2 寻找你的指南针（或者说，别刻薄） Finding Your Compass (or, Don’t Be Mean)

:::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。 :::

What are we sowing into the world when we speak?

KELLY HAYES¹

当我们说话时，我们在向世界播撒什么？

凯利·海耶斯 (Kelly Hayes)¹

Nonmonogamous folks have long struggled to find acceptance for ourselves and our relationships. As a defensive move, nonmonogamous people started to use the word ethical to differentiate nonmonogamy done with the agreement of all partners from cheating. This strategy was exemplified by one of the earliest nonmonogamy guidebooks, The Ethical Slut by Janet Hardy and Dossie Easton, and over time the word moved into the general lingo, with acronyms such as ENM for ethical nonmonogamy or CNM for consensual nonmonogamy.

长期以来，非单偶制者一直在努力为我们自己和我们的关系寻求接纳。作为一种防御措施，非单偶制者开始使用道德 (ethical) 一词，以区分经所有伴侣同意的非单偶制与出轨。 这一策略在珍妮特·哈迪 (Janet Hardy) 和多西·伊斯顿 (Dossie Easton) 所著的最早的非单偶制指南之一《道德浪女》(The Ethical Slut) 中得到了体现，随着时间的推移，这个词进入了通用行话，出现了诸如 ENM（道德非单偶制）或 CNM（合意非单偶制）等首字母缩略词。

In some ways, the word “ethical” is useful shorthand for “I’m not cheating on my partner.” But it’s also problematic in its own right, because there are lots of ways to be unethical—cheating is just one of them. Many of the most common forms of nonmonogamy present serious ethical issues that deserve real consideration. And no one is immune to messing up and falling short, even when they’re doing their best. Just because someone tries to live by their own ethical systems doesn’t mean they always succeed—and not everyone has a well-thought-out ethical system in the first place, even if they have good intentions. (More on ethical systems shortly.) As nonmonogamous folks, we need to find a balance between defending ourselves to a mainstream that doesn’t get how nonmonogamy could possibly be okay and being able to honestly appraise our own practices to make sure we’re treating others well and minimizing (and repairing) harm.

在某些方面，“道德”一词是“我没有背叛我的伴侣”的有用简写。但它本身也有问题，因为有很多种不道德的方式——出轨只是其中之一。许多最常见的非单偶制形式都存在严重的伦理问题，值得真正考量。即使是在尽力而为的时候，也没有人能免于搞砸和做得不够好。仅仅因为有人试图按照自己的伦理体系生活，并不意味着他们总是能成功——而且即使他们有良好的意图，也并非每个人一开始就有一套深思熟虑的伦理体系。（稍后将详细讨论伦理体系。）作为非单偶制者，我们需要在向那些不明白非单偶制怎么可能没问题的主流社会为自己辩护，与能够诚实地评估我们自己的做法以确保我们善待他人并尽量减少（和修复）伤害之间找到平衡。

We also have to acknowledge that not everyone has good intentions. Some people just don’t care that much about how their actions affect others, even if they can learn enough jargon to make it seem like they’re on the same page as everyone else. Others go further than not caring: A tiny percentage of society is made up of people who are genuinely predatory, and they do a disproportionate amount of damage by deliberately gaming any system they come across and exploiting and harming people as a matter of course. So even if we build communities and gatherings around the idea of ethical nonmonogamy, some percentage of the people in those communities and spaces will inevitably fall into one of these groups: not caring about the harm they do, or even relishing it. We discuss this more in the next chapter.

我们也必须承认，并非每个人都怀有善意。有些人只是不太在乎他们的行为如何影响他人，即使他们可以学到足够的术语，让自己看起来和大家在同一频道上。还有些人不仅仅是不在乎：社会中极小一部分人是真正的掠夺者，他们通过蓄意利用他们遇到的任何系统，并将剥削和伤害他人视为理所当然，从而造成了不成比例的伤害。因此，即使我们围绕道德非单偶制的理念建立社区和聚会，这些社区和空间中的一部分人也不可避免地会属于这些群体之一：不关心他们造成的伤害，甚至以此为乐。我们在下一章会对此进行更多讨论。

On a different note,² various thinkers and writers in the realm of nonmonogamy have challenged the logic behind using the word ethical on the grounds that it implies that nonmonogamy is inherently unethical unless we specify otherwise. It’s a reasonable critique; after all, nobody says “I’m an ethical lesbian” or talks about doing “ethical kink,” even though 2SLGBTQI+ and BDSM/Leather/kink communities, identities and practices have long been condemned as sinful, sick, violent and otherwise wrong—much like nonmonogamy. Each of these groups of people have had to do plenty of self-defence in order to fight demonization. And while their strategies haven’t always been perfect, they also haven’t chosen to use the word ethical to try to redeem their image. In addition, people certainly don’t say, for example, “I’m an ethical math teacher” or “I do ethical rock climbing on the weekends.” These things are presumed not to require any qualification. Shouldn’t nonmonogamy be seen in the same way?

另一方面，² 非单偶制领域的各种思想家和作家挑战了使用道德一词背后的逻辑，理由是这暗示了除非我们另行说明，否则非单偶制本质上是不道德的。这是一个合理的批评；毕竟，没有人会说“我是一个道德的女同性恋”或谈论做“道德的性癖活动”，尽管 2SLGBTQI+ 和 BDSM/皮革/性癖社区、身份和实践长期以来一直被谴责为有罪、病态、暴力和其他错误——就像非单偶制一样。这些群体中的每一个都不得不进行大量的自我辩护以对抗妖魔化。虽然他们的策略并不总是完美的，但他们也没有选择使用“道德”这个词来试图挽回形象。此外，人们当然也不会说，例如，“我是一名道德的数学老师”或“我周末进行道德的攀岩”。这些事情被认为不需要任何限定。非单偶制不也应该被同样看待吗？

In a way, these criticisms come at the issue from two opposing angles. The first asks us to admit that nonmonogamy (even assuming we’re not talking about cheating) is not necessarily ethical by definition, so we shouldn’t make big claims like that. The second asks us to assume that nonmonogamy is in fact ethical by definition, so much so that we shouldn’t have to specify. In both cases, the solution seems to be to just stop saying “ethical nonmonogamy.”

在某种程度上，这些批评从两个相反的角度切入这个问题。第一种要求我们承认非单偶制（即使假设我们不是在谈论出轨）并不必然在定义上就是道德的，所以我们不应该做出那样的大声明。第二种要求我们假设非单偶制实际上在定义上就是道德的，以至于我们不需要特别说明。在这两种情况下，解决方案似乎都是停止说“道德非单偶制”。

Some folks have chosen to use the term consensual nonmonogamy instead, to avoid the issues with the word ethical—in fact, for about five years, this was how Eve identified herself—while others feel the same critiques apply. After all, we don’t have to talk about “consensual monogamy,” so why do we have to qualify our nonmonogamy?

有些人选择使用合意非单偶制 (consensual nonmonogamy) 一词，以避免“道德”一词带来的问题——事实上，大约有五年时间，伊芙就是这样定义自己的——而另一些人则认为同样的批评也适用。毕竟，我们不必谈论“合意单偶制”，那为什么我们要限定我们的非单偶制呢？

Terminology shifts over time, as we discussed in the introduction. We’re not personally attached to the terms ethical nonmonogamy or consensual nonmonogamy—or for that matter, to the idea of avoiding them. However, no matter your preferred terminology, we think it’s important to consider how to do nonmonogamy while following a clear ethical system. When you set aside the expectations of mononormativity, you’re also implicitly setting aside its assumptions about morality. Just like how you no longer have a template for what your relationships should look like from the outside, you also don’t have clear prescriptions anymore for how they should operate internally. Some folks try to transfer monogamous ethics into a nonmonogamous setting, and they usually find it doesn’t work so well. Others go the opposite direction and imagine that anything goes, as long as everyone is at least nominally consenting. This approach, too, has caused untold amounts of harm. We think that anyone who wants to break away from the prescribed ethics of the dominant society—which is great!—also has an obligation to think really deeply about what they’re using in its place.

术语随时间而变化，正如我们在引言中所讨论的那样。我们个人并不执着于道德非单偶制或合意非单偶制这些术语——或者就此而言，也不执着于避免使用它们的想法。然而，无论你喜欢什么术语，我们认为重要的是要考虑如何在遵循清晰伦理体系的同时进行非单偶制。当你抛开单偶常态的期望时，你也隐含地抛开了它关于道德的假设。就像你不再有一个关于你的关系从外部看起来应该是什么样子的模板一样，你也不再有关于它们在内部应该如何运作的明确规定。有些人试图将单偶制的伦理转移到非单偶制的环境中，通常发现这并不太奏效。另一些人则走向相反的方向，想象只要每个人至少在名义上同意，一切皆可。这种方法也造成了数不尽的伤害。我们认为，任何想要摆脱主流社会规定伦理的人——这很好！——也有义务深入思考他们用什么来取而代之。

What are ethics?

什么是伦理？

We’re not going to talk about ethics as the study of moral philosophy here; neither of us is a philosopher in the formal or scholarly sense. For us, a practical definition is more appropriate. So we propose the simple idea that ethics are a tool, a set of principles, that can help guide behaviour. Whatever ethical system you develop for yourself, or adopt from an outside source, its purpose is to help guide your decisions toward “right” and away from “wrong.”

我们不打算在这里把伦理学作为道德哲学来讨论；在正式或学术意义上，我们都不是哲学家。对我们来说，一个实用的定义更为合适。因此，我们提出一个简单的想法，即伦理是一种工具，一套原则，可以帮助指导行为。无论你为自己制定什么样的伦理体系，或者从外部来源采纳什么样的伦理体系，其目的都是帮助指导你的决定趋向“对”，远离“错”。

Sometimes the difference between the two is really easy to discern—either because your ethical system is very detailed and rigid, or because a situation is so black-and-white that there’s just one possible “right” choice. Of course, real life is full of situations that aren’t black-and-white and that challenge you to discern what the right choices are. This is why it’s helpful to put some careful thought into your own ethical system so that it’s able to flex to meet the realities of everyday life while being clear enough to provide you with consistent guidance.

有时，两者之间的区别真的很容易辨别——要么是因为你的伦理体系非常详细和严格，要么是因为情况如此黑白分明，只有一种可能的“正确”选择。当然，现实生活中充满了非黑即白的情况，挑战着你去辨别什么是正确的选择。这就是为什么要仔细思考你自己的伦理体系很有帮助，这样它既能灵活地适应日常生活的现实，又足够清晰，能为你提供一致的指导。

Some people source a lot of their ethical system from their culture or from a religion they were raised in or joined later in life. Others base it on an institutional code of conduct, such as athletes who believe in good sportsmanship on and off the field, or martial artists who live by the codes of their practice. A lot of people cobble together their personal ethical systems from multiple sources: the way they were raised, plus things they’ve read, heard or experienced that combine to form an overall approach to life. A bad experience can lead you to think, “I hate that someone did this, and I commit to never doing it to anyone myself.” A good experience can have you thinking, “That feels right. I want to do things that way.” You might want to emulate a mentor or a character in a story you loved, or take to heart a proverb, quote, poem or line from a book. Some people like having detailed systems with go-to rules for most situations, while others prefer holding a few core principles.

有些人从他们的文化、他们成长的宗教或后来加入的宗教中获取他们伦理体系的大部分内容。其他人则将其建立在机构行为准则之上，例如相信场上场下都要有良好体育精神的运动员，或者遵循其实践准则生活的武术家。许多人从多个来源拼凑出他们的个人伦理体系：他们的成长方式，加上他们读过、听过或经历过的事情，结合起来形成了一种整体的生活方式。一次糟糕的经历可能会让你想，“我讨厌有人这么做，我承诺我自己永远不对任何人这么做。”一次好的经历可能会让你想，“那感觉是对的。我想那样做事。”你可能想模仿一位导师或你喜欢的书中的一个角色，或者将一句谚语、引语、诗歌或书中的一句话铭记于心。有些人喜欢拥有详细的体系，为大多数情况提供现成的规则，而另一些人则更喜欢坚持几个核心原则。

For example, in her book Hello Cruel World, veteran trans writer and performer Kate Bornstein promotes a deceptively simple ethical system summed up in a single sentence: “Don’t be mean.” She explains it as follows: Over the course of this book, I will be giving you permission to do anything you want to do—anything at all—short of killing yourself. I don’t care if it’s illegal, immoral, fattening, self-defeating, whatever […] as long as it isn’t mean to anyone.

例如，在其著作《你好，残酷的世界》(Hello Cruel World) 中，资深跨性别作家和表演者凯特·伯恩斯坦 (Kate Bornstein) 提倡一种看似简单的伦理体系，总结为一句话：“别刻薄。”她解释如下： 在本书中，我将允许你做任何你想做的事——任何事——只要不自杀。我不在乎它是否非法、不道德、让人发胖、弄巧成拙，无论什么……只要不对任何人刻薄。

Being mean triggers shame and regret, not to mention bad karma. Shame and regret are nature’s way of telling us to forgive ourselves for whatever we just did, apologize and make amends for it if we can, and try to do better next time. That’s how we learn to be kind as we keep on in life’s journey. No one is perfectly kind, compassionate, and generous. But you can live a kinder, more compassionate, and generous life by following just one simple rule: DON’T BE MEAN. Anything else goes, anything at all.³

刻薄会引发羞耻和遗憾，更不用说坏业力了。羞耻和遗憾是大自然告诉我们要原谅自己刚才所做的一切、道歉并在可能的情况下做出弥补、并在下次做得更好的方式。这就是我们在人生旅途中不断前行时学会善良的方式。没有人生来就是完全善良、富有同情心和慷慨的。但你可以通过遵循一条简单的规则过上更善良、更富有同情心和慷慨的生活：别刻薄。其他任何事情都可以，任何事情。³

The genius of this system is that “don’t be mean” actually has some massive ramifications as a guiding principle once you start to think about it, including implications for how you treat yourself. And it raises fascinating questions about what is and is not mean. In a sense, this one simple principle invites you to create a more robust and complex ethical system to better explain what exactly it means in practical terms in your own everyday life.

这个体系的天才之处在于，一旦你开始思考，“别刻薄”作为一个指导原则实际上有着巨大的影响，包括你如何对待自己的含义。它引发了关于什么是刻薄、什么不是刻薄的有趣问题。在某种意义上，这一个简单的原则邀请你创建一个更强大、更复杂的伦理体系，以更好地解释它在你自己的日常生活中实际上意味着什么。

While we don’t want to be prescriptive about what values should be important to you, we also don’t think everything is relative. If a person’s ethical system consistently makes it possible for them to harm others without accountability, then we’d say it’s a bad system. And if a group’s ethical system consistently results in harm, whether to people within the group or people outside it, then it needs an overhaul, or maybe needs to be tossed altogether. Consider the values taught in pickup-artist subcultures, which often teach men to manipulate women and disregard their lack of consent. Think about the many cults that are supposedly about self-improvement but that ask members to give all their money and time to a leader and cease contact with family and friends. Or look at so-called conversion therapy practices—carried out at sleepaway camps, within religious groups and by individual counsellors—which purport to be about healing, but are deeply rooted in homo-and transphobia and aim to force trans and queer people to become cis and straight. (Spoiler: It doesn’t work, and it can destroy their lives.) Proponents of these systems say that what they’re doing is right and good, and they may even believe that with their whole hearts. And we disagree.

虽然我们不想规定什么价值观对你来说应该是重要的，但我们也不认为一切都是相对的。如果一个人的伦理体系始终使他们能够在不承担责任的情况下伤害他人，那么我们会说这是一个糟糕的体系。如果一个群体的伦理体系始终导致伤害，无论是对群体内部的人还是外部的人，那么它就需要彻底改革，或者是完全抛弃。想想搭讪艺术家 (pickup-artist) 亚文化中所教授的价值观，这些价值观通常教导男性操纵女性并无视她们的拒绝。想想那些所谓的自我提升邪教，它们要求成员将所有的金钱和时间交给领导者，并断绝与家人和朋友的联系。或者看看所谓的转化疗法实践——在过夜营地、宗教团体内部和由个人咨询师进行——声称是为了治愈，但深深植根于恐同和恐跨心理，旨在强迫跨性别者和酷儿变成顺性别者和异性恋者。（剧透：这行不通，而且会毁了他们的生活。）这些体系的支持者说他们所做的是正确和美好的，他们甚至可能全心全意地相信这一点。而我们不同意。

A concept from the field of cybernetics can be useful here: “The purpose of a system is what it does.” In other words, no matter what the stated intentions, if a system’s result is consistently harmful, then that system is harmful. And if a harmful system doesn’t change, then that’s fundamentally the same as if it were designed to harm. Intentions count, but results count more.

控制论领域的一个概念在这里很有用：“系统的目的在于其功能。”(The purpose of a system is what it does.) 换句话说，无论声称的意图是什么，如果一个系统的结果始终是有害的，那么该系统就是有害的。如果一个有害的系统不改变，那么这在根本上与它被设计用来造成伤害是一样的。意图很重要，但结果更重要。

We also reject a wholly individualist approach to ethics, or one that stops at considering effects at merely the level of dyad (meaning any two-person relationship), family or polycule. The way people view and treat each other is deeply, intricately shaped by the systems we live within, to the point where it becomes difficult to even imagine what other possibilities might exist outside that system. Mononormativity, amatonormativity, heteronormativity and the gender binary weren’t just made up for no reason; they exist to uphold systems of domination, namely colonialism, capitalism and patriarchy. These systems rely on disconnection to function. Haíłzaqv author Jess Housty (’Cúagilákv) sums up this idea: The way western society interacts with the world is often rooted in disconnection, in dissociation. We think we are architects of the order of the world, that our needs are the higher needs. This kind of thinking is so firmly embedded in my broader social context, and when it creeps into my thinking, I have to remind myself: think like an ancestor.⁴

我们也拒绝完全个人主义的伦理方法，或者仅仅考虑对二元关系（即任何两人关系）、家庭或多边关系网络层面影响的方法。人们看待和对待彼此的方式深受我们所处系统的复杂塑造，以至于很难想象在该系统之外还会存在什么其他的可能性。单偶常态、恋爱常态、异性恋常态和性别二元论并非凭空捏造；它们的存在是为了维护统治体系，即殖民主义、资本主义和父权制。这些体系依靠断裂 (disconnection) 来运作。Haíłzaqv 族作家杰斯·豪斯蒂 (Jess Housty, ’Cúagilákv) 总结了这个观点： 西方社会与世界互动的方式通常植根于断裂，植根于分离。我们认为我们是世界秩序的建筑师，我们的需求是更高的需求。这种思维方式如此牢固地嵌入在我更广泛的社会背景中，当它潜入我的思想时，我必须提醒自己：像祖先一样思考。⁴

Or, to paraphrase Mia Mingus, capitalism requires the breaking of relationships.⁵ Just as that systemic disconnection ripples downward and inward into your most intimate spaces, in turn, the beliefs that drive your actions in close relationships also drive your interactions with the world at every level. And these small actions, iterated billions of times at scale, reinforce the systems that create the beliefs that … you get the idea. Author adrienne maree brown refers to this interconnectedness as emergence:⁶ “In the framework of emergence, the whole is a mirror of the parts. Existence is fractal—the health of the cell is the health of the species and the planet.”

或者，借用米娅·明古斯 (Mia Mingus) 的话，资本主义需要破坏关系。⁵ 就像那种系统性的断裂向下向内波及到你最亲密的空间一样，反过来，驱动你在亲密关系中行动的信念也会驱动你在各个层面与世界的互动。这些微小的行动，在规模上重复数十亿次，强化了创造这些信念的系统……你懂的。作家阿德里安娜·玛丽·布朗 (adrienne maree brown) 将这种相互联系称为涌现 (emergence)：⁶ “在涌现的框架中，整体是部分的镜像。存在是分形的——细胞的健康就是物种和地球的健康。”

We believe that if we’re to really rethink and disrupt the mononormative paradigm that has so limited the ways we relate to one another, we must necessarily confront these other systems and consider how their stories, too, have affected us. And in turn, if we are creating new relational ethics, we have a responsibility to ensure that they, and the actions that result from them, do not reinforce these systems, and instead do their tiny part to actively disrupt them.

我们相信，如果我们要真正重新思考和打破极大地限制了我们彼此联系方式的单偶常态范式，我们就必须面对这些其他系统，并考虑它们的故事如何影响了我们。反过来，如果我们正在创造新的关系伦理，我们有责任确保它们，以及由此产生的行动，不会加强这些系统，而是尽其微薄之力积极地破坏它们。

“The personal is political” is a saying that emerged from the feminist movement in the early 1970s, and we think it applies to nonmonogamy as well. Right now, people who are writing, speaking and teaching about nonmonogamy, giving interviews and appearing in reality shows, are actively involved in creating culture. But so are those who are simply rethinking mononormativity in their own lives: When you make new decisions about how to do your relationships, that, too, is (emergently) part of creating culture. The ethics you bring to your intimate relationships are deeply connected to the broader ways you move through the world. As brown’s sister, Autumn Brown, has said, “The fundamental unit of change is relationship.”⁷ And it really does matter how you—to paraphrase Octavia Butler—shape that change.⁸

“个人的即政治的”是 20 世纪 70 年代初女权运动中出现的一句谚语，我们认为这也适用于非单偶制。现在，那些撰写、演讲和教授非单偶制、接受采访和出现在真人秀节目中的人，正在积极参与创造文化。但是，那些仅仅在自己的生活中重新思考单偶常态的人也是如此：当你对如何处理你的关系做出新的决定时，这也（涌现地）是创造文化的一部分。你带入亲密关系的伦理与你在世界上更广泛的行动方式紧密相连。正如布朗的妹妹奥特姆·布朗 (Autumn Brown) 所说，“改变的基本单位是关系。”⁷ 借用奥克塔维亚·巴特勒的话来说，你如何塑造这种改变真的很重要。⁸

As the world faces cascading global crises brought on by the same systems that create such profound disconnection at intimate scales, many brilliant people have been thinking and writing about the kinds of interpersonal ethics that could collectively remake our world in a more connected, resilient, sustainable and loving way. We’re not going to try to perform any grand synthesis here, but we want to encourage you to read widely as you explore your own thinking. We have been inspired and influenced by writers from the fields of Black feminism, prison abolition, transformative justice, decolonization, trauma and resilience studies, queer and trans thought, and much more, including all the writers mentioned in this chapter. You’ll find many of their works, and others, listed in the notes and resources sections at the end of this book.

当世界面临着由在亲密层面造成如此深刻断裂的同一系统所引发的连锁全球危机时，许多才华横溢的人一直在思考和撰写关于那种可以以更紧密、更有弹性、更可持续和更有爱的方式共同重塑我们世界的人际伦理。我们不打算在这里进行任何宏大的综合，但我们想鼓励你在探索自己的想法时广泛阅读。我们受到了来自黑人女权主义、监狱废除、变革性正义、去殖民化、创伤与复原力研究、酷儿与跨性别思想等领域的作家的启发和影响，包括本章中提到的所有作家。你会在本书末尾的注释和资源部分找到他们的许多作品以及其他作品。

So how do you take these huge ideas and turn them into an ethical system that helps you make everyday decisions? That’s the work of a lifetime, really. As you learn over time, you can revisit your system, overhaul it as needed or just tweak it on a regular basis. Ethics is a huge topic, and we can’t hope to fully do it justice here. The main message we want to get across is that we think that having an ethical system is important, and so is being able to explain its basics to others with whom you’re in relationship. And for that, it can also really help to figure out and name your values.

那么，你如何将这些宏大的想法转化为帮助你做日常决定的伦理体系呢？这实际上是一辈子的工作。随着时间的推移，你可以重新审视你的体系，根据需要进行彻底改革或只是定期调整。伦理是一个巨大的话题，我们无法指望在这里完全讲清楚。我们想传达的主要信息是，我们认为拥有一套伦理体系很重要，能够向与你有关系的人解释其基本内容也很重要。为此，弄清楚并说出你的价值观也会很有帮助。

What are values?

什么是价值观？

Think of values as the building blocks of an ethical system, or the components of the machinery that make it all work. Another way to understand their relationship would be that values are what you think is important, and ethics are what you do about that—the system of personal rules you follow. In her book Ecstasy Is Necessary, Barbara Carrellas explains: Your values are essential to who you are. They are the core organizing principles you use to live your life. Your values are like the operating system on a computer, constantly running in the background of whatever application you might be working in. They influence every choice you make and every interaction you participate in.⁹

把价值观想象成伦理体系的基石，或者让这一切运转的机器组件。理解它们关系的另一种方式是，价值观是你认为重要的东西，而伦理是你为此所做的事情——你遵循的个人规则体系。芭芭拉·卡雷拉斯 (Barbara Carrellas) 在她的书《狂喜是必要的》(Ecstasy Is Necessary) 中解释道： 你的价值观对你是谁至关重要。它们是你用来生活的核心组织原则。你的价值观就像计算机上的操作系统，在你可能正在处理的任何应用程序的后台不断运行。它们影响你做出的每一个选择和你参与的每一次互动。⁹

You may already be able to list your values. Perhaps you’re part of a faith, community or practice that sets out its values explicitly, and if you agree with them, that might give you a head start. Maybe you can identify the values set out by your family or the culture you were raised in, and put them on your list, if they resonate with you.

你可能已经能够列出你的价值观。也许你属于某个明确列出其价值观的信仰、社区或实践团体，如果你认同它们，那可能会让你有一个领先的开端。也许你可以识别出你的家庭或你成长的文化所设定的价值观，如果它们与你产生共鸣，就把它们列入你的清单。

For example, in her book I Hope We Choose Love: A Trans Girl’s Notes from the End of the World, Kai Cheng Thom describes (some of) the cultural values she was raised with: I’m not a big believer in justice. That skepticism extends to the notions of accountability, restorative justice, transformative justice, and most of the related terms that have taken hold in social justice culture—though I do very strongly believe in integrity, honesty, and personal honour. “Integrity” is a word you hear used fairly frequently in social justice circles, but honesty and honour, as I know them, are values that come to me through my Chinese family and upbringing. Honesty, in my family, means saying what you mean, even if it is unpopular. Honour means acting in a way that your ancestors would be proud of, even if it requires personal sacrifices to do so. However, “honour” is not a word you hear very much in social justice community, and I feel its distinct lack as an influence on activist conduct.¹⁰

例如，在其著作《我希望我们选择爱：一位跨性别女孩的世界末日笔记》(I Hope We Choose Love: A Trans Girl’s Notes from the End of the World) 中，Kai Cheng Thom 描述了她成长过程中接受的（部分）文化价值观： 我不太相信正义。这种怀疑延伸到问责制、恢复性正义、变革性正义以及大多数在社会正义文化中占据一席之地的相关术语——尽管我非常坚信正直、诚实和个人荣誉。“正直”是你在社会正义圈子里经常听到的一个词，但我所知道的诚实和荣誉，是通过我的中国家庭和成长经历传给我的价值观。诚实，在我的家庭中，意味着说出你的真实想法，即使它不受欢迎。荣誉意味着以一种让你的祖先感到自豪的方式行事，即使这需要个人牺牲。然而，“荣誉”是你在社会正义社区中听不到太多的词，我觉得它的明显缺失对活动家的行为产生了影响。¹⁰

Sometimes being part of a faith, community, practice, culture or family actually teaches you values that you don’t find useful, or that you disagree with, which can help you determine, by way of contrast, what values you do hold. You may be able to hold this tension and manage it in ways that allow you to keep participating. Or such a disagreement may create enough tension, either within yourself or in social contexts, that it leads to a rupture of some kind. In that case, you might leave a community, cease a practice or end certain relationships. As you change over time, you may later revisit these decisions; if you’ve stayed involved, you might find that the gap keeps widening, and the tension you used to be able to manage becomes unbearable enough that you have to leave. Or, if there was a rupture, you might later reassess the situation, soften your stance and rejoin in a different capacity, rekindle a connection or find that you can accept certain differences with more grace.

有时，作为信仰、社区、实践、文化或家庭的一部分，实际上会教给你一些你觉得没用或不同意的价值观，这可以通过对比帮助你确定你确实持有的价值观。你也许能够承受这种张力，并以允许你继续参与的方式对其进行管理。或者这种分歧可能会在你自己内心或社会环境中造成足够的张力，从而导致某种破裂。在那这种情况下，你可能会离开一个社区，停止一种实践或结束某些关系。随着时间的推移，你可能会重新审视这些决定；如果你一直参与其中，你可能会发现差距不断扩大，你过去能够应对的张力变得难以忍受，以至于你不得不离开。或者，如果发生了破裂，你以后可能会重新评估情况，软化你的立场，以不同的身份重新加入，重新建立联系，或者发现你可以更优雅地接受某些差异。

If you’re not sure what exactly your values are, it’s worth taking a little time to think about this question in a deliberate way. Barbara Carrellas provides a couple of exercises to that end in chapter 2 of her book. You can also do a quick online search for keywords (such as exercise or quiz and personal values) and you’ll find any number of tools and quizzes, though these are likely to come from a limited perspective. Even if you can rattle off your list of values at the drop of a hat, it’s still worth doing an exercise or two to help you consider and challenge them; you might end up reaffirming them, but you might also drop or reformulate some, or add new ones you hadn’t yet put into words. Very few people are given a predetermined set of values and go through their whole lives without questioning them or shifting them along the way. The point isn’t to follow any one specific process here, but to explore and come out with greater clarity.

如果你不确定你的价值观到底是什么，花点时间深思熟虑地思考这个问题是值得的。芭芭拉·卡雷拉斯在她书的第 2 章中为此提供了几个练习。你也可以在网上快速搜索关键词（如练习或测验和个人价值观），你会找到许多工具和测验，尽管这些可能来自有限的视角。即使你能不假思索地背出你的价值观清单，做一两个练习来帮助你思考和挑战它们也是值得的；你可能会最终重申它们，但也可能会放弃或重新表述一些，或者添加一些你尚未用语言表达的新价值观。很少有人被赋予一套预定的价值观，并在其一生中从未质疑或改变过它们。这里的重点不是遵循任何特定的过程，而是探索并获得更清晰的认识。

Why are your values important? Because they inform how you make choices in your life. Taken together, they provide a structure or system that can help you to either make those choices more consistently over time or to improve the kinds of choices you make to lead to greater meaning and belonging, and less suffering, for yourself and the people around you. This consistency in turn builds trust—both your trust in yourself and others’ trust in you. And it also helps you set boundaries around what kind of things you’ll do and what kinds of behaviours you’ll accept from others. Therapist Sander T. Jones explains this well in their book Cultivating Connection: A boundary on my own behavior is a limit based on my values that helps determine both my behavior in the face of pressure from other people and the behaviors I will allow myself when struggling alone with a difficult situation. … A boundary is also a limit we enforce on the behavior we will allow other people to direct toward us or inflict upon us.¹¹

为什么你的价值观很重要？因为它们为你如何在生活中做出选择提供信息。总而言之，它们提供了一种结构或系统，可以帮助你随着时间的推移更一致地做出这些选择，或者改善你所做的选择类型，从而为你自己和你周围的人带来更大的意义和归属感，以及更少的痛苦。这种一致性反过来又建立了信任——既包括你对自己的信任，也包括别人对你的信任。它还帮助你设定界限，关于你会做什么样的事情，以及你会接受别人什么样的行为。治疗师桑德·T·琼斯 (Sander T. Jones) 在其著作《培养连接》(Cultivating Connection) 中对此解释得很好： 对我自己行为的界限是基于我的价值观的限制，它有助于确定我在面对他人压力时的行为，以及我在独自面对困难情况时允许自己的行为。……界限也是我们对我们允许他人针对我们或强加于我们的行为所执行的限制。¹¹

Jones encourages you to find an appropriate balance between limits on your own behaviour and self-compassion; you need to recognize the limitations of your own power while also striving to hold yourself to the standards you could achieve. They also explain that values-based boundaries help you to strengthen and clarify your personal identity and to avoid actions, people and situations that are damaging to your self-esteem and self-respect. (We talk about boundaries more in chapter 9.)

琼斯鼓励你在限制自己的行为和自我同情之间找到适当的平衡；你需要认识到自己力量的局限性，同时也要努力让自己达到你能达到的标准。他们还解释说，基于价值观的界限有助于你加强和阐明你的个人身份，并避免那些损害你自尊和自重的行为、人和情况。（我们在第 9 章会更多地讨论界限。）

(Some of) our values

（部分）我们的价值观

We’ve each got our own set of values, and we have each developed fairly in-depth ethical systems. The same values that shape our approach to nonmonogamy also come into play when we choose what to eat, how we use social media, or how we approach our professional work. We’re going to take a moment to set out a couple of the key values that underpin our approach to nonmonogamy, because you’ll see evidence of them in a lot of what you read from this point forward.

我们每个人都有自己的一套价值观，并且我们都发展了相当深入的伦理体系。塑造我们非单偶制方法的相同价值观也体现在我们选择吃什么、如何使用社交媒体或如何对待我们的职业工作时。我们要花点时间列出支撑我们非单偶制方法的几个关键价值观，因为从现在开始，你将在阅读的许多内容中看到它们的证据。

The first one is kindness. What does that mean? In a social media post that went viral, Jordan K. Green wrote, “The East Coast is kind but not nice, the West Coast is nice but not kind.” Green went on to add, “Niceness is saying ‘I’m so sorry you’re cold,’ while kindness may be ‘Ugh, you’ve said that five times, here’s a sweater!’ Kindness is addressing the need, regardless of tone.”¹² We’re not here to debate coast-based cultural differences, but Green is getting at a useful point: Kindness isn’t just about sounding like you care about someone, it’s also about choosing actions that concretely demonstrate that you care, that you recognize another person’s fellow humanity. And when you think about it like that, it becomes clear that kindness is a sort of umbrella value that encompasses and interconnects with a whole lot of other values. For example, it’s hard to demonstrate that you care if you haven’t bothered to find out what a person wants, needs or finds meaningful. So that means part of kindness involves values like curiosity and listening. And if you believe that people all deserve to have agency over their lives, and that everyone should hold the same basic rights in relationships, then the kind thing to do is to always be honest with them, even on topics where that might feel uncomfortable—that’s the only way they can be full partners in decision-making about their lives. Of course, part of being kind is also about being respectful and considerate of people’s feelings, boundaries, bodies and dignity; that means you have to find ways to be both honest and compassionate in how you express yourself and what actions you choose to take. Kindness also encompasses generosity, meaning the willingness to share what you have with others, offer them the benefit of the doubt, and proactively consider their needs and desires.

第一个是善意 (kindness)。这意味着什么？在一篇疯传的社交媒体帖子中，乔丹·K·格林 (Jordan K. Green) 写道：“东海岸是善良但不友好 (nice)，西海岸是友好但不善良。”格林接着补充说，“友好是说‘我很抱歉你很冷’，而善良可能是‘呃，你已经说了五遍了，这件毛衣给你！’善良是解决需求，不论语气如何。”¹² 我们不是要在这里争论基于海岸的文化差异，但格林触及了一个有用的观点：善良不仅仅是听起来像你关心某人，它也是选择具体的行动来证明你关心，你承认另一个人的人性。当你这样想的时候，就很清楚善良是一种涵盖并与许多其他价值观相互联系的伞状价值观。例如，如果你没有费心去了解一个人想要什么、需要什么或觉得什么有意义，就很难证明你关心他。所以这意味着善良的一部分涉及好奇心和倾听等价值观。如果你相信所有人都应该对自己的生活拥有代理权 (agency)，并且每个人在关系中都应该享有相同的基本权利，那么善良的做法就是始终对他们诚实，即使是在可能令人不舒服的话题上——这是他们能够成为自己生活决策的全面伙伴的唯一途径。当然，善良的一部分也是尊重和体谅人们的感受、界限、身体和尊严；这意味着你必须找到既诚实又富有同情心的方式来表达自己和选择行动。善良还包括慷慨，意味着愿意与他人分享你所拥有的，给予他们善意的推断，并主动考虑他们的需求和愿望。

It would take a long time to list all the concepts that can fall under the umbrella of kindness; we’re just listing a few of the basic ones. To sum it up simply: Kindness, for us, involves the full package of values and actions that demonstrate our regard for others’ inherent worth as human beings.

要列出所有可以归入善意伞下的概念需要很长时间；我们只是列出了一些基本的。简单总结一下：对我们来说，善意包括一整套价值观和行动，这些价值观和行动表明我们尊重他人作为人类的内在价值。

The second value is integrity. To get a sense of how important this value is to us, consider that Eve has a tattoo based on this quote from the graphic novel V for Vendetta by Alan Moore: “But it was my integrity that was important. Is that so selfish? It sells for so little, but it’s all we have left in this place. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free.”¹³

第二个价值观是正直 (integrity)。为了了解这个价值观对我们有多重要，可以参考伊芙的一个纹身，它是基于艾伦·摩尔 (Alan Moore) 的图画小说《V字仇杀队》(V for Vendetta) 中的这句引言：“但重要的是我的正直。这很自私吗？它不值什么钱，但这是我们在这种地方剩下的全部了。它是我们的最后的一寸。但在这最后一寸里，我们是自由的。”¹³

What exactly does it mean to act with integrity? Some people define integrity as essentially the same thing as honesty. Others see it as consistency of action, or consistency of action with belief. But the root of the word integrity means “whole.” Focusing on integrity, for us, means an intense focus on the present moment: What am I doing right now, and is it in alignment with my most authentic self? If in ten years I were to look back at myself and the choice I am making in this moment, would I like the person I see?

以此正直行事到底意味着什么？有些人将正直定义为本质上与诚实相同。另一些人将其视为行动的一致性，或行动与信念的一致性。但 integrity 这个词的词根意味着“完整”。对我们来说，专注于正直意味着强烈地关注当下：我现在在做什么，它是否与我最真实的自我一致？如果在十年后我回顾自己和此刻做出的选择，我会喜欢我看到的那个人吗？

Integrity, for us, describes the practice of not only having an ethical system but sticking with that system even when, and perhaps especially when, we’re confronted with difficult, painful situations—or situations in which compromising our ethical system would present us with immediate gratification, material reward or an easier path. Integrity means living by our ethical principles in a consistent way, not only when it’s convenient or simple. We think that sticking to our ethical principles and living in accordance with our values is a way of achieving a kind of wholeness, in the sense of keeping ourselves consistent over time and not shifting based on whims, outside influences or the promise of rewards. It’s making decisions we can stand by, not because we can always guarantee it will work out the way we want but because we want to be able to look back and feel comfortable with how we acted. Integrity doesn’t mean never changing; it means holding on to consistent principles and committing to constantly doing the work of figuring out how they apply in everyday situations and whether they need to shift, deepen or clarify in order to address and accommodate the complexities of the situations in which we find ourselves.

对我们来说，正直描述的是不仅拥有一套伦理体系，而且即使在——也许特别是当——我们面临困难、痛苦的情况，或者妥协我们的伦理体系会给我们带来即时满足、物质奖励或更轻松的道路时，也要坚持该体系的实践。正直意味着以一致的方式遵循我们的伦理原则生活，而不仅仅是在方便或简单的时候。我们认为，坚持我们的伦理原则并按照我们的价值观生活是实现某种完整性的一种方式，即随着时间的推移保持自我一致，不随心血来潮、外界影响或奖励的承诺而改变。这是做出我们可以坚持的决定，不是因为我们总能保证结果会如我们所愿，而是因为我们希望能够回首往事并对自己所做的一切感到安心。正直并不意味着永不改变；它意味着坚持一致的原则，并承诺不断努力弄清楚它们如何应用于日常情况，以及它们是否需要转变、深化或澄清，以解决和适应我们所处情况的复杂性。

We each have a set of values that are important to us beyond the big ones discussed here. For example, in life in general, Andrea values information, which for them means they’d always prefer to know all the facts of a situation (including the emotional aspects!) than to make snap judgments or be “spared” from the “burden” of knowledge—even if they don’t particularly like what they learn, and even if the timing is inconvenient. They also deeply value co-creation, meaning the idea that relationships (intimate and otherwise) should be fundamentally collaborative and shaped by the people involved in them; together, two or more people can draw on a wealth of skills, ideas, resources and knowledge and combine them in ways that can never be achieved if they’re each left alone to make decisions, come up with plans or solve problems “for” each other. Finally, they value integration, which for them means that given the opportunity, and when appropriate, they would always prefer to connect rather than separate, to harmonize rather than compartmentalize. This value applies to things like identities (it’s one of the reasons Andrea is very out of the closet in every aspect of their life), relationships (yes please to lunch with the metamour!), and even scholarship (interdisciplinarity all the way).

除了这里讨论的那些大的价值观之外，我们每个人都有一套对自己很重要的价值观。例如，在一般生活中，安德莉亚重视信息，这对她们来说意味着她们总是更愿意知道情况的所有事实（包括情感方面！），而不是做出草率的判断或被“免除”知识的“负担”——即使她们并不特别喜欢她们所了解到的东西，即使时机不方便。她们也非常重视共创，即关系（亲密关系和其他关系）从根本上应该是协作的，并由参与其中的人塑造；两个人或更多人可以利用丰富的技能、想法、资源和知识，并以一种如果是让他们各自单独做决定、制定计划或“为”彼此解决问题时永远无法实现的方式将它们结合起来。最后，她们重视整合，这对她们来说意味着只要有机会，在适当的时候，她们总是更愿意连接而不是分离，协调而不是划分。这一价值观适用于身份认同（这是安德莉亚在生活各方面都非常公开出柜的原因之一）、关系（是的，请和表侣共进午餐！）甚至学术研究（一路跨学科）等方面。

Eve’s values are heavily shaped by her upbringing as a Quaker, through which she was steeped in ideas of nonviolence, simplicity, honesty and the conviction that every person is an expression of the Divine. As an adult, her values have also been influenced by ideas from progressive Judaism—which in many ways align closely with Quakerism—such as community, accountability, and intergenerational and global responsibility, as well as by numerous writings from the transformative justice and prison abolition movements, which also centre the inherent worth and dignity of every person and the importance of addressing harm. In intimate relationships, she places a high value on individual empowerment and choice, balanced with commitment and relational responsibility, including—outside contexts of abuse—responsibility for repair, both within relationships and after they have ended.

伊芙的价值观深受她作为贵格会信徒的成长经历的影响，通过这种经历，她深受非暴力、简单、诚实以及每个人都是神性的表达这一信念的熏陶。作为一个成年人，她的价值观也受到进步犹太教思想的影响——这在许多方面与贵格会密切一致——例如社区、问责制以及代际和全球责任，以及来自变革性正义和监狱废除运动的大量著作的影响，这些著作也以每个人的内在价值和尊严以及解决伤害的重要性为中心。在亲密关系中，她高度重视个人赋权和选择，并与承诺和关系责任相平衡，包括——在虐待背景之外——修复的责任，无论是在关系存续期间还是在关系结束之后。

Right and wrong nonmonogamy?

正确与错误的非单偶制？

One of the things you’ll hear a lot is that “there’s no one right way to do nonmonogamy.” This is true. There are many ways to “do nonmonogamy” that give you a decent chance of having healthy, fulfilling, meaningful relationships with low conflict. But when people say “there’s no one right way,” it sometimes seems like they mean there are no bad ways to do nonmonogamy. We disagree. There are plenty of choices likely to lead you and your partners into pain, stress, trauma and tears. There are ways to do nonmonogamy that shift most of the emotional risk that comes with any intimate relationship onto one person. There are ways to do nonmonogamy that reliably cause suffering.

你会经常听到的一件事是“没有一种正确的非单偶制做法”。这是真的。有很多种“做非单偶制”的方式可以让你有很大机会拥有健康、充实、有意义且冲突较少的关系。但当人们说“没有一种正确的方式”时，有时似乎意味着没有糟糕的非单偶制做法。我们不同意。有很多选择可能会导致你和你的伴侣陷入痛苦、压力、创伤和眼泪。有些非单偶制做法会将任何亲密关系带来的大部分情感风险转移到一个人身上。有些非单偶制做法确实会导致痛苦。

It seems pretty fair to say that approaches that are likely to cause pain to you and others probably aren’t very good strategies. We are even comfortable calling such approaches “bad” ways of doing nonmonogamy—though choosing a flawed strategy doesn’t necessarily make someone a bad person. Everyone is struggling to meet the same basic human needs. People make mistakes because they’re trying to solve a problem, and many of the less successful approaches to nonmonogamy tend to promise quick relief—but come with insidious, hidden costs.

公平地说，那些可能给你和他人带来痛苦的方法可能不是很好的策略。我们甚至可以称这些方法为“糟糕”的非单偶制做法——尽管选择有缺陷的策略并不一定意味着某人是个坏人。每个人都在努力满足同样的基本人类需求。人们犯错是因为他们试图解决问题，而许多不太成功的非单偶制方法往往承诺快速缓解——但却伴随着隐蔽的、隐藏的代价。

So what does it mean to apply your ethical system to nonmonogamy, given that you’re going to make mistakes, hurt others, be buffeted by your emotions and fall down sometimes? Going by the values we set out in the previous section, we think it means that you need to be willing to look at and take responsibility for your actions and their effects on other people. If you’re presented with evidence that you’re causing harm, or that what you’re doing won’t achieve what you and your partners want, you need to look for ways to change this. In making decisions, you need to consider the well-being of everyone involved, not just some of the people.

那么，既然你会犯错、伤害他人、受情绪冲击并且有时会跌倒，将你的伦理体系应用于非单偶制意味着什么呢？根据我们在上一节中设定的价值观，我们认为这意味着你需要愿意审视并对你的行为及其对对他人的影响承担责任。如果你得到的证据表明你在造成伤害，或者你正在做的事情无法实现你和你的伴侣想要的，你需要寻找改变的方法。在做决定时，你需要考虑所有相关人员的福祉，而不仅仅是其中一部分人的福祉。

We think it also means that you need to be willing to have the kinds of discussions that permit an honest analysis of the way you’re choosing to do nonmonogamy, without getting defensive or accusatory. After all, you’re learning. If you’re not willing to assess the path you’re on and whether it’s taking you where you want to go, you’re likely to end up in some pretty messed-up places.

我们认为这也意味着你需要愿意进行那种允许对你选择的非单偶制方式进行诚实分析的讨论，而不要变得防御或指责。毕竟，你在学习。如果你不愿意评估你所走的道路以及它是否带你去你想去的地方，你很可能会陷入一些非常糟糕的境地。

Our assumptions about you

我们对你的假设

If we’re going to talk about things like nurturing healthy relationships, we need to make some assumptions about your intentions and the kinds of relationships you want—such as what we mean when we use the word healthy. Nonmonogamous people are a diverse bunch, and we can’t speak to the full range of those backgrounds, choices, needs and expectations. Even so, we need to work from some assumptions to provide useful advice, and we think it’s helpful to name those assumptions. We assume that you:

如果要讨论培养健康关系之类的事情，我们需要对你的意图和你想要的关系类型做出一些假设——比如当我们使用健康一词时的意思。非单偶制者是一群多样化的人，我们无法涵盖所有这些背景、选择、需求和期望。即便如此，我们需要基于一些假设来提供有用的建议，而且我们认为列出这些假设是有帮助的。我们假设你：

• seek, like most people, to engage in relationships because you value love, connection and belonging.

• want your partners to engage in a relationship with you, and specifically a nonmonogamous relationship, of their own free will.

• want your partners to feel loved, cared for and secure in their relationships with you, and want to feel loved, cared for and secure in your relationships with them.

• value honesty in your relationships, which we define as, at minimum, everyone involved with you being aware of the other people you’re involved with.*

• accept that all long-term relationships will contain conflict, but want that conflict to happen safely and be generative (that is, ultimately lead to a deepened understanding of one another).

• 像大多数人一样，寻求建立关系是因为你看重爱、联系和归属感。

• 希望你的伴侣出于自愿与你建立关系，特别是非单偶制关系。

• 希望你的伴侣在你与他们的关系中感到被爱、被关心和安全，也希望自己在与他们的关系中感到被爱、被关心和安全。

• 重视关系中的诚实，我们将其定义为，至少所有与你有关的人都知道你与之有关的其他人的存在。*

• 接受所有长期关系都会包含冲突，但希望这种冲突安全地发生并具有建设性（即最终导致彼此加深理解）。

Among other things, then, we’re assuming that you’re not among the kinds of bad actors (or careless actors) we mentioned earlier—though you may run into them, and they’re likely to try to twist our and others’ advice as cover. That’s another reason we’re listing our assumptions: because when in doubt, you can come back to them and ask yourself if you—or a person you’re interacting with—seem to be acting with these intentions. (Please see chapter 3, on abuse, for more on this.)

除此之外，我们假设你不属于我们之前提到的那类坏人（或粗心的人）——尽管你可能会遇到他们，而且他们很可能会试图歪曲我们和他人的建议作为掩护。这也是我们列出假设的另一个原因：当有疑问时，你可以回过头来问自己，你——或者与你互动的人——是否表现出这些意图。（请参阅关于虐待的第 3 章以了解更多信息。）

Accepting and honouring these assumptions will lead in a natural way to caring, supportive, open relationships. When we talk about “good” ways to do nonmonogamy, we’re talking about strategies that, in our experience, seem most often to lead people toward these kinds of relationships. When we talk about “healthy” or “good” relationships, we are talking about relationships that move toward these values more often than they move away from them.

接受并尊重这些假设将自然地导向充满关怀、支持和开放的关系。当我们谈论做非单偶制的“好”方法时，我们谈论的是根据我们的经验，似乎最常引导人们建立这类关系的策略。当我们谈论“健康”或“好”的关系时，我们谈论的是那些更多地走向这些价值观而不是背离它们的关系。

Strong, ethically grounded nonmonogamous relationships are not a destination, they are a journey. Nurturing such relationships is like walking toward a point on the horizon: You move toward it or away from it with each choice you make, but you never actually arrive. Sometimes you’ll make a choice that takes you farther away, but that’s okay, because you can always make another choice and start moving again in the direction you want to go. (Notice how this is just as true for monogamous relationships!)

牢固、有道德基础的非单偶制关系不是终点，而是一段旅程。培养这样的关系就像走向地平线上的一个点：你做出的每一个选择都会让你离它更近或更远，但你永远不会真正到达。有时你会做出让你偏离更远的选择，但这没关系，因为你总是可以做出另一个选择，重新开始朝你想去的方向前进。（请注意，这对单偶制关系也是如此！）

For your journey in nonmonogamy, think of this book as a compass, not a map. There is no magic road to contentment or fulfillment in nonmonogamy. That said, as we emphasize over and over, the compass directions we’ve seen that lead to strong, vibrant relationships are courage, honesty, willingness to accept responsibility for your own emotions as well as the effects your actions have on others, respect for both the autonomy and needs of others, and compassion, humility and empathy.

在你的非单偶制旅程中，把这本书看作是指南针，而不是地图。在非单偶制中没有通往满足或成就的魔法之路。话虽如此，正如我们反复强调的那样，我们所看到的通往牢固、充满活力的关系的罗盘方向是勇气、诚实、愿意对自己情绪以及你的行为对他人的影响承担责任、尊重他人的自主权和需求，以及同情、谦逊和共情。

Our axioms

我们的公理

An axiom is a statement that is taken as a fundamental premise, without the need for further explanation. All of us have premises that we accept as self-evidently true, whether we articulate them or not. Here, we set out the two axioms that underpin the ethical ideas we’re sharing in this book. These axioms don’t capture the entirety of our own respective personal values and ethical systems, but they do form a foundation for them, and we refer back to them numerous times throughout this book.

公理是一种被视为基本前提的陈述，不需要进一步解释。我们所有人都有我们认为是自证为真的前提，无论我们是否表达出来。在这里，我们列出了支撑我们在本书中分享的伦理思想的两个公理。这些公理并没有涵盖我们各自个人价值观和伦理体系的全部，但它们确实构成了它们的基础，我们在整本书中会多次回顾它们。

• Other people are real.

• The people in a relationship are more important than the relationship.

• 他人是真实的。

• 关系中的人比关系更重要。

These axioms might sound simple, but they are not necessarily easy.

这些公理听起来可能很简单，但做起来并不容易。

AXIOM 1: OTHER PEOPLE ARE REAL 公理 1：他人是真实的

Axiom 1 is inspired by a quote from Irish-British novelist Dame Iris Murdoch: “Love is the perception of individuals. Love is the extremely difficult realisation that something other than oneself is real. Love, and so art and morals, is the discovery of reality.”¹⁴

公理 1 的灵感来自爱尔兰裔英国小说家艾丽斯·默多克女爵士 (Dame Iris Murdoch) 的一句名言：“爱是对个体的感知。爱是极其困难地意识到除自己之外的某种东西是真实的。爱，以及艺术和道德，是对现实的发现。”¹⁴

It’s easy to assume that all the other people sharing this world with you are reflections of yourself—some more true to the original than others, perhaps, but all of them essentially similar. The reality is different. Human beings are a varied lot. Whatever values you hold, whatever truths seem obvious and self-evident to you, there are people for whom those values are entirely alien and those truths opaque. Everyone takes different paths through life—sometimes very different. You will encounter crucial moments every day when you need to actively work against your natural tendency to stereotype and project, or you risk harm to your relationships, your communities and your societies. As Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg has written,¹⁵ “Much harm is caused when we regard others as objects, or in transactional ways, and forget to behold their full humanity—to see them as complete human beings whose concerns and feelings matter as much as our own.” In other words, you need to work to remember, every day, that other people are real—as real as you are.

很容易假设与你共享这个世界的所有其他人都是你自己的倒影——也许有些比其他的更接近原版，但本质上都是相似的。现实并非如此。人类是多种多样的。无论你持有何种价值观，无论什么真理对你来说似乎显而易见和不言自明，总有一些人对这些价值观完全陌生，对这些真理感到晦涩难懂。每个人的人生道路都不同——有时甚至截然不同。 你每天都会遇到关键时刻，你需要积极对抗自己刻板印象和投射的自然倾向，否则就有可能伤害你的关系、你的社区和你的社会。正如拉比丹雅·鲁滕伯格 (Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg) 所写，¹⁵ “当我们把他人视为客体，或以交易的方式看待他人，而忘记注视他们完整的人性——把他们看作是完整的、其关切和感受与我们一样重要的人时，就会造成很多伤害。”换句话说，你需要每天努力记住，他人是真实的——和你一样真实。

This is harder than it sounds. Because what this means is not just that you need to remember that the people you’re dealing with are all multifaceted humans with complicated histories and rich inner lives. It also means that you need to remember that their stories are just as important as yours—not just subjectively, in their own experience, but objectively, in terms of what those stories can tell you about reality.

这比听起来要难。因为这意味着你不仅要记住与你打交道的人都是多面的人类，有着复杂的历史和丰富的内心生活。这也意味着你需要记住他们的故事和你的一样重要——不仅仅是在他们自己的经历中的主观重要性，而且是在客观上，就这些故事能告诉你关于现实的什么而言。

Forgetting that other people are real sometimes means you assume that other people’s experiences are similar to yours and other people’s perceptions of the world are like yours. Psychologists have a name for this: the typical mind fallacy. This is the error of believing that other people are more like you than they really are—or that you are more like everyone else than you really are.

忘记他人是真实的有时意味着你假设他人的经历与你的相似，他人对世界的感知也像你的一样。心理学家对此有一个称呼：典型思维谬误 (typical mind fallacy)。这种错误在于相信别人比实际上更像你——或者你比实际上更像其他人。

You don’t, at least yet, have the means to place yourself behind another person’s eyes to see the world as they see it. Even if you could, the experiences you accumulate over your entire life will shape how you react to the same things. At some point, you must accept on faith that your experience is different, and that there are limits to how well you can hope to understand another person.

你没有（至少目前还没有）办法把自己置于另一个人的眼睛后面，像他们那样看世界。即使你可以，你一生积累的经验也会影响你对同样事物的反应。在某种程度上，你必须相信你的经历是不同的，而且你能够理解另一个人的程度也是有限的。

It’s imperative, then, to acknowledge the experiences of other people, and not try to define their experiences for them. This process begins with listening. And listening begins with understanding that other people are better experts on their lives than you are.

因此，必须承认他人的经历，而不是试图为他们定义他们的经历。这个过程始于倾听。而倾听始于理解他人在自己的生活方面比你更专业。

It’s easy, when you’re confronted with someone who describes a drastically different experience of the world, to reject it. The world doesn’t really work that way; you’ve had an entire lifetime to prove it! They must be exaggerating, or perhaps making it up to cover for their own inadequacies. Right? This is the “I can’t imagine it, so it can’t be real” problem.

当你面对一个描述截然不同的世界经历的人时，很容易拒绝它。世界真的不是那样运作的；你有一辈子的时间来证明这一点！他们一定是在夸大其词，或者可能是编造出来的以掩盖自己的不足。对吧？这就是“我无法想象它，所以它不可能是真的”的问题。

When you hear people tell their stories, and their stories don’t align with your experiences, it can be hard to believe them—especially when your experiences are shaped by things that are completely invisible to you. To combat this difficulty, you must accept that your own experiences may be the norm for you, but that doesn’t mean they are the norm for everyone. You might have advantages you aren’t even aware of. You might make assumptions that aren’t true, without realizing you’re doing it. Other people might face problems you never have to face, in ways that are so subtle you don’t even know they exist.

当你听到人们讲述他们的故事，而他们的故事与你的经历不符时，很难相信他们——尤其是当你的经历是由对你来说完全不可见的事物塑造的时候。为了克服这个困难，你必须接受你自己的经历对你来说可能是常态，但这并不意味着它们对每个人都是常态。你可能拥有你自己甚至都没有意识到的优势。你可能在没有意识到的情况下做出了不真实的假设。其他人可能面临着你永远不必面对的问题，而且方式如此微妙以至于你甚至不知道它们的存在。

You can create bridges with other people—and try to understand them—by stepping outside your own assumptions and listening to what others say, even when what they say seems unlikely or just plain weird to you. This can be uncomfortable. It might mean having to admit that you’re wrong—about another person’s character, motivations or experience, or about the way the world is in general. It might sometimes bring you face-to-face with the notion that you might not have the same problems other people do because of structures and patterns that benefit you at the expense of other people, but are completely invisible to you.

你可以通过跳出自己的假设并倾听他人所说的话来与他人建立桥梁——并尝试理解他们——即使他们所说的对你来说似乎不太可能或简直奇怪。这可能会令人不舒服。这可能意味着不得不承认你错了——关于另一个人的性格、动机或经历，或者关于世界的一般方式。这有时可能会让你直面这样一个观念：你可能没有其他人那样的问题，是因为有些结构和模式以牺牲他人为代价让你受益，但对你来说却是完全看不见的。

The purpose of this kind of seeing and listening is not to make you feel guilty or ashamed, but to be more aware, to understand other people better, and perhaps even to choose not to participate in those structures and patterns once you start to see them.

这种观察和倾听的目的不是让你感到内疚或羞耻，而是让你更有意识，更好地理解他人，甚至可能在你开始看到这些结构和模式后选择不再参与其中。

This is an important practice in everyday life. We’re mentioning it specifically in the context of intimate relationships, and nonmonogamy in particular, because intimate relationships are one of the places where people are often most closely confronted with the need to try and see each other clearly—and where the failure to do so can have the most painful consequences. Your assumptions about what a good relationship looks and feels like, what things people want and need in relationships, and many other things (what is sex? what is intimacy? what is cheating? what is love? what is loyalty? and so on) generally emerge from your life experiences, and for this reason, your assumptions may be very different from those your partners hold. That’s challenging enough in monogamous relationships, but nonmonogamy multiplies the number of contrasting perspectives that may come into play on these big questions. The more you can remember that other people are real, the easier it will be to create sufficient space for each person to express their desires, needs and emotions, and the better equipped you’ll be to try and co-create ways to see, meet, respect and satisfy them.

这是日常生活中的一项重要实践。我们在亲密关系，特别是非单偶制的背景下特别提到它，是因为亲密关系是人们经常最密切地面临需要尝试清楚地看到彼此的地方之一——如果做不到这一点，可能会产生最痛苦的后果。你关于一段好的关系看起来和感觉起来像什么、人们在关系中想要和需要什么东西以及许多其他事情（什么是性？什么是亲密？什么是出轨？什么是爱？什么是忠诚？等等）的假设通常源于你的生活经历，因此，你的假设可能与你的伴侣所持有的假设截然不同。这在单偶制关系中已经足够具有挑战性了，但非单偶制倍增了可能在这些大问题上发挥作用的对比视角的数量。你越能记住他人是真实的，就越容易为每个人创造足够的空间来表达他们的欲望、需求和情感，你也就能更好地尝试共同创造方法来看到、满足、尊重和满足他们。

AXIOM 2: THE PEOPLE IN THE RELATIONSHIP ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RELATIONSHIP 公理 2：关系中的人比关系更重要

Axiom 2, of course, does not mean that relationships aren’t important. And it doesn’t mean that you should never make personal sacrifices for the benefit of a relationship. But while for the long-term benefit of a relationship (or a partner), it is often necessary to make sacrifices of time, short-term gratification or non-essential desires, it is never a good idea to sacrifice your self for a relationship. We discuss this concept further in chapters 4 and 5. And while individual wishes do sometimes need to take a backseat to collective well-being, it’s important to remember that relationships exist to serve the people in them. If a relationship stops serving the people in it, it’s not doing its job. Thus, axiom 2 is, like axiom 1, always true (that’s why it’s an axiom). Even though the people and the relationship need to serve each other, the people are always more important. Always.

公理 2 当然不意味着关系不重要。这也不意味着你永远不应该为了关系的利益做出个人牺牲。但是，虽然为了关系（或伴侣）的长远利益，牺牲时间、短期满足或非必要的欲望通常是必要的，但为了关系牺牲自我永远不是个好主意。我们在第 4 章和第 5 章进一步讨论这个概念。虽然个人愿望有时确实需要让位于集体利益，但重要的是要记住，关系的存在是为了服务于其中的人。如果一段关系不再服务于其中的人，它就没有履行其职责。因此，公理 2 和公理 1 一样，总是正确的（这就是为什么它是公理）。即使人和关系需要相互服务，人也总是更重要的。总是。

In practice, these axioms mean that relationships are consensual, and people are not need-fulfillment machines. People cannot and should not be obligated to remain in any relationship; if a relationship ceases to meet the needs of the people in it, that relationship can end. People are not commodities; relationships based in a compassionate ethical system recognize the humanity, needs and desires of each individual involved.

在实践中，这些公理意味着关系是双方同意的，人不是满足需求的机器。不能也不应该强迫人们留在任何关系中；如果一段关系不再满足其中人的需求，这段关系就可以结束。人不是商品；基于同情伦理体系的关系承认每个相关个体的的人性、需求和欲望。

Consent, agency, honesty and responsibility

知情同意、代理权、诚实与责任

Our ethical systems contain several important, intertwined ideas that need a bit more elaboration because they are fundamental to the kind of nonmonogamy we are espousing: consent, agency, honesty and responsibility. (You can probably see a number of ways these ideas connect to the values of kindness and integrity we discussed earlier.)

我们的伦理体系包含几个重要的、相互交织的理念，需要稍微详细说明一下，因为它们是我们所支持的非单偶制的基础：知情同意、代理权、诚实和责任。（你大概可以看出这些理念与我们之前讨论的善意和正直价值观有许多联系。）

Consent is about you: your body, your mind and your choices. Your consent is required to access what is yours. The people around you have agency: They do not need your consent to act, because you do not own their bodies, minds or choices. But if their behaviour crosses into your personal space, then they need your consent. It’s important to note here that ideas about personal space—in essence, an extension of one’s self—are highly culturally specific. As one trivial example, in many cultures and families, it’s completely normal for people to take bites of food from each other’s plates without asking. Try this in a group where it’s not normalized, though, and people will be completely shocked at such appalling and disrespectful behaviour. With people you don’t know well, it’s important to get familiar with the cultural norms you’re dealing with—maybe not to follow them yourself, but at least to help you understand others’ behaviour. With people in your intimate circles, it’s important to get on at least broadly the same page about where you believe you end and they begin, and what the collective space between you looks like. It can also be helpful to talk to your partners about how they came to these beliefs.

知情同意 (Consent) 是关于你的：你的身体、你的思想和你的选择。访问属于你的东西需要你的同意。你周围的人拥有代理权：他们不需要你的同意就可以行动，因为你不拥有他们的身体、思想或选择。但如果他们的行为进入了你的私人空间，那么他们需要你的同意。在这里需要注意的是，关于私人空间——本质上是自我的延伸——的观念具有高度的文化特异性。举个微不足道的例子，在许多文化和家庭中，人们不经询问就从别人的盘子里吃一口食物是完全正常的。然而，在一个不习以为常的群体中尝试这样做，人们会对这种令人震惊和不尊重的行为感到震惊。对于你不熟悉的人，重要的是要熟悉你正在打交道的文化规范——也许不是为了你自己去遵循，但至少是为了帮助你理解他人的行为。对于你亲密圈子里的人，重要的是至少在很大程度上就你认为自己止于何处、他们始于何处以及你们之间的集体空间是什么样子达成一致。与你的伴侣谈谈他们是如何形成这些信念的也会有所帮助。

Most people will, over the course of their lives, encounter situations—perhaps at work, in their families of origin or on the streets—where they have to put up emotional walls and accept a loss of control over their lives, their minds or even their bodies. But you should never have to do that in your intimate relationships. This may seem obvious, but it’s actually a radical idea.

大多数人一生中都会遇到一些情况——也许是在工作中、在原生家庭中或在街上——他们不得不筑起情感高墙，接受对生活、思想甚至身体失去控制。但你在亲密关系中永远不应该那样做。这看似显而易见，但这实际上是一个激进的想法。

If you want to do a deep dive into your own beliefs about consent—both how you honour your own and how you honour that of others—you can check out Ask Yourself: The Consent Culture Workbook by Kitty Stryker, a journal-style workbook filled with prompts that you can consider for yourself or discuss with your intimates.

如果你想深入了解自己关于知情同意的信念——既包括你如何尊重自己的同意，也包括你如何尊重他人的同意——你可以看看凯蒂·斯特赖克的《问你自己：知情同意文化练习册》(Ask Yourself: The Consent Culture Workbook)，这是一本期刊式的练习册，里面充满了你可以自己思考或与亲密伙伴讨论的提示。

Honesty is an indispensable part of consent. Being able to share, to the best of your ability, who you are in a relationship is critical for that relationship to be consensual. You must give your partner the opportunity to make an informed decision to be in a relationship with you. If you lie or withhold critical information, you remove your partner’s ability to consent to be in the relationship. If your partner has casual hookups that weren’t negotiated in your relationship, they may be breaking an agreement, but they have not (yet) violated your consent. If they then have sex with you—or engage in other forms of intimacy, including emotional intimacy—without telling you about the hookups, they have violated your consent, because they have deprived you of the ability to make an informed choice.

诚实是知情同意不可或缺的一部分。能够尽最大努力分享你在一段关系中是谁，对于这段关系成为双方同意的关系至关重要。你必须给你的伴侣机会，让他们在知情的情况下决定是否与你建立关系。如果你撒谎或隐瞒关键信息，你就剥夺了伴侣同意建立关系的能力。如果你的伴侣发生了未在你们关系中协商的随意性行为，他们可能违反了协议，但他们（尚未）违反你的同意。如果他们随后与你发生性关系——或进行其他形式的亲密接触，包括情感亲密——而没有告诉你这些性行为，他们就违反了你的同意，因为他们剥夺了你做出知情选择的能力。

It’s especially important to communicate things that might be deal-breakers or might be threatening to your partner’s emotional or physical health. Your partner deserves to have a choice about how they want to participate in a relationship with you, given the new information. Examples of these kinds of potential deal-breakers might be sexual activity with others, drug use, the acquisition or use of weapons, and violent impulses or behaviour—but your knowledge of your partners and what is important to them should guide you here. Anything you know or suspect might be a deal-breaker should be disclosed. You can’t force someone to make the choice you want them to make, and if you lie or withhold information, you deny them the ability to know there was a choice to be made.

沟通那些可能破坏关系或可能威胁伴侣情感或身体健康的事情尤为重要。鉴于新信息，你的伴侣有权选择他们希望如何参与与你的关系。这类潜在破坏因素的例子可能包括与他人发生性行为、吸毒、获取或使用武器以及暴力冲动或行为——但你对伴侣的了解以及对他们重要事物的了解应该在这里指导你。任何你知道或怀疑可能破坏关系的事情都应该披露。你不能强迫某人做出你希望他们做出的选择，如果你撒谎或隐瞒信息，你就剥夺了他们知道有一个选择需要做出的能力。

When people talk about dishonesty, it’s often in the context of uttering falsehoods. By the simplest definition, a lie is a statement that is factually untrue. But there are other kinds of lies. For example, consider someone who cheats on their partner and says, “I’m not lying, because I’m not telling them that I’m being faithful!” In truth, that’s lying—the person is concealing information that, if their partner knew about it, would have changed their assessment of the relationship. We think the same goes, for example, at the beginning of a relationship if a nonmonogamous person doesn’t disclose their other relationships to a new partner on the grounds that “we haven’t agreed to exclusivity.” The same goes for things like disclosing your nonmonogamous status on dating apps. If you know that the other person thinks you’re single or exclusive and wouldn’t be dating you if you weren’t, you have a responsibility to proactively disclose. When we talk about honesty in this book, we do so from the position that a lie of omission is still a lie.

当人们谈论不诚实时，通常是指说谎话。根据最简单的定义，谎言是事实上不真实的陈述。但还有其他种类的谎言。例如，考虑一个出轨的人说：“我没有撒谎，因为我没有告诉他们我很忠诚！”事实上，这就是撒谎——这个人隐瞒了如果伴侣知道就会改变对关系评估的信息。我们认为这同样适用于例如在关系开始时，如果非单偶制者以“我们还没有同意排他性”为由不向新伴侣披露他们的其他关系。这同样适用于在约会软件上披露你的非单偶制状态等事情。如果你知道对方认为你是单身或排他的，并且如果你不是这样他们就不会和你约会，你有责任主动披露。当我们在本书中谈论诚实时，我们的立场是，隐瞒信息的谎言仍然是谎言。

Sometimes, when confronted with the notion of a lie of omission, people say, “Not mentioning something isn’t a lie. I don’t tell my partner every time I use the bathroom, and that’s not lying!” That brings up the idea of relevance. An omission is a lie when it is calculated to conceal information that, were it known to the other party, would be materially relevant to them. Failing to tell your partner how long it took to brush your teeth isn’t a lie of omission. Failing to tell your partner you’re having sex with someone else is.

有时，当面对隐瞒性谎言的概念时，人们会说：“不提某事不是撒谎。我没有每次上厕所都告诉我的伴侣，那不是撒谎！”这就引出了相关性的概念。当遗漏旨在隐瞒如果对方知道就会对其实质相关的信息时，那就是谎言。没告诉伴侣你刷牙花了多长时间不是隐瞒性谎言。没告诉伴侣你正在和别人发生性关系则是。

Agency is also intertwined with consent. Many people have been taught that if they are empowered to make their own choices, to have agency, they will behave selfishly and hurt others, so they must surrender some of their decision-making power to external authority—which may include a partner or partners. This idea permeates society, but also seems to inform how people build their intimate relationships. Without engaging in a debate about whether people are fundamentally good or bad, it’s important to look at your partners and ask yourself if you respect their ability to choose—even if a choice hurts you, even if it’s not what you would choose—because they can’t consent if they do not have a choice.

代理权也与知情同意交织在一起。许多人被教导说，如果他们有权做出自己的选择，拥有代理权，他们就会表现自私并伤害他人，所以他们必须将部分决策权交给外部权威——这可能包括一个或多个伴侣。这种观念渗透在社会中，但也似乎影响着人们建立亲密关系的方式。在不卷入关于人性本善还是本恶的辩论的情况下，重要的是要看着你的伴侣并问自己，你是否尊重他们的选择能力——即使某个选择伤害了你，即使那不是你会做出的选择——因为如果他们没有选择，他们就无法同意。

Empowering people to make their own choices is actually the best way to have your own needs met. Communicating your needs, and equipping others to meet them, succeeds more often than attempting to restrict or coerce another into meeting them. (We talk more in chapter 13 about what we mean by “empowerment.”)

赋予人们做出自己选择的权力实际上是满足你自己需求的最佳方式。沟通你的需求，并让他人有能力满足这些需求，比试图限制或强迫他人满足这些需求更容易成功。（我们在第 13 章会更多地讨论我们所说的“赋权”是什么意思。）

Finally, you always have responsibility to others. Your responsibilities grow in concert with the amount of intimacy and vulnerability you invite, encourage and accept from others. You have greater responsibility to your lovers, partners and friends than you do toward those you have not cultivated intimacy with, and this book primarily deals with that kind of responsibility, but you are surrounded by people (and other living things) toward whom you have responsibilities. In daily life, or all relationships, these people could include your coworkers, in-laws, stepfamilies or neighbours; in nonmonogamy specifically, it could include your metamours and ex-partners. Mononormativity often assumes that you have no responsibilities toward your exes. Queer folks have long rejected this assumption, and increasingly, nonmonogamous folks are doing so, too. And mononormativity certainly doesn’t support the idea that you might have responsibilities toward anyone else your partner might be involved with! But functional nonmonogamy requires that you think beyond just the needs of a couple. As Nora Samaran writes¹⁶ in Turn This World Inside Out, In a healthy community, most human interaction takes place in this relational area in between closeness and complete stranger. The idea that we have relational responsibility only to those humans we love, and no responsibility toward anyone else, is destroying the very fabric of human connection in Western societies. Disconnection is not our physiological reality.

最后，你总是对他负有责任。你的责任随着你邀请、鼓励和接受他人的亲密和脆弱程度而增加。你对你的爱人、伴侣和朋友的责任比对那些你没有培养亲密关系的人要大，本书主要讨论这种责任，但你周围的人（和其他生物）你也对他们负有责任。在日常生活中，或所有关系中，这些人可能包括你的同事、姻亲、继亲家庭或邻居；具体在非单偶制中，这可能包括你的情敌和前伴侣。单偶常态通常假设你对前任没有责任。酷儿们早就拒绝了这种假设，越来越多的非单偶制者也在这样做。而且单偶常态肯定不支持你可能对你伴侣可能卷入的任何其他人负有责任的想法！但功能性的非单偶制要求你不仅考虑一对伴侣的需求。正如诺拉·萨马兰 (Nora Samaran) 在《把这个世界翻过来》(Turn This World Inside Out)¹⁶ 中所写， 在一个健康的社区里，大多数人际互动都发生在亲密和完全陌生之间的这个关系区域。我们只对我们爱的人负有关系责任，而对其他任何人都没有责任，这种想法正在破坏西方社会人类联系的结构。断裂不是我们的生理现实。

As nonmonogamous communities have moved toward more flexible models that prize autonomy and flexibility, some have arrived at a hyper-individualist, even capitalist approach wherein everyone is responsible for their own feelings, anyone can walk away at any time, and people are perceived to have no, or almost no, responsibility to others, even their closest intimates. This framework has been called poly libertarianism, and to be quite honest, a lot of it was encouraged by parts of the first edition of this book. We believe that while some of these ideas are rooted in good principles, when they are not balanced with responsibility, they can lead to a lot of harm. “You’re responsible for your own feelings” can be used to deflect responsibility for the effects of someone’s actions when they behave in ways that are thoughtless or cruel. Threats to leave a relationship can be used as emotional blackmail or to maintain the upper hand in a nonconsensual power dynamic.

随着非单偶制社区向更加重视自主和灵活性的灵活模式转变，一些人采取了一种超个人主义，甚至是资本主义的方法，即每个人都对自己的感受负责，任何人都可以随时离开，人们被认为对他没有责任，或者几乎没有责任，即使是他们最亲密的人。这种框架被称为多边自由意志主义 (poly libertarianism)，老实说，本书第一版的部分内容助长了这种倾向。我们认为，虽然这些想法中的一些植根于良好的原则，但如果不与责任相平衡，它们可能会导致很多伤害。“你要对自己的感受负责”可能会被用来推卸某人因轻率或残忍行为造成的后果的责任。结束关系的威胁可能被用作情感勒索，或者在未经双方同意的权力动态中维持上风。

Author and activist Kitty Stryker summed up the dangers of this approach in a 2015 article titled “‘Radical Self-Reliance’ Is Killing People”:¹⁷ The attitude that everyone is an emotional island and that no one’s behaviour affects anyone else, that we can all completely manage our own needs independently, that taking care of other people is at best a hassle and at worst a threat, is fucking bullshit. It’s emotionally abusive and it actively hurts people. It pits partners against each other.

作家兼活动家凯蒂·斯特赖克在 2015 年一篇题为“‘激进的自力更生’正在杀人”¹⁷ 的文章中总结了这种方法的危险： 那种认为每个人都是一座情感孤岛，没有人的行为会影响其他人，我们都可以完全独立地管理自己的需求，照顾他人往好里说是麻烦，往坏里说是威胁的态度，纯属胡说八道。这是情感虐待，它在积极地伤害人们。它让伴侣相互对立。

Having to continually feel like I have to earn my partner’s love by being “good, giving and game”, which so often means not having boundaries (or having the “right” boundaries) puts me in a situation of constantly second guessing myself. How far am I willing to push myself before breaking up is the only option? Am I just being jealous and I should challenge myself, or am I actually needing to trust my gut? Is this a question of us having our freedom and independence, or is this a question of just blatant disrespect? Whose needs are being met, and at whose expense?

不得不一直感觉我要通过表现得“好、付出和配合”来赢得伴侣的爱，这通常意味着没有界限（或者拥有“正确”的界限），这让我处于不断自我怀疑的境地。我愿意把自己逼到什么程度，直到分手成为唯一的选择？我只是在嫉妒，我应该挑战自己，还是我实际上需要相信我的直觉？这是关于我们拥有自由和独立的问题，还是仅仅是公然不尊重的问题？谁的需求得到了满足，代价是什么？

To be fair, the shift that led people toward poly libertarianism was in many ways a reaction to polynormativity, the rigid, hierarchical, rules-based system that predominated for a couple of decades. And while we critique the colonial and capitalist worldviews that reinforce the disconnection that underlies the harms Stryker is naming, we also want to resist idealizing other systems and cultures. For example, while many more collectively oriented cultures have much to offer in terms of the importance they place on community and belonging, they can also (just like many individualist cultures, to be sure) be deeply patriarchal and homophobic. They may also place a low priority on—or be actively hostile to—ideas of consent and self-determination.

公平地说，导致人们走向多边自由意志主义的转变在很多方面是对多边恋常态的反应，即那种盛行了几十年的僵化、等级制、基于规则的系统。虽然我们批评强化了斯特赖克所指出的伤害背后的断裂的殖民和资本主义世界观，但我们也想抵制理想化其他系统和文化。例如，虽然许多更加集体导向的文化在重视社区和归属感方面有很多值得借鉴之处，但它们也可能（就像许多个人主义文化一样，这是肯定的）具有深刻的父权制和恐同色彩。它们也可能对知情同意和自决的观念不够重视——或者是积极敌视。

We don’t believe there is a perfect system. The important thing, for the purposes of this book, is to remember that these values—consent, agency, honesty and responsibility—may often feel in tension with one another, and part of the work for people who want to behave ethically is to constantly think about and talk with each other about how to keep them in balance, for themselves and others, and then take action accordingly.

我们不相信存在完美的系统。就本书而言，重要的是要记住这些价值观——知情同意、代理权、诚实和责任——往往会让人感到彼此之间存在张力，对于那些想要表现得合乎道德的人来说，部分工作就是不断思考并相互讨论如何为自己和他人保持它们的平衡，然后采取相应的行动。

A relationship bill of rights

关系权利法案

We’ve talked about the idea of “right” (as opposed to “wrong”), but what about rights? Rights are a cornerstone of many systems of ethics. At various points in history, the notion of rights has emerged within various cultures and systems of thought all over the world, but it rose to prominence in particular after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948. This notion has since become key to Western liberal democratic thought—the basic system we, your authors, were raised in, and one that’s informed most of the social justice activism we’ve seen in our lifetimes. So it’s perhaps not surprising that we think rights are important.

我们已经讨论了“对”（相对于“错”）的概念，但是权利呢？权利是许多伦理体系的基石。在历史的不同时期，权利的概念在世界各地的各种文化和思想体系中出现过，但在二战后，随着 1948 年签署《世界人权宣言》，它尤其突显出来。此后，这一概念已成为西方自由民主思想的关键——这是我们，你的作者，成长的基本体系，也是我们在有生之年看到的大多数社会正义激进主义的理论基础。所以我们认为权利很重要也就不足为奇了。

However, rights aren’t everything. Among other things, the notion of rights-based activism has been criticized for its inadequacy in helping everyone achieve freedom, and for the ease with which it can be co-opted to serve a conformist agenda.¹⁸ So we’re not saying that “rights” is a perfect framework for thinking about how to do right by each other. Among other things, a lot of the actions you might take to make the world around you better, including your intimate relationships, are more about generosity, kindness and a recognition that everyone is interconnected—not about rights, which are a much more limited set of ideas. (Does a tree have a right to grow? Do you have a right to cut it down? These aren’t the questions we should be asking if we’re trying to collectively mitigate climate change and take care of the planet.)

然而，权利不是一切。除其他外，基于权利的激进主义概念因其在帮助每个人实现自由方面的不足，以及容易被利用来服务于墨守成规的议程而受到批评。¹⁸ 所以我们并不是说“权利”是思考如何善待彼此的完美框架。除此之外，你可以采取的许多让周围世界变得更好的行动，包括你的亲密关系，更多的是关于慷慨、善良和承认每个人都是相互联系的——而不是关于权利，后者是一组更为有限的观念。（树有生长的权利吗？你有砍倒它的权利吗？如果我们试图共同缓解气候变化并照顾地球，这不应该是我们要问的问题。）

However, a rights-based system is still useful insofar as it’s familiar to a lot of people and can offer insights into how to be good to each other. Rights aren’t everything, but they do provide a useful starting point. For this reason, in our own ethical system, choices are not ethical if they infringe on another person’s rights. That said, it’s common to hear the word rights used when the speaker actually means “things I really want.” In relationships, a right often means “something I expect” or “something I feel entitled to,” such as “I’m your legal spouse, therefore I have a right to end your other relationships if they make me uncomfortable.” Or “My partner and I have children together, so I have the right to decide who my partner can become involved with.”

然而，基于权利的体系仍然是有用的，因为很多人熟悉它，它可以提供关于如何善待彼此的见解。权利不是一切，但它们确实提供了一个有用的起点。因此，在我们自己的伦理体系中，如果选择侵犯了他人的权利，那么它就不是道德的。 话虽如此，经常听到有人使用“权利”这个词，而实际上说话者指的是“我真正想要的东西”。在关系中，权利通常意味着“我期望的东西”或“我觉得我有权得到的东西”，例如“我是你的合法配偶，因此如果不舒服，我有权结束你的其他关系。”或者“我的伴侣和我一起有孩子，所以我有权决定我的伴侣可以和谁交往。”

You have the right to want what you want. You do not, however, have the right to get what you want. For rights, a higher bar needs to be set. So what is a right? Here, we come back to the idea of creating culture. The rights you agree on—in your relationships, in your polycules, in your communities, and at larger scales—are, in essence, statements of values, and they define the kind of person that you aspire to be and the kinds of collectives you want to create. At a personal level, being clear on what you believe are your relationship rights can help you set boundaries, find people who are compatible with you, leave unhealthy relationships and better understand how you want to treat your partners. As long as you remember that your partners (and metamours) have all these rights too! Eve developed most of the Relationship Bill of Rights for the first edition of this book by drawing from numerous other writings on rights from a wide variety of perspectives. It has since been released into the public domain. We have made a few changes to the version in this edition in light of our current thinking, and we encourage others to adapt and build on it as well.

你有权想要你想要的东西。然而，你没有权利得到你想要的东西。对于权利，需要设定更高的标准。那么什么是权利呢？在这里，我们回到创造文化的想法。你们达成一致的权利——在你们的关系中，在你们的多边关系网络中，在你们的社区中，以及在更大的范围内——本质上是价值观的声明，它们定义了你渴望成为什么样的人以及你想创建什么样的集体。在个人层面上，清楚你认为什么是你的关系权利可以帮助你设定界限，找到与你兼容的人，离开不健康的关系，并更好地理解你想如何对待你的伴侣。只要你记住你的伴侣（和情敌）也有所有这些权利！ 伊芙通过借鉴各种视角的关于权利的大量其他著作，为本书第一版制定了大部分《关系权利法案》。此后它已被发布到公共领域。鉴于我们目前的思考，我们对本版中的版本进行了一些修改，我们也鼓励其他人对其进行调整和构建。

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT, WITHOUT SHAME, BLAME OR GUILT: 你有权，且无需感到羞耻、责备或内疚：

IN ALL INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS: 在所有亲密关系中：

• to be free from coercion, violence and intimidation

• to choose the level of involvement and intimacy you want

• to revoke consent to any form of intimacy at any time

• to be told the truth

• to say no to requests

• to hold and express differing points of view

• to feel and communicate your emotions and needs

• to set boundaries, including concerning your privacy needs

• to set clear limits on your commitments

• to be able to rely on others to honour their commitments to you, and for them to be accountable if they cannot honour them

• to seek balance between what you give to the relationship and what is given back to you

• to know that your partner will work with you to resolve problems that arise

• to choose whether you want a monogamous or nonmonogamous relationship

• to grow and change

• to make mistakes

• to end a relationship

• 免受胁迫、暴力和恐吓

• 选择你想要的参与和亲密程度

• 随时撤销对任何形式亲密的同意

• 被告知真相

• 拒绝请求

• 持有并表达不同的观点

• 感受并沟通你的情绪和需求

• 设定界限，包括关于你的隐私需求

• 为你的承诺设定明确的限制

• 能够依靠他人履行对你的承诺，如果他们不能履行，他们要承担责任

• 寻求你在关系中的付出与回报之间的平衡

• 知道你的伴侣将与你一起解决出现的问题

• 选择你是想要单偶制还是非单偶制关系

• 成长和改变

• 犯错误

• 结束一段关系

IN NONMONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS: 在非单偶制关系中：

• to decide how many partners you want

• to choose your own partners

• to have an equal say with each of your partners in deciding the form your relationship with that partner will take

• to choose the level of time and investment you will offer to each partner

• to understand clearly any conditions that will apply to a relationship before entering into it

• to co-develop or, at minimum, have the freedom of whether or not to agree to any new conditions that will apply to your relationship after it has begun

• to discuss with your partners decisions that affect you, and to have them consider those effects on you in their decisions

• to have time alone with each of your partners

• to enjoy passion and special moments with each of your partners

• 决定你想要多少个伴侣

• 选择你自己的伴侣

• 在决定你与每个伴侣的关系形式时，与该伴侣拥有平等的发言权

• 选择你将提供给每个伴侣的时间和投入水平

• 在进入关系之前清楚地了解将适用于该关系的任何条件

• 共同制定，或者至少有自由决定是否同意在关系开始后适用于该关系的任何新条件

• 与你的伴侣讨论影响你的决定，并让他们在决定中考虑这些对你的影响

• 与你的每个伴侣有独处的时间

• 与你的每个伴侣享受激情和特殊时刻

IN A NONMONOGAMOUS NETWORK: 在非单偶制网络中：

• to choose the level of involvement and intimacy you want with your partners’ other partners

• to be treated with courtesy

• to have relationships with people, not with relationships

• to have plans made with your partner be respected; for instance, not changed at the last minute for trivial reasons

• to be treated as a peer of every other person, not as a subordinate, even when differing levels of commitment or responsibility exist

• 选择你想要的与伴侣的其他伴侣的参与和亲密程度

• 被以礼相待

• 与人建立关系，而不是与关系建立关系

• 与伴侣制定的计划受到尊重；例如，不因琐碎原因在最后一刻更改

• 被视为其他人的同伴，而不是下属，即使存在不同程度的承诺或责任

Of course, if each person in a relationship has all these rights, there are plenty of occasions when different people’s rights might seem to come into conflict. If everyone has a right to decide for themselves whether they want a monogamous or nonmonogamous relationship, for example, what happens if one person wants monogamy and one person wants nonmonogamy? That right doesn’t give one person the right to unilaterally open (or close) a relationship. It does mean that some hard conversations are in store, to see if one or both people can compromise, and if not, to consider whether they can really be compatible as partners. (We discuss this particular case more in chapter 17 on mono/poly relationships.) After all, both partners also have the rights to seek compromise, have influence, have their partner consider the effects of their actions on them, and end a relationship. These rights will usually involve some interplay—among each other, and among the different rights of different people.

当然，如果在一段关系中每个人都有所有这些权利，那么在很多场合下不同人的权利似乎会发生冲突。例如，如果每个人都有权自己决定想要单偶制还是非单偶制关系，那么如果一个人想要单偶制而另一个人想要非单偶制会发生什么？这项权利并没有赋予一个人单方面开放（或关闭）关系的权利。这确实意味着一些艰难的对话即将到来，看看双方中的一方或双方是否可以妥协，如果不能，就要考虑他们是否真的适合做伴侣。（我们在第 17 章关于单偶/多边关系的章节中详细讨论了这个特定案例。）毕竟，双方也都有权寻求妥协、施加影响、让伴侣考虑其行为对他们的影响以及结束关系。这些权利通常会涉及一些相互作用——彼此之间，以及不同人的不同权利之间。

And don’t forget, it’s not just about rights: you also have responsibilities to people you are in relationship with. When you knowingly invite someone to place their trust in you, to be vulnerable with you, to share intimacy with you, and especially to attach to you, you have a responsibility to treat those gifts with commitment, consistency and care.

别忘了，这不仅仅关乎权利：你也对与你有关系的人负有责任。当你明知故犯地邀请某人信任你，对你敞开心扉，与你分享亲密，特别是依恋你时，你有责任以承诺、一致性和关怀来对待这些礼物。

When it’s hard to treat others well

当善待他人变得困难时

Embracing nonmonogamy may well expose you to a great deal more uncertainty and change than people in monogamous relationships experience. Every new relationship has the potential to surprise you. Every new relationship might change your life. And that’s a good thing, right? Picture your best relationships. Can you think of any truly awesome relationship that didn’t change your life in some important way? The first time you had a long-term partner, did it change things for you? The first time you fell in love, did it change things for you? Every person you become involved with stands a good chance of changing your life in a big or small way. If that weren’t the case, well, what would be the point? The same goes for your partners and the new people they become involved with—and when their lives change, so will yours.

拥抱非单偶制很可能会让你比单偶制关系中的人面临更多的不确定性和变化。每一段新关系都有可能给你带来惊喜。每一段新关系都可能改变你的生活。这是件好事，对吧？想象一下你最好的关系。你能想到任何真正了不起的关系没有在某种重要方面改变你的生活吗？你第一次拥有长期伴侣时，这对你有改变吗？你第一次坠入爱河时，这对你有改变吗？每一个与你交往的人都很可能以大大小小的方式改变你的生活。如果不是这样，那有什么意义呢？对于你的伴侣和他们交往的新人来说也是如此——当他们的生活发生变化时，你的生活也会随之改变。

Change is scary for a lot of people, and so preparing for nonmonogamous relationships in many ways is about assessing and improving your ability to handle change. Even just thinking about it, taking a deep breath and saying, “Yep, I know my life is about to change” is a huge step toward preparing yourself to live nonmonogamously.

对很多人来说，改变是可怕的，因此为非单偶制关系做准备在很多方面是关于评估和提高你应对变化的能力。哪怕只是想想，深吸一口气说，“是的，我知道我的生活即将改变”，也是迈向准备好过非单偶制生活的一大步。

In some cases, for some people, circumstances may make change even harder than usual. For example, if you’ve just had another big change—a new job, say, or a big move, or a marriage or divorce, or a new baby—additional changes might cause you a lot more stress than they otherwise would. In these situations, it’s common for people to try to limit the amount of change that nonmonogamy can bring.

在某些情况下，对某些人来说，环境可能会使改变比平时更难。例如，如果你刚刚经历了另一个重大变化——比如一份新工作，一次大搬家，结婚或离婚，或者生了孩子——额外的变化可能会给你带来比平时更多的压力。在这些情况下，人们通常会试图限制非单偶制可能带来的变化量。

A very common example is couples with young children. For example, let’s say a couple has two very small children, one of whom is just a few months old. The new parents are under intense stress, as often happens in such situations. To try and cope, the couple puts into place a lot of restrictions to control each other’s relationships. These restrictions cause a lot of pain for one person’s other partner, who is deeply in love but finds their relationship unable to grow and who may be expected to perform services such as babysitting for the couple in order to continue to have access to their relationship.

一个非常常见的例子是有年幼孩子的夫妇。例如，假设一对夫妇有两个非常小的孩子，其中一个只有几个月大。正如这类情况中常有的那样，新父母承受着巨大的压力。为了应对，这对夫妇制定了许多限制措施来控制彼此的关系。这些限制给其中一方的另一位伴侣带来了巨大的痛苦，这位伴侣深陷爱河，却发现他们的关系无法成长，甚至可能被期望为这对夫妇提供诸如照看孩子等服务，以便继续维持他们的关系。

In situations like this, it’s easy to fall back on the idea of “putting the children first.” Clearly, parents need to be able to live their lives in a way that allows them to care for their children’s needs and provide loving, stable homes. But too often, this need is used as an all-purpose shield to deflect any analysis of how one couple’s behaviour might be affecting their other partners, or how it might be damaging their other relationships. Anything that looks like criticism can be framed as attacking the couple’s right to care for their children.

在这样的情况下，很容易退回到“孩子优先”的想法上。显然，父母需要能够以一种允许他们照顾孩子需求并提供充满爱、稳定的家庭的方式生活。但这往往被用作万能盾牌，以转移对一对夫妇的行为可能如何影响他们的其他伴侣，或它可能如何损害他们的其他关系的任何分析。任何看似批评的东西都可以被定性为攻击这对夫妇照顾孩子的权利。

Make no mistake: Kids change things. They did not choose to come into the world, or choose the people who care for and make decisions for them. Only slowly and painfully, over many years, are children nurtured into agency and personal capability, with the ability to think and plan, to learn and make rational choices, to develop judgment and individual responsibility, and to consent or withhold consent.

别搞错了：孩子会改变一切。他们没有选择来到这个世界，也没有选择照顾他们并为他们做决定的人。只有经过许多年缓慢而痛苦的过程，孩子们才被培养出代理权和个人能力，具备思考和计划、学习和做出理性选择、发展判断力和个人责任感、以及同意或拒绝同意的能力。

When children come into a home, for the first time there are truly immature people present, making childish and selfish demands that have real moral legitimacy and must be dealt with. You have a choice about how to deal with these issues, but you can’t ignore them. Children add a categorically different new dynamic to the mix and, especially when they are very young, significantly subtract time and attention from adult matters. But that doesn’t mean you can use their needs as emotional blackmail or to excuse unethical behavior in the adults around them.

当孩子进入家庭时，第一次有了真正不成熟的人在场，提出幼稚和自私的要求，而这些要求具有真正的道德合法性并且必须得到处理。你可以选择如何处理这些问题，但你不能忽视它们。孩子加入了一种截然不同的新动态，特别是当他们很小的时候，会显著减少成年人事务的时间和注意力。但这并不意味着你可以利用他们的需求作为情感勒索，或者为周围成年人的不道德行为开脱。

Acting in accordance with a robust ethical system means applying that system to your behaviour with everyone—partners and children. Children are not an ethical Get Out of Jail Free card; it’s possible to be both a responsible parent and an ethical partner.

按照健全的伦理体系行事意味着将该体系应用于你与所有人的行为——伴侣和孩子。孩子不是伦理上的免死金牌；既做负责任的父母又做道德的伴侣是可能的。

Remember also that not every time in your life will be a good time to add new partners. If you have young children and you simply can’t stand the idea of your partner having other partners without, say, instituting a hierarchy, you and your partner might agree to wait until your children are a little older before you start new relationships. If you (or a partner) are struggling with anxiety, insecurity, depression or other issues that leave you (or them) sobbing under the covers when the partner is with someone else, you could go to therapy and learn some coping strategies, or avoid nonmonogamy altogether, instead of bringing someone into your life but surrounding them with metaphorical barbed-wire fences to keep them from getting too close. If you are dealing with a recent betrayal, you might want to work with your partners on building trust before testing that trust by investing in someone new.

还要记住，并不是你生活中的每个时刻都是增加新伴侣的好时机。如果你有年幼的孩子，而你根本无法忍受你的伴侣拥有其他伴侣的想法，除非，比如说，建立等级制度，那么你和你的伴侣可能会同意等到孩子稍大一些再开始新的关系。如果你（或伴侣）正在与焦虑、不安全感、抑郁或其他问题作斗争，导致当伴侣与别人在一起时你（或他们）在被窝里哭泣，你可以去接受治疗并学习一些应对策略，或者完全避免非单偶制，而不是把某人带进你的生活，却用隐喻的铁丝网把他们围起来，不让他们靠得太近。如果你正在处理最近的背叛，你可能想在通过投资新人来测试信任之前，先与你的伴侣建立信任。

We’ll get to the question of choice ownership in much more detail later, but for now we just want to stress that if a particular relationship decision is unethical under your ethical system, don’t make excuses for it by saying, “But I have to because …” Try reframing the situation. Instead of looking for partners who will let you treat them poorly, who will let you compromise their agency or keep them at arm’s length, ask yourself if you are in a position to seek new partners at all. Put another way: Look at yourself and the relationships you have and ask what you need to do, individually and collectively, to enable you to have relationships that will let you treat everyone well.

稍后我们将更详细地讨论选择权归属的问题，但现在我们只想强调，如果在你的伦理体系下某个特定的关系决定是不道德的，不要通过说“但我必须这样做，因为……”来为它找借口。试着重新构建情况。与其寻找那些允许你恶劣对待他们、允许你损害他们的代理权或与他们保持距离的伴侣，不如问问自己你是否处于寻找新伴侣的位置。换句话说：审视你自己和你拥有的关系，问问你需要做什么，无论是个人还是集体，才能让你拥有的关系允许你善待每个人。

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF 问自己的问题

To explore more about your own values and ethics, consider some of these questions:

为了更多地探索你自己的价值观和伦理，请考虑以下一些问题：

• What kind of values did I learn growing up? Who did I learn them from? How do I feel about those values now? Are there values I no longer agree with that still affect my choices?

• Who are some people whose values, ethics or actions I admire? Why? In what ways do I seek to emulate them in my own life?

• What are some values-related words that resonate with me, and why?

• How do I want my intimates to feel in their relationships with me?

• How do I want to feel in my relationships?

• What kind of value do I place on principles like autonomy and interdependence, self-reliance and community, and how do I balance them?

• What do I want people to remember about me when I am no longer in their lives?

• 我在成长过程中学到了什么样的价值观？我是从谁那里学到的？我现在对这些价值观有什么感觉？是否有我不再认同但仍然影响我选择的价值观？

• 我钦佩哪些人的价值观、伦理或行为？为什么？我在自己的生活中以何种方式寻求模仿他们？

• 有哪些与价值观相关的词语与我产生共鸣，为什么？

• 我希望我的亲密伙伴在与我的关系中有什么感觉？

• 我希望在我的关系中有什么感觉？

• 我对自主与相互依赖、自力更生与社区等原则赋予什么样的价值，我如何平衡它们？

• 当我不再出现在人们的生活中时，我希望他们记住我什么？

---

• Some nonmonogamous people engage in a structure called “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” in which the people involved don’t talk about their other relationships or even mention they exist. We discuss this approach further in chapters 10 and 14.

• 一些非单偶制者参与一种称为“不问不说”(Don’t ask, don’t tell) 的结构，其中涉及的人不谈论他们的其他关系，甚至不提及它们的存在。我们在第 10 章和第 14 章进一步讨论这种方法。

---

Footnotes

1. What are we sowing Kelly Hayes and Mariame Kaba, Let This Radicalize You: Organizing and the Revolution of Reciprocal Care (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2023), 4. ↩ ↩²

2. On a different note Claire Louise Travers, “Why You Should Drop the ‘E’ in Ethical Non-Monogamy,” Medium (blog), May 28, 2021, https://clairelouisetravers.medium.com/why-you-should-drop-the-e-in-ethical-non-monogamy-32069e129df1. ↩ ↩²

3. Over the course of this book Kate Bornstein, Hello, Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006), 95–96. ↩ ↩²

4. rooted in disconnection Jess Housty (‘Cúagilákv), “Kinship,” in Spirits of the Coast: Orcas in Science, Art and History, ed. Martha Black, Lorne Hammond, Gavin Hanke and Nikki Sanchez (Victoria, BC: Royal BC Museum, 2020), 180. ↩ ↩²

5. capitalism requires Mia Mingus, “Transformative Justice & Pod Mapping,” January 19, 2019, in Beyond Prisons podcast, https://www.beyond-prisons.com/home/transformative-justice-amp-pod-mapping. ↩ ↩²

6. emergence brown, Emergent Strategy, 15. ↩ ↩²

7. fundamental unit of change Sage Crump, Mia Herndon and adrienne maree brown, “Host Favorites: Relating During the Pandemic with Autumn Brown (2021),” February 9, 2023, in The Emergent Strategy Podcast, podcast. ↩ ↩²

8. shape that change Octavia Butler, Parable of the Sower (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2019), Kobo edition. ↩ ↩²

9. Your values are Barbara Carrellas, Ecstasy Is Necessary: A Practical Guide (Carlsbad, CA, and New York: Hay House, 2012), 30. ↩ ↩²

10. I’m not a big believer Kai Cheng Thom, I Hope We Choose Love: A Trans Girl’s Notes from the End of the World (Vancouver, Canada: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2019), 84. ↩ ↩²

11. A boundary on my own behavior Sander T. Jones, Cultivating Connection: A Practical Guide for Personal and Relationship Growth in Ethical Non-Monogamy (Cast Net Books, 2023), 113–114. ↩ ↩²

12. The East Coast is kind Jordan K. Green (@jordonaut), Twitter, January 21, 2021, 2:11 p.m. https://www.twitter.com/jordonaut/status/1352363163686068226. ↩ ↩²

13. But it was my integrity Alan Moore, V for Vendetta (New York: DC Comics, 1988), 156. ↩ ↩²

14. Love is the perception of individuals Iris Murdoch, “The Sublime and the Good,” Chicago Review 13, no. 3, (1959): 42–55 (p. 51), quoted in Maria Popova, “What Love Really Means: Iris Murdoch on Unselfing, the Symmetry Between Art and Morality, and How We Unblind Ourselves to Each Other’s Realities,” The Marginalian (blog), January 8, 2022, https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/01/08/iris-murdoch-the-sublime-and-the-good. ↩ ↩²

15. Much harm is caused Danya Ruttenberg, On Repentance and Repair: Making Amends in an Unapologetic World (Boston: Beacon Press, 2022), 174. ↩ ↩²

16. As Nora Samaran writes Nora Samaran, Turn This World Inside Out: The Emergence of Nurturance Culture (Chico, CA: AK Press, 2019), Kobo edition. ↩ ↩²

17. Kitty Stryker summed up Kitty Stryker, “‘Radical Self-Reliance’ Is Killing People,” Hack Grow Love (blog), November 4, 2015, https://medium.com/hack-grow-love/radical-self-reliance-is-killing-people-c980eb05b867. ↩ ↩²

18. a conformist agenda Ratna Kapur, “There’s a Problem with the LGBT Rights Movement – It’s Limiting Freedom,” The Conversation, September 17, 2018, https://theconversation.com/theres-a-problemwith-the-lgbt-rights-movement-its-limiting-freedom-101999. ↩ ↩²