14 实用的非单偶制协议 Practical Nonmonogamy Agreements

:::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。 :::

I’ve worked really hard to eliminate the words “have to” from my vocabulary. Because the reality is, I’m choosing to. I’m choosing to show up and meet my commitments.

LAUREN BACON¹

我非常努力地将“不得不”这个词从我的词汇表中剔除。因为现实是，我在选择。我选择出现并履行我的承诺。

劳伦·培根 (Lauren Bacon)¹

In the last few chapters, we talked about the distinctions between rules, boundaries and agreements, and we made a case for why rules-based structures can create problems in nonmonogamous relationships.

在过去的几章中，我们讨论了规则、界限和协议之间的区别，并阐述了为什么基于规则的结构会在非单偶制关系中产生问题。

Preparing the ground for relationships to flourish means thinking carefully about not just how to meet your needs, but how to meet the needs of all the people involved. In this chapter, we discuss practical strategies for approaching relationship agreements with this careful analysis as your foundation. It starts with thinking about why people do what they do.

为关系的蓬勃发展奠定基础，意味着不仅要仔细思考如何满足你的需求，还要思考如何满足所有相关人员的需求。在本章中，我们将讨论以这种仔细分析为基础来处理关系协议的实用策略。这始于思考人们为什么做他们所做的事情。

Here’s a story that illustrates the issue. Andrea likes to go to the movies. They noticed, one year during a big film festival, that the trees lining the sidewalk near one popular cinema all bore little laminated signs that read “DO NOT LOCK BIKES TO THE TREES,” with pictures of trees with little sad faces on them. It seemed like a fair rule, until they tried to find a bike rack and discovered that despite attracting thousands of moviegoers, the festival had set up only one rack with a half-dozen spots on it. All full, of course—and municipal racks were nowhere to be seen. Given the choice between going several blocks to find another bike rack and missing part of the movie, or locking their bike (carefully) to a tree that was exactly the right size and in the right place, they locked their bike to the tree, as several others had already done.

这里有一个故事可以说明这个问题。安德莉亚喜欢看电影。有一年在一个大型电影节期间，她们注意到一家热门电影院附近人行道旁的树上都贴着带有塑料封皮的小标志，上面写着“请勿将自行车锁在树上”，旁边还画着带有悲伤表情的小树。这似乎是一条公平的规则，直到她们试图寻找自行车架，却发现尽管电影节吸引了成千上万的影迷，但只设置了一个有六个车位的车架。当然，全都满了——而且市政车架也无处可寻。在走几个街区去寻找另一个自行车架并错过部分电影，还是（小心地）把自行车锁在一棵大小正好、位置合适的树上之间做出选择时，她们把自行车锁在了树上，就像其他几个人已经做的那样。

If you’re an urban cyclist, you’ve likely noticed a ton of problems like this—instances where putting appropriate infrastructure in place would eliminate a problem, but rules are imposed instead, and then people break those rules because they impede the normal flow of everyday activity (or even put people at physical risk). It happens in a lot of other areas, too. In the case of the film festival, the people locking bikes to trees weren’t trying to harm the trees or flout a rule for funsies. They just weren’t left with any other reasonable options that would let them achieve their very reasonable aim: to get to their movie on time. The festival didn’t add more bike racks of its own, liaise with the city to provide municipal racks, or provide information on where the closest additional racks were. They made a rule that didn’t account for the need, and the need wasn’t going to disappear, so people broke the rule.

如果你是一个城市骑行者，你可能已经注意到了很多类似的问题——在这些情况下，建立适当的基础设施本可以消除问题，但取而代之的是强制实施规则，然后人们打破这些规则，因为它们阻碍了日常活动的正常流动（甚至使人们处于身体风险中）。这在许多其他领域也会发生。在电影节的案例中，把自行车锁在树上的人并不是为了好玩而试图伤害树木或蔑视规则。他们只是没有任何其他合理的选择可以让他们实现非常合理的目标：准时看电影。电影节没有增加自己的自行车架，没有与市政联络提供市政车架，也没有提供关于最近的额外车架在哪里的信息。他们制定了一条没有考虑到需求的规则，而需求不会消失，所以人们打破了规则。

Not every relationship situation is as obvious as the bike rack problem, but it does help a lot to figure out what people’s needs are before getting upset about their choices or behaviours. People tend to do things for real reasons, not just to be jerks. (Though of course there will always be a few jerks.) Effective relationship strategies take work. They aim to meet people’s needs. And meeting these needs involves asking why people are doing whatever you wish they wouldn’t do. What need does their behaviour meet? What function does it serve? Could they do something else, something that might be less undesirable, to meet the same need? How invested is the person in doing that particular thing, and why?

并非每个关系情况都像自行车架问题那样明显，但在对人们的选择或行为感到不安之前，弄清楚人们的需求是什么确实很有帮助。人们做事情往往是有真正原因的，而不仅仅是为了做个混蛋。（尽管当然总会有一些混蛋。）有效的关系策略需要付出努力。它们旨在满足人们的需求。而满足这些需求涉及询问为什么人们会做那些你不希望他们做的事情。他们的行为满足了什么需求？它起什么作用？他们能做些别的什么事情来满足同样的需求吗，一些可能不那么令人讨厌的事情？那个人对做那件特定的事情投入了多少，为什么？

Creating such strategies also involves looking at some scary things inside yourself. Why is it not okay with you if that person does that thing? Are the problems you see really problems? Is your desired strategy actually an attempt to shift responsibility for managing your emotions onto someone else? Does the person doing the thing reasonably have a right to do it? How much does it really affect others, and in what way? Are you just trying to avoid discomfort? If so, is your discomfort more important than someone else’s choices? (Is the rule really about saving the trees, or is it about not wanting an “unsightly” crowd of bikes in front of a fancy movie theatre?)

制定这样的策略还涉及审视你自己内心的一些可怕之处。为什么那个人做那件事对你来说不行？你看到的问题真的是问题吗？你期望的策略实际上是否试图将管理你情绪的责任推卸给别人？做那件事的人是否有合理的权利去做？它到底对他有多大影响，以何种方式？你只是想避免不适吗？如果是这样，你的不适比别人的选择更重要吗？（这条规则真的是为了保护树木，还是为了不想让一家高档电影院门前出现“不雅观”的自行车群？）

From there, you can work on installing bike racks, or even setting up valet bike parking (as Eve’s city has done). What might help everyone get their needs met? If something makes you uncomfortable but is part of exercising someone’s reasonable autonomy, how can the person do it and still support you?

从那里开始，你可以着手安装自行车架，甚至设立代客泊车服务（就像伊芙所在的城市所做的那样）。什么可以帮助每个人满足他们的需求？如果某件事让你不舒服，但那是某人行使合理自主权的一部分，那么那个人怎样做才能既做到这一点又支持你呢？

Creating effective relationship agreements

创建有效的关系协议

Agreements and boundaries will be part of any nonmonogamous relationship. The agreements that work most consistently are those that are rooted in compassion, encourage mutual respect and empowerment, leave it to your partners’ judgment how to implement them, and have input from—and apply equally to—everyone affected by them. These include principles like the following: Treat all others with kindness. Don’t try to force relationships to be something they are not, and don’t try to prevent them from being what they are. Don’t try to impose yourself on other people. Understand when things are Not About You. Own your own challenges, but ask for support (and support others). Favour trust and communication over rules.

协议和界限将是任何非单偶制关系的一部分。最有效、最持久的协议是那些植根于同情心、鼓励相互尊重和赋权、由你的伴侣自行判断如何实施，并且有受其影响的所有人的投入并平等地适用于他们的协议。这些包括以下原则：善待所有他人。不要试图强迫关系成为它们不是的样子，也不要试图阻止它们成为它们本来的样子。不要试图把你自己强加于人。理解什么时候事情“与你无关”。承认你自己的挑战，但寻求支持（并支持他人）。偏向信任和沟通，而非规则。

Here are some other common characteristics of successful relationship agreements:

以下是成功关系协议的其他一些共同特征：

They are not games of Mao. Named for the Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong, whose rule was characterized by widespread persecution and constantly changing laws, Mao is a card game where at the start of the game none of the players except the dealer know the rules … and the players are penalized for breaking them. The players who figure out the rules the slowest lose. If you have relationship agreements, they must be clear and comprehensible. Everyone involved should know and understand them—and equally important, understand the intent behind them, the spirit as well as the letter.

它们不是“毛式纸牌”游戏。 “毛式纸牌”(Mao) 是一种纸牌游戏，游戏开始时除了发牌者外，其他玩家都不知道规则……而且玩家因违反规则而受到惩罚。弄清规则最慢的玩家输掉游戏。如果你有关系协议，它们必须清晰易懂。每个相关人员都应该知道并理解它们——同样重要的是，理解它们背后的意图，不仅是字面意思，还有精神实质。（译注：该纸牌游戏名称 Mao 确实源于对中国领导人毛泽东的某种文化指涉，但游戏本身的规则与实际历史无关，这里保留了原文的比喻。）

They seek to place controls on one’s self, not one’s partners. You can’t really control anyone but yourself. “You must,” “You cannot …”: Those kinds of statements work only if other people choose to let them. Note that multiple people can agree to bind themselves in a reciprocal agreement, however, such as “we will always check in with each other before we go on a date with a new person.”

它们寻求控制自己，而不是控制伴侣。 你真正能控制的只有你自己。“你必须”、“你不能……”：这类陈述只有在别人选择允许时才有效。请注意，多人可以同意在一个互惠协议中约束自己，例如“我们在与新人约会之前总是会互相确认。”

They are clear, specific and limited in scope. “You must care for me more than you care for them” is not clear or specific. It doesn’t define what “care for me” means or what steps can be taken to get there. “We will not have unbarriered exchange of bodily fluids with others before discussing it with each other” is clear, specific and limited in scope.

它们清晰、具体且范围有限。 “你必须比关心他们更关心我”既不清晰也不具体。它没有定义“关心我”意味着什么，或者可以采取什么步骤来实现。而“在与对方讨论之前，我们不会与他人进行无保护的体液交换”则是清晰、具体且范围有限的。

They have a defined practical purpose. Successful agreements address needs directly, while considering feelings as important pieces of information that can help you figure out what to do. As we’ve mentioned, emotions are data. Don’t ignore them! Just remember they’re not the only data you need to factor into your decisions.

它们有明确的实际目的。 成功的协议直接解决需求，同时将感受视为可以帮助你弄清楚该怎么做的重要信息。正如我们提到的，情绪是数据。不要忽视它们！只要记住它们不是你需要纳入决定的唯一数据。

They do not seek to sweep problems under the rug. “I get jealous when I see you kiss someone, so don’t kiss anyone in front of me” does not deal with the jealousy, it only addresses the trigger. The jealousy is still there, just waiting to emerge in some other way. It’s okay to ask for some space to deal with both the jealousy and the trigger (see limited-duration rules on page 198), but it’s not a long-term solution. That will come from within.

它们不试图掩盖问题。 “当你亲吻别人时我会嫉妒，所以不要在我面前亲吻任何人”并不能解决嫉妒，它只解决了触发因素。嫉妒仍然存在，只是等待以其他方式出现。要求一些空间来处理嫉妒和触发因素是可以的（见第 198 页的限时规则），但这并不是长期的解决方案。那将来自内心。

They have a sunset clause if they are meant to provide space to deal with a problem. A sunset clause (see also pages 198 and 312) means a restriction expires on a certain date. If there is no sunset clause, once the emotional trigger has been removed, it can be all too easy to say “I’ll work on the problem tomorrow.” And tomorrow becomes next week, then next month, and then we’re back to pocket vetoes (see chapter 12).

如果它们旨在为处理问题提供空间，它们会有一个日落条款。 日落条款（另见第 198 页和 312 页）意味着限制在特定日期到期。如果没有日落条款，一旦情绪触发因素被移除，人们很容易说“我明天再解决这个问题”。明天变成下周，然后是下个月，然后我们就回到了拖延否决权（见第 12 章）。

They address the underlying needs. A clear agreement aims to address what’s really going on (“I’m scared of losing you”) rather than handling it by proxy (“Never travel without me”). That means you need to talk about what’s really going on. (See also page 143 on needs vs. strategies.) Sometimes, an “illogical” attachment to a specific way of meeting a need is really no big deal (we all have our quirks!), as long as it’s not onerous for everyone involved and doesn’t become a flashpoint for resentments or the beginning of a pattern of creeping concessions.

它们解决潜在的需求。 清晰的协议旨在解决真正发生的事情（“我害怕失去你”），而不是通过代理来处理（“永远不要没有我就去旅行”）。这意味着你需要谈论真正发生的事情。（另见第 143 页关于需求与策略的内容。）有时，对满足需求的特定方式的“不合逻辑”依恋真的没什么大不了的（我们都有自己的怪癖！），只要它对每个相关人员来说都不繁重，并且不会成为怨恨的导火索或渐进式让步模式的开始。

They are renegotiable. Any agreement should be open to discussion at any time by anyone it affects. This includes anyone who enters a relationship after an agreement is made. Life is change, and you need to deal with it. Even if life never changed, you rarely build something exactly right the first time.

它们是可重新协商的。 任何协议都应该随时开放给任何受其影响的人讨论。这包括在协议达成后进入关系的任何人。生活就是变化，你需要应对它。即使生活从未改变，你也很少能第一次就建立完全正确的东西。

They do not disempower people. We’ve talked about this at length already. In relationships conducted according to our ethical axioms, every person has a voice.

它们不剥夺人的权力。 我们已经详细讨论过这一点。在根据我们的伦理公理进行的关系中，每个人都有发言权。

They do not try to legislate feelings. People cannot provide or eliminate feelings on demand. Attempting to legislate feelings (for example, by saying “You must love both of us equally” or “You are not allowed to feel jealous”) usually works about as well as trying to legislate the weather.

它们不试图立法规定感受。 人们无法按需提供或消除感受。试图立法规定感受（例如，说“你必须平等地爱我们俩”或“你不许嫉妒”）通常就像试图立法规定天气一样有效。

Negotiating in good faith

真诚协商

When you are negotiating agreements in your relationship, it can be hard to hear that your partners have different needs or sensitivities than you do. Truly understanding that other people are as real as you are is hard. If you want to negotiate in good faith, here are some things to keep in mind:

当你在关系中协商协议时，听到你的伴侣有与你不同的需求或敏感点可能会很难受。真正理解他人和你一样真实是很难的。如果你想真诚地协商，以下是一些需要记住的事情：

Focus on mutual benefit. To succeed, an agreement must benefit everyone. Even when people have what seem to be contradictory goals, it may be possible to find a solution by looking for the need underneath a proposed agreement.
Treat the other people in the negotiation as collaborators, not problems. It’s easy to think, “If only you would do what I say, everything would be okay!” Remember that these people are not your adversaries; you all want happy relationships. Treat people with compassion. (And see page 145 on collaboration.)
Don’t compromise on behalf of other people without their input and consent. When you agree to limitations on your actions with other people, you are limiting them as well. They deserve a place at the negotiating table.
专注于互惠互利。 要想成功，协议必须让每个人都受益。即使当人们有看似矛盾的目标时，也可以通过寻找拟议协议背后的需求来找到解决方案。
将谈判中的其他人视为合作者，而不是问题。 很容易会想，“只要你按我说的做，一切都会好起来的！”记住，这些人不是你的对手；你们都想要幸福的关系。以同情心对待他人。（另见第 145 页关于协作的内容。）
不要在没有他人投入和同意的情况下代表他人妥协。 当你同意限制你与他人的行动时，你也限制了他们。他们理应在谈判桌上占有一席之地。

The best agreements are not ones that steer people away from bad things, but rather ones that point everyone involved toward good things. The best way to create security in a relationship is to prioritize kindness, mutuality and joy: The people in the relationship are more important than the relationship.

最好的协议不是那些引导人们远离坏事的协议，而是那些引导每个相关人员走向好事的协议。在关系中建立安全感的最佳方式是优先考虑善良、相互关系和快乐：关系中的人比关系更重要。

Writing it down?

##把它写下来？

There are many situations in which explicit, written agreements are just common sense. Business arrangements are a prime example. It’s too easy even for honest people to remember a verbal agreement very differently from each other, or for one to genuinely forget they even made it.

在许多情况下，明确的书面协议只是常识。商业安排就是一个典型的例子。即使是诚实的人也很容易对口头协议有截然不同的记忆，或者其中一人真的忘记了他们曾经达成过协议。

Written relationship contracts are nothing new. A ketubah, for example, is a traditional Jewish marriage contract that outlines the groom’s responsibilities to the bride. Ketubahs are used across various gender pairings today, and couples often draw theirs up as a beautifully illuminated document that holds pride of place on a wall in their home. Quaker marriage certificates are similar, and are signed by all guests present at the wedding, who agree to support the couple. Prenups and marriage documents are also forms of relationship contracts—legally binding ones! And if you’ve been at all involved in the kink/BDSM world, you’re probably familiar with the idea of a D/s or M/s contract that specifies people’s limits and commitments in the context of their kinky relationships. They’re not all that common in practice, but for some people they can be deeply meaningful (even sexy), even though they’re not at all legally enforceable. In recent years, some households have found it desirable to have written agreements covering COVID-19 protocols, to make sure everyone is on the same page.

书面关系合同并不是什么新鲜事。例如，ketubah 是传统的犹太婚姻合同，概述了新郎对新娘的责任。Ketubahs 如今被用于各种性别配对，夫妇们经常将其起草成精美的装饰文件，挂在家中显眼的位置。贵格会的结婚证书也很类似，由出席婚礼的所有客人签署，他们同意支持这对夫妇。婚前协议和结婚文件也是关系合同的形式——具有法律约束力的！如果你涉足过性癖/BDSM 世界，你可能熟悉 D/s 或 M/s 合同的概念，这些合同规定了人们在其性癖关系背景下的限制和承诺。它们在实践中并不那么普遍，但对某些人来说，它们可能意义深远（甚至很性感），即使它们在法律上完全不可执行。近年来，一些家庭发现有必要制定涵盖 COVID-19 协议的书面协议，以确保每个人都达成共识。

Some people who give nonmonogamy advice will urge you to write down and even sign your agreements, particularly when they’re addressing couples who are planning to open up. Some people like to create a “relationship contract” in such situations. But while written relationship contracts might seem like good communication, there is reason for caution. Communication is a dialogue. A contract—especially one that’s presented to new people as a done deal—very often isn’t. Communication and discussion are essential for the health of any relationship. This is why, as we have said before, we see agreements as far better and more functional than rules. It’s also why we maintain a healthy skepticism about relationship contracts, while recognizing they can have benefit for some people.

一些提供非单偶制建议的人会敦促你写下甚至签署你的协议，特别是当他们针对计划开放关系的夫妇时。在这种情况下，有些人喜欢创建一份“关系合同”。但是，虽然书面关系合同看起来像是良好的沟通，但有理由保持谨慎。沟通是一种对话。合同——尤其是作为既定事实呈现给新人的合同——往往不是。沟通和讨论对于任何关系的健康都是必不可少的。这就是为什么，正如我们之前所说，我们认为协议比规则要好得多，也实用得多。这也是为什么我们对关系合同保持健康的怀疑态度，同时承认它们可能对某些人有益。

Turning an agreement into paperwork can often become an expression of power, a way to shut down communication. Contracts are not universally bad, but they’re by no means universally good, either. They also tend to freeze an agreement in a moment in time, which can impede or discourage open and ongoing dialogue about how an agreement should work in practical, everyday situations that no one written contract can possibly foresee. If you’re having that kind of frequent, fluid communication, a contract might just not be very relevant. And if you’re not communicating frequently, a contract isn’t the most intuitive tool for getting started. You might be better off scheduling regular check-ins, taking communication workshops together, practising the exercises in a self-help book, or otherwise investing your time in developing that skill together.

将协议变成文书工作往往会成为权力的表达，一种关闭沟通的方式。合同并非普遍都是坏的，但也绝不是普遍都是好的。它们也倾向于将协议冻结在某个时刻，这可能会阻碍或不鼓励关于协议在实际日常情况中应如何运作的开放和持续对话，而没有任何书面合同可以预见这些情况。如果你有那种频繁、流畅的沟通，合同可能就不太相关了。如果你没有频繁沟通，合同并不是最直观的入门工具。你最好安排定期检查，一起参加沟通研讨会，练习自助书籍中的练习，或者投入时间一起培养这种技能。

In general, written agreements are more successful when they

一般来说，书面协议在以下情况下更成功：

are short enough to remember without needing to reference them often—generally less than one or two pages long
have a narrow focus
are intended to solve a specific problem among a specific group of people
concern only those people present in negotiating them: in other words, “I will do this for you,” not “Others will or will not do this” or “I will or won’t do this with others.”
include statements of goals or intentions, focus on shared principles rather than rules and specify the purpose of the agreement
are flexible and open to review and renegotiation.
足够短，不需要经常查阅就能记住——通常少于一两页
关注点狭窄
旨在解决特定人群中的特定问题
仅涉及参与谈判的人：换句话说，“我会为你做这件事”，而不是“其他人会或不会做这件事”或“我会或不会与其他人做这件事”。
包括目标或意图的陈述，关注共享原则而非规则，并明确协议的目的
灵活并开放审查和重新谈判。

Written agreements tend to work poorly when they

书面协议在以下情况下往往效果不佳：

are lengthy and highly detailed
attempt to define or regulate every aspect of a situation
affect people who are not present in negotiating the agreement
prescribe specific actions to implement a stated intention (that is, allowing only one way to get there)
attempt to control things beyond the control of the negotiating partners, such as future intimacy (see page 284) or the behaviour of others
allow no room for renegotiation or change.
冗长且非常详细
试图定义或规范情况的每个方面
影响未参与谈判协议的人
规定实施既定意图的具体行动（即只允许一种方式达到目的）
试图控制超出谈判伙伴控制范围的事情，例如未来的亲密关系（见第 284 页）或他人的行为
不留重新谈判或更改的余地

Successful written agreements are documents that you hold yourself to, not something others hold you to, or to which you hold them. They are reminders to yourself of commitments you have made and tools for communicating those commitments to other partners. They should not be used as devices to shame, manipulate or punish. And remember our axiom: The people in the relationship are more important than the relationship. If you find yourselves haggling over clauses in an agreement and whether they have been violated, rather than discussing the hurt feelings, the needs behind a partner’s actions and ways to make amends, you’ve probably reached a place where the people are serving the contract, and not the other way around.

成功的书面协议是你用来约束你自己的文件，而不是别人用来约束你，或者你用来约束别人的东西。它们是你对自己所做承诺的提醒，也是向其他伴侣传达这些承诺的工具。它们不应该被用作羞辱、操纵或惩罚的手段。记住我们的公理：关系中的人比关系更重要。如果你们发现自己在为协议中的条款以及它们是否被违反讨价还价，而不是讨论受伤的感受、伴侣行为背后的需求以及弥补的方法，你们可能已经到了人服务于合同，而不是合同服务于人的地步。

Perhaps the most serious danger in written contracts is when they are inflexible. The longer and more complex they are, the more they are likely to be trying to script a relationship or treat people (at best) as a threat to be managed and (at worst) as a commodity, both of which violate axiom 1. If one partner is finding themselves unable to hold to a provision of the agreement, there’s a good chance the agreement needs to be renegotiated to work for all partners—and not that the person is dishonest or doesn’t care about the agreement.

书面合同最严重的危险也许在于它们不灵活。它们越长越复杂，就越有可能试图为一段关系编写脚本，或者将人（往好了说）视为需要管理的威胁，（往坏了说）视为商品，这两者都违反了公理 1。如果一个伴侣发现自己无法遵守协议的某项条款，很有可能协议需要重新协商才能对所有伴侣有效——而不是那个人不诚实或不在乎协议。

People who keep long, complex written agreements often build relationships that are unable to change when their needs change. They often spend a lot of time rules-lawyering. Ultimately, this kind of contract often does not lead to greater relationship satisfaction, because real life is a lot more fluid and dynamic than a hyper-specific contract can account for. It’s the wrong tool for the job.

那些保留冗长、复杂书面协议的人通常建立的是当需求改变时无法改变的关系。他们经常花很多时间在规则律师行为上。最终，这种合同往往不会带来更高的关系满意度，因为现实生活比一个极其具体的合同所能解释的要流畅和动态得多。这是错误的工具。

The exception is a BDSM contract among people who share an erotic enjoyment of setting, enforcing and obeying rules. However, even this kind of contract can become difficult to manage unless, on the one hand, its scope is restricted to playtime, or on the other hand, the partners are committed to a truly all-encompassing lifestyle that’s also realistically integrated with the non-kink aspects of their existence. Such contracts must be flexible enough to account for other life obligations, commitments and unpredictability. Nobody should ever be placed in a position where they can’t reasonably attend to their physical, mental, financial or relationship health because of a BDSM, D/s or M/s contract. If you’re considering a contract that would place this kind of restriction on you, this is not a sign of a healthy, functional dominant-submissive partnership.

唯一的例外是 BDSM 合同，适用于那些分享制定、执行和遵守规则的色情乐趣的人。然而，即使是这类合同也可能变得难以管理，除非一方面其范围仅限于游戏时间，或者另一方面，伴侣们致力于一种真正包罗万象的生活方式，这种生活方式也现实地与他们存在的非性癖方面相结合。此类合同必须足够灵活，以考虑到其他生活义务、承诺和不可预测性。任何人都不应因为 BDSM、D/s 或 M/s 合同而处于无法合理照顾其身体、心理、财务或关系健康的境地。如果你正在考虑一份会对你施加这种限制的合同，这并不是健康、功能性支配-顺从伙伴关系的标志。

Good written agreements are reminders of our own boundaries or commitments, expressed as principles. One very short contract Eve has seen contains elements such as “My partner is important,” “Do your chores before going on a date,” “Don’t spend joint money on your own dates,” and “Don’t fuck it up.” An agreement that’s about what you will each do to care for each other is also a very different thing from an agreement that tells new partners how they are expected to behave.

好的书面协议是对我们自己界限或承诺的提醒，以原则的形式表达。伊芙见过的一份非常简短的合同包含诸如“我的伴侣很重要”、“约会前做完家务”、“不要把共同的钱花在自己的约会上”和“别搞砸了”等要素。关于你们每个人将做什么来照顾彼此的协议，与告诉新伴侣他们被期望如何表现的协议也是截然不同的事情。

We urge those of you considering written agreements to draw up short, specific lists of boundaries or intentions, rather than long, complex documents that tell others what they are and aren’t allowed to do. Ultimately, remember that your relationship belongs to the living, feeling people involved in it, not a list of rules. Make sure that people, not paragraphs, are always at the centre of your relationships.

我们敦促那些考虑书面协议的人起草简短、具体的界限或意图清单，而不是冗长、复杂的文件告诉别人他们被允许做什么和不被允许做什么。归根结底，请记住，你们的关系属于其中活生生、有感觉的人，而不是一列规则。确保人，而不是段落，始终处于你们关系的中心。

The permission model

许可模式 (The permission model)

A “permission model” of relationships is the idea that when you enter a relationship, you give up control over your actions to your partner. If you wish to do things like start another relationship or visit another partner, you must seek the permission of your established partner, who becomes a gatekeeper.

关系的“许可模式”是指当你进入一段关系时，你放弃了对你行为的控制权给你的伴侣。如果你想做诸如开始另一段关系或拜访另一位伴侣之类的事情，你必须征求你既定伴侣的许可，后者成为了守门人。

In our experience, relationships that provide everyone in them the most satisfaction follow a different model. It starts with this premise: “I can have the kind of relationship I want. I can make choices I want to. My best course of action is to learn to choose people who want something similar, to take responsibility for the consequences of my choices, and to pay attention to the effects my choices have on the people around me.”

根据我们的经验，让每个人都最满意的关系遵循一种不同的模式。它始于这个前提：“我可以拥有我想要的关系类型。我可以做出我想要的选择。我最好的行动方案是学会选择想要类似东西的人，对我的选择后果负责，并关注我的选择对周围人的影响。”

Checking in with your partners is a good thing. Communication builds trust. And for both emotional and practical reasons, it’s best to keep up an ongoing dialogue with the people who are affected by your everyday decisions. But when you operate from a permission-based model, instead of treating your partners like supportive companions sharing a journey with you, you’re setting them up as barriers between you and whatever you want. This can lead to resentment instead of collaboration and mutuality. It’s the difference between “How would you feel if I were to …?” and “May I …?” These two types of questions can lead to very different conversations. The first might sound like “I’d be pretty grumpy if you had dinner with your crush on Sunday night because you already committed to dinner with me and my parents. Could you make it another night instead?” It opens up both practical negotiations and opportunities to talk about feelings, needs and creative solutions. The second is a classic yes-or-no question, which doesn’t invite further discussion and can more easily lead to misunderstandings.

与伴侣核实是一件好事。沟通建立信任。出于情感和实际原因，最好与受你日常决定影响的人保持持续的对话。但是，当你基于许可模式运作时，你不是把你的伴侣当作与你分享旅程的支持性同伴，而是把他们设置为你和你想要的东西之间的障碍。这会导致怨恨而不是合作和互惠。这是“如果我……你会怎么想？”和“我可以……吗？”的区别。这两种类型的问题会导致非常不同的对话。第一种听起来可能像“如果你周日晚上和你的心动对象共进晚餐，我会很不高兴，因为你已经承诺和我和我父母共进晚餐了。你能改天吗？”它开启了实际谈判和谈论感受、需求和创造性解决方案的机会。第二种是一个经典的非是即否的问题，它不邀请进一步的讨论，更容易导致误解。

Disruptors

干扰因素 (Disruptors)

At a few moments in your life, you are likely to come to pivot points that profoundly alter the course of your life from that point forward. These may be decisions that you have time to think about and prepare for, such as choosing between a school close to home or one across the country, taking or refusing a major job offer, undertaking a gender transition, coming out as queer, converting to a different religion, or having children. They may be twists of fate, such as an accident (or a near miss), a loss, a lottery win, going away viral online, an unexpected medical diagnosis, or a random encounter that profoundly changes your thinking or outlook on life. They may be sudden realizations you didn’t see coming: “I hate accounting, and I want to be a massage therapist.”

在你生命中的某些时刻，你可能会遇到从此深刻改变你生活轨迹的关键点。这些可能是你有时间思考和准备的决定，例如选择离家近的学校还是全国另一端的学校，接受或拒绝一份重要的工作机会，进行性别转换，出柜，改信不同的宗教，或生孩子。它们可能是命运的转折，例如事故（或侥幸逃脱），失去，中彩票，在网上走红，意外的医疗诊断，或者是深刻改变你思维或人生观的随机遭遇。它们可能是你没预见到的突然顿悟：“我讨厌会计，我想成为一名按摩治疗师。”

And of course, they may have to do with your relationships. A disruptor, in the realm of intimate relationships, is a relationship that causes you to rethink all your relationships, and maybe even your life, entirely. It may be a mind-blowing relationship with someone wonderful who shows you a whole new way that relationships can work and raises the bar on what you want and need from other relationships. But a disruptive relationship doesn’t even have to be a good relationship. It can be one that’s dysfunctional on such a deep level that it changes what you look for thereafter.

当然，它们可能与你的关系有关。在亲密关系领域，干扰因素是一种让你重新思考所有关系，甚至可能完全重新思考你生活的关系。它可能是一段与某个很棒的人建立的令人兴奋的关系，这向你展示了关系运作的全新方式，并提高了你对其他关系的需求和期望。但干扰性关系甚至不一定是好的关系。它可能是一段在如此深层面上功能失调的关系，以至于它改变了你此后寻找的东西。

Disruptive relationships are scary. That’s true regardless of what approach you take to relationships (single, solo poly, monogamous, swinging, polyamorous and many more) and what kind of relationship you’re talking about. You might experience an encounter or short-term connection so meaningful (or so awful) that it alters the course of things from then on. Maybe you meet the person you suddenly realize you want to spend your whole life with—or you suddenly realize you must get away from the person you’re with at all costs, despite a long-term commitment. Maybe you realize that you want to invest in a devoted friendship or platonic partnership as a bigger priority than anything romantic. Anytime you’re coping with a major change, particularly a sudden one, it can be terrifying, exhilarating, or both at once, as well as bringing up many other emotions.

干扰性关系是可怕的。无论你对关系采取什么方式（单身、独身多边恋、单偶制、换偶、多边恋等等），以及你谈论的是哪种关系，这都是真的。你可能会经历一次如此有意义（或如此糟糕）的相遇或短期联系，以至于它改变了此后的事情走向。也许你遇到了那个让你突然意识到想共度余生的人——或者你突然意识到你必须不惜一切代价离开和你在一起的人，尽管有长期的承诺。也许你意识到你想投入到一段忠诚的友谊或柏拉图式伙伴关系中，将其视为比任何浪漫关系都更重要的优先事项。每当你应对重大变化，特别是突然的变化时，它可能是可怕的、令人兴奋的，或者两者兼而有之，同时也会带来许多其他情绪。

Many nonmonogamous people harbour a fear of a particular kind of disruptive relationship: the amazing new relationship that shows up in a partner’s life and makes that partner realize they actually want to leave you, shack up with the new person, and possibly even become monogamous with them. People often put a lot of time and energy into trying to prevent this from happening while still enjoying all the benefits of nonmonogamy.

许多非单偶制者怀有一种对特定类型干扰性关系的恐惧：一段出现在伴侣生活中的惊人的新关系，让那个伴侣意识到他们实际上想离开你，和新人同居，甚至可能与他们变成单偶制。人们经常投入大量时间和精力试图防止这种情况发生，同时仍然享受非单偶制的所有好处。

The desire not to lose what you have because your partner meets someone new is rational and reasonable. And it does happen! Thing is, it happens to people regardless of whether they’re monogamous or nonmonogamous, whether they have lots of rules or none at all. It’s an inherently unpredictable phenomenon. What is neither rational nor reasonable is attempting to build structures that allow your partner to have other relationships while guaranteeing that nothing will change for you. Relationships don’t work that way. We live in a world with no guarantees. And, regardless of nonmonogamy, no promise of “forever” can stand up to the #39 bus with bad brakes that puts someone in a coma. These are the risks you take when you open your heart to someone else. Sometimes things really change.

不想因为伴侣遇到新人而失去你所拥有的东西，这种愿望是理性和合理的。而且这确实会发生！问题是，无论人们是单偶制还是非单偶制，无论他们有很多规则还是根本没有规则，这种情况都会发生。这是一种本质上不可预测的现象。既不理性也不合理的是，试图建立允许你的伴侣拥有其他关系，同时保证你什么都不会改变的结构。关系不是那样运作的。我们生活在一个没有保证的世界里。而且，不管是不是非单偶制，没有“永远”的承诺能经得起刹车失灵的 39 路公交车让某人陷入昏迷的考验。这些都是当你向别人敞开心扉时所承担的风险。有时事情真的会改变。

Andrea sometimes talks about the difference between an ethic of care versus an ethic of protection. If your focus is on protecting one specific relationship, then you’ll spend a great deal of time and effort on building walls around it—bulletproof rules, careful agreements, limits galore—so that you can enjoy the experience of connecting with other people as much as possible, but not too much. The premise sets up one established relationship as ideal and casts all others as threats. It invites a sense of competition for limited resources.

安德莉亚有时会谈论关怀伦理与保护伦理之间的区别。如果你的重点是保护一段特定的关系，那么你会花费大量的时间和精力在它周围筑墙——防弹规则、谨慎的协议、大量的限制——这样你就可以尽可能多地享受与他人联系的体验，但又不会太多。这个前提将一段既定关系设定为理想，并将所有其他关系视为威胁。它引发了对有限资源的竞争感。

If you shift toward an ethic of care, then you don’t need walls. Your focus becomes on cultivating. What is your relationship like? What does it need to thrive? How can you feed, nourish and care for it? When another relationship comes along, what does that one need to thrive, and how can you care for it too? Can you find ways to synergistically nourish both at once, or do they need really different things? How can each partnership support the others?

如果你转向关怀伦理，那么你就不需要墙了。你的重点变成了培养。你的关系是什么样的？它需要什么才能茁壮成长？你如何喂养、滋养和照顾它？当另一段关系出现时，那一段需要什么才能茁壮成长，你也可以如何照顾它？你能找到同时协同滋养两这的方法吗，还是它们需要完全不同的东西？每段伙伴关系如何支持其他关系？

Once you’re operating from an ethic of care, you begin to ask different questions and come up with more creative answers. You and your partnerships develop resilience as you try things, make mistakes, talk about them, course-correct and try other things. You’re engaged in an ongoing process of co-creation with the people you’re involved with.

一旦你从关怀伦理出发，你就会开始问不同的问题并想出更有创意的答案。当你尝试事物、犯错、谈论它们、修正路线并尝试其他事物时，你和你的伙伴关系就会发展出韧性。你参与了一个与你有关的人共同创造的持续过程。

Disruptors will show up in your life at unexpected moments no matter what. By their very nature, you can’t protect yourself or your relationships from them. Or rather, put a different way, the care—not the walls—is what actually provides protection. When you put all your energy into avoiding or preventing challenging experiences, and they show up anyway (as they do), you end up having very little practice actually managing them together. But when you welcome change, and you build experience having tough conversations, facing and solving complex problems together, and rolling with the punches as you each grow and evolve over time, this strong and flexible foundation prepares you for the big disruptors you can’t predict.

无论如何，干扰因素都会在意想不到的时刻出现在你的生活中。就其本质而言，你无法保护自己或你的关系免受它们的侵害。或者换句话说，真正提供保护的是关怀——而不是墙。当你把所有的精力都放在避免或预防挑战性经历上，而它们无论如何都会出现（它们确实会）时，你最终实际上很少有共同管理它们的练习。但是，当你欢迎变化，并建立起进行艰难对话、共同面对和解决复杂问题以及随着时间的推移各自成长和进化而随机应变的经验时，这种强大而灵活的基础让你为无法预测的巨大干扰做好了准备。

Disruptors provide a great opportunity to go back and review your values and your ethical system. They’re not an excuse to throw it all out the window as you barrel into a new situation. In fact, if your values are only meaningful when things are going smoothly and easily, or if your ethical system only applies when your world is steady and predictable, we’d suggest they’re not robust enough! Values take on their true meaning when they’re tested; ethical systems are the very thing you need to hold onto when the world seems really chaotic. They’re what help you make decisions in such a way that you can look back on them later and feel at ease with yourself. How can you best live up to your values and operate within your ethical system as you make decisions in the face of great change? Alternatively, has this disruptor caused you to reconsider your values or ethical system, or some element of either? If so, how, and what amendments do you need to make? Shifting your system isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it should be done with caution and care, and not just for the sake of expediency.

干扰因素提供了一个极好的机会来回顾你的价值观和伦理体系。它们不是你在冲进新情况时把一切都抛诸脑后的借口。事实上，如果你的价值观只有在事情进展顺利和容易时才有意义，或者如果你的伦理体系只在你的世界稳定和可预测时才适用，我们会建议它们不够稳健！价值观在受到考验时才具有真正的意义；当世界看起来真的很混乱时，伦理体系正是你需要坚持的东西。它们帮助你做出决定，这样你以后回顾它们时会对自己感到安心。在面对巨大变化做出决定时，你如何才能最好地不辜负你的价值观并在你的伦理体系内运作？或者，这个干扰因素是否让你重新考虑你的价值观或伦理体系，或其中的某些要素？如果是，如何修改，你需要做出什么修改？改变你的体系不一定是坏事，但应该谨慎小心地进行，而不仅仅是为了权宜之计。

Re-evaluating agreements

重新评估协议

It’s incredibly easy to fall into prioritizing the agreements made within a relationship over the well-being of the people involved. Here it’s important to remember again, the people in the relationship are more important than the relationship. Sacrificing the happiness of human beings in the service of agreements, rather than making agreements that serve the needs of the people, takes you further away from joyful, fulfilling lives, not closer to them.

很容易陷入将关系中达成的协议置于相关人员福祉之上的陷阱。在这里，再次记住这一点很重要，关系中的人比关系更重要。为了协议而牺牲人类的幸福，而不是制定服务于人们需求的协议，会让你离快乐、充实的生活更远，而不是更近。

Anyone should be able to reopen discussions about an agreement at any time. It helps to think of agreements as mutable, organic things that will be revisited and modified as people grow and relationships change. When you see these structures as static, they can make relationships less rather than more stable, because they will fail to adapt to change … sometimes spectacularly.

任何人都应该能够随时重新开启关于协议的讨论。把协议看作是可变的、有机的东西，随着人们的成长和关系的变化，会被重新审视和修改，这很有帮助。当你把这些结构看作是静态的时候，它们可能会让关系变得更不稳定而不是更稳定，因为它们将无法适应变化……有时甚至是灾难性的。

A good relationship is not something you have, it’s something you do. The happiest relationships tend to be those whose members are constantly willing to renegotiate the groundwork beneath them so that they can grow and change with each other over time—as their lives and priorities evolve, as new situations arise, and as they get to know themselves and each other more deeply. In fact, some people set periodic dates in their calendar when they will review their relationship agreements with each other to make sure they’re still working and see if anything needs to change.

一段好的关系不是你拥有的东西，而是你做的事情。最幸福的关系往往是那些成员不断愿意重新协商其基础的关系，以便他们可以随着时间的推移共同成长和改变——随着他们的生活和优先事项的发展，随着新情况的出现，以及随着他们更深入地了解自己和彼此。事实上，有些人在日历上设定了定期日期，与彼此审查关系协议，以确保它们仍然有效，并查看是否有什么需要改变。

When looking at the structures of your relationship, ask yourself regularly: Are they honest? Are they necessary? Are they kind? Are they respectful? Are they considerate of others? If you’ve made agreements with an existing partner that you expect new partners to abide by, ask yourself, “Would I have become involved with my current partner if I were bound by these agreements at the start?”

在审视你的关系结构时，定期问自己：它们诚实吗？它们必要吗？它们友善吗？它们尊重人吗？它们体谅他人吗？如果你与现有伴侣达成了你期望新伴侣遵守的协议，问问自己，“如果我在开始时就受到这些协议的约束，我会与我现在的伴侣建立关系吗？”

Creeping concessions

渐进式让步 (Creeping concessions)

Flexibility and willingness to renegotiate agreements are vital parts of a growing, thriving nonmonogamous relationship. There’s a potential danger lurking in this flexibility, though, which we call “creeping concessions.”

灵活性和重新协商协议的意愿是成长、蓬勃发展的非单偶制关系的重要组成部分。然而，这种灵活性中潜伏着一种潜在的危险，我们称之为“渐进式让步”。

Sometimes people can end up in relationships that cross boundaries without those people even noticing. For example, perhaps you have a partner who’s having difficulty and asks you to give up something while they work through the issue. You naturally want to support your partner, so you agree. Later, that person may say, “Well, this still isn’t working. Dreadfully sorry, but can you give up a little bit more? I’m really struggling with this.”

有时人们最终会处于越过界限的关系中，而这些人甚至没有注意到。例如，也许你有一个遇到困难的伴侣，要求你在他们解决问题时放弃一些东西。你自然想支持你的伴侣，所以你同意了。后来，那个人可能会说，“嗯，这还是不行。非常抱歉，但你能再放弃一点吗？我真的在为此挣扎。”

Because your partner’s happiness is important to you, you say yes. And perhaps time goes by and your partner says, “Look, um, I’m terribly sorry to bring this up, but I’m still having issues here. Can you perhaps find it in your heart to make this other small concession over here, just this one little thing that will really help me?” Bit by bit, inch by inch, you may find yourself negotiating away things that are important. If each individual step is small enough, you might give up a boundary without even seeing it.

因为你伴侣的幸福对你很重要，所以你说好。也许时间流逝，你的伴侣说，“听着，嗯，非常抱歉提起这个，但我这里还是有问题。你能不能发发慈悲在这边再做这一个小小的让步，就这一件小事真的会帮到我？”一点一点，一寸一寸，你可能会发现自己在通过谈判放弃重要的事情。如果每一步都足够小，你甚至可能在没看到的情况下就放弃了一个界限。

At times you may be aware that you’re conceding things you once thought inviolate, but you do it anyway because you’ve already invested so much. Economists have a name for this: the sunk cost fallacy. A sunk cost is an investment of time, energy, attention or something else that can’t be recovered. If you spend a year in a relationship that isn’t a good fit for you, you can’t go back and get that year back again. The “fallacy” part involves making decisions for the future based on that past investment, rather than on whether the decisions are likely to benefit you in the future. Say, for example, you’re at a movie, and you realize early on that you’re not going to enjoy it. You already bought the tickets; you can’t get your money back. Do you stay and watch the movie and have a miserable time, or do you walk out and browse the nearby bookstore, which is much more enjoyable? For some people, it’s hard to walk away from the movie, although the cost of the tickets is gone either way.

有时你可能会意识到你正在让步你曾经认为不可侵犯的事情，但你还是这样做了，因为你已经投入了太多。经济学家对此有一个称呼：沉没成本谬误 (sunk cost fallacy)。沉没成本是时间、精力、注意力或其他无法收回的投资。如果你在一段不适合你的关系中花了一年时间，你无法回去把那一年拿回来。“谬误”部分涉及基于过去的投资而不是基于决定是否可能在未来使你受益来为未来做决定。例如，假设你在看电影，并且你很早就意识到你不会喜欢它。你已经买了票；你拿不回你的钱了。你是留下来看电影并度过一段痛苦的时光，还是走出去浏览附近的书店，那要愉快得多？对一些人来说，很难离开电影，尽管票的成本无论如何都已经没了。

When you’re deciding whether to agree to a compromise or concession that gives you a sick feeling, knowing that the alternative might be to end the relationship, you might think “I’ve invested a year of my life in this relationship. I can’t let it go!” rather than “This relationship is not working, and if I make this concession, it’s going to work even less. It is better to choose whether to agree based on my future happiness, not on the year I’ve already spent.”

当你决定是否同意一个让你感到恶心的妥协或让步时，知道另一种选择可能是结束这段关系，你可能会想“我在这段关系中投入了一年的生命。我不能放手！”而不是“这段关系行不通，如果我做出这个让步，它就更行不通了。最好根据我未来的幸福来选择是否同意，而不是根据我已经花去的一年。”

Agreements about privacy and disclosure

关于隐私和披露的协议

We’ve talked a lot about how open, honest communication is absolutely essential to nonmonogamy. However, everyone has the right to set boundaries around access to their bodies and their emotions. One of those boundaries concerns privacy. The right to privacy is often considered a basic human right.

我们已经谈了很多关于开放、诚实的沟通对非单偶制绝对必要。然而，每个人都有权围绕对自己身体和情感的访问设定界限。其中一个界限涉及隐私。隐私权通常被认为是一项基本人权。

Balancing the responsibility for disclosure with a reasonable expectation of privacy is not always easy. There is no bright line where one stops and the other starts. Agreements about either disclosure or secrecy can make sense. For example, communication about sexual boundaries and sexual health is necessary to give informed consent, and a rule that text messages will be kept private protects the intimacy and trust of partners. But it can be easy to go to extremes and create agreements (or rules) that violate someone’s right to privacy or consent.

平衡披露责任与合理的隐私期望并不总是容易的。没有一条明线标示着一个结束而另一个开始。关于披露或保密的协议可能是有意义的。例如，关于性界限和性健康的沟通对于给予知情同意是必要的，而短信将保密的规则则保护了伴侣的亲密感和信任。但很容易走向极端，制定侵犯某人隐私权或同意权的协议（或规则）。

For example, a nesting partner may want to see every single communication, such as texts and emails, between their partner and their metamour. Most people would probably agree this is a serious violation of the metamour’s privacy; it is difficult for intimacy to grow under the eye of an outside observer. You need private spaces if you are to reveal to a lover the deepest parts of yourself, the furthest corners of your heart, and (especially!) the wounded and vulnerable places within yourself.

例如，一个同居伴侣可能想要查看伴侣和表侣之间的每一条通讯，如短信和电子邮件。大多数人可能会同意这是对表侣隐私的严重侵犯；在外部观察者的注视下，亲密关系很难生长。如果你要向爱人展示你最深层的部分、你内心最深处的角落，以及（特别是！）你内心的受伤和脆弱之处，你需要私人空间。

Compulsory sharing is always a bit suspect. When others demand that you reveal yourself, intimacy is undermined rather than strengthened, because something that is demanded cannot be shared freely as a gift. Intimacy is built by mutually consensual sharing, not by demands.

强制分享总是有点可疑。当别人要求你展示自己时，亲密感是被破坏而不是加强，因为被要求的东西不能作为礼物自由分享。亲密感是通过双方同意的分享建立的，而不是通过要求。

At the other extreme, some people insist on knowing absolutely nothing about a partner’s other lovers. Not even how many, not even their names. These “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) relationships raise troubling questions about boundaries, consent and denial. If you know nothing about a partner’s other activities, you will find it difficult to make informed choices about your relationship—particularly the sexual aspects.

在另一个极端，有些人坚持绝对不想知道伴侣的其他爱人的任何事情。甚至不知道有多少个，甚至不知道他们的名字。这些“不问不说”(DADT) 的关系引发了关于界限、同意和否认的令人不安的问题。如果你对伴侣的其他活动一无所知，你会发现很难对你的关系做出明智的选择——特别是性方面。

Demanding to know everything undermines intimacy, but so does demanding to know nothing. When you demand to know nothing, you cut yourself off from a part of your partners’ experience, and that must necessarily limit how intimate you can be. Anytime you interact intimately with another person—including “just sex”—you learn things about yourself, and you come out with a slightly different viewpoint on the world, even if it’s a microscopic difference. If you’re not free to share these developments with your partner, you’re creating a situation in which you’re virtually guaranteeing you’ll begin to grow apart, even if it’s just a little increment at a time.

要求知道一切会破坏亲密感，但要求什么都不知道也会。当你要求什么都不知道时，你就把自己与伴侣经历的一部分隔绝开来，这必然会限制你们的亲密程度。每当你与另一个人亲密互动时——包括“只是性”——你都会了解关于自己的一些事情，并且你会带着对世界稍微不同的观点出来，即使那是微小的差异。如果你不能自由地与你的伴侣分享这些发展，你就在制造一种几乎可以保证你们会开始疏远的情况，即使每次只是一点点。

DADT arrangements tend to get a lot of side-eye in nonmonogamous communities, and for good reason. In addition to the problems they can cause, they often point to unresolved insecurities or a partner who doesn’t really want to be nonmonogamous. That said, in some cases DADT can form part of a strategy for dealing with specific situations. For example, if partners live apart and one of them is going through a significant life stressor, that partner may prefer to restrict conversations about other partners’ relationships until they have more bandwidth. People in comet or strictly parallel long-distance relationships may not feel that being kept up to date on their partners’ love life is how they want to spend limited time with their partners. Someone whose partner is experiencing a lot of relationship turnover, especially over a long period of time, may prefer just not to hear about it until things have settled down. Or if a hinge consistently struggles with maintaining boundaries, taking responsibility and avoiding triangulation (see pages 337–344), one or more of their partners may prefer to implement DADT and maintain a laser focus on their own dyad until the hinge can get their act together. Note that in many of these situations, though, DADT isn’t a permanent solution, but a way of temporarily creating space or relieving pressure until the root issue can be resolved.

DADT 安排在非单偶制社区往往会受到很多侧目，这是有充分理由的。除了它们可能引起的问题外，它们通常指向未解决的不安全感或一个并不真正想要非单偶制的伴侣。话虽如此，在某些情况下，DADT 可以成为处理特定情况策略的一部分。例如，如果伴侣分开居住，其中一人正在经历重大的生活压力，该伴侣可能更愿意限制关于其他伴侣关系的对话，直到他们有更多的精力。处于彗星式或严格平行异地关系中的人可能不觉得了解伴侣爱情生活的最新情况是他们想与伴侣度过有限时间的方式。如果某个人的伴侣正在经历大量的关系更替，特别是在很长一段时间内，他可能更愿意直到事情尘埃落定才听说。或者，如果一个枢纽一直在努力维持界限、承担责任和避免三角化（见第 337-344 页），他们的一个或多个伴侣可能更愿意实施 DADT 并将注意力集中在他们自己的二人关系上，直到枢纽能够振作起来。请注意，在许多这些情况下，DADT 不是永久性的解决方案，而是一种暂时创造空间或缓解压力的方法，直到根本问题得到解决。

The issue always seems to circle back to these questions: How much do you trust your partners? How much do you trust your relationships? Do you trust your partners enough to allow intimacy, not limiting what you can hear? Do you trust your partners enough to leave them their private spaces, knowing that they will share things that are important and relevant to you so you can continue to make informed choices?

这个问题似乎总是回到这些问题上：你有多信任你的伴侣？你有多信任你的关系？你是否足够信任你的伴侣以允许亲密，不限制你能听到的内容？你是否足够信任你的伴侣以给他们留出私人空间，知道他们会分享对你重要和相关的事情，以便你可以继续做出明智的选择？

Broken agreements

破坏协议

Trust is a precious and fragile thing—far more so than many people realize. Recall our discussion of the marble-jar metaphor on page 114? When someone respects agreements consistently over time, it adds marbles to the jar. When someone breaks an agreement, it might remove marbles or, if it’s a significant enough break or hits at a particularly weak spot, it might even shatter the jar, making repair impossible. A single massive betrayal might pour all the marbles out, but when someone breaks agreements consistently over time in small ways, the jar slowly empties. Either way, you may end up with little or no trust left. But that doesn’t have to mean the end of the relationship (if you don’t want it to). It may take time, but if both of you want it and are willing to make the effort, it’s possible to slowly rebuild trust.

信任是一种珍贵而脆弱的东西——远比许多人意识到的要脆弱得多。还记得我们在第 114 页讨论的弹珠罐比喻吗？当有人随着时间的推移始终尊重协议时，就会向罐子里添加弹珠。当有人破坏协议时，可能会移除弹珠，或者如果是足够严重的破坏或击中了特别薄弱的地方，它甚至可能打碎罐子，使修复成为不可能。一次巨大的背叛可能会倒出所有的弹珠，但当有人随着时间的推移以微小的方式不断破坏协议时，罐子会慢慢变空。无论哪种方式，你最终可能会剩下很少或没有信任。但这并不一定意味着关系的结束（如果你不想这样的话）。可能需要时间，但如果你们都想要并且愿意付出努力，慢慢重建信任是可能的。

Sometimes a person breaks an agreement because they’re a bad actor. They have malicious intent and are testing boundaries, trying to see how much they can get away with (see page 177). But that’s not the case most of the time. You might not be on the same page about what the agreement really entailed, which led to differences in how you each interpreted it on the fly. You may have come up with an agreement together that’s impractical or difficult to respect, or too complicated to remember in all its detail when making decisions in the moment. Or you may have agreed to something that, as it turns out, you really don’t want after all, but you didn’t figure that out until something unexpected happened—and you chose to go ahead anyway and hope for the best.

有时一个人破坏协议是因为他们是个坏人。他们有恶意并且正在试探界限，试图看看他们能逃脱什么惩罚（见第 177 页）。但这大多数时候并非如此。你们可能对协议的真正含义没有达成共识，这导致了你们在匆忙中对它的解释存在差异。你们可能一起达成了一个不切实际或难以尊重的协议，或者太复杂以至于在当下做决定时无法记住所有细节。或者你可能同意了一些结果证明你根本不想要的事情，但直到意外发生你才发现——而你选择无论如何都要继续并抱最好的希望。

For a relationship to continue to be based on a foundation of honesty, you need to talk about it once any of those things have happened. The consequences may or may not be serious, but either way, a broken agreement requires a conversation to figure out how to repair things and how to move forward.

为了让关系继续建立在诚实的基础上，一旦发生任何这些事情，你需要谈论它。后果可能严重也可能不严重，但无论哪种方式，破坏协议都需要对话来弄清楚如何修复事情以及如何前进。

Be wary of moving on without doing the work of repair. Sometimes, simply committing to not repeating the mistake is enough to make things right, but often it takes a little more than that. A broken agreement does not have to spell the end of a relationship, but if you don’t take proper care to repair things, it certainly can. (We discuss breakups a bit more in chapter 21.) Or it can be the start of a longer-term erosion of trust. What would be a meaningful form of repair for the person who’s been hurt? Take the time to figure it out together, and then act on it. This work adds marbles back into the jar, which is a different job than simply not taking any more out. To use another metaphor, it’s great to stop stepping on a person’s foot, but if you broke a bone, simply removing your foot from theirs doesn’t heal the break, which can set poorly if left untreated.

要警惕在不做修复工作的情况下继续前进。有时，仅仅承诺不再重复错误就足以让事情变好，但往往需要更多一点。破坏协议不一定意味着关系的结束，但如果你不采取适当措施来修复事情，它肯定会导致结束。（我们在第 21 章会更多地讨论分手。）或者它可能是信任长期侵蚀的开始。对于受过伤害的人来说，什么才是有意义的修复形式？花时间一起弄清楚，然后付诸行动。这项工作将弹珠放回罐子里，这与仅仅不再取出任何弹珠是不同的工作。用另一个比喻来说，停止踩别人的脚很好，但如果你踩断了骨头，仅仅把脚从他们的脚上移开并不能治愈骨折，如果不治疗，骨折可能会愈合得很差。

Separately from the repair question, now that you know something wasn’t working about an agreement, what next? Do you need to renegotiate the agreement, scrap it entirely or recommit to it with a renewed understanding of how to respect it? Think back to our discussion about locking bikes to trees on pages 253–254. People do things for reasons. What was the reason the person broke the agreement? How can you set up better infrastructure to address that reason in a way that works for everyone involved? Remember the importance of co-creation and collaboration. Instead of casting one person as the bad guy who has to do better, look at the situation holistically. What needs to change to make it workable for everyone? It’s certainly okay to hold firm on key boundaries here, but the more curiosity and creativity you can bring to the table, the more likely you’ll be in coming up with a way forward that’s likely to succeed.

除了修复问题之外，既然你知道协议有些地方行不通，接下来怎么办？你需要重新协商协议，完全废除它，还是以对其如何尊重的全新理解重新承诺它？回想一下我们在第 253-254 页关于把自行车锁在树上的讨论。人们做事情是有原因的。那个人破坏协议的原因是什么？你如何建立更好的基础设施，以一种对每个相关人员都有效的方式来解决那个原因？记住共创和协作的重要性。与其把一个人塑造成必须做得更好的坏人，不如从整体上看待情况。需要改变什么才能使其对每个人都可行？在这里坚定关键界限当然是可以的，但你能带到桌面的好奇心和创造力越多，你就越有可能想出一条可能成功的出路。

If your partner has broken an agreement with you, you might also need outside support as you figure out how you’re feeling about it and what to do next. You may want to work with a relationship therapist who’s well versed in nonmonogamy, or maybe you need to work with your own therapist or confide in a trusted friend. Choose your support system wisely. In a monogamous relationship, when someone cheats, they’re automatically the bad guy. It’s a story people know well, with roles that play out endlessly in movie and TV plots, song lyrics and memes, and it elicits predictable sympathetic responses from the people around the “good guy.” But when other kinds of agreements are broken, it can be harder to find support and sympathy from friends if they aren’t also, themselves, nonmonogamous, or from therapists who are trained in working with nonmonogamous clients. Monogamous folks may not get why an agreement was important in the first place (“Wait, it’s okay for your partner to have sex with someone else, but you’re heartbroken because they watched the new Star Wars with someone else?”). Or they may say “I told you so” and blame nonmonogamy itself, or encourage you to leave what they see as an inherently unhealthy relationship when you want to repair it—thus invalidating your choices and values instead of being supportive, even if they mean well. So if you don’t have a solid network made up of nonmonogamous or nonmonogamy-literate people, you may find yourself misunderstood and lacking support.

如果你的伴侣破坏了与你的协议，在弄清楚你对此的感受以及接下来该做什么时，你也可能需要外部支持。你可能想与精通非单偶制的关系治疗师合作，或者你可能需要与你自己的治疗师合作或向值得信赖的朋友倾诉。明智地选择你的支持系统。在单偶制关系中，当有人出轨时，他们自动成为坏人。这是人们熟知的故事，其角色在电影和电视情节、歌词和迷因中无休止地上演，并引起“好人”周围人的可预测的同情反应。但是当其他类型的协议被破坏时，如果朋友本身不是非单偶制者，或者是受过与非单偶制客户合作培训的治疗师，就很难从他们那里获得支持和同情。单偶制者可能不明白为什么协议一开始就很重要（“等等，你的伴侣和别人发生性关系没关系，但你因为他们和别人一起看了新的《星球大战》而心碎？”）。或者他们可能会说“我早告诉过你”并责怪非单偶制本身，或者当你想要修复时鼓励你离开他们认为本质上不健康的关系——从而否定你的选择和价值观而不是支持，即使他们出于好意。所以如果你没有一个由非单偶制或懂非单偶制的人组成的稳固网络，你可能会发现自己被误解和缺乏支持。

But rest assured, if someone breaks an agreement, your feelings of betrayal are valid. In nonmonogamy, you write your own relationship stories and create your own meanings, and they are just as powerful as the ones that mononormative society prescribes for you, even if they’re not as widely shared.

但请放心，如果有人破坏了协议，你的背叛感是正当的。在非单偶制中，你书写自己的关系故事并创造自己的意义，它们与单偶常态社会为你规定的故事一样强大，即使它们没有被广泛分享。

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF 问自己的问题

These questions can help guide you toward ethical agreements that work.

这些问题可以帮助你制定有效的道德协议。

When considering an agreement:

What is the purpose of this agreement?
Does the agreement serve the purpose it is intended to serve?
Is this agreement the only way to serve this purpose?
What will happen if someone breaks the agreement? Do we have a path for re-establishing trust?
Is everyone affected by the agreement included in negotiating it?
Can the agreement be renegotiated?

在考虑协议时：

这个协议的目的是什么？
协议是否服务于其旨在服务的目的？
这个协议是服务于此目的的唯一方式吗？
如果有人破坏协议会发生什么？我们有重建信任的路径吗？
受协议影响的每个人都参与谈判了吗？
协议可以重新协商吗？

When renegotiating an agreement:

How have the needs now changed compared to when we agreed to this?
Has anyone been harmed by this agreement? How can we rework it to make that unlikely in the future?
Is this agreement serving the people involved, or are the people serving it?
What have we all learned from this agreement and the experiences we’ve had while it was in place?
What do we most need going forward, and how can we best express that in a simple, principle-based way that we can all agree to?

在重新协商协议时：

与我们达成此协议时相比，现在的需求发生了什么变化？
有人被这个协议伤害了吗？我们如何重做它以使这种情况在未来不太可能发生？
这个协议是在服务于相关人员，还是人们在服务于它？
我们从这个协议以及它实施期间我们拥有的经历中学到了什么？
我们未来最需要什么，我们如何以一种简单、基于原则且我们都能同意的方式最好地表达这一点？

I’ve worked really hard Lauren Bacon, “The One Question You Must Ask (or, The World’s Shortest Bucket List),” LaurenBacon.com (blog), June 18, 2013, https://laurenbacon.com/the-one-question-you-must-ask ↩ ↩²