the consequences be if they make a poor decision, and how might I deal with those consequences?
Do I use the word veto to describe something other than an ability to unilaterally end a partner’s relationship? If so, why, and what does the word veto mean to me that other terms do not?

如果你希望你的伴侣赋予你对他们其他关系的否决权：

在什么情况下我觉得使用它是合适的？
我认为谁应该在决定一段关系是否结束时拥有最终发言权？为什么？
我认为如果我要求伴侣结束另一段关系，而他们说不，会发生什么？为什么会发生那种事？
我是否信任我的伴侣在决定是否留在一断伤害我的关系中时会考虑我的需求和福祉？为什么或为什么不？如果我不信任，我可以做些什么来改善这种信任？
我是否信任我的伴侣在选择与谁开始关系时会做出明智的决定？为什么或为什么不？如果他们做出了糟糕的决定，后果可能是什么，我该如何应对这些后果？
我是否使用否决权这个词来描述除了单方面结束伴侣关系的能力之外的其他东西？如果是这样，为什么？否决权这个词对我来说意味着什么，而其他术语没有？

If you are considering giving your partner(s) veto:

Am I prepared to bring someone I care about (or will come to care about) into a situation where I must break up with them at someone else’s will? What are my ethical obligations in such a situation?
Can I think of ways to make a new partner feel safe in a relationship with me under these conditions?
Do I understand the needs my partner is seeking to meet by requesting veto, and have we discussed alternative ways of meeting those needs?

如果你正在考虑赋予你的伴侣否决权：

我是否准备好将我关心的人（或将会关心的人）带入一种我必须按照别人的意愿与他们分手的情况？在这种情况下，我的伦理义务是什么？
我能想出在这些条件下让新伴侣在与我的关系中感到安全的方法吗？
我是否理解我的伴侣通过请求否决权试图满足的需求，我们是否讨论过满足这些需求的替代方法？

If you are considering starting a relationship with someone whose partner has a veto:

If I start a relationship with someone who is already partnered, what kind of input do I feel it’s reasonable for their other partners to have in our relationship?
What would I need in order to feel safe opening my heart to someone who has given the power to end our relationship to someone else? What kind of boundaries do I need to set, or what kind of requests do I need to make?

如果你正在考虑与伴侣拥有否决权的人开始一段关系：

如果我与已经有伴侣的人开始一段关系，我觉得他们的其他伴侣在我们的关系中拥有什么样的投入是合理的？
为了对一个已经把结束我们关系的权力交给别人的人敞开心扉感到安全，我需要什么？我需要设定什么样的界限，或者我需要提出什么样的请求？

The trouble with human happiness Hannah Arendt, Love and Saint Augustine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), quoted in Maria Popova, “Hannah Arendt on Love and How to Live with the Fundamental Fear of Loss,” The Marginalian (blog), February 25, 2019, https://www.themarginalian.org/2019/02/25/love-and-saint-augustine-hannah-arendt. ↩ ↩²